Talk:Lesbian/Archive 11

Commented out an error
Some form of list under the section on physical health, after the 4th paragraph was showing an error in formatting. I didn't understand the error so I commented it out. The part that was visible simply said "User:Gadget850/T3" and I put a <! -- and -- > in front and behind the section that was causing trouble. If someone with more knowledge of wiki formatting can remove the commenting out and fix the section, that would be good!--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I came back to check to see if the error was dealt with by someone else, but it seems that it wasn't so I had a go at fixing the formatting that was responsible, without any luck. So instead I deleted the formatting code and created a list in a simpler way so that the original text content would remain. If someone has the neccessary knowledge check the diff and see what I changed to fix it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"Safer Sex Recommendations"
I removed this box primarily because IMHO it constitutes medical how-to advice, which WP:NOTHOWTO specifically advises against. Also, as far as I'm aware, there's no precedent for this style of presentation. Oli Filth(talk&#124;contribs) 12:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of this quote box one way or the other. I'm kind of surprised that it stayed in the article now for over a year. I wrote most of the article and the quote box included, but thought for the same reason you took it out that it might not stay in. However, discussion on some other article pages has made it clear that it's not that clear. I understand the NOTHOWTO, but I think a consensus of opinion--from editors who are involved in the article issues--should work to decide if it should be removed or stay in. The precedent thing I'm not really concerned with. --Moni3 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise this has been discussed previously. Could you point me at some previous discussion?  Oli Filth(talk&#124;contribs) 12:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the most recent, I think. --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole health section could be spun off to a sub article Chrisrus (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More accurately, could be expanded with much more detail. What is in this article is the barest minimum of what health information that mentions women who sleep with women. --Moni3 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. On the one hand, you might not want to expand it too much before spinning it off into a sub-article because this article is already very long.  You had been asking about ways to shorten it.  On the other hand, it may be too short in itself to spin off before expansion.  Chrisrus (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was unclear. If any new article should be created, it should not remove the bare minimum of what exists in this one, but expand upon it. I won't be doing it, btw. --Moni3 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we do spin off a new article, it should be in the spirit of WP:NOT. I'm not sure we'd have a Safe DIY recommendations or a Safe cooking recommendations article, unless those articles could be written in an encyclopaedic style.  Oli Filth(talk&#124;contribs) 19:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from LesbienneGatineau, 11 May 2010
LesbienneGatineau (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. With an edit request you need to say what you request that should be changed, and why, instead of just saying that you want to make an edit request. You will also need a reference to prove that what you state is true, as per the policies at WP:CITE. Please make another edit request stating what you actually want to change or alter in the article. Thank you. Chevymontecarlo . 18:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

gay women
whats the difference between a gay women and a lesbian?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.0.130.5 (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * None? A lesbian is a gay woman. Gabbe (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision
The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the Sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you,

Pdorion (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Lesbian
This article does not mention that there are lesbians who "leave" the gay lifestyle (as well as gay men). This has to be said somewhere in this article, not everyone stays lifetime. Some seek help through Sex Aholics Anonymous or Romance and Love Addicts Anonymous or Ex-gay retreats, counselling, etc.

It also is medically inaccurate, as it fails to mention various forms of cancer, and mental and physical effects, that one is susceptible to through homosexual sex, both for men and women.

For these reasons, I find this article political, not neutral and biased (as it seems to be simply here to promote or advertise homosexuality).

In my opinion, it fails to prove that homosexuality is indeed healthy, but more of a sex addicts delusional idea of what is "romantic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviab1 (talk • contribs)


 * If you can find a medical source that adheres to WP:MEDRS says lesbianism is a sex addiction or a delusion, please provide it. Likewise, please provide reliable medical articles that link cancer to lesbianism. Cancer is mentioned in the health section, but no source I found made cancer and lesbianism a cause and effect relationship.
 * The article mentions several times that sexuality in women in fluid, much more than in men. That somewhat addresses your issue about women who "leave" the lifestyle, as you put it. It goes both ways and in many directions, however. Women who previously identified as lesbian enter relationships with men. Women who have been married to men for decades leave their husbands for women. Some call themselves lesbians. Some women who are married to men call themselves lesbians. The article simply reflects what scholars have observed about women and the lesbian label. --Moni3 (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are some resources that may help, both in regards to mental and physical health in regards to lesbians (and gay men):

http://www.narth.com/docs/riskfact.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/healthrisks.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/Health_Risks.pdf

