This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I reverted the relatively new GrandmotherClause account on the "exclusively to other females" addition because, as noted in the lengthy and heated "...or a female who self-identifies as lesbian..." archived discussion and in the "Sexuality and lesbian identity" section lower in the article, the "exclusive" aspect of "romantic or sexual attraction to other females" is not always or even mostly the case for women who identity as lesbian. Yeah, yeah, some lesbians hate that; we've been over it before. Anyone who doubts this identification matter should read up on the lesbian literature and/or sexual fluidity, as the now retired Moni3, who wrote the vast majority of this article, had done. You can also see the archived "Defining a lipstick lesbian/other lesbian topics" discussion from WP:LGBT, where I provided WP:Reliable sources about the lesbian/bisexual debate and defining lesbian debate. You will be hard-pressed to find any WP:Reliable sources defining lesbian solely in the exclusive sense; the most you will usually find to indicate exclusivity is the term homosexual, which is enough to indicate primary or exclusive sexual attraction, and is the word we currently use in the lead for its first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I addressed GrandmotherClause on her talk page about this and other matters. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
All that stated, I have been thinking about adding something to the lead about how the term lesbian is generally understood by the public to mean exclusive sexual attraction between females (teenage girls or women), but I have not found a WP:Reliable source for that. At most, I could add something about scholars using the term strictly or broadly (a shortened version of what the "Sexuality and lesbian identity" section states). But I do think that the strictness and broadness of the term is made clear in the lead already. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Lesbian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I would like a citation backing up the claim "lesbian relationships have often been regarded as harmless and incomparable to heterosexual ones unless the participants attempted to assert privileges traditionally enjoyed by men."
if if cannot be provided i would like the line removed from the article.
@Carole Stephane: The recommended way to use an Edit Request is with the format Please change "this..." to "that...". Include sources as well. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. To add anything you would need sources that show that these particular books are notable or that at the very least, their authors are. Otherwise we are just promoting these particular books Cannolis (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I modified the link for "Straight Girls Guide" because it was a referral link to Amazon. A quick search that I did suggested they are not permitted, but I don't know for sure. 71.12.2.174 (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on March 7, 2016
"now-invalid" should be changed to "now understood to be invalid" (in image caption) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.76.225 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Partly done: I changed the caption to read: "Havelock Ellis (1859–1939), one of a number of sexologists responsible for the now-discredited categorization of 'lesbianism' as a medical problem." Good? Rebbing talk 03:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
not done: please make a specific request that can be actioned. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lesbian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
Oy! There are 262 citations and almost every one of them was added without using a template -- making it difficult to check sources. The editing toolbar includes the "Cite" selection which opens the box to choose "Templates" for web/news/book/journal citations. Something needs to be done about turning a source such as, for example, <ref name="Zimmerman">Zimmerman, p. 453.</ref> into a Wikipedia template. Pyxis Solitarytalk 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:CITESTYLE: Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style, so claiming that the current style is "incorrect" is wrong. The assistance provided by the editing toolbar is not meant to be a normative style guideline for the whole project. Personally, I find the citation style used in most of this article far superior to that used in Carol (film)#References or (god help us) Captain America: Civil War#References. Adding cite templates inline would make this article's citation style less readable, not more; yes, converting the whole article to use Template:Sfn would be an improvement, but the one you are proposing would not be. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Request for adding Photo
This photo (officially released by US Navy) shows two lesbian females belonging to US Navy kissing on meeting after a long time. It needs to be put in Lesbian article to show -firstly, how US Govt is becoming acceptable to idea of LGBT/Lesbians, even in a rigid organization like military, and secondly, to show public display of affection done by LGBT/Lesbians can be considered acceptable in Western societies. 106.219.196.137 (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Staggering images
I dream of horses, per MOS:IMAGES#Location, we are usually supposed to keep images on the right. I know that some people stagger them, but that's mainly for style and usually is not needed. The main issue I have with staggering is that it can create WP:SANDWICHING issues (a problem mentioned at MOS:IMAGES#Location). For example, one of your recent edits created a sandwiching issue in the "Origin and transformation of the term" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Spacemarine10, regarding this edit you made, it's been discussed before. "Female" was used because "woman" is so often taken to refer to adults, but the term lesbian refers to girls in addition to women. That stated, the Woman article does note that "woman" can also refer to girls, which might be why Pyxis Solitary linked to it. I reverted Pyxis Solitary per WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:Overlinking. But if it's felt that "woman" needs to be linked in this case for context, maybe we can work something out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the