Talk:Lesbian/Archive 12

Literature addition

 * Who are Winning and Parkes? These people were not added to the bibliography. What is the page number for Parkes?
 * I don't understand the point about The Hotel being marked by complete reticence.
 * Who considers Ladies Almanack to be of such importance? A scholar should be named here. I'm assuming it's someone who wrote the intro to Barnes' book and not Barnes herself.
 * When I constructed the Literature section, I used surveys of literature with lesbian or gender-bending themes. Using the introduction to a novel in this case concerns me. Clearly the article is quite large. Using introductions to books, this section can become unreadable quickly if the person writing the introduction considers is a widely influential book. Instead, surveys of literature indicate trends or overall themes. They highlight individual works that were groundbreaking or indicative of a particular trend. Is this much information necessary for Ladies Almanack? Particularly if Barnes' novel was not widely read until 1972, and with such unknowns (Orlando may have been protected by its Modernist playfulness., passages that may be a response to The Well ), could some of this information be put in a footnote or moved to Barnes', Hall's, or other articles? --Moni3 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for leaving Parkes and Winning off the bibliography; I'll add their details, though would welcome help on the formatting. There is no page number for Parkes really, as it is an online article. The "reticence" of The Hotel is meant with reference to Foster's suggestion in the paragraph above it, about obscuring the actual lesbianism in a text, prior to The Well. The commentary on the importance of Barnes is from the scholar who wrote the 1992 intro, whose name is in the references. I looked her up, and it turns out Susan Sniader Lanser is now Professor of English, Women's and Gender Studies, and Comparative Literature at Brandeis University and has written a lot on lesbianism, (literary, cultural, historical, economic). It might be worth working her name into the article.


 * My perspective on this article is that The Well is arguably the English-speaking world's single most well-known and influential creative work with a lesbian theme; it might not deserve to be, and many lesbians today may not have read it, but it casts a long literary (and legal) shadow. As such, it behooves us to give it as full a context as possible, given the constraints of the article. That's all. I could live with bits of this being moved to footnotes here, but I think the first sentence is pretty solid. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly agree that The Well of Loneliness is a hideous book, and one that is an odd choice to define generations of lesbians. I hated the book when I read it for the first time and only when I learned of the circumstances surrounding it: it was written to defend inverts in the early 20th century mindset, did my view on it soften, although not by much. Radclyffe Hall certainly did not set out to write a defining work, it seems, but despite my distaste for the book, scholars put a lot of importance on it. There's a discussion about the novel and how it coincided with the heightened profile of lesbians in England in the Construction of lesbian identity section. I think the information about the other novels with lesbian themes that were not suppressed could be included there.


 * What do you think about: "the crystallizing moment in the construction of a visible modern English lesbian subculture" by professor Laura Doan. [In a note: Three other novels with lesbian themes were published in England in 1928: Elizabeth Bowen's The Hotel, Woolf's Orlando, and Compton MacKenzie's satirical novel Extraordinary Women, none of which were banned. (Foster, pp. 281–287.)] Or somehow otherwise smoothly integrated into that section (Construction of lesbian identity). --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not feeling very inspired at the moment. Thanks for your suggestion. I still think something of what I've added needs to stay in the literature section, or at the very least notes thereto. It's a definite mini-wave (bump?) of lesbian literature a generation before the pulp ficiton; call it a sign of the zeitgeist. I think the novel by Djuna Barnes is worhty of inclusion because of the circle it would have circulated within. Also, I'd suggest linking to The Well within the literature section itself (Manual of Style (linking) allows this, "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first", and I think the reader, perhaps skipping only to this section, would find it helpful). I am about to go offline and expect no access till Monday, so your patience in discussing this would be appreciated. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with the lack of inspiration.
 * The mini-wave of lesbian literature before pulp fiction is an important point to make--if a source makes it. It has been a while since I read the sources I used (Foster, etc.) for this section, but if they make this point, then it needs to be clear in the prose. If they don't, of course, the article cannot make the point.
 * As for the Barnes novel, your statement because of the circle it would have circulated within gives me more pause. I get the impression that it did not circulate at all until the 1970s, so any influence that may be placed on it before then would not be accurate in a discussion of how lesbians were represented and represented themselves in literature.
 * I look forward to your reply on Monday. --Moni3 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Back a little earlier than expected! Though not with access to all the sources I would wish.
 * I am not suggesting we use the term "mini-wave". I am just saying that the article should reflect the C20 of lesbian literature: not very much - 1928 SPIKE - not very much - pulp fiction - 2nd gen feminist influence - etc. The boomlet is there, in the publishing record of one remarkable or anomalous year. The article should reflect that reality by listing the books that cluster around The Well; if you want to drop the sentence of commentary on The Hotel and Orlando, I won't object.
 * As for the Barnes novel, I worded that abysmally. The Ladies Almanack did circulate in 1928 or shortly thereafter. Google Scholar has helped me find this, by Susan Sniader Lanser 13 years before she wrote the intro to the republication.
 * "Published in 1928, which Jeannette Foster calls a 'peak year' in lesbian literature (not only Barnes, but also Radclyffe Hall, Colette, Elizabeth Bowen, Virginia Woolf, and Gertrude Stein were all writing lesbian that year), this cryptic and fascinating volume is, in the words of Bertha Harris, 'in its way and for its time, a document of lesbian revolution' and one of the most celebratory lesbian artifacts of the First Wave."
 * Speaking in Tongues: "Ladies Almanack" and the Language of Celebration. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies.
 * Vol. 4, No. 3, Lesbian History (Autumn, 1979), pp. 39-46
 * Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3346147


 * Lanser is clear that "its readers were its own cast of characters", i.e. Natalie Clifford Barney and her salon. (Foster wrote Sex Variant Women in Literature, a pioneering study issued in 1956, and Harris was a novelist.) LA was printed privately, but a small circulation does not mean a lack of influence, far from it, if the readers are significant figures in art, literature, and lesbian culture. (I seem to recall that LA was sold by Barnes and her friends to anyone who wanted it -- it was not clandestine. The Herring biography of Barnes gives a fair chunk to LA, but, alas, I don't have the bio to hand.)


 * So: the importance of the year 1928 -- backed up by Foster. Circulation of Ladies Almanack -- documented by Lanser.


 * Wording -- I am not that bothered as long as the main point gets in, that The Well has an immediate context. By the way, I take it you don't object to the proposed relinking, as explained above? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm actually confused a bit as to how this may now read, and I'm not sure what edits you're proposing. Sorry. Can you indicate what your ideal edits are?
 * Are the scholars' points about Ladies Almanack that the few who purchased the novel, luminaries in the Paris salons, were also characters within the novel, and that they were, as writers and hosts, etc., influenced by Ladies Almanack? So although its readership was very limited, the people who did read it were themselves very influential in lesbian culture and influenced by Barnes' book? --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll draft an "ideal edit", or a step towards it. This is still within the Literature section, in the paragraph beginning "in the 20th century". How about:
 * Foster claims 1928 was a "peak year", as, in addition to The Well of Loneliness, three other novels with lesbian themes were published in England: Elizabeth Bowen's The Hotel, Woolf's Orlando, and Compton MacKenzie's satirical novel Extraordinary Women. Unlke The Well, none of them were banned. A fifth novel that year, Ladies Almanack, is a roman à clef of a lesbian literary and artistic salon in Paris and circulated at first within those circles; Susan Sniader Lanser calls it a "sister-text" to Hall's landmark work , as its American author Djuna Barnes includes a character based on Radclyffe Hall and passages that may be a response to The Well.
 * So Foster and Lanser are worked into the text. (By the way, I've found a few copyediting errors, but won't tweak the article proper till we've agreed wording on this; I did add a date to the refs.) BrainyBabe (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I need to get the entire paragraph in context:

"In the 20th century, Katherine Mansfield, Amy Lowell, Gertrude Stein, H.D., Virginia Woolf, Vita Sackville-West, and Gale Wilhelm wrote popular works that had same-sex relationships or gender transformations as themes. Some women, such as Marguerite Yourcenar and Mary Renault wrote or translated works of fiction that focused on homosexual men, like some of the writings of Carson McCullers. All three were involved in same-sex relationships, but their primary friendships were with gay men. Foster further asserts 1928 was a "peak year"; in addition to The Well of Loneliness, three other novels with lesbian themes were published in England: Elizabeth Bowen's The Hotel, Woolf's Orlando, and Compton MacKenzie's satirical novel Extraordinary Women." , Unlke The Well of Loneliness, none of these other lesbian-themed novels were banned. "

I did a little bit of copy editing. I think the above is a nice addition. What's below, still, is not clear how important Ladies Almanack is the way it is written. My primary concern is the integrity of future edits. If sources do not say outright that Ladies Almanack was widely influential or somehow the result of a trend in publishing, there's not a way to keep the article free of everyone's favorite lesbian-themed books. There are a few critically acclaimed novels where scholars say a particular book is a response to another, or well-written, but not necessarily a trend in publishing. Without a source to say this book is part of a larger, global perspective in lesbian-themed literature, it's kind of hanging there. If more editors decide to highlight particular works not mentioned as trend-setting, it shifts the article from sources-driven material to editor-driven material. What do you think of a footnote for it? --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"A fifth novel that year, Ladies Almanack, is a roman à clef of a lesbian literary and artistic salon in Paris and circulated at first within those circles; Susan Sniader Lanser calls it a "sister-text" to Hall's landmark work, as its American author Djuna Barnes includes a character based on Radclyffe Hall and passages that may be a response to The Well ."