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Although this is about men, it is worth noting:

http://www.narth.com/docs/gendercomplementarity.html

from the article above, this is of particular significance:

"A most alarming report recently appeared in a popular magazine about a group of gay men identified as bug chasers, or those who consciously seek the AIDS virus (Freeman. 2003). Freeman reported an interview with Dr. Robert Cabaj, the Director of Behavioral Health Services for San Francisco County, who suggested that bug chasers are alarmingly common. Cahaj estimates that at least one-fourth of newly infected gay men may have sought out the fatal disease. The article centered around Carlos who estimated that he has already had several hundred sex partners and that he eagerly awaits for the day when he tests HIV positive and will turn toward infecting another person. The process is referred to as "gift-giving." Carlos noted that "as sick as it sounds, killing another man slowly ... is exciting" (p. 48)."

...Have you seen this? (The above?) There are some very sick and abusive people in the gay community, unfortunately, I have personally known some through places where I have worked...this is more common than one would think. (One gay man I worked with stands out in my mind in particular, as he talked with others at work (he could be heard saying), that he would have sex with an STD, "it was up to the other guy to protect himself". This is just selfish and mean, as well as irresponsible and dishonest.

Things like this also show that this is an addiction, as there is little ability to control one's sexual appetites. Let's face it, who really settles down with one partner for life in the gay community? One person 400 years ago?

More health risks for lesbians:

http://www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html

"Lesbians are also at three times the risk for breast cancer than their heterosexual counterparts and face a whole range of STDs, including bacterial vaginosis, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. Homosexual males face anal cancer, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes simplex virus, and AIDS infection."

http://www.narth.com/docs/josrrev.html

In regards to addiction, the high level of relationships is self explanatory. I hate to say it, but it's just sleezy, irresponsible behaviour.

These are some references that should be included in your article for women considering the gaylifestyle or for them to have a more accurate idea of the "Breath" of this issue in order to be fair:

http://www.janetboynesministries.com/pdf/Janet_Boynes_Article.pdf

http://www.dawnstefanowicz.com/dawntest.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviab1 (talk • contribs)


 * None of these sources adhere to WP:MEDRS. This is essential. Medical articles cited in the article directly refute the claims of Narth. Find medical articles from authoritative medical journals. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you miss this part? Lesbian?  I've watched this article for some time, and though it's been resisted, no one has censored any medical study showing health problems related to lesbianism.  Please re-read your post here and re-read and compare it to the article's "health/physical" section and you may be surprised by what's not being surpressed and want to take back something of what you've said here.  If you can find a medical journal that shows health risks that aren't already in the article, you should add them to that section.  The rest of what you've said is either personal POV or is about gay men, not the referent of this article.  Stick to the subject.  Studies show that lesbians don't have a particularly high level of sexual activity, so this sex addiction and multiple partner stuff does not apply to most lesbians. Chrisrus (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your last comment you are definetly wrong. Lesbians have many partners, I am a witness to this. I myself engaged in homosexual activity with three women, two of which had had many male partners before switching to homosexuality. And...I want you to know that at the age of 21 when I was with one these partners and I was thinking specifically of how many male partners she had had before me (she was 10 years older than me by the way), I literally started sweating (real sweat) with fear that I might have AIDS. Having lived this lifestyle I can tell you that the majority of the women I knew had way more than one partner and in short periods of time. As hurtful as this may sound, it is just the simple truth.

For whatever reason that you do not accept research from NARTH, an intelligent and discerning person would be wise to read at least some of their articles. There is one there that is so true I simply cannot believe it ended up being in a research paper. That is that though lesbian women have a high awareness of STD's and causes, they fail to take the necessary measures to prevent them. I can honestly say this was my way as well. I attended those STD Thursday night talks for lesbians and like everyone else, left with no resolution of implementing anything of what they said into my sex life. If you think that I or other lesbians are about to "quizz" are partners, or ask them to take an STD test "before" having sex with them, your dreaming. Lust gets the best of us, and we sleep with the desired person, often after a first or second encounter.