term lesbian, though, I'm sure that people know that it can refer to girls as well. At least the vast majority of people know that. And for the few who will think that we only mean that the term applies to adult women, the lead does state the following as well: "The term lesbian is also used to express sexual identity or sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation, or as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns with female homosexuality or same-sex attraction." So, yeah, people should know that "girls" is included somewhere in that. There's enough in the media these days about teenage lesbians for them to have a clue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the reason people want to emphasize female is to make it clear that male people can’t be lesbians, without disrespecting people’s gender identity, which might involve identifying as a woman despite being male. — AtomicBeth —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
That wasn't the reason you gave when changing the article. And it wasn't my concern in the past either. Both of our concerns were about "woman" possibly being seen to exclude minors. Anyway, I answered further in the #Recent edits section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Lead sentence
As seen with this and this edit back in 2017, I removed the colon from the lead sentence, so that the lead read as follows: "A lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women." I never liked the colon it and didn't see them as needed (except for the fact that stating "a lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women" can imply that there is some other type of lesbian woman with regard to romantic or sexual attraction). It was only there as compromise wording worked out years ago. Recently, Sandsteinchanged the wording from "is a homosexual woman who" to "is a homosexual woman, that is, a woman who is." As seen here, here and here, I found this wording awkward and changed it to "(or a homosexual woman)" before deciding on "or a homosexual woman" without the parentheses. With this edit, Sandstein went back to the colon style. Rivertorch and Popcornduff, can I get your opinions on this, since you two deal with grammar well?
Why are we even defining what homosexual means when it's common knowledge what it means? Why not just leave the sentence at "A lesbian is a homosexual woman."? The rest of the lead addresses the identity aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I think many WP editors get an overwhelming itch to change existing text just for the sake of change. The opening sentence "A lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women." was understandable as written -- but I would change the "or" to "and". (I would also favor addition of the adverb 'exclusively' or 'solely' before "romantically" because in today's LGBTXYZ world the idea that all humans are capable of banging anything that moves regardless of the biological sex of the sexual partner is becoming forced feeding). Pyxis Solitarytalk 10:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
"Exclusively" (or "solely") has been discussed before. The reason it's been left out of the lead sentence, even back when Moni3 (who is now retired with the occasional return) wrote most of this article and brought it to WP:GA, is because of reasons indicated by the "Sexuality and lesbian identity" section. The term is not defined consistently by researchers or the lesbian community. Numerous reliable sources discuss this, which is why there is a section detailing it. That stated, "homosexual" is usually taken to mean "only into the same sex/gender," and I have been thinking about noting the "exclusively" aspect (as in "may be defined as exclusively [...]") to go along with the "also used to express sexual identity or sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation" part. As long as we have both the attraction and identity aspects in the lead and lower article, we've done our job. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Flyer22, I think you've already identified the problem when you wrote: stating "a lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women" can imply that there is some other type of lesbian woman with regard to romantic or sexual attraction. It's tautological, so a colon or parentheses or something else is necessary to at least avoid the sentence being essentially silly. I think the colon is an elegant solution, myself. Popcornduff (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff, yeah, I get that. I also find it redundant without a colon, but I additionally find it redundant with the colon portion of the line. Again, why not just go with "A lesbian is a homosexual woman."? What need is there to spell it out, as if readers don't know what homosexual means? We also link to the Homosexuality article for further detail. So "is a homosexual woman" is enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Flyer22's proposal is ok for me. My original change was to amend the wording "A lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women", because this could be read to imply that there is some other category of homosexual women who are not attracted to other women. The descriptions are basically redundant, and I'm OK with just keeping "homosexual". Sandstein 15:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That works for me. Another option would be to remove the "homosexual" part from the lead sentence: "A lesbian is a woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women". (For the record, I'm not much bothered by the colon either. I do see the wording that Sandstein changed as potentially confusing, but I think the "that is" construction was awkward.) RivertorchFIREWATER 16:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I would support removing "homosexual" if it weren't for the fact that it's an essential aspect of what being lesbian means and a bisexual woman is also "a woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women." So per that, and keeping Pyxis Solitary's comment in mind, I'd prefer not to remove "homosexual." Again, that the lesbian identity may not align with sexual orientation and/or behavior is already covered in the lead and lower in the article. We should at least first define the term by its common "homosexual woman" understanding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree we need "homosexual" for the reasons Flyer mentions.
