Talk:Lesbian/Archive 3

I'm Cnofused
Where's the talk of lesbians only resorting to it because they can't land a man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.55.36 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's in half-assed Freudian psychoanalysis textbooks from 1948. Find the wormhole and come on into this century. You'll lose your confusion. --Moni3 00:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

18th century lesbianism illustration
After reading the discussion page for the illustration in the article, I'm beginning to believe that it is in fact 1 man and 2 women.
 * "Are we sure this is a picture of three girls? The person with their back to us hasn't the hips of a woman. Also, if it is a man, he would be in the correct position to be engaging in intercourse with the woman sitting on the table. Finally the hair of the person with their back to us has a hairstyle more common to a man of the times than a woman. --Dreammyth 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)"  MacAddct1984 &#xF8FF; 06:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I have never been thrilled with that picture and would not miss it I must say that one must account for 18th century notions of fetching body shapes or whatever, along with the limitations of engraving techniques and the likelihood that this seems to be, like, a seventh generation copy of a low-end woodcut, meaning some detail has been lost. Digging deeper, here's the source image, it's an illustration from a bit of 18th century Casanova porno-pulp and the source says These illustrations document some examples of the persistent fascination with the transvestite woman who seduces another women and what Faderman calls "fears about women who refused to be simply feminine." so... what we may have here is a woman who was drawn to look a bit masculine which is to say, yer not daft :) Also notice the humorously depicted sobbing male in the foreground, hopelessly "left out" as it were. Gwen Gale 06:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * According to Lillian Faderman who uses that image in Surpassing the Love of Men, the scene in Casanova's memoirs that it illustrates does involve Casanova and two women. (I don't know who Sobbing Guy is, though.)  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  07:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's Casanova in the background. Gwen Gale 14:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway I see someone has removed it, referring to this discussion. Although I think the three primary figures are female, the presence of two males in the image is enough for me to support its removal, never mind I don't care for its esthetics or provenance :) Gwen Gale 14:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I removed it last night. After double-checking Faderman I'm quite sure that figure seen from the back is male.  The columbia.edu page gives a highly misleading summary of what Faderman says:  the Casanova memoir is *not* an example of fears about transvestite women like the other two are, it's an example of sex between women being introduced in a non-threatening way as a titillating prelude to heterosexual intercourse.  The episode involves two women and a man; there's no third woman involved, and no woman who has any reason to be sporting a period male hairstyle.
 * Anyway, it's not such a great and helpful image that I would want to give it any benefit of the doubt.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll happily take your word for it, though I'm puzzled then by the sobbing wanker in the foreground. My personal take on that pic has always been sundry flavours of "yech" so it will not be missed by me. Gwen Gale 14:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cinema
From article: "Films with explicitly lesbian content, sympathetic lesbian characters and lesbian leads began appearing during the 1990s."


 * What about Lianna (1983)?


 * I'm not sure how I feel about the phrase "explicitly lesbian"... but I can't think of any alternatives.

Emiellaiendiay 14:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Explicitly" does tend to bring the connotation of sexually explicit, and I agree that it isn't ideal. Um.  Would "overtly lesbian" work better? -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I changed it to overtly openly then. Gwen Gale 21:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As for Lianna, I've always interpreted the notion of mainstream as implicit to the context here but it's true, why not add the word and be done with it :) Gwen Gale 21:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree with 'openly.' It's the best suggestion I've heard yet. 0FisherQueen (Talk) 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my post. The change to "openly" was an excellent decision. — Emiellaiendiay 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

More Cinema and TV
What happened to The Killing of Sister George, which was an important part of UK lesbian movie history? This movie was the first to feature genuine and open lesbians.Fluffball70 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to consider the early TV appearances of genuine lesbians in the 60's covered in the Minorities Research Group, a UK contemporary to the Daughters of Bilitis. There seems to be a HUGE gap between what was going on on TV/Films between the 1930's and the 1980's and this area of the article all seems terribly USA centric and I would consider the content about Ellen DeGeneres to be overrated. Fluffball70 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry
under cinema Boys Don't Cry is listed a film with "openly lesbian content". The film is about a transman and this film being listed as such, in my opinion, could be considered insensitive to trans issues. (Sponge90sponge 19:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC))


 * I've rm'd it. My own opinion may or may not differ, but trans self-identification for the most part currently gives no sway to any notion this film has lesbian content. Taken altogether, I don't think it's helpful in this article. Gwen Gale 20:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Epanding the view beyond American
The lists and mentions of films and TV programs are good, but it would benefit viewers (both American and non-American, and both English- and non-English-speaking) to state forthrightly that these are virtually all American, and English-language, works. At a later date, I (and hopefully others out there!) would like to contribute towards a detailed mention, if not section, on international lesbian films and other cultural achievements, which often offer viewers an originality, creative brilliance, passion, and cultural significance equal to any of the best works on this list. One brief example: most major countries in Asia (including China, Taiwan, India, Korea, Japan, Thailand, and the Philippines) have produced fine lesbian films. They range from the gripping, to the humorous, to the erotic, to the historical. Ycasas 02:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)ycasas