Edit to add: Emma Donoghue came out with an overview of lesbian literature last year. I haven't read it yet. I used three sources for this section: Foster, Terry Castle, and Lilian Faderman. It might be worth it to check out Donoghue's book to see what she says about stuff. Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can live with that: the paragraph as you've consolidated it above, with Ladies Almanack in a footnote. NB there appears to be a stray comma in the sentence beginning "Some women, such as Marguerite Yourcenar and Mary Renault wrote or translated works of fiction". (I noticed a few other comma-type quibbles, as mentioned earlier, but will wait on those.) Also, the repetition of "lesbian-themed" in the final sentence of the proposed paragraph may be more than is needed, but I leave that to your taste. Thanks for the pointer to the Donoghue book. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I made the edit. One final question: the cite (Lanser, 1979, p. 39.): there is only one Lanser mentioned in the References list, and that's the intro to Barnes 1992. Is this the same book or a different one? Can you clarify that? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the change. The note about Ladies Almanack now reads "as its Barnes includes a character", whereas I had proposed "as its American author Barnes includes a character". Her nationality is nowhere mentioned in the article, and the note refers to the Paris salon, so it seems reasonable to make it clear where she was coming from. The Lanser cite is the one I provided above, within this thread. Again:
 * Speaking in Tongues: "Ladies Almanack" and the Language of Celebration. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies.
 * Vol. 4, No. 3, Lesbian History (Autumn, 1979), pp. 39-46
 * Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3346147
 * I might come back with comma-quibbles elsewhere in the article another time. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

History of lesbianism article
I'm bringing this topic up here because there are more people here (watching the Lesbian article), and because History of Lesbianism is related to it. On to my concerns: I feel that "the history of lesbianism" is already covered quite well here at the Lesbian article. Therefore, I question whether we really need a History of Lesbianism article. It's mostly unsourced, and surely what is there can be covered here. As I touched on, the Lesbian article covers most of the history of lesbianism. This makes the History of lesbianism article seem like some small, missing part of it. It needs a better, more specific title if we are going to keep it. It used to be called Sapphic love. So maybe a rename to that? Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is good potential to expand the history of lesbianism. There certainly are good sources to do this. Someone has to do it, however. I wrote this one, so someone else--or several someones--should write the history of lesbianism article. --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But, Moni, my point is that I feel this article (Lesbian) more so represents the history of lesbianism, and that the History of lesbianism article seems like some poor, not even half-written, knock-off. To make that article about "the history of lesbianism," it would need to be like this one to be as accurate as possible...and then it would simply be redundant. Right now, it needs to be either merged or renamed, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. My point is that there is much more information about the history of lesbianism than this article can provide. History of lesbianism is a poor, half-written knock-off because someone hasn't rewritten it. Someone should. This one took me about 2 months to write. It just takes access to really good books (a decent college library would have them) and a lot of dedication. Nothing really more is necessary. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that more can be stated. I still feel that it would largely be redundant to the Lesbian article if expanded considerably...considering that the Lesbian article already covers so much about this topic (thanks to you, which is greatly appreciated and respected). That's why I'm still not seeing that article's title (History of lesbianism) as the best. You say there is much more that article can say on the matter, but I say it's not like every extensive detail about lesbianism is expected to be in either article (here or there). There is also the fact that WP:SIZE is not a factor for relevant information that is suited here. More could be added here on the history of lesbianism, despite WP:SIZE. And right now, the Lesbian article is "it" for most of the information on lesbianism, which I feel will be that way for a long time. It's not like the History of lesbianism article could not be merged until someone is ready to expand it. But I suppose we can wait and see if it grows in the way you seem to believe it is likely to.


 * If you don't mind, I will copy and paste this discussion to Talk:History of lesbianism, after others weigh in (if others weigh in) here, so that it can be there as well, for the consideration of anyone interested in expanding that article in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is by far the longest article I've written on Wikipedia. I cannot read it all in one sitting most days. I don't think it a good idea to add information here. I call it a leviathan of an article.
 * I'm mostly ambivalent about the History of lesbianism article. However, I don't think it should be deleted because someone hasn't accessed the best sources about the history of lesbianism, and it's difficult to say that the Lesbian article has everything necessary to address the topic if those sources have not been consulted. Because an article is awful, poorly written, unsourced, and just plain aesthetically ugly (these are generic terms that I don't apply to the History of lesbianism article) doesn't mean it should be removed from Wikipedia.
 * Ok, so I've made my point. I'll let others weigh in in the discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. Still, articles that are largely unsourced and felt to be better covered elsewhere are deleted or merged all the time. That's often how Wikipedia works, whether I always agree or not. Anyway, thanks for weighing in and indulging me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2011
 * I'd say leave it there. Give it a few years, and it may grow into a more comprehensive treatment than this article can provide. -- JN 466  02:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A few years? Yikes. I can wait, but I still feel that it should not be titled History of lesbianism, until it is sufficiently about the history of lesbianism. Right now, this article (Lesbian) covers most of that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Men have historically shaped
"Men have historically shaped ideas about what is respectable for women in love, sex, and family," Respectable is subjective, there is no set of universally respectable standards for women. Ideas are communal and formed without discriminating the gender of an individual. It's absurd to say that, historically, only one half of the population identified and expressed ideas. Male opinions may have been more influential for reasons relating to aggression and fear, but that doesn't mean women didn't contribute to ideas.

Also, "Historically, men have shaped" would be more accurate since "historically shaped ideas" could indicate ideas shaped by history. OhSqueezy (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I know! It's crazy to think that for several hundred years women were not allowed to engage in intellectual pursuits that would have led to their recorded opinions about sex and sexuality! But there you go. Sources make this point multiple times, so it's an integral part of this article.
 * The article does not say that there is an immovable standard for women to behave respectably through time across the globe. Just that, for a particular time or place, men have set the standards of what it means for women to be respectable.
 * As for where to place "historically", until the past century men have written history, and thus ideas shaped by the history they have written, it seems to be an accurate statement. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Squeezy's point (one of them, anyway, the last one) is that "Men have historically shaped ideas" could be read as "Historically, men have done this" or "Men possess such ideas" making it a vague sentence.
 * Squeezy's main point, however, seems to be doubt as to whether the clause is true as written. Chrisrus (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If the sentence was supposed to read that men have ideas shaped by history, would that not need a hyphen, as in "Men have historically-shaped ideas"? --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a good explanation about using a hyphen in this situation on Wikipedia: Hyphen. I think in this case, if the unintended meaning was intended, a hyphen would be appropriate but not necessary.


 * I think the sentence is true, actually. However, I'm saying that women have formed ideas about women as well, and the sentence is either implying that is false or ignoring that fact.  Let's look at it this way, if a child watches their mother, the child will form ideas about female roles that were shaped by a woman.


 * To summarize, I'm saying this is an unreferenced assumption about the formation of ideas, and it detracts quality from an otherwise well-researched article. I think a lot of what you said in your comment would be more appropriate, particularly that women have been threatened by alienation, oppression, or punishment while pursuing new standards.  This approach has the added benefit of empowering women.  It's also true and easily referenced. OhSqueezy (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not unreferenced. Citations are not required for the lead and in fact it is mentioned so frequently by so many sources in the body of the article that citing it in the lead would be a bit ridiculous. While I agree personally that naturally women help form other women's opinions in society, there isn't a way we can look back on 12th century France, ancient Rome, or modern-day Yemen and find out what women thought/think of sex because their ideas are not recorded.


 * The article should not set out to empower women. It should just summarize what sources have written about what "lesbian" means and how female homosexuality has been practiced and perceived. The pursuing new standards while being alienated, oppressed, punished, and threatened--I'm not sure this falls within the scope of what the sources are addressing. While some women are threatened and punished, and keeping women ignorant and subservient to the point of telling them what sex is, what makes it good, what makes it virtuous, and how to attain a saintly glow in one's life is oppressive, much of what you described seems to be feminism, which has only been around--as a movement--since the mid 19th century. The article covers much more in scope. The lead also accurately describes the core issue: men have defined--and often continue to--what lesbians are and how valid or not their relationships are. Replacing this wording with more general terms like alienation, oppression, or punishment, makes that idea more vague.


 * If I misunderstood your point, please clarify or perhaps offer rewording of what you think the sentence or passage in particular should be. Keep in mind it must summarize the points made in the body of the article. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My suggestion: "Historically, the male-dominated standard for respectable female relationships in love, sex, and family has either omitted lesbianism, rejecting its possibility, or regarded it as an invalid expression of sexuality. More recently, this standard has been challenged and abjured by various lesbian and feminist movements."  I think this connects with the article well, particularly the section regarding second wave feminism. OhSqueezy (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's a start. My nitpick with this is that standards don't reject or regard, people do. The people who set the standards and then follow them. What about this: "Historically, men have set the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality. More recently, these standards have been challenged and abjured by various feminist movements."
 * Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To me, that says men have set a precedent for what is respectable female behavior. I understand standards has two meanings, but I read precedent or level of quality when the word set is used.  How about replacing set with defined?  This is also more concise, which I think is appropriate for the introduction.


