If you went to WikiMania this year, you may find yourself in a photo captioned:
“The Traditional WikiWomen lunch with some of the most active women and queers from our movement.”
Women and queers
Tracking Wikipedia … so the barbarians don't win
Gender Desk 
I get what you mean but also ESL speakers sometimes can make gaffes with the purest of intentions and be completely unaware.
Actually English might even be Émna’s third language after Arabic and French
What else could it possibly mean? Probably true too. Since arbcom drove out most of the women who like guys, there is a huge LGBT presence. A lot of the guys on WP are not exactly warm and cuddly, if you know what I mean.
If she speaks Arabic she would probably know about countries that still have the death penalty for this, I know the safety of the participants has come up before when choosing locations for conferences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_for_homosexuality
No it means what it means it’s just very poorly worded. Like calling a picture at an African Wikimedia User Group “a picure of the most active blacks”. Referring to people as “our active queers” is just criiiiiiingy.
Interesting reading for some perspective on her home country’s situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tunisia
I don’t know, I thought “queers” was a compliment now. The politically correct language for all of this is constantly in flux and very hard to keep track of. The other day I sat down in a small working group situation (not Wikipedia) and we were asked to give our “name and pronouns”. This is obviously some kind of code, but by the time I get it figured it out, there will probably be some different code.
From what I understand, about 1% of Wikipedians are LGTB, across all the Wikipedias, so where do they go? It doesn’t seem like that’s enough for a separate group. Don’t forget WikiWomen was changed from Wikiproject XX, since the name could be interpreted as X chromosomes, which was not inclusive of trans.
I must say I am unsure on this. My current understanding is that LGBTQ+ includes “Queer” as the “Q”, meaning it is possibly acceptable. Trouble is I don’t know anyone who would actually call themselves a “queer”, although “genderqueer” is probably the more accurate and currently politically correct term.
Oh wow it looks like this is a thing.
Comment on Wikiproject “I have also made the case before to just stick to women in all of our terminology. The various LGBT/LGBTQ stuff can have its own user group, and as contributors they are just as welcome to work on all of this stuff as the men are.”
Fæ: “Should a WiR UG choose to move forward with excluding non-binary biographies or articles from its supported projects and initiatives because they are not women, and presumably as a corollary exclude any gender or queer identity which may be called not “women”, then I start to doubt whether LGBT+ groups publicly committed to inclusivity and diversity would be happy to be seen supporting the initiative.” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Women_in_Red&type=revision&diff=849795181&oldid=849783025
So guess what. Women in Red User Group is now a redirect to “Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group”. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_Women_in_Red&redirect=no
Queer is an umbrella term for “anything not cis+straight” and is meant to be broader than lesbian-gay-bi-trans which still inherently codifies male/female binary gender norms. Genderqueer just further specifies “not cis”, queer could be either/both identity/orientation. The Q in LGBTQ (and any longer sigils) stands for both Queer and Questioning
Example, artist Coeur de Pirate specifically came out as queer after the Pulse shooting, but declined to label herself bi/lesbian/gay/pan/anything-more-specific than “not heterosexual”. Read: https://www.vogue.com/article/coeur-de-pirate-coming-out-as-queer
(two years later she was pressured into specifying she identified as pansexual because people apparently can’t live with not putting famous people in categories…. oh shiiiiii- http://enwp.org/WP:Categorization )
Seems like a lot of work just to get to the point of “are we going to jump in bed or not”. That reminds me of the old Khartoum limerick.
https://books.google.com/books?id=J-sqAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT45&dq=There+once+was+a+queer+from+Khartoum&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsh5SRwvzcAhVBc98KHWEjCmYQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=There%20once%20was%20a%20queer%20from%20Khartoum&f=false