To be honest, I don't have a problem with spelling out the implications of what a homosexual woman is, since the article feels like a salient place for it. But I wouldn't object to removing it. Whatever we do, though, I think the "a lesbian is a homosexual woman is attracted to" etc phrasing has to go, for reasons of tautology. Popcornduff (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Aaack. I shouldn't have commented when I was so fatigued. Of course you all are right: that lesbians are homosexual needs to be stated. I think we can just say, "A lesbian is a homosexual woman". "Homosexual" is linked, which ought to suffice for that rare reader who doesn't know what it means. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
"A lesbian is a homosexual woman". Plain and simple, and suitable. No ifs, ands, or derrières. Pyxis Solitarytalk 07:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Tried the simple version. But now the lead paragraph seems lacking and very tiny compared to the other paragraphs in the lead. Should we move anything from the second paragraph to the first paragraph? Pinging Sandstein and Popcornduff since I know that Rivertorch and Pyxis Solitary are watching the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Nah, reading over the lead again, it seems that the paragraphs are well-constructed and should remain as is. I figured that removing the excess from the lead paragraph would make it look even smaller compared to the other paragraphs. And now I wouldn't mind adding it back, LOL. Actually, I got used to the colon use again sometime after Sandstein added it and we discussed it. It's just that I've never been a fan of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I can see some benefit to spelling out what "homosexual" is in the lead: a reader who wants to know what "lesbian" means may not know what "homosexual" means either, and if they don't click on it the rest of the article is just going to confuse them. Sandstein 18:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Per above, I don't think we need to spell out what homosexual is. People usually know what it means. I don't think we should say "A lesbian is a homosexual woman.", and then say "Homosexual" or "Homosexual woman" "means [so and so]," which would then be followed by what else the term lesbian means and how it's used. I'd much prefer to just go with the colon aspect than do that. If by "spelling it out," you meant the colon aspect, then okay. I don't object to it as strongly as I did before, and I did note that it fills out the lead paragraph better, but I still think it's safer to just go with the simple setup. In the past, editors (me included) have gotten tripped up on trying to define "lesbian" in the lead. One issue has been the fact that "lesbian" can also apply to girls (teenage girls in particular), but we currently say "woman." You can see the brief section above where I revisited this. I guess now we could say "girl or woman" easily. For me, an issue has also been my familiarity with the literature and (like I noted above) therefore knowing that women and researchers don't always define "lesbian" consistently, and also knowing that it's hard to come by sources that state "exclusively sexually attracted to" for the term. But "is a homosexual woman" is the common understanding of the term, and, like I stated, we should at least begin with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine now. I'm not a fan of adding prose to define common words—it disrupts the flow, and besides, that's what Wiktionary is for. "Homosexual" is linked to homosexuality, which places a full explanation of the word one click away for those benighted souls too lazy to key in function+F12 (or whatever the Windows equivalent may be). I'm guessing that less than one percent of readers will be unclear on what the word means, but whatever the percentage, we're making it easy for them. I'm dating myself here, but it wasn't so long ago that I used to have to reach for a printed, bound dictionary to look up unfamiliar words. I confess that I still do this on occasion, and I generally suffer no harm from such an undertaking. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Titles: Identity and gender in historical western culture and Outside western culture
Are these titles OK? Why should the history be divided between western and outside western? Why does western history have more space than all other regions combined have?--Abutalub (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It's more or less inevitable. While broadening Wikipedia's coverage to make it more global is well worth doing, the content is based on what reliable secondary sources say. For many topics, including this one, the majority of sources are western. It occurs to me that non-western cultures (and I don't necessarily mean that in a strictly geographical sense) have tended to view sexual orientation and sexual identity in a rather different light than most western cultures have, so the division probably makes sense. Why? Do you have a different idea for how to structure the artice? RivertorchFIREWATER 04:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with what Rivertorch stated. The titles are fine, and the vast majority of sources on sexual orientation and sexual identity are western. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