 * "Historically, men have defined the ascendant standards in society, often overlooking, omitting, or rejecting lesbianism. These standards, traditionally approved and observed by most, have more recently been challenged and abjured by various feminist movements." OhSqueezy (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer an amalgamation: "Historically, men have defined/created the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality. More recently, these standards have been challenged and abjured by various feminist movements." This is accurate to the multiple points made my sources, and still explains the issues plainly. While brevity is necessary in the lead, this point, that men create the standards for relationships, love, and sex, should be made clear. This sentence has had to be rewritten a couple times to make it clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Most importantly, "have often overlooked" is more correct. Otherwise, I feel you're not recognizing the clarity and sophistication of the other statement, which includes everything you want explained about relationships and respect.  If men have created the standards for society, they've created standards for love, sex, and all relationships.  And if that were somehow unclear, the statement mentions lesbianism specifically as a subject relating to the standards.  The word standards implies connotatively good things like respect.  Lastly, the word ascendant is crucial because it addresses the fact that there were other standards in existence, though they were recognized by few, if any, individuals. OhSqueezy (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This statement is a broad generalization that disregards boundaries of nations and cultures. It seems there is a group policing this article seeking to gain legitimacy of the concept that "Men have historically shaped women's sexuality". But as the article states, it is an opinion promoted by feminist writer "Naomi McCormick". If activism is your goal, do not promote it on Wikipedia. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Following a discussion where the last post was made 13 months ago on this talk page (see here), User:Elephanthunter has removed the statement Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality. from the lead without providing any valid reason other than a vague accusation of POV sexism in an edit summary.

Because this continues to be addressed on the talk page, it's probably about time I have to spell this out for editors who have not read the body of the article.

In Origin and transformation of the term:
 * Magnus Hirschfeld, Richard von Krafft-Ebbing, and Havelock Ellis define normal sexual types for men and women. They are defining norms in sexuality. Lesbianism is considered a mental defect.

In Identity and gender:
 * Women in the U.S. who could not visit Harlem or live in Greenwich Village for the first time were able to visit saloons in the 1920s without being considered prostitutes. The existence of a public space for women to socialize in bars that were known to cater to lesbians "became the single most important public manifestation of the subculture for many decades", according to historian Lillian Faderman.
 * The issues of economic independence from men is also addressed in Great Depression. Also: The increased mobility, sophistication, and independence of many women during and after the war made it possible for women to live without husbands, something that would not have been feasible under different economic and social circumstances, further shaping lesbian networks and environments.
 * Postwar years: In 1952 homosexuality was listed as a pathological emotional disturbance in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Female homosexuality without identity:
 * Right there in a blockquote: Because of society's reluctance to admit that lesbians exist, a high degree of certainty is expected before historians or biographers are allowed to use the label. Evidence that would suffice in any other situation is inadequate here... A woman who never married, who lived with another woman, whose friends were mostly women, or who moved in known lesbian or mixed gay circles, may well have been a lesbian. ... But this sort of evidence is not 'proof'. What our critics want is incontrovertible evidence of sexual activity between women. This is almost impossible to find.
 * Female sexuality is often not adequately represented in texts and documents. Until very recently, much of what has been documented about women's sexuality has been written by men, in the context of male understanding, and relevant to women's associations to men—as their wives, daughters, or mothers, for example.
 * Most of the Ancient Greece and Rome section also addresses this.
 * The 2nd paragraph of the Early Modern Europe section, starting Ideas about women's sexuality were linked to contemporary understanding of female physiology.
 * To a lesser extent in the first paragraph of Re-examining romantic friendships. But certainly the last paragraph: Faderman calls this period "the last breath of innocence" before 1920 when characterizations of female affection were connected to sexuality, marking lesbians as a unique and often unflattering group. Specifically, Faderman connects the growth of women's independence and their beginning to reject strictly prescribed roles in the Victorian era to the scientific designation of lesbianism as a type of aberrant sexual behavior.

Outside Western cultures:
 * Paragraph on Middle East, all of it.
 * Africa, the discussion about the definition of sex in Lesotho.
 * Asia, the discussion about sexuality among men and women in China, and what is considered virtuous in Korea. Note also the repeated issue that there is no term for lesbian in many Asian cultures.

Media representation:
 * The entire section.

Current issues of lesbians:
 * The subsection Lesbian chic and popular culture addresses selective packaging of lesbians or women who admit to sexual histories with other women to appeal to heterosexual men.
 * In Sexuality and lesbians, According to feminist writer Naomi McCormick, women's sexuality is constructed by men, whose primary indicator of lesbian sexual orientation is sexual experience with other women. The same indicator is not necessary to identify a woman as heterosexual, however. McCormick states that emotional, mental, and ideological connections between women are as important or more so than the genital.

Returning to the sentence that was removed, Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality. it is quite clear that multiple sources addressing disparate issues acknowledge that men shape women's sexuality by telling them what is good and what is not. While the concept behind this may be sexist, there is no POV, and certainly not mine, involved in this summary. Without it in the lead it does not fully summarize the concepts presented in the article. There is no reason to remove it, and it should be replaced immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Let the reader make such assumptions by the content of the article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Requested a neutral third party to look into this and added a dispute tag --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just provided at least 14 separate examples of cited statements in the article, some of these are entire sections cited by multiple sources, that illustrate that
 * lesbianism is often invisible, not considered a valid expression of sexuality in many forms of media
 * men have constructed ideas about women's roles in relationships for thousands of years in multiple societies
 * women have been subservient to men in relationships, and unable to associate with other women for economic or social reasons
 * So I'm at a loss here. What is the reason this sentence is being removed? Can you provide sourced material to refute this? Is it the wording of the statement? Should it read differently while still summarizing the same major points? I simply do not understand. It is very, like...blindingly clear to me, that multiple sources make these points. Such a concept made by so many sources needs to be covered in the lead of the article. You respond with Let the reader make such assumptions by the content of the article. What does this even mean? This is your argument? This is the reason why you think the 14 cited statements that cover these concepts should not be included in the lead? Surely you know this is not a valid response and will be dismissed not just by me, but by anyone familiar with content disputes. --Moni3 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence you provided does not support the claim. It's a broad generalization, the propaganda of Naomi McCormick, and does not belong in the article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * McCormick is one of many sources to make statements that justify the sentence in the lead. If your issue is with McCormick, please present why using this as a source is unacceptable. Why is McCormick not a reliable source? If your issue is McCormick, should you not then present your argument to her instead of this article?
 * Again, McCormick is one of multiple sources to address this. You would also have to remove Aldrich, Faderman (both), Hamer, Foster, Castle, Rabinowitz, Russo, Streitmatter, Brenshoff, Tropiano, Verstraete, Sullivan & Jackson, Murray & Roscoe, and Schlager, and give valid reasons why each of these sources is not considered reliable. --Moni3 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like the authors you mention, we should stick to specific cultures, men, and points in history. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what this means. Please help me out here. You're responding with one or two sentences that are enigmatic at best. I'm responding with huge lists of statements, sources, authors, and evidence. You're not. Why am I working so hard to address this? The article is, in my opinion, very clear about these issues. If it's not and I'm just crazy then make concrete suggestions as to how it can be improved. Offer sources. Offer ways to reword if the idea is not being expressed as well as it can be. You've offered nothing so far, just your personal dislike of one source and these incoherent minimalist statements. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have evidence, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Which of those authors you mention came to the same conclusion as you? --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What? What conclusion? I don't understand what you're....what? Do you understand what original research means? That it's my opinion--or yours, inserted into the article without sourcing? I have no opinion on this. These points are made by the sources. Do you understand that sources, experts, historians, professors, authors, make these points? Not me. --Moni3 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the tactic you use on everybody? You're going to mock me like you did to OhSqueezy? I can't do this. We need a third party opinion. You took evidence for specific instances and used them to generalize the men. Read: The sources you mention do not support the conclusion in your summary. If you have no opinion then you should stop policing this article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If by "tactic" you mean "efficient communication", then yes. I pretty much "use it" on everybody. I'm such an asshole, what with assuming you should know what you're talking about. But for clarity, this is the deal: you can't really back up your claim that the statement is NPOV or sexist, but you accuse me of inserting original research into the article. That's pretty much the definition of original research: you don't think this statement belongs in the article, so you remove it despite the fact that all the sources listed back it up. Then you say the logical summary in the lead is a conclusion I reached, when it's clearly not my conclusion, but a summary of a dozen sources making the same point. You put it in bold for some reason, because, what, that's going to change the fact that you still have no sources to back up your claims, and you cannot speak intelligently why the sources that are currently in the article are unsatisfactory. You edit here and there, gone for 13 months, return. The last time you discussed this, you were relatively content, but not now. And you come to exhibit a rather astonishing lack of knowledge about Wikipedia policy. This is pretty much the reason why I'm semi-retired. This is utter bullshit, a complete waste of time, and I'm starting to think you're trolling. Inb4 NPA. If that gets you hot under the collar, then do some work here. Try to answer with concrete suggestions instead of these enigmatic "let the readers decide" and the various gibberishy statements you seem to like to give. This is not an abstract exercise. Suggest improvements to the article, not taking out the bits you disagree with personally. If you just don't feel like it, let's accelerate this process. Whatever is going to school you the fastest on how to back up your assertions with sources, let's go do it. ANI and topic banning? Probably too early. The Reliable Sources noticeboard? An RfC? Whatever is going to get you to engage in a meaningful manner. If you would rather celebrate your flawless troll victory, go do that too, just somewhere else. --Moni3 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Listen Moni3, I'm not the only person challenging your summary. I replied to an *existing thread*. And you can state as many sources as you want. How many of those make the broad conjectures that you made in your summary? How many of those sources actually intended to blame men? How can that possibly be seen as NPOV statement in an article about Lesbianism? That statement is sourced once! By one Naomi McCormick. And while I don't doubt she is a well-respected sex therapist, it is certainly not noteworthy of being in the summary! You are taking all these specific instances of men in history and advancing your position of blaming men. You are conducting original research through synthesis. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The lead is supposed to summarise the main arguments made in the article; that is not synthesis. -- JN 466  01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the sentence in question: "Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality." Read that again. It's basically saying, Men defined sexuality, and therefore overlook lesbianism. That is not a summary of the content of the article. Who made that claim? --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A dozen sources make this claim. (You like bold, so maybe you will understand me when I say it yet again, but in bold.) They are listed just above here. All you have to do is scroll up to read them. I listed them for you. Good lord, dude. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much? I think you've wasted enough time here with this. If you can't provide some solid reasoning for keeping the NPOV template, it's ready to come down. In 24 hours, if you can't provide a source that refutes the dozen or so already in the article, or you cannot provide solid reasoning why the sources in the article should not be considered reliable, I'm going to remove it. If after that, you decide to replace it and continue this farcical snipe hunt, I'm going to request the attention of ANI. I f*cking hate ANI, too. So, gee...yay. Thanks for that. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article says for example, "Female sexuality is often not adequately represented in texts and documents. Until very recently, much of what has been documented about women's sexuality has been written by men, in the context of male understanding, and relevant to women's associations to men—as their wives, daughters, or mothers, for example." (Rabinowitz) In the Middle East section, it says, "Women, however, were mostly silent and men likewise rarely wrote about lesbian relationships. It is unclear to historians if the rare instances of lesbianism mentioned in literature are an accurate historical record or intended to serve as fantasies for men. A 1978 treatise about repression in Iran asserted that women were completely silenced: "In the whole of Iranian history, [no woman] has been allowed to speak out for such tendencies ... To attest to lesbian desires would be an unforgivable crime."" (Murray & 'Roscoe). There are other such passages indicated by Moni3 above. It means that most attested writings are by men, and men didn't write much about this because they had no first-hand experience of it. -- JN 466  13:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence sticks out because it makes serious accusations that do not necessarily apply to all cultures. The most obvious example is the word "Lesbian", which originates from the island Lesbos and has survived since ancient Greek culture. A summary should not pick and choose what moments in history are included. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Break