So, how is Narth wrong in saying this or other stuff? The honest matter is, that this issue has become so political, that the truth is hidden. This is where I get so upset, because gays/lesbians themselves don't care if someone else who is gay/lesbian dies. Politics come before life. This stinks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviab1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * NARTH is notr a remotely objective source, but is pure advocacy. Your personal experience is not acceptable as evidence. No doubt there are promiscuous lesbians. There are promiscuous heterosexuals too. That would not justify the assertion that "heterosexuals are promiscuous". As for AIDS, its much more likely to be transmitted to a woman from heterosexual sex than from lesbian sex, so that's an irrelevance. Paul B (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sayinhg NARTH is wrong, I'm saying that this information is already iin the physical subsection of the health section. Please read it.  If your "NARTH" citation agrees with any statement there and is not already being used to cite something, feel free to add it just to double-cite that fact in the text.  If there is any statement in your NARTH citation that is not already made in the article, feel free to write a calm, matter-of-fact summation of that statement nestled into its proper place within that subsection, and then to use the NARTH citation to cite it.  You will find, I believe, that the information that you want to add to the article is aleady there and has been there for some time.  Chrisrus (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Chrisrus, if you're suggesting that NARTH articles addressing medical issues are sufficient sources for the article, they are not. Only medical articles from peer-reviewed medical journals should be used to address medical issues. If you meant something else, please clarify. --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, you're right, I should have looked more closely. But the article it refers to, published in just such a journal in 2005 (supposedly), would be admissable, if she can find it.  The point is moot though because all the medical information she refers to is already in the article, probably cited to the same sources that this article gets it from.  Chrisrus (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The main reason I am choosing to express the above is because of this news article (yesterday) that appeared on "Yahoo News":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39102353/ns/health-cancer/

If you have a look at it, you will note that a "cause" of cancer is mentioned only for the first top 10 cancers, smoking is the primary cause of lung cancer. You will also note that for the other nine types, no causes are mentioned, though quite a few of those cancers affect the reproductive areas rectal areas. Why? Is this because of politics? Is the media and the medical profession to scared of being labelled "homophobic" to say what the causes are of anal cancer for example? If this is true, even in the least, the gay community is not doing any favours to those who are same sex attracted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviab1 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with this? Off topic. Discuss only ways to improve this article in this space. Chrisrus (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This article, and this talk page, are not the place to speculate about medical matters, or champion conspiracy theories. Unless you have some factual cites from reliable sources that demonstrate a link between cancer and the article subject there is nothing to discuss further here. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * O.K. What about this study?  (I am trying to prove my point although in a round about way.  It seems you are rejecting good medical research sites in favour of poor ones.)  For example...are you left handed?  Are you a lesbian?  According to this site, (which I am sure is probably approved here), lesbians (more even than gay men), are left handed...:


 * http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/07/000710071931.htm


 * They are trying to prove that not only are we born gay but also with left handed tendencies. I do not know about you, but I am not left handed, and of the friends I had or have, actually, none were.