 * Mind, this is the English wikipedia so there will be an inevitable swing towards English language films. Moreover, topical films were more common in English than in other (especially non-European) languages for many years. This said, I think the article would be helped by some cites along the lines you suggest and I hope you'll add them yourself! Gwen Gale 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring
How about moving Mainstream broadcast media to a daughter article, with a short summary here? Or better yet, the entire media depictions section? The proportion of the article devoted to media seems excessive, and the huge number of examples isn't very illuminating.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  00:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be trimmed but not removed. Gwen Gale 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking in terms of summary style -- have a good solid overview here that explains the history and significance, but move the details to another article for those interested in those specific topics. Maybe something like 4-5 paragraphs on media here, rather than half the article.  I mean, even though representation of lesbians in comics is of interest to me personally, I'm not convinced it's so important to this article that it needs its own subsection here.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the article's come to the edge of needing this, not overwhelmingly, but getting there. Gwen Gale 20:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wording in first sentence
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind Gwen Gale's twice-repeated reverts of my recent edit; which involved adding the word "person" or "human" after the first instance of the word "female": The sentence prior to my edits read:


 * "A lesbian is a female romantically and sexually attracted only to other females."

My edit, reverted twice by Gwen Gale, reads:
 * "A lesbian is a female person who is romantically and sexually attracted only to other women."

It is my understanding that when referring to people, it is better not to use adjectives as nouns to represent them. That's why, for instance, it is better not to use the word "homosexuals", referring instead to "gay men", because they are people, first.

The noun "female" does not specifically refer to humans, it sounds rather like referring to the separating of farm animals ("the females are over on that side of the pen"), or unnecessarily clinical ("the females are on this ward"). Referring to people by attributes is dehumanizing. I would like to establish that we are talking about people, not people-as-attributes. Joie de Vivre 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This dictionary definition, in its very first definition of 8 given, clearly defines female as meaning a person... a girl or woman. Gwen Gale 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It also defined such a person as "retaining a beardless face", yet I know several women who defy that dictionary's definition. You haven't responded to my concern that referring to people as adjectives is to be avoided, so I have reinstated my edits.  Joie de Vivre 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I did respond, with a cited dictionary definition which describes this word as a noun.