 * If I may, I think the point of the sentence in question is that, at first at least, it was viewed as pathological, and this upset lesbians, many of whom didn't appreciate being treated as "sick" individuals, as if in need of a cure. This explains the reactions referred to in the sentence that follows.  I could be wrong about that, though, but if that's what it's saying then why not say that in so many or similar words.  You've got these early sources all of which take the point of view that this is pathological, and then you've got all these lesbians saying "no, it's not, and you wouldn't be saying that if you weren't all men", or some such, if these early lesbians can be found to be pretty united in saying so, could be put forward as their historically significant point of view.
 * I do think, and have been saying so for some time, that this explanation of the pathological point of view should not be stated as fact because many women also may have tended then as now tend to view it as a problem in need of fixing: I'm thinking for example of mothers of lesbians, who, like most mothers, and for pretty obvious reasons if you think about it having to do with evolutionary psychology, tend to be very interested in seeing their offspring reproduce, and therefore they reacted to a lesbian daughter as an individual with a problem in need of fixing from their point of view; they quite logically might have worried that a lesbian state would lower the chances of their daughters reproducing successfully. So that explains why they dragged their daughters to these early doctors, who, for complicated historical reasons, yes, happened to be pretty much all men at the time, but it could easily have been a mother saying something like "fix this problem with my daughter, doctor, I'm at my wit's end, what's wrong with her yadda yadda", and so the doctor was just trying to help and looked into it and wrote about it as a problem in need of fixing.  I think even if they had all been female doctors at the time and even if the society had been a matriarchy; I don't see how it would made any difference if the reason for the pathological perspective comes from the perception that it lowers the statistical chances of reproducing, which is statistically true but not a viewed as a problem so much any more unless maybe it's your daughter.
 * But again, none of this is to say that lesbiansism is pathological, per se, any more than some monk who takes a vow never to have sex at all, or someone who chooses to remain childless by using birth control, and so on. These states are only pathological if you view things that lower your chances to reproduce as pathological.  In fact, it occurs to me, lesbianism is less likely to lead to childlessness than these other states, as many lesbians do, in fact, have children, although of course not nearly as often as heterosexual women do.  And of course these states don't harm the individual as in the normal meaning of the term "pathological" kind of implies.  And certainly conditions that lower the chances of reproducing are viewed today as mostly none of anyone's business but their own and not a problem unless the individual thinks so, and in any case can be dealt with today by artificial insemination or some such, so most people today don't view lesbianism as pathological, although I assume there are still many such mothers and fathers who still view it as a problem they wish could be fixed and may still drag her to the doctor and ask about hormome treatments or some such, athough if the do that today the reaction would likely be for the doctor to explain the modern non-pathological perspective and reproductive alternatives.  My point is this: it isn't obvious equally to everyone that the only possible reason lesbianism was orignally viewed as pathological by those early sources lays simply in the fact that the authors were all men and the society male dominated, because other reasons having to do with evolutionay psychology exist to explain the pathological view even if everyone involved had not been male.  I think that is why again and again, people who don't see the explanation for the early pathological view given in the article as obvious a fact as the article presently does, that such people read that sentence; therefore look at that sentence and object, and will probably continue to do so until some compromise wording such as the first part of this post or some such can be found.  Chrisrus (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "Men have, in the past, shaped ideas..." - and I agree that the statement is true. One only has to think about voting and various nasty practices regarding female mutilation to begin to see that society has been unbalanced for some time. We have nmanaged (as a society rather than as sexes) to restore some balance but there is yet a long way to go. How many Prime-ministers, how many presidents have been women? Chaosdruid (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that voting and various nasty practices prove that society has been like that for a long time, and that it continues to be, in a manner of speaking, "a man's world". I don't think that these facts prove that the only reasonable explanation for the early sources having seen the phonomenon as a problem in need of solving.  I think the simplest explanation for that is the evolutionary psychology of parents responding to a state of being that would seem to lesson the chances of procration causing parents to bring lesbian daughters to early scientists for "fixing".  To inject some objectivity, please imagine you had a vested interest in the procreation of a group of non-human animals, for example, such as a horse breeder or some such, and you found that one of your prized individuals would only mate with others of its own gender.  You would see it as a problem and want to fix it.  Look at what Freud and the rest had to say about it at the time and it seems consistant with this analysis - a state of sexuality that is focused on the "wrong" object if one is going to procreate, that being the "proper" (in their view) purpose for sexual behavior.  It's the same as a their view of a man who spends all of his sexual energy on a fetish, or who lacked a sexual drive, these people are also viewed the same way in the early works, and that's clearly not because men worried about controling women and the society being sexist because the referents in these cases are not female.  Lesbianism was mearly listed in those old sources among many "deviant" sexual conditions, many or not most of which were primarliy conditions affecting primarly men.  Therefore,the statement should be phrased as a summary of the opinon of notable lesbian theorists, not as a simple fact that this was definately the reason early sources viewed it as a disorder, in turn causing the reactions that follow in the following sentences.  It's easy to understand why lesbians would object to being seen as "sick" people with a mental disorder and respond as described with that analysis and in the other ways described, and the readers would not continue to periodically object to that sentence as being a statement of personal point of view being presented as a statement of knowable objective fact.  Chrisrus (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, early sexologists viewed lesbianism as pathological because they believed all forms of "devient" sexuality were pathological, not because they were sexist. See Freud, for example, he doesn't discriminate between male and female sexual "devients".  Nor do the others.  Furthermore, there is no more reason to believe that heterosexal women are less prone to this view it as pathological than anyone else.  Chrisrus (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence in question communicates an inaccurate and offensive meaning, and should be reworded. The implied universal extent should be qualified for different societies and individuals' power and action. If that's done, I have no other problems. --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you explain, especially in light of the 14 examples of cited statements in the section above "Break", how the sentence is both offensive and inaccurate, please? I am unable to tell if there is a genuine problem in communication (i.e. Elephanthunter is not expressing him/herself clearly and I certainly do not understand his/her points), or if this is the result of the widespread misunderstanding about editor-driven material vs. sources-driven material (i.e. most editors come to Wikipedia to offer their constructed knowledge without it being cited, although Wikipedia has since shifted to reflecting what reliable sources have published). I genuinely do have the neutrality of the article at heart, but other editors participating in the discussion should understand that the sources make these points. If the statement in the lead is an insufficient summary made by the sources, what would be a better one? --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you say to a re-wording that simply factually states that the early sexologists treated it that way, without any discussion of their motivations? From there, it would flow naturally into the following idea, that these early Lesbian defenders reacted as they did, and as a part of that reaction viewed the early sexologists as motivated by sexism.  Insodoiing, it wouldn't be us saying that they were so motivated, it would be simply part of a summary of what notable thinkers said.  We wouldn't be saying they were so motivated, we would be saing that OTHERS said that they were so motivated.  Now that would be a non-controvertial statement of fact, if we could be sure that it were well supported and cited in the body.  And by that I mean something like a direct quote from "Extremely Early Lesbian Publication" saying "the pathological perspective is a product of a sexist society and if those sexologists were women they wouldn't have seen it that way" or some such.  We could say that in those early reactions to being portaryed as in that way, they, they attributed those motivations to those they were talking back to, so we should wait until that point to introduce the motivation, and to put it in proper perspective as their understanding of why the early sexologists saw it the way they did, not ours, not Wikipedia's understanding of it.  Hope this helps! Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting adding something like "Historians and scholars have noted that historically, men have formed..."? Or a direct quote from a historian in the lead? --Moni3 (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that it should state something like "Historians' findings indicate that men have, more often than women, written about and publicly circumscribed many elements of women's sexuality." --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is becoming silly. There is no doubt that societies in the past have been overwhelmingly male dominated. It has been men who have made the laws and determined moral and medical norms. There is overwhelming evidence of this, so this should not be an issue. The issue is what significance this undeniable fact has for the ways in which lesbianism has been defined. I think there is a lot of confusion about this. Early sexologists certainly considered lebianism to be mentally deviant, but they thought that about male homosexuality too, so it's doubtful whether that can be considered to be sexist. By definition if both sexes are treated the same, it isn't sexist. As for earlier views, you could argue that the invisibility of lesbianism as an issue is sexist, but sexist in a way that actually assists lesbians. It was not typically legislated against under sodomy laws. In fact, historically, it did not matter. An inclination to lesbian acts actually made it less likely that women would have affairs with other men, so they lessened the likelihood that a wife would conceive another man's child. At a time when child-bearing, not sexual intimacy, was the essential point of marriage, that was important. There was a case in medieval Ireland in which a woman got off a charge of adultery because she had (allegedly) been made pregnant as a result of lesbian sex with another woman. Semen recently deposited by the second woman's husband was transferred during that act. In that case it was concluded that she had done nothing wrong at all. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Except for the "silly" comment, I completly agree. Yes, we all know it was a sexist society and that all early sexologists were men, but as you so clearly state that is not the issue.  The question is whether, as the article states, those two facts alone explain the pathological view of lesbianism by early sources.  Or rather, the question is whether this has been established in the body to the extent that this is a good statement for the lead.  Yes, the simplest explanation for that would seem to be the evolutionary psychology to you, Paul, and I as well, but not to them.  I see it as you do, but their assessment is the explanation as explained in the sentence following the one in question:  People don't like being told they are sick and such when they are for the most part usually good and useful people who do what, for them, is natural, and which doesn't seem to be anti-social.  So they reacted as descibed in the lead, and that's important for the lead to say if that's established in the body.  So we are at odds and it's not silly at all or productive to say so and would ask you Paul if you wouldn't mind striking through the "silly" comment for that reason, and also you don't need it; if you'd re-read what you wrote you'll see that it reads perfectly well without it, anyway.  Chrisrus (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The "silly" comment was aimerd at Elephanthunter, as a matter of fact. Hiowever, it named no-one, but rather a "discussion", so I see need to strike through it. Conceding to oversensitivity can itself be a problem, as, IMO, it hampers free discussion. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Moni, you are correct that we need to be specific about what specifically we are suggesting as a way to improve the article. If I may, I'd like to reproduce the section in question here below so maybe we can work on it a little: Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality. Early sexologists based their characterization of lesbians on their beliefs that women who challenged their strictly prescribed gender roles were mentally ill. Since then, many lesbians have often reacted to their designation as immoral outcasts by constructing a subculture based on gender role rebellion. More recently, these standards have been challenged and abjured by various feminist movements. My first though would be to simply eliminate the first sentence so that it reads "Early sexologists...". Although you don't agree, I, and more importantly a procession of readers for some time now, see the implication that the sexolgists in question clearly arrived at that conclusion entirely because they were men and therefore couldn't see something you'd have to be a woman to see, or that they, as products of a sexist society, were, consciously or not, trying to keep lesbianism down because it threatens patriarchy somehow and they were programed to defend it. I just don't read that in the fourteen points, which seem to me to establish not this position about the early sexologists but rather the simple statement that those (and these) times are sexist and yes they were men. That you've proven at those fourteen points. But those same sexolgists were catagorizing many times of sexual behavior or states of being in that way, not only lesbianism.