 * But...I as true as the earth is round and not flat, I bet these scientists are approved by Wika or Wiki. What do you think?  You might want to add to your page this page that most lesbians (even compared to gay men) are left handed...now even more lesbians will be able to relate to this site.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviab1 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am left handed, but, strangely, not a lesbian. It is not at all clear what you are trying to say. The argument about whether or not people are 'born gay' is better addressed in the homosexuality article. If there is evidence for some sort of correlation between sexuality and handedness, it needs to be addressed in context. Paul B (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This article does not address links between biology or socialization and homosexuality. The homosexuality article addresses that. I'm unsure what your point is in introducing this issue of left-handedness among lesbians. Even if a medical journal stated it, what might it say about lesbians or lesbianism? --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. | This is interesting and could have a place on Wikipedia.  I also found | this.  What we've got here is a user who has brought us one citation after another that didn't pan out, but who finally has brought us something we might be able to use.  This could cite the stament "some researchers have found a strong statistical relationship between left-handedness and lesbianism"  and they figure, well, handedness is genetic, so it tends to make them think that lesbianism is too.  I'm not sure there's a place for it, but it might go into a section about theories of the cause of lesbianism.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I am glad you found that interesting, basically because it supports your (political) views but for no other "truthful" reason. Which shows how wacky wiki really is. Science keeps an open mind. I guess, like our ideas of the earth, being flat and then being found to be round, it will eventually get straightened out, probably after our deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviab1 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, all we can do is identify reliable sources and summarize them here. That's all.  If you've got a peer-reviewed journal or some such that supports the non-genetic theory, just provide it and I for one will be happy to include it.  If you've got some other suggestion as to how we could improve the article so it won't be so "biased", please be specific.  Otherwise, there's nothing we can do.  Chrisrus (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with including this, but there is no point in just adding every random argument. If it can fit somewhere, fine, it can be briefly mentioned that a correlation between sexuality and handedness has been used to argue for a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. Paul B (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Chrisrus, your links may be time-sensitive. Both are 401 forbidden to me. I'd like to see them to determine what they say about biological or social factors connected to female homosexuality but not homosexuality. That seems kinda weird to me. And Sylviab1 has yet to identify what part of this article is biased and I question if she's actually read it. So, Sylviab1, we're eager to improve the article if you can state which passages in the article are not supported by sources or where there are glaring omissions. Please read the entire article first, however. Once you have and you find problems, please provide suggestions about alternate ways to word certain passages or link to neutral, reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the links don't work for me either for some reason. Just type "lesbian" and "handedness" into Google and you get the pages, entitled Canadian Scientists Find More Homosexuals Left-Handed. It's from the July 2007 issue of Psychological Bulletin. The link is stronger in Lesbians: the "tendency toward increased levels of left-handedness was markedly greater for lesbian women than for gay men." Note that the study does not even claim that this is evidence of genetic predisposition, but possibly of development in utero or very early infancy. And anyway the statistical correlation is small. So, as of 2007, this was an interesting statistical oddity, but nothing could actually be concluded beyond that. I doubt there is any point in including this unless there are more solid developments. At the moment it's a quirky fact, nothing more. Paul B (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's a wierd and quirky fact that would be hard to work into the article, and in my very non-expert opinion is not strong evidence for the generally accepted causal theory and just may not be useful to Wikipedia, but my broader point is that if this user brings us more well-cited facts like this, we will take them seriously, no matter what POV they support. Chrisrus (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's encouraging...thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviab1 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Virtuous" and "lesbian"
What is a "virtuous lesbian"?

I read in the news lately that there are 45,000 gay couples in all of Canada.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=98a0497d-fe62-41d6-a1f8-ced2600afb88

"The latest release of the 2006 census data yesterday counted 45,300 same-sex couples in Canada. Of those, about 7,500 had formally tied the knot. However, the majority -- 83.5 per cent -- continued to live in common-law relationships."

Are men more virtuous than women?

"Close to 54 per cent of same-sex married spouses were men in 2006, compared with 46 per cent who were women."

What if a lesbian chooses not to have sex at all? Meaning she identifies as a lesbian, but chooses to not engage in sex because she believes in God (or in order to heal from abuse, etc.)? Is this not the most virtuous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylviab1 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What does that have to do with this? What part of "This place is for discussing ways of improving the article" don't you understand?  Discuss the article or go get a blog or something.  Chrisrus (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To reiterate Chrisrus' point in a different way, discussion on this page needs to be about the article, not lesbian issues in general. Speaking for myself, I would prefer it--and take you much more seriously--if when you comment on the article you use concrete examples of anything that you think needs to be fixed: quotes, passages, etc. To support your point, use the best reliable sources you can find. --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think lesbian sex is immoral, then it will be virtuous to abstain from it. If you don't it won't. It's the same with anything else. If you think eating meat is immoral, then it is virtuous to abstain. If you don't, it's just a personal preference. Jews and Muslims think it's wrong to eat pork. Other people don't. But if you don't eat pork because you don't like it, virtue or vice doesn't come into it. Same with sexual preference. There are any number of other examples of the complex relationship between taste/preference and moral judgement. What you need to do is look for articles in which these are part of the topic. We have articles called Religion and sexuality and Religion and homosexuality in which these matters are discussed. Perhaps you can contribute to them. There is also Christianity and homosexuality. Or at a more general level there is Moral relativism. You might want to read them. Paul B (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Restored lede
I think this is a great article and should serve as a model for other LGBT-themed work here. However...