If the sources about western culture is huge then another article (Identity and gender in historical western culture) could be created and information could be summarized in this article. Then all regions will have the equal space.--Abutalub (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is concerned with due weight, not equal weight. If the majority of reliable sources about lesbians that we can access are western, then it would constitute undue weight to limit our coverage of what such sources say to a summary while including more thorough coverage of non-western sources. We don't create inequalities in the world, but we mustn't pretend they don't exist by artificially inflating the relative importance of some sources over others. If you've identified specific deficits in an article's coverage, all you can do is seek out additional reliable secondary sources to help fill the void. (I'm speaking in general terms, not suggesting this article has such a deficit.) RivertorchFIREWATER 16:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Recent edits
I reverted the recent edits by AtomicBeth. For one, editors have complained about using "female" instead of "woman" for that lead sentence. That, and the fact that adolescent girls can also be lesbians has been addressed before; see the #"Female" vs. "woman," and linking "woman" section above. We could state "woman or adolescent girl," but I don't see that it's needed, and sources don't state that anyway. They state "woman" (which can also mean "adolescent girl"). AtomicBeth removed "to express sexual identity or sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation," and stated, "Lesbian is a sexual orientation." Lesbian is not solely a sexual orientation. It is also a sexual identity (and is more so that since it's primarily used to refer to a homosexual orientation or behavior), and the article is explicitly clear about that. Some don't have to like it, but lesbian is not defined consistently among researchers and those who identify as lesbian. The article is explicitly clear about that. Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. And, yes, that different application of the term lesbian should be in the lead paragraph. And, finally, AtomicBeth talked about removing speculation. None of that is speculation. It is supported by the sources. Yes, not every sentence has an inline citation after it. That is because Moni3, who wrote most of this article, did not believe in overciting. See WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I restored these "female husbands," changes, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I don’t understand why you reverted the bit actually mentioning lesbians in the paragraph about honor killings. It reads like such a non-sequitur without that connection. My other edits were intended to make it clearer that lesbianism is a specifically female phenomenon. The article needs to be clearer on that. — AtomicBeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicBeth (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
AtomicBeth, I wasn't focused on reverting just one of your edits. I focused on reverting all of them. But when it comes to adding in things, if the content is supported by the sources, I am open to doing that. Your "including at least some who are killed because of their lesbianism" addition is not supported by the source. Add a source for it, and it will be fine. As for "clearer that lesbianism is a specifically female phenomenon," the article is very clear about that already. In the #"Female" vs. "woman," and linking "woman" section above, I see that you are concerned with the suggestion that a man might identify as a lesbian. But the article does not address the lesbian identity as something men can claim. A man saying that he is a lesbian is usually viewed in a joking manner, not seriously. And when viewed seriously, it's still WP:Fringe and not WP:Notable in terms of having its own article; see Talk:Lesbian/Archive 14#Male Lesbians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian-identified male. Do not comment in the archives or that closed deletion discussion. If you mean trans women, well, trans women are considered women by enough LGBT academic sources. Anyway, per your concern, I added in "used to describe women" for the second sentence. I thought about wording it as "by women," but there's the fact that researchers use the term (and not always consistently) as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Adding symbols and flags to article