So if that's agreed it would then look like this: Early sexologists based their characterization of lesbians on their beliefs that women who challenged their strictly prescribed gender roles were mentally ill. Since then, many lesbians have often reacted to their designation as immoral outcasts by constructing a subculture based on gender role rebellion. More recently, these standards have been challenged and abjured by various feminist movements.

I would simplify this somehow:

Early sexologists based their characterized lesbianism as mental illness. Since then, many lesbians have often reacted to their designation as immoral outcasts by constructing a subculture based on gender role rebellion. More recently, these standards have been challenged and abjured by various feminist movements.

I feel something is missing. We want to move smoothy from the old way of looking at it to the time it was removed by that international psychological association removed it from the lists of known pathological conditions, and their reasoning for doing so. We need to understand how we got here from there, and more should be filled in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs)


 * Just for posterity--and to anyone reading--when the conversation veers into more abstract issues, like interpreting history and whatnot, I'm declining to respond. Mostly that is because it's not really up to us to interpret what these issues are. The sources do it best, and they're fully cited with page numbers. Anyone needing to check out why the article says what it does should go read the sources. Both Chrisrus and Paul Barlow make interesting comments, and it's a very engaging discussion to address how women's sexuality has been formed, which has led to lesbianism as a political minority. I have thoughts on this (and would be glad to wax on about it on my talk page), but this is clearly a long and too-complicated discussion, so I'm abstaining from commenting on anything unless it involves what the sources say and how that is summarized in the article.


 * I like concrete suggestions, as Chrisrus and Fennasnogothrim have offered (I would like to know if Fennasnogothrim still thinks this sentence is offensive and inaccurate, however). This is a collaborative project and I do not wish to WP:OWN articles, and for the most part, I don't think I do that. Instead, I expect that editors who wish to make changes to the article become familiar with what the sources say and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, offer to work on improving the article, and if they disagree with what is presented, offer other sourcing that refutes what is already in the article.


 * Now, to point: Fennasnogothrim's suggestion, Historians' findings indicate that men have, more often than women, written about and publicly circumscribed many elements of women's sexuality is well-written and covers what seems to be the first half of the controversy: that men construct ideas about women's sexuality. It leaves out the issues of symbolic annihilation, or lesbian invisibility, and I would like to know if Fennasnogothrim left it out because s/he overlooked it, or simply disagrees with it. Lesbian invisibility, as Paul Barlow has pointed out above, is a repeated theme and is covered in both the history and media discussions in the Lesbian article.


 * Chrisrus' suggestion and apparently Elephanthunter's too, is to remove the sentence entirely. This, however, does not summarize the points made by sources that men throughout history have constructed ideas about women's sexuality. Not just starting with the sexologists at the turn of the 20th century, but for thousands of years (most of the Female homosexuality without identity section and Media representation section) and in multiple societies (see Outside Western cultures). I'd like to ask Chrisrus why this has been omitted. Simply because it's controversial, as it has been repeatedly challenged here on the talk page (in my opinion, without much substance) and it would be easier and more peaceful to leave it out? I hope not. I think we should, at least, be intelligent enough to tackle a controversy soberly. Controversies in articles like Waterboarding take some work to find the right wording, but it's necessary to reflect what the best sources say. If the sentence in question is removed, a major portion of the article remains unsummarized in the lead. This is my primary concern.


 * I'm very pleased to see the conversation moving in a more constructive direction and I'm eager to discuss improving the article. --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You clearly believe that “men throughout history have constructed ideas about women's sexuality” is a fair summary of those sections of the body of the article. But what does it mean? In context, it seems to be offered as an explanation for the negative way lesbianism was portrayed by early sexologists. So it seems like your understanding of the body is this: “men throughout history….sexuality” is the reason for this part “Early sexologists (saw it as a pathology)“. As if, had these sexologists been women, they would have been less inclined to see it that way! But women in general even to this day are not less inclined to it that view than any other group of people. They saw it that way because they saw anything that got in the way of procreation as pathological. If you want to do something such as restating it along the lines of “because early sexologists were sexist men, they looked at it as a pathology” that’d at least have the advantage of being laying bare the problem with the statement. It would at least be clearer if it said “Because (they were men and products of a sexist society), they saw it (thusly).” At least then it’d have the courage of it’s convictions. But don't do that because it's not established in the article.

So Moni, if I may, let me just come out and ask you this in so many words: Is the pathological view of lesbianism confined only to men or explained completely as a product of a sexist society, or is that something less than certain?

Also, I think something like this would help foster objectivity: how would an objective observer from another planet look upon a giraffe that always refused to mate with males and instead spent all her time mounting other females? See? At first blush, it’s clear that something is wrong with such an individual. If the giraffe isn't complaining and the other females are happy with it, where's the harm? And not only that, but also we speaking of humans, and that's different. Humans are not simply biological machines that should be seen as broken if they don’t focus 100% on procreation all the time. Humans who have fewer children than they could aren't broken. We aren’t animals and can choose birth control and childlessness and so on because we aren’t just animals and biology is not destiny, although it is to some extent not so much with people. These are amoung the thoughts on this topic that lead to the modern view seem to me also include not offending people with the common expert opinion of lesbianism. And it's just rude to talk about people who haven't asked your opinion and they themselves don‘t see themselves as having a problem. The modern idea of tolerance and of minding one’s own business, and not classifying people as sick just because they don’t choose to procreate, that there being a little thing called “personal choice” that apply to things that do not harm society or anyone else and if they do result in one not procreating well then that’s their problem only if they see it as a problem themselves. And also, there are many ways lesbians can get pregnant, originally I assume by just somehow shutting their eyes and lying back and thinking of the baby that could result despite one’s inherent complete %100 lesbian nature and nowadays invitrofertilization and such.