While the very first paragraph is the perfect lede, the following three paragraphs go into detail and are in fact background info. What's more, they need to be paired with the "term" section". To top it off, with the perfect leade, i.e. the first paragraph, the TOC is visible and one can go to the "concept" or "term" sections or whichever one they choose. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a note that it has been suggested to split the article somehow, hence it is too long. The lede beyond one paragraph reads like the intro to an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Remember, the background info should go under a section of the same name. Furthermore: concept + term. It's basic terminology. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead is a summary of the concepts presented in the article. It is a short four paragraphs for an admittedly long treatment of what lesbian means in English. Some of the concepts are quite abstract so they take some explanation. It took me about two months to write this article, and I fully admit it's a long one, but it's supported by the volume of information written about the topic. Splitting the article: I'm very cautious of this. --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally do not suggest splitting the article. However, it is too long. For me, this means it could possibly use more: concision in wording, removal of repeated info, removal of unnecessary descriptive adverbs. Yet, I am not suggesting anything needs to be reduced outside of accessibility reasons.


 * Back to the lede - The first paragraph says it all. The other paragraphs do "not" sum up the rest of the article as they 1. provide background info and do not introduce, and 2. link to the "term" section. Again, I am not advocating removal of material, only correct placement for readers. Now, this might in fact mean that another summary paragraph could follow the perfect first paragraph, this yet-to-be-written second one being a true summary. Organization, not re-writes, overhauls or clean-ups. :-) --CJ Withers (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree with your assessment of the lead. I'm also quite cautious about your opinion that the content is appropriate but the writing is not. Before we get too far into this, however, since I rewrote the article almost two years ago, several complaints have been registered about the lead--not its size but the wording. It has been my experience that very few of the complainants read the body of the article. Can you confirm that you have read the content of the article, please? There is little reason to discuss the lead being a summary of the issues in the article if you have not read them. --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your question because I wouldn't laud anything I hadn't read first. I invite you to read my major overhauls and re-writes, etc. of Heterosexism, Homophobia, Biphobia, Coming out, and Queer. You will see that my focus is on making accessible and concise articles, esp. the leades. Organization is the key. Please check them should you not have studied my changes, some dating to several years ago. Plus, on a personal note, I would like to add that I've been a professional writer, translator, copy-editor for more than 20 years now and a researcher for 15. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My intention in asking you if you had read the article was not to offend, just confirm. I agree that organization is the key. The sources presented the information, and the main points about what a lesbian means--and it's not that simple as to be explained only in the first paragraph of the lead--are introduced in the following three paragraphs.
 * With respect, there are improvement tags in Homophobia and Coming out and excessive bullet points in Heterosexism. Queer seems to be a rather short article and surely does not reflect the body of knowledge on the topic. I hope these are not the improvements you have in mind for this article. While you have experience in professional writing, there seems to be a disconnect between the quality of this article, which I wrote with Featured Article standards in mind (but have so far declined to nominate for FA simply because I don't wish to encounter the endless problems I know will arise if it ever makes it to the main page) and your personal standards for what an article should be like. This article is rated GA. The changes you made to the lead and the others you allude to, and now what I imagine are changing prose to bullet points, are not indicators of GA status. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish and again, I don't mean to offend, but I'm not sure your ideas of excellent article quality and Wikipedia's are the same. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing several different issues. Also, you have not acknowledged any of my praise, which leads me to believe that you might be overreacting and not reading what I have taken time out to defend an improvement consisting of a shift of 3 paragraphs without altering their content.

The articles where I have intervened: check my edits, as I kindly asked you to do earlier. The articles are starts. They were generally quite poor before. My improvements have quality ratings confirmed on longer-standing edits. Important LGBT ledes are my specialty.

You have not addressed the issues of my improvement to the Lesbian article: I stated more than one point. I will repeat them: 1. The fist paragraph is perfect. Do you agree that the first paragraph is perfect? Do you agree that it is the perfect lede? Why or why not? Saying that four paragraphs are justified because the article is lengthy is a poor reason. In fact, entire articles can be summed up in even as little as a sentence. 2. The remaining three paragraphs are background information on the _subject_ not the article. Do you agree? 3. Concept and term are inseparable key ideas. DYA? 4. The four paragraph leade reads like the intro to a college essay, not an encyclopedic article. DYA? 5. The four-paragraph lede impedes readers from immediately accessing the TOC. DYA?