The more image files added to the body -- the more cluttered the layout becomes. Perhaps a Gallery section should be created and the majority of files moved there per MOS:LAYIM. The recent addition of a "Lesbian Pride flag", imo, is questionable. When did this reinterpretation of the rainbow flag become an "official" representation of lesbian pride? I have seen pride labrys flag.svg/640px-Lesbian pride labrys flag.svg.png this flag and this one at dyke marches and other lesbian gatherings. I've yet to see the one with pink bars (and some descriptions I've read about it say its a flag representing feminine lesbians or "lipstick lesbians"). I think we need to reach some consensus on what flag image, if any, is going to be used as the flag representing lesbians. Pyxis Solitary 14:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, let's discuss. JaneSwifty, you mind reverting yourself and discussing first, or just discussing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It looks like there isn't a real consensus in the LGBT community about what flag to use. I have a source here saying that the pink striped flag is the 'official' flag. I think it is important to note there is no 'official' flag because there is no supreme council of lesbians that decides these things. I for one have never seen the purple axe flag. Though others are commenting that they have only seen that one. A flag like this is only official if most people feel that it is official. I think we should take this into account when deciding what flag to show on this page (if any) Leprecon (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I was mistaken. This is a better sourced flag. JaneSwifty (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I reduced the size of three files on the left margin because they were a wee bit too large for the overall layout. I still think we should consider including a Gallery section. As for the pink bars flag ... there are two versions of the "lipstick lesbian" flag: (1) with a kiss superimposed on the left corner, and (2) bars only (the latter is a .jpg file uploaded on 24 June 2018). Pyxis Solitary 12:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Omission of Crucial Historical Information
The section on "Origin and Transformation of the Term" completely omits the fact that "Lesbian" was used as both a noun and an adjective in 1732. Check out the primary historical dictionary of the English language for the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.4 (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Syntax correction
Does this syntax make any sense: "One point of contention are lesbians who have had have sex with men"? The word "or" needs to be added after the word "had" so the structure of the sentence makes sense. Can another user please correct this? Linemap (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It needs more than that to fix it. I'll think about it later. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence needs to be fixed, but what else needs to be corrected? And why later, a user should fix this and correct it ASAP. Linemap (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I commented on Linemap's talk page about this. Regarding this or this, I stated that Linemap's "lesbians who have sex with men" wording will confuse readers, at least before next paragraph. It would come before the paragraph that makes it clear that sexual identity and sexual behavior do not always match and therefore a woman who identifies as a lesbian may have sex with men. A number of researchers/sources are careful to state "lesbian-identified women" instead of "lesbian women" in that case. The source doesn't even state "lesbians who have sex with men." It states "women" and "currently," and is clearly keeping the sexual identity and women who have sex with women aspects in mind. I don't see why the text needs to state "lesbians who have sex with men" rather than "lesbians who have had sex with men," or that it needs to include both with the addition of "or," for the sentence in question, especially since women who identify as lesbians and are currently having sex with men are often called bisexual rather than lesbian in the lesbian community. The source clearly addresses the lesbian identity debates. Popcornduff, can we get your grammatical opinion on this? Does the text need to be in present tense instead of past tense? Does it need an "or"? If so, do you have a rewording idea to avoid my issue with wording the text as "lesbians who have sex with men"? I would also ping Rivertorch (who is also good at grammatical issues), but he's been away from Wikipedia for months. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It seems that the use of "are" is the issue? The text could be changed to "One issue concerns lesbians who have had have sex with men." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Regardless of any content dispute, the sentence as it is now is garbled: lesbians who have had have sex with men. I think a non-contentious immediate fix would be to remove the second 'have'. Cheers, gnu57 04:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that typo. Will fix now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I really don't know why my brain kept missing the second "have," but it did. Now I understand the "doesn't make sense" argument Linemap was making. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Many women come out as homosexual after they've lived closeted lives as heterosexual women that shared their lives with men, during which time they engaged in sex with men. However, a lesbian is a homosexual female and homosexual females do not have sex with males. Homosexual females don't seduce males. Homosexual females don't fuck males. Homosexual females don't fellatio. Therefore, when referring to a female that used to take dick because she was closeted (or as-yet unaware or unsure of her homosexual nature) it is correct to say "lesbians who have had sex with men" blah blah blah, or even better, "lesbians who had sex with men" -- because it refers to the life and intimate behavior that used to exist for these females. (But, when referring to the present and the subject is about women who have had sex with men and with women, and who continue to have sex with both women and men ... it is not referring to the present existence of lesbian lives. Because women who fuck females and males are not lesbians -- they're bisexuals.) Pyxis Solitaryyak 08:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand what you are stating. After all, I did stress use of "have had" instead of "have" above, but there is the identity aspect, and the way researchers use the term lesbian, that the article addresses. I addressed the "lesbians who have sex with men" topic in the past. There are some women who feel that the lesbian identity fits them better than the bisexual identity because they have very little sexual attraction to men and/or don't engage in a romantic or sexual relationship with men. There's also the bisexuality debate, where some people define bisexuality differently. For some people, bisexuality means 50/50 equal sexual attraction to both sexes (and there are many who don't believe that 50/50 equal sexual attraction to both sexes exists). There's also the trans women topic that I will add a bit on to the "Sexuality and lesbian identity" section at some point. But, yeah, I agree with going with "have had" instead of "have" for the sentence in question. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Lesbians are homosexual females. There's no way around it, regardless of what some women may think fits better for them. Their preferences still don't change what a homosexual female is, and isn't. I know that it's become PC to highlight what bisexuals think or want, and what trans women think or want ... but the subject of the article is "Lesbian" -- not demi-lesbian, half-lesbian, former-male-lesbian, Sunday-lesbian, or faux-lesbian. Perhaps what the article needs more than anything else is a focus on homosexuality? Pyxis Solitaryyak 09:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Pyxis Solitary, I'm not trying to be PC. I'm just referring to what the research states/shows. Researchers (and the general public) do debate the meaning of bisexuality, for example. Researchers do define "lesbian" inconsistently, in part (or mainly) because so many women do, and that is why the article covers that aspect. Regardless of how one personally feels about the subject, we do have to follow the literature and with WP:Due weight. Wikipedia is not the place to right the great wrongs or what one thinks are the great wrongs. Remember, we went over the debate regarding gay as well. You mentioned PC then as well, and River and I addressed you on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say you were PC. Anyway, there are a bizillion articles about what researchers define. I doubt there are any non-heterosexual African females included in these Western sexuality research studies (and if by miracle there are some, the total cannot in any way shape or form be representative, as a whole, of females in the African continent). I also doubt non-heterosexual females trying to survive in the People's Republic of China are represented. Since all segments of the world's female population cannot be included in these "studies", they are non-conclusive and need to be taken with a grain of salt, and the article should state so. Pyxis Solitaryyak 09:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, you brought up PC. Just like in the gay debate, it implied that you felt I was being PC. I'm not sure what to think about your latest post, except for what I stated about PC...and that the article can only state what WP:Reliable sources state...and with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
And "all segments of the world's [so and so] population cannot be included in these 'studies,' [so] they are non-conclusive and need to be taken with a grain of salt" is not how research works. Well, not for most topics anyway. Various topics concerning population data are not based on "population data involving every [whatever gender]" or "the whole world," but the data is still considered solid. This goes for a number of medical topics, for example. Yes, there is systemic bias in research. And if reliable sources report on systemic bias, we should include information on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. To add anything you would need sources that show that these particular books are notable or that at the very least, their authors are. Otherwise we are just promoting these particular books Cannolis (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Partly done: I changed the caption to read: "Havelock Ellis (1859–1939), one of a number of sexologists responsible for the now-discredited categorization of 'lesbianism' as a medical problem." Good? Rebbing talk 03:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
_First_Kiss_111221-N-JP983-008.jpg)