If all that sounds way too complicated to do justice to in the article, I’d agree and would hope that you’d also agree that’s a very good reason to avoid the topic of reading motivations behind the thoughts actually stated. It's enough just say that they did believe this or that, and forget about why we think they believe this or that. We should say that the older sources were like this, and that caused a reaction like that, and today it's mostly seen like this, and leave the mind-reading alone. Chrisrus (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Chrisrus, you have a good point, but please separate it into modular parts. (a bulleted list would be helpful)


 * Moni3 - much of the article, including the post-war section, indicates that (generally) Western men proliferated literature and art with strong lesbian themes. The treatment of lesbians and the discourses surrounding them seem to vary per-culture, with a similarity among divergent (later convergent?) cultures of focus on promoting heterosexual relationships in preference to homosexual relationships.


 * I don't think the silence regarding lesbianism is a large enough part of the article to be in the summary. Consider: did people really talk about sexual identity (itself) much before the 19th/20th/21st centuries? (this is briefly mentioned in the article) Given more content that applied exclusively to lesbianism, I would change my mind. Otherwise, such content should be kept per-culture, as precisely as possible.


 * If it applies more generally to Gender identity, as I think this does, then it should go in that article.
 * --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Break II
I read Chrisrus' and Fennasnogothrim's comments this morning, and once again, I'm confused and not sure we're all having the same discussion. I have no doubt that were we all physically in the same room this would probably be cleared up in 10 minutes. Or at least we would have some kind of common understanding of what we're talking about. As it is, I'm...again stymied, and the time it's taking to come to some understanding is not helped by the fact that I'm away from the computer for hours at a time.

So clearly there is a conflict and I cannot ascertain the source of it. On Wikipedia, conflicts come from these issues:
 * 1) Sources used in an article are insufficient, either in number or quality.
 * 2) Sources are ok, but the way they are summarized is inadequate: undue weight on one or two issues, or coverage is not comprehensive
 * 3) Sources are ok, summary of them is ok, but the writing is not: it's full of jargon, or entire passages are clumsily worded. Perhaps an entire article is organized oddly.
 * 4) Sources, summaries, and writing are all ok, but readers or editors still protest something in an article.

I took the time away from the computer to try to break this down as simply as possible. In my experience, most conflicts are borne of #1, #2, and #3, whereby I suggest rewriting the entire article or I just go ahead and do it myself, which is what I did with this article. In my perspective, the potential sources of conflict for this article I answer with:


 * 1) I think the sources are fine. The article cannot include everything ever written about lesbians or lesbianism, but when I planned to write the article, I went to a major university library and checked out everything I could on lesbians. I didn't use everything I checked out because the article has to be a general overview of issues.
 * 2) Perhaps I did not summarize the sources effectively. This is always possible. I have to decide what to include and what not to include. I made my decision based on the amount of weight the sources put on certain issues. Inevitably, I color the articles I write with some of my own values although I try not to do this. If this is a concern, other editors should read the sources and check what I've done; that's why the sources are cited.
 * 3) Perhaps it is a matter of wording. It is clear to me, but some things are clear to me when they are very unclear to others. I am unable to see if this conflict is caused by the wording of the sentence in particular, or the fourth reason
 * 4) If the above points are sufficient, there is no defensible position that readers or other editors can ask something to be changed. Sources are there, summary is there, writing is clear, so what is the issue? In my experience writing articles (20 FAs, about 12 GAs), when people protest an article following a rewrite, they simply disagree with what experts and authors have written. Fairly often, they simply have not read the entire article and are protesting something in the lead only. To change the article based on individual editors' wishes in this case would be original research.

This is why I continue to return to the same point. From my position, I appear to be the only person in this discussion who has read all the sources cited. Everything else brought up here is abstract. Either I need to acquire more sources, or sources of higher quality, or others need to read the sources to ascertain if my summations of their points is accurate. I cannot answer protests to this sentence that do not address what the sources state. When other participants in this discussion bring in what-ifs or "think about it this way", I cannot respond to that. Either the sources said it or they did not. Either my summary of the information is sufficient or it is not. Either the writing is clear or it is not. If you have read the sources, you can discuss the issues in the article; if you have not, you cannot. It's almost relieving to approach it this way. The issues in the article are not my opinions. It's not my opinion I have to defend here. It's what the sources have stated and my summary of them, then the quality of the writing in the article.

So when Fennasnogothrim states I don't think the silence regarding lesbianism is a large enough part of the article to be in the summary, this is confusing to me. The issue of lesbian invisibility or the lack of consideration that lesbianism is a valid expression of sexuality is peppered throughout the article by multiple sources. It's not that I disagree with Fennasnogothrim, but that the sources state this over and over. I have no opinion on this view. But to construct the article in full, it must be summarized in the lead. I don't understand how anyone here can say what belongs in the article or what does not if they have not consulted the sources.

TL;DR: Requests to change the article cannot be taken into consideration unless you've actually read the sources and understand what the cited experts have to say.

And please, to everyone: make concrete suggestions about how to change the article. Please omit general discussion about issues involving sexuality and sexual orientation. This is already difficult enough. Including discussion about gender theory or anything, basically, that is not related to what a cited or potential source says is dragging this discussion somewhere else. --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Moni3: 

I thought I had read the entire article before, but I obviously forgot some parts. I'm still interested in rewording the statement, so please let me try again.


 * As I understand, I am disputing the following statement:
 * I propose the following replacement:
 * My main goal is to remove the inaccurate generalization from the statement we're discussing, not to silence discourse about the silence on Lesbian life/sexuality/issues.

--Fennasnogothrim (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What would you say to something along the lines of this? "Early sexologists listed lesbianism among known sexual disorders….(and offended lesbians reacted thusly…)" Chrisrus (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fennasnogothrim, if you have explained how the current wording is inaccurate, I have missed that explanation. I would very much like to read the reason you characterize it as such. Of course, per my above overly long breakdown of what is at the heart of this conflict, please provide sources from experts who assert that the points in the article are inaccurate.


 * Let me try a different approach here. Paul Barlow got me thinking in a different direction. Unlike the way that homosexual men have at times enjoyed the freedom to pursue same sex relationships in history, women have not been (as) free to do this. And unlike the way homosexual men at other times have been harshly punished for pursuing same sex relationships, the same punishments have not been applied to women who have been discovered to be in same-sex relationships (unless, of course, they took on male roles--the point is made in the article that women who employed dildos were more harshly punished than women who did not). The reason historians give for women both not being able to pursue same sex relationships, and then escaping the same criminal punishment as homosexual men in the times women were discovered to be in homosexual relationships, is because men did not view lesbian relationships as threatening. They did not see them as comparable in emotional or physical satisfaction that could be enjoyed in a relationship with a man. Women were expected to fulfill family roles to get married, have children, and exist as extensions of men. These issues are addressed and cited in the article in multiple sections.


 * So the way the sentence reads now, there is no comparison in the lead to the treatment homosexual men have had to endure. This is a notable difference and it may work to rewrite the sentence to make this apparent in the lead. Something like:
 * This is still accurate to what is in the article, and cited by reliable sources. It summarizes the main points that women were not free to do as they may have wished (per having their roles in family and relationships ascribed to them by men), and as a result lesbianism as it does not apply to male fantasy has been largely invisible from history. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is still accurate to what is in the article, and cited by reliable sources. It summarizes the main points that women were not free to do as they may have wished (per having their roles in family and relationships ascribed to them by men), and as a result lesbianism as it does not apply to male fantasy has been largely invisible from history. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article must be written in an encyclopedic tone, but if you will, I would like to write down in a different style of English what the section in question means, for you to confirm or correct:
 * First, early sexologists viewed it as described, because they were not women and products of a sexist society.
 * Second, lesbians reacted in the way described.
 * Thank you for your contributions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs)