Upshot: It's not the length of the your four-paragraph lede, rather the reasons I reiterated above, that support my edit. Moreover, I am convinced that the three paragraphs that belong in a Background section are background info and not a summary, c.f. "Men have historically shaped ideas about what is respectable for women in love, sex, and family, and, because of the absence of males in a lesbian relationship, frequently rejected the possibility of lesbianism or disregarded it as a valid expression of sexuality." Please show me how this sentence and the others within the same paragraph _sum up_ the article. Also, would you please justify why the "concept" should be divorced from the "term". --CJ Withers (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the more times I read the beginning, the more issues I find, both good and poor. For example, the sentence on health issues should be moved up. The sentence on women who reject the label is a non-sequitur in the lede, as background and even in the paragraph itself. Let's go over each sentence. I'm looking forward to highlighting the truly essential material for concision. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We seem not to be communicating at all. Thanks for the praise, I guess, but I'm ok without it, particularly when it can be summarized as "Great article. It's too long and wordy." I still disagree with your assessment of the lead. The first paragraph is the definition of the term in its simplest barest form. The remaining paragraphs are not background; they are an introduction on the complexities of how women's sexuality is perceived in Western society. "Lesbian" has different meanings depending on who is using the word, who its directed to, and what decade it's been used. Term and concept often do not mesh, despite the neat definition in the first paragraph. The fact that women's sexuality--books, legal, medical, and psychiatric texts--has been formed by men throughout history, and because there are no men in a lesbian relationship men tend to ignore lesbianism as a possibility. Lesbianism has not existed in the past because men have not believed it's an actual thing and certainly not comparable to what men can give women. This is a recurrent theme in the source material and is touched upon multiple times in the article, hence the summary of that in the lead. This is why I asked if you had read the article. I'm quite at a loss about this misunderstanding. It seems obvious that such a major point made by sources should certainly be covered in the lead.


 * To move the other major points about lesbian identity and sexuality to the body is to make them redundant--they are already explained in the body anyway--and is a disservice to the reader, who then has no background to understand what the article will cover. I don't think this reads like a college essay at all and I don't think accessing the table of contents without scrolling down is so important that it warrants a 1-paragraph lead. If you want to go over the lead sentence by sentence, knock yourself out. I frankly have no idea where you're coming from and what you prioritize. If making sure the table of contents is visible high in the article is a top priority, we're really coming at this from very different places. Perhaps a better course of action is for you to rewrite the lead--an actual lead that is appropriate for the size of this article and summarizes the concepts presented within--and post it here on the talk page so I can see what you're trying to accomplish. The lead has been rewritten before for clarity. I've worked with previous editors once I understand what they mean and where they think the article needs to be improved. However, degrading the quality of the article is not an option. A 1-paragraph lead that does not summarize the information presented in the body is not an option. --Moni3 (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

es:Lesbianismo
Answering message from Moni3 in es:Lesbianismo


 * Hi Moni3. The article in es:Wiki is a translation of the English one, with some additions regarding European and Latinamerican History and hispanic lesbian Culture. The part you are asking about comes from:
 * Mogrovejo, Norma (2004). «Relevancia de las lesbianas en América Latina: la recuperación de nuestra historia». In Drucker, Péter; Mercad, Enrique (in Spanish). Arco iris diferentes. Siglo XXI. pp. 263. ISBN 9789682324864. http://books.google.de/books?id=uidtsC1ncHkC&dq=Lesbianismo+m%C3%A9xico&as_brr=3&hl=es&source=gbs_navlinks_s
 * At the moment I don't have the time to help here, sorry, but if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.
 * Ecelan (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No problems. Take your time. Raystorm replied on my talk page too. It'll get done. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Raystorm, I have some questions about the paragraph added today about Argentina. Is there a reason why Argentina has so much information about the groups there? Is the lesbian or gay community in Argentina more active than elsewhere in South America? If so, can it be stated in the prose? Or is this one of several edits that may also encompass Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and other countries, that you are making in increments?

What is "The TV appearance of Ilse"? Ilse is linked, but to the general woman's name. Is it Ilse María Olivo Schweinfurth?

Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just saw this now. Yes, I'm translating country by country, in small doses because it's a big section. :) Argentina does have quite a bit of info, but so do other countries like Mexico. I have three more paragraphs to add to the section (Chile, Nicaragua, and info on the general meetings celebrated in Latinamerica and the Caribbean). And Ilse is indeed Ilse María Olivo Schweinfurth, sorry about that. Cheers, Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  21:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, just realised that with the inclusion of Mexico, the title of that section should be renamed to accommodate for Central America as well, don't you think? Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  21:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. I'm pretty sure it needs a good copyedit, though. Cheers Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  15:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for translating all that! It has been a very interesting read. Siawase (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. ^^ If I can be of any more help, give me a yell! I've been thinking about adding some info about yuri in the TV section, for example, what do you think? Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a small expansion on yuri would be a good idea, since right now it's relagated to the "see also" section. Maybe related roots like Class S and Takarazuka Revue could be mentioned if we have good sources. Siawase (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also appreciate it quite a lot. I'd like to get some general input on these additions. It's six paragraphs in total, and when I'm nervous about adding a sentence or two because of the overall length of the article, and this section now dwarfs the Asia and Africa sections, I think it would help to consolidate the material into perhaps three paragraphs. Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the Africa section could be expanded. :P Not too much, but there is some info that could be added. For example, about corrective rapes in Africa, and the situation of lesbians in places like South Africa and Uganda (I am slightly motivated by this interview with Monica Mbaru that coincidentally appeared today in the paper). As for the America section, there is a lot of info on Argentina. It could be trimmed down a bit, as could be the very last paragraph about the biannual meetings, in order to get all the info in three paragraphs. Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  17:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Americas section
As the section appears now:

Questions, because I don't understand everything:


 * How did Ilse make possible the establishment of lesbian groups? It's not clear in her article or this one what she did.
 * Is heterofeminism a word in English? I actually don't know.
 * I'm very interested in finding a flow and featuring cause and effect relationships. It helps make the article more cohesive, emphasizes major points for the readers, and consolidates some points. To this end, has there been any influence from the gay rights groups of Argentina to Mexico, from Mexico to Nicaragua? Is there a link between the political upheavals in Argentina, Chile, and Nicaragua to the establishment of gay rights groups?
 * I know this is a translation issue, but what does "impulsed associacionism" mean? Forced people to band together?
 * Did Pinochet forbid only lesbians to associate, or all gays?
 * Were Pinochet's forces, military, or maybe hired thugs responsible for the beating death of the lesbian that started Ayuquelén?
 * Feminism and lesbianism seems to be a repeated theme in this section, and it also seems to mirror the same issues that hurt the feminist movement in the U.S.: the most active feminists were often lesbians, but the feminist movement often had to deny that they were lesbians or promoting lesbianism. Is this true of the issues in Central and South America?
 * If the gay rights movement took a long time to recover in Nicaragua, what is the most recent status of it?

My attempt at consolidating this information:

This section has so much detail that I'm wondering if it can be spawned into its own article: LGBT rights in Central and South America??

At any rate, any input is appreciated. If I compromised accuracy in my consolidation, please feel free to correct me. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ping. --Moni3 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't have much time now, but I'll comment on a couple of points from the top of my head.
 * The beating of the lesbian in Chile was nothing "official". The murder was done by an ex-policeman that was jealous, as his girlfriend seems to have left him for the woman. He just beat the woman to death and no one intervened. The family of the dead woman didn't dare/want to do anything about it. The case illustrates the acceptance or social status of lesbians: they could be killed on the street, with witnesses, in plain daylight, and the murderer could just walk away without any further problems.
 * On the other hand, the repression in Chile was of all homosexuals, oppositional forces, or anyone that Pinochet and his people didn't like, not only lesbians.
 * I don't think the influence from gay groups in America went from Argentina --> Mexico --> etc. At the beginnings, they all were probably more influenced by North America(/Western countries). Where all these movements from different countries influenced each other and exchanged ideas was in the Encuentro de Feministas Lesbianas de América Latina y el Caribe. It was in these meetings where a big part of the ideas and the dynamics came from.
 * Mogroviejo does not say "most active feminists were often lesbians", but that lesbians very often were part of the feminist movement (a small difference). The other part is right: "feminist movement often had to deny that they were lesbians or promoting lesbianism".
 * You have to take into account that there aren't many books about this topic. Mogroviejo is possibly the best, but her interest is the "lesbian" movement, separated from the "gay" or LGBT movement. So she tends to focus on the "independent" lesbians, and tends to ignore those that were included in the LGBT movement together with gays.
 * Homosexuality is legal in Nicaragua only since 2008. I haven't found any information about recent developements.
 * "impulsed associacionism" => boosted the creation of associations/groups
 * And this has gotten longer than I thought. I'll try to respond your other questions as soon as possible.
 * About your attempt to consolidation, Mogroviejo had an overview of all Latinamerica, but I'll have to recheck the book. Maybe that'll help.
 * --Ecelan (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Today I have a bit more time.
 * I have found soem more information about Nicaragua It looks like there is a lesbian organization called Grupo Safo / Grupo de Mujeres Lesbianas de Nicaragua since (Feb. 21st) 2004, 4 years (March 2008) before homosexuality was made legal. They belong to the Alianza Centromericana de la Diversidad Sexual.
 * As for what Mogroviejo («Relevancia de las lesbianas en América Latina: la recuperación de nuestra historia» in Arco iris diferentes, 2004) says about the lesbian movement in Latin America in general. The second feminist wave in Latin America helped organize the LGBT movement. Homosexual women and men parted their ways soon, due to men's sexism. "Homosexual women" became "lesbians". The evolution of lesbians and their fight follows the evolution of feminist theory in Latin America.
 * The first stage was the fight for equality, their civil and political rights; resumed in the motto "for a non sexist socialism". Lesbians looked for equality, identifying themselves with the ideas on the left and saw themselves as a marginalized part of the society that would achieve freedom with the rest of the society (this is the case of the Nicaraguan LGBT movement).
 * The second stage was the fight for being different and independent from gays and feminists; evolving then into separatism and clandestine organizations around the (heterosexual) feminist circles. Men became nonexistent, and so lesbianism became subversive (Mexico and Chile are the examples chosen).
 * The third stage, still ongoing, breaks the boundaries of gender, looking for a new, radical theory that analyzes persecution of sexual dissidents (transvestites, transexuals, prostitutes, sado-maso). Men (gays, transvestites, transexuals) are being reanalyzed as possible allies.
 * But these stages don't exclude each other, they complement each other, as the discussion nowadays shows. Mogroviejo then studies this evolution in three cases, Mexico, Chile and Nicaragua, that is, formal democracy, dictatorship and revolutionary government, typical for Latin America. As conclusion, Mogroviejo states that no government in Latin America, independent of its type, respected LGBT rights. Repression was the norm, in spite of homosexuality not being illegal in most of Latin American countries.
 * I hope this helps you to find a frame for the Latin American part.
 * --Ecelan (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'll try to take a look on Mogroviejo's other text, Un amor que se atrevió a decir su nombre (2000), as soon as I have the time.

Thanks, Ecelan, for your replies. I gave this another copy edit. I highlighted problematic issues as red links with questions below:


 * I changed "respected" to "acknowledged". Is this still accurate?
 * Same: prosecute to persecute.
 * It's not clear to me what "lesbians and their associations" means. Does associations here mean groups? Liaisons, as in partners, or families/friends?
 * Any idea how the last sentence about Nicaragua can be rewritten to make this clearer?


 * Is there an English equivalent for "Ayuquelén"?
 * Any information on Ilse?

Thanks again! --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Ayuquelén" means "the joy of being" in Mapuche language.
 * You have to be careful with "Even so, no regime in Central or South America, democratic or otherwise, has acknowledged gay and lesbian rights". This is true and right (acknowledged is OK), but only until the wave of modern democracies arrived to Latin America, after the dictatorships. Argentina and parts of Mexico have homosexual marriage nowadays.
 * I think "persecute" is more accurate, as homosexuality was not illegal in many countries (lesbians were often forgotten in the laws anyway), and often they didn't even need an excuse to beat up a homosexual.
 * "associations" means groups.
 * Nicaragua: "... effectively ending the movement until 2004, when Grupo Safo / Grupo de Mujeres Lesbianas de Nicaragua was created, four years before homosexuality became legal again."
 * "In Chile, the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet forbade the creation of lesbian groups until 1984," this text gives the impression that in 1984 homosexuality became legal, which is not the case. The sodomy law was repealed in 1999, and lesbianism was never illegal; in the 1980s there was just a slight reduction in the repression, that allowed clandestine LGBT bars, discos and groups; they were closed again mid 80s as aids turned up.
 * About the text itself, I don't see the line you are following. I'd follow a time line, using the three periods Mogroviejo explains, or divide it in countries, which is the solutions Wiki:es follows. If you want to, I can make a proposal.
 * Cheers, --Ecelan (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've found more information about "Ilse", her name is Ilse Fulkova  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecelan (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)