 * For the issues surrounding early sexologists, I would not word it the way you did here. Early sexologists were attempting to describe, label, and clarify some modes of human behavior to contribute to the growing field of medical knowledge. Because male homosexuality was considered a significant social problem, much like alcoholism or some other criminal behavior, explaining it with whatever understanding they had at the time was considered a social benefit. Some aspects of female homosexuality were similarly viewed as socially problematic. Not the sex part, usually, but the part where some women refused to get married and have children, and thought instead they could live (not wear dresses, vote, live alone, become professional, etc.) without the traditional family structure Western society had known for centuries.
 * So when women who had had homosexual relationships read that they were considered mentally ill, or in a categorization all by themselves, they either rejected the notion and began to hide their private lives or they embraced the status of outcast and created a culture defined by that outcast status: a lesbian identity.
 * I think the because they were not women and products of a sexist society is far too simplistic. The lead cannot skip over those centuries of traditional family roles in Western society that women were expected to fulfill. Women were bound economically and socially to the males in their families. If so inclined, they were not independent enough to seek lesbian relationships and still support themselves financially when they could not work, and were often simply considered property belonging to male family members to marry to whomever paid the highest price. The women who could support themselves were either extremely wealthy or prostitutes. There was a time when women could pursue same-sex relationships and still sustain themselves in romantic friendships, but these relationships were outwardly sexless and not all women had the financial stability to live like this; most required the support of men. Sexologists did not consider romantic friendships problematic because the women in these relationships still seemed to fill social female roles. When some women began to shed the female roles and ask for social privileges similar to what men had, they were then categorized as mentally ill. --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply.
 * To the extent to which your answer to my question is "no" or "not exactly" or some such, I suggest that it be edited in such a way as not to seem like it is saying exactly that. Because that is what it seems to be saying, at least as I read it. Chrisrus (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote in question is, IMO, too easily broken down into the following generalizations:
 * All groups of men are currently susceptible to overlooking lesbianism or considering it invalid.
 * Please explicitly change the "all" to "some", unless you have proof. Any claim of "all" requires absolutely no evidence to the contrary, and a way to certainly prove there is no evidence to the contrary.
 * Historically, men exclusively defined all standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships.
 * In at least one time and place, women contractually defined their relationships with men.
 * Women contributed to texts that established Islamic norms.
 * Aisha, favorite wife of the prophet, wasn't exactly submissive, to say the least. She probably had her say in the Hadith.
 * The generalizations implied by the sentence we're discussing are both harmful and inaccurate, and it would be helpful if the bolded words were qualified or explicitly excluded.
 * --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To Fennasnogothrim, in reading the introduction to Women and Gender in Islam, I'm not convinced that this source is supporting your point. On p. 2, the author states,


 * This seems to support the points made in this article about invisibility, just not specific to lesbians or female homosexuality. The quotes you provide are from Aisha, the wife of Muhammad. While Aisha is singled out in this text, her perspective and authority to speak for women is unique because of her relation to Muhammad, as one of his wives, and apparently no less, his favorite wife. (Ahmed, p. 42.) As for Egypt's New Kingdom, nothing about Ancient Egypt is included in the article. I found only information about Ancient Greece and Rome. If there is information about female homosexuality in Ancient Egypt, I'm interested in finding it. The article does not state that no woman ever had any role in shaping her own sexuality, in all societies, through all of human history. It must, however, be a general overview of the subject, and in general, women's sexuality has been defined by men. Certainly the documentation available for how women lived is written almost completely by men. Homosexuality in Women and Gender in Islam is mentioned three times in the index, only one of these spans more than a page. P. 104 refers to male homosexuality, p. 121 provides an interesting look into same sex harems (reported, by the way, by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who is mentioned in this article...the page also states regarding a discussion of the public nature of homosocial environments such as Turkish baths, "Women have left no written records, so we have no direct means of learning what it was like to live thus.") So far, I cannot read the material on pp. 185-186. While this book may speak to the point of women's sexuality in Islamic societies overall, it does not appear right now to be a prime source for this article. But the book is interesting and I have it on order from the library and hope to have it read soon.


 * Furthermore, while Women and Gender in Islam offers an intriguing perspective, it does not seem to cancel out all the sources already used in the article that assert what I summarized in the sentence in question. These sources do speak specifically about female homosexuality. If you believe my summary of them to be lacking, please explain how it is. As in, the sources state one thing, but I completely mangled the point of the source being cited. I don't read the sentence currently in the article with the dubious tag as stating all men currently overlook lesbianism; it's clear to me that the sentence is stating that in history, the past, men have set the standards for relationships which has led to considering lesbian relationships invalid. Also, I provided an alternative way to word the sentence in question. There has been no response to that.


 * I still have yet to read a compelling argument as to how the summary of the sources in question is inaccurate, and as for your characterization that it is "harmful", this is bordering on meaningless rhetoric, an attempt to use a powerful word to evoke an emotional reaction, but which is so far backed up by little substance. I was hoping the rewrite I suggested yesterday would fix this, so I hope you get a chance to read it and comment. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * TL;DR: Please read my entire statement before assuming what I am pointing out. I already read your rewrite, and it appears to resolve the issues at hand. I was just posting to answer the question you asked close above that. --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm only pointing out the absolutes implied by the sentence. I hold that much of what it says still stands. --Fennasnogothrim (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha. That's awesome. My time spent not only constructing this article, but reading the source you provided and going beyond the call to reply to you with patience and respect was certainly well-spent. In the Moni3 Accu-Translator, I entered your TL;DR and it comes out as "fuck you". Not that I'm surprised.

So, with the rewritten sentence, is there finally some sort of end to this nonsense? Seeing that you've not supplied any coherent point to counter the cited sources and neither has anyone else on this page, is it ok if I seek your approval to replace the sentence with the dubious tag? Surely your not reading any of the sources makes you the best judge for this.

I left this comment short, just for you. --Moni3 (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking in again to ask again if this is over and I can remove the dubious tag. At this point, no one in this discussion has cited any sources to say that the sentence is inaccurate (although it has been called that, without any sources).

If not, and this is going to go on, suggestions for recourse as this does not appear to be working (Request for third opinion already tried):
 * Good article reassessment; if this is chosen, I will request someone very experienced in content creation
 * Request for Comment to bring in a wider audience to chime in on this discussion. I wouldn't choose this because it's not certain the people commenting have any experience in creating and maintaining high quality articles.
 * Dispute resolution; same as above: not certain of the content experience of the editors involved in DR

If no one replies within 24 hours, I'm going to remove the dubious tag. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't like to stand in the way of this article being given "Good Article" status, because I myself have used that word to describe it on several occasions, especially in light of the way that it had been before you started work on it, but to tell you the truth, the section in question does seem a bit dubious to me.
 * As I was saying before, the extent to which your answer to the question above was "not exactly" is the extent to which you should edit it, because, as I was saying, as written, it does seem to be saying that the early sexologists arrived at the pathological perspective for two reasons: First, they were male, not female; any woman would have seen it otherwise. Second, they were products of a patriarchal society, any matriarchal society would not see it as a devient sexual practice.
 * It seems dubious to this reader because I know many women did and do view it that way. Second, why would a matriarchy approve of lesbianism any more than a partriarchy would see male homosexuality as a legitimate expression of sexuality.  Also, I don't see the clear support for these assertions of fact in the body of the article or the fourteen points you cited.
 * If this is the intended meaning, it should simply be edited as to be clarified, because as written it could be misunderstood as saying the above.
 * But your answer seeme to be not "yes, that's exactly what it means" but something closer to "not exactly, this reading is slightly wrong". That is, if I understood your reply to me correctly.  If so, then please let's edit it accordingly. Chrisrus (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Well, to respond,
 * The sentence with the dubious tag is not the one about the early sexologists. I don't know how the sentence about the early sexologists became a point of focus here on the talk page.
 * If we're focusing on the sentence about the early sexologists, I'm flummoxed how that sentence imparts the empirical truth that any woman would have seen it otherwise. Second, they were products of a patriarchal society, any matriarchal society would not see it as a devient sexual practice. To me, it simply reads--and means--that sexologists based their characterizations of lesbian behavior as mentally ill based on gender role rebellion.
 * The 14 points I mentioned are about the sentence with the dubious tag: men have constructed women's sexuality throughout history and made lesbians invisible as a result. This is the thing: how do those 14 cited statements/sections simply NOT support that sentence?? It seems to me as if we're staring at a wall arguing about what color it is. These cited sources so very clearly state what is in that sentence with the dubious tag. I mean, I don't even know how to communicate my absolute confusion and frustration here. How can anyone argue that those 14 points do not mean what that sentence says? I'm just...I don't understand. I'm not trying to be an asshole here. I just do not get why other editors see those 14 points and disagree with how that is summarized.
 * If this is only about the sentence about early sexologists, I agree that the 14 cited statements don't support that sentence. I never said or meant to imply that I believe that. The Origin and transformation of the term and the Re-examining romantic friendships sections support this sentence.
 * So can we clarify this right now? Are you protesting both sentences, the one with the dubious tag, or the one about early sexologists? Basically, please tell me what will create conditions where the dubious tag can be removed. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I am tired of discussing this, so I have posted this at No original research/Noticeboard. Moni3, you did not understand my last statement, unless you really meant to turn the discussion hostile.

--Fennasnogothrim (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am also tired of discussing this, particularly when you can't seem to take the time to read my posts. How can I expect to have a discussion with someone who seems to be unable to grasp that reading the sources have to be a part of this process? If you can't read my posts, it's fairly clear you won't read the sources either. While OR is an appropriate venue, and I hope you're taking its points to heart, it probably won't resolve this. I provided three suggestions for how to get some input here, but the OR noticeboard won't accomplish anything. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Early sexologists
Sorry. Yes, I was talking about the sentence that follows the tag, not the tagged statement. Sorry about that. About the tagged sentence (not by me), "Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships..." seems dubious to me because I can't see how anyone could prove such a claim. How could anything in the body or elsewhere prove with reasonable certainty that they women's opinions on what was respectable in terms of love and sex and families have had absolutely no influence, nothing whatsoever, on those ideas at the time.

The tagged sentence then goes on to say ", including those where men are not present." adds to this the claim that men's opinions caused pretty much everyone, women included, women to see lesbianism specifically as not "respectable", right along with everything else that men didn't approve of.

It then says that the preceding factoid is definitively the reason that lesbianism wasn't considered at all, or if it was, it was "invalid." As if there could be no other possible reason to see lesbianism as "invalid", although a biological view of sexuality based on such things as, for example, the way the reproductive organs are constructed and their apparent biological purpose would seem to many readers to be a much simpler explanation for that.

But again, yes, I had been talking about the sentence that follows. I see that as much more salvagable because it states a knowable fact clearly proven to anyone in the body; the fact that they did in fact look at it that way. And as you know I've said that that is the place that I'd like to start. The first intellectuals to discuss the matter in a scientific way were these early sexolgists and they treated it this way. Next, we started hearing a response from Lesbians themselves in early newsletters and such that the article discusses. We can see there that they were offended by being treated as amoral outcasts, and not hard to understand why. They started making subcultures and such and theorized that the early sexologists had seen it that way because they were sexists and just wanted to dominate men, there would be the part that you could bring that in. You could put in the body some quote from "Early Lesbian Subculture Magazine" where these women made such claims about why the early sexoligists saw it that way, and then no one could object. It'd be a matter of switching stuff around, starting with the early sexologists point of view, then the reaction comes next, which is chronological and easy to follow. Then we want to bring in other ideas that later brought us to the present point of view "today, experts no longer view it as a problem, but as an alternative lifestyle that is not a problem" or some such. "The general culture today tends to see it in the modern way" can be supported by the stories in the text about lesbian acceptance increasing, like Ellen coming out and the acceptance of k.d. Lang, with all that in the body you can easily summarize the fact that culture has changed in the west at least and we don't think that way anymore, and also how the psychological associations took if off the list of pathologies and the reasons they gave for that could be quoted so we understand what people were thinking if you want to talk about the reasons why expert perspective has changed. That'll be a non-controvertial statement of fact about the intellectual history of thought on this topic and no one could reasonably object and we can not only close this thread but stave off it coming around again and again in the future. Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Chrisrus, I apologize for reformatting your comments. I did it only for clarity so the talk page is easier to navigate, and comments about the "Early sexologists" sentence can be in its own section. (Although clearly comments about that sentence are throughout several sections on this talk page.)


 * I wouldn't say that Natalie Clifford Barney and her Paris salon were offended. More like, they took their outcast status as a badge of honor of sorts. Nor would I agree that any lesbian movement at the time wanted to dominate men. Did you mean to say it that way? That's confusing how that is phrased. Are you objecting to the entire Origin and transformation of the term section, per your comment at the OR noticeboard?


 * Are you suggesting rewriting the entire lead then? To be honest, with some of the phrases you included in this response, and some of them I recognize may be quite informal, I'm not entirely sure you fully understand what the sources are saying. I would not include some of these points in the lead. Some experts still consider homosexuality among men or women problematic. Other experts do not.


 * Answering what I can now. Other answers later, or in a different place. Or something. I have no idea what we're discussing anymore. --Moni3 (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry i meant "women" not "men". I don't know why I said that.  The idea I understood was that, because these early sexologists were products of a sexist society, their points of view were based on seeing lesbianism as a threat to patriarchy.
 * The idea about them being offended came across to me from the bit about lesbians objecting to being portrayed as they were by the early sexologists. It's easy for readers to imagine how they must have felt based on the way it's written at the moment.  If they weren't offended, the section should be edited to stave off this reading. And no, not the entire lead, not at all.  Just the part where it attributes motivations to or explains the perspective of the early researchers, the tagged sentence and it's immediate context.
 * I don't see the need for moving the discussion there, unless we really are at an impass here, but I will respond, I suppose, when and where responded to.Chrisrus (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * About the threat to patriarchy, that is closer to what the sources express. In the Construction of lesbian identity section, it currently reads, "Other women, however, embraced the distinction and used their uniqueness to set themselves apart from heterosexual women and gay men." Is there wording in that section or another that conveys that women were offended, resulting in their creating a subculture? Or is this about the women who realized they were being grouped with the mentally ill and actively worked to conceal their relationships, who are also addressed in this section? --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Outside view
The statement is: "Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality." My initial reaction was that:
 * 1) "respectable" and "invalid" might not be the appropriate words - the two also don't seem to go together very well. I suppose most societies have some concept close to "respectable" but I don't think its a term often used in anthropology. To go from "respectable", somewhat suggesting the Victorian novel, to "invalid", modern campus talk, seems an odd jump.
 * 2) How invalid? Has anyone suggested lesbianism doesn't work as an "expression of sexuality"? Note how "valid" is not a feasible replacement for "respectable" here.
 * 3) Alternatives, if we stick to the Victorian theme, are "improper", "immoral", or "abnormal", "undesirable", "socially unacceptable". For "respectable" one might use "normative", "socially acceptable", "appropriate" "moral" and so on.
 * 4) I don't think a "generally" or similar before "defined" would be inappropriate, and that should remove one complaint above.
 * 5) I'm a bit lost as to the force of "thus" - if men did not define the standards, would that make them less likely to overlook lesbianism? Maybe, but that case might need to be put. Prima facie one would think it is because men cannot experience lesbianism that they are prone to overlook it.
 * 6) Are men never "present" in lesbian relationships? In the modern world that may be practical, but it was much less so in typical historical societies, one might think. What they cannot really do is participate in lesbian relationships.
 * 7) That gives: "Historically, men have generally defined the standards for what is socially acceptable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those in which men cannot participate, and often overlook lesbianism or consider it an abnormal expression of sexuality" (or alternatives as above). Does that help at all? Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The only nitpick I have with that sentence, and it's worth a thousand dollars to me just to see an attempted rewrite of it, is the "abnormal". Per the Literature section, and some other cited statements, in early forms of pornography men viewed lesbianism with some bemused tolerance. Men allowed women to sleep with each other because it was not problematic. Because penetration was the focus of sex (foremost to assure men that their heirs were genetically theirs), if no penetration was possible, it was not seen as threatening. Once the women and men present in this scenario were aroused, the men would enter the scene and satisfy all the women. Women, according to most of the collective wisdom until quite recently, were unable to be emotionally or physically satisfied without men. The bemused tolerance turned to hostility or pity for women who attempted to assert any privileges that men normally enjoyed.


 * So the "invalid" currently in the lead refers to the view that lesbian relationships were incomparable to heterosexual ones. They were seen as filler, or even practice, for what men considered real relationships. I don't mind if the "invalid" is changed, but "abnormal" does not carry the same meaning. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I gave some alternatives above, & I'm sure there are other more technical ones from the social sciences vocabulary. Remember it shares "often" with men just ignoring it, so does not have to cover all human history, although obviously we want the best word. "Undesirable" covers a lot of attitudes, though its a bit vague. On the specific pornography point, pornography is initially an expression of its creator's attitude, and that when in porno mode. It is, um, probably invalid to assume that this is a full expression of the "standards" other men, and even the creators and consumers of it, held, expressed or enforced in other contexts. No doubt some of the refs cover this issue. I take the collective wisdom point, and one might try to express that more explicitly here, but since most societies gave the emotional & physical satisfaction of women a pretty low priority, it is probably too complicated for a lead. Or does "incomplete" work in the invalid/abnormal slot?  Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What about "illegitimate" as the replacement for "abnormal"? It covers issues of legality and validity. That, and bastard children...


 * As for the issue of pornography, this is an example of Q.E.D.. I don't disagree with your point about pornography not representing the full spectrum of ideas at the time, but unfortunately, there's not much else in history that addresses female homosexuality. In several places in the article the sources address the fact that they don't really know if the work of art (Greek red vase images, lesbianism in Middle Eastern texts, 18th century literature in the example I used) in question is an accurate representation of female homosexuality or the employment of lesbianism for the fantasies of men. Right up to the rise of lesbian images in pornography aimed at men in the late 20th century. Much of what has been written about female homosexuality before the 20th century can be construed as pornography, or the fact that the mention of female homosexuality makes it pornography. This also addresses the aforementioned lack of visibility that has been a persistent theme in this discussion. Stronger historical documentation about tolerance of women's relationships with other women can be found in the Re-examining romantic friendships section. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that would work, although the extra stuff it covers, or raises, perhaps overloads the sentence. The lead is rather short, btw, & could be expanded on this or other aspects of the subject covered below. How generally was it actually illegal? Perhaps "incomplete and illegitimate". Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Per the Early modern Europe section, sexual contact between women was illegal in some European countries and not acknowledged in legal texts as male homosexuality was in others. It was made illegal in the UK in 1921. Sodomy laws existed in the U.S. until 2003 (Texas is still on the books, for some reason). And in many places in the Middle East and Africa homosexual acts are still illegal.


 * I don't like "illegitimate" now either, but I'm not coming up with a better word. The lead is four paragraphs, and I'm not keen to make it too much larger because the article itself is quite long. That, however, confines the lead to very general statements. If the fact that the lead is written in general terms is causing this confusion, then that's a major consideration. I've commented a few times during this discussion that I cannot see if the protests are about the sources, the writing, or indefensible protests from editors who disagree with the experts' points. I can't seem to get anyone to tell me what the source of all this is, which is why I vacillate between seeing these protests as indefensible and wondering if it's the writing. Any insight would be appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the "discussion" is now too long for an outside flaneur like myself actually to read, but apart from the point I tried to deal with by "largely" above, nothing very clear emerged from my skimming through it. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)