 * Ignoring your remark about beards (please see WP:Original research), I don't think there's much chance people will misinterpret this article as being about (to use your words) "farm animals," or that the definition is "dehumanizing." I'm as yet unware of any citation from a published and reliable secondary source which could support your concerns as you've articulated them. Meanwhile please stop editing by revert. Many editors have accepted this definition for some time so let's wait for some other input, ok? Gwen Gale 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly did not state a concern that people would think that this article was about farm animals! I said that using adjectives as nouns to refer to people can be dehumanizing.  In this case, using "female" as a noun to refer to a female human could be inappropriate, because this usage of "female" is typically reserved for non-human animals.  I find it astonishingly obtuse that you would reframe my words with such a crass meaning, for shame.
 * Have you looked at the Female main article? The very first sentence states:
 * "Female is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces ova (egg cells).
 * It's stated to be an adjective. The Female article goes on to describe the biology of female organisms, it doesn't even mention the word "female" as a noun synonymous with "woman".
 * Other examples of using adjectives as nouns when describing people are: referring to black people as "blacks", or saying, "Then, another Jew approached the podium" rather than "Then, another Jewish woman approached the podium". Certainly, it should be plain that using adjectives as nouns to represent people can sound very rude.
 * Also, take a look at The Safe Schools Coalition Glossary; quoted at Terminology of homosexuality, and at Gay. This source describes the word Homosexual thus:
 * "Sometimes appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adjective). When referring to people, as opposed to behavior, 'homosexual' is considered derogatory and the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' are preferred. "
 * I hope this illustrates my concern that using the word "female" as a noun should generally be avoided in this article. Joie de Vivre 17:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm perfectly familiar with WP:OR, thank you, and the "beards" comment above isn't original research. It is directly quoted from your sourced definition. Stating that "female" is an appropriate word to use when referring to a woman is about as acceptable as the idea that all women are beardless.  Your source does not sound very credible.  I have reinstated my edits, pending further input from others.  Joie de Vivre 17:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha you do seem rather strung out on this :) Have a nice day then. Gwen Gale 19:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At least I haven't resorted to personal insults and passive aggression. You have a nice day, too.  Joie de Vivre 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Meantime, I do hope you'll revert all that twitching codswallop yourself. :) Gwen Gale 20:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Caption for photo of women outdoors with sign
We don't actually know if they are protesting, per se. They could simply be making it known that they are happy to be married. We don't know. The quote at says "Lesbian married couple at San Francisco Pride 2004." OK, so they're at Pride, but saying that they're "protesting" has a POV spin, who knows if that's what they're doing? I've replaced the caption with the quote from the photo, replacing "lesbian" with "same-sex" since we don't know how they identify. Joie de Vivre 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the current caption that someone did. Gwen Gale 01:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Same-sex married couple at San Francisco Pride 2004" -- 'twas I! Joie de Vivre 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I do think it's more helpful than "marching" or "protesting" :) Gwen Gale 23:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Media depictions
How about spinning of this whole section into its own article (Depictions of lesbians in mass media)? Right now it's just accumulating uncited cruft. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What does "spinning of this whole section" mean? Do you mean you want to break out the section into its own article?  Joie de Vivre 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Synonyms
This idea was from an edit/reversion, im just throwing it on here to see what others think. Should we add a vocab/other terms list? or weave it into the article? The problem is where to draw the line: i dont see a problem with "gay" and such, and even though its skating thin... i dont really find dyke bad. The problem is in things like carpet muncher and such, more name calling than anything. I think it might be benificial for the article if done correctly. my two cents. thuglastalk 06:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Terminology of homosexuality exists. I don't see a need to get into it here.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the "see also" section. Gwen Gale 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dworkin photo
This diff shows the original rm of the Dworkin photo a few days back. The edit summary said "probably isn't fair use in this article, doesn't contribute much" and I would agree. The fair use question is something to ponder but also, I'm not sure Dworkin's image is helpful in a general overview of this topic (balance, NPoV and so on). Gwen Gale 18:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with History Section
"Moreover, Maximus of Tyre claimed her relationships with the girls in her school were platonic." Maximus of Tyre was a male teacher in the 2nd century CE, and the name links to a page about him. Fallingstar33 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Fallingstar. Maximus was writing about Sappho--but you're correct, it's not very clear. I'll try to straighten it out, but if you have better phrasing, please feel welcome to join the fray. :D Justin Eiler 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what's unclear about it but I changed "claimed" to "wrote." Gwen Gale 05:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see now that I was misreading the sentence, thinking that it said that Maximus of Tyre was a lesbian. I think the new wording is much clearer.  Fallingstar33 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lesbianism in erotica renaming debate
There's a debate at about whether to rename Lesbianism in erotica "Sex between women in erotica", with parallel changes throughout the entire text of the article. Apparently, the editor who has proposed this has earlier made similar edits to this article that were reverted. If you have an opinion on the subject, please weigh in at Talk: Lesbianism in erotica: Renaming article. Iamcuriousblue 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Add section on Lesbians of Color
Hi, I'd like to propose adding a section on lesbians of color, and/or adding lesbians of color to the main section of this page. Text could be: "Even before the publication of the seminal anthology This Bridge Called My Back early in the 1970s, Lesbian and Bisexual Women of Color have made significant contributions to lesbian literature and theory. Major figures include Audre Lorde, Gloria Anzaldua, June Jordan, Angela Davis, Stacey Ann Chin, Alice Walker and Rebecca Walker, among others." It would be important in terms of the general visibility of lesbians of color - Thanks. (not a registered user) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.89.184.87 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
 * With very humble and all due respect for this notion which springs from GF, I think it's very accidently something which could stir up racist thoughts, isolating, demeaning to all and unhelpful. That said though, if consensus were to support this, I would be ok with it. WP is a public wiki. If it were up to me, meanwhile, I'd add some of these women to the article is all, like anyone else. Gwen Gale 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be in support of this addition. The work of these women above is a very important part of Lesbian history for me. Also, the mainstream Lesbian movement (if we could call it that) was criticised often for its lack of racial inclusivity. This too is an important aspect of Lesbian history.Kootenayvolcano 02:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Media references list
I'd say it has now gone over the edge and is too long for the article. Gwen Gale 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps there should be a "list of lesbians on mainstream television shows"? The prose section in the current article can be retained. Polymathematics 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lesbianism isn't ONLY towards other women.
An attraction for one gender and one gender only is called Monosexuality, so I think that when this article becomes unprotected the opening statement should be changed to say 'primarily for women'. Nateland 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that "lesbian", like "gay" or "straight", is one of the monosexual orientations. I think the current intro does a pretty good job of explaining that some women who are attracted to both women and men use the term "lesbian", but that historically, "lesbian" has been used to describe women who are only attracted to women.  Joie de Vivre 20:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Labels

 * Some women in same-sex relationships do not identify as lesbian, but as bisexual, queer, or another label.

What about those who don't identify with any such label?--Eloil 08:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro already makes it clear that self-identification has aught to do with the behavioral definition of lesbian. Gwen Gale 08:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, but since this sentence is going into a little more detail on self-identification than the intro anyway, what's wrong with mentioning non-identification at the same time?--Eloil 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The term bisexual is already mentioned in the intro. Those other terms you suggested have to do with self-identification which is already addressed in the introduction. Moreover, generally speaking queer is not at all the same thing as lesbian. Gwen Gale 12:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am off base on this, but I think that the sentence quoted above may be read as implying that identification with some social category based on sexuality is a given (i.e. individuals who don't identify with the terms listed are identifying with some other term). Note that I'm not suggesting this is communicated explicitly, as the sentence does specify "some women". Apart from saying similar things to the intro (which the sentence is already doing), would there be something wrong with mentioning here that such labels are not universal, assuming it was done in a way that didn't disrupt the flow of the sentence?--Eloil 05:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about trying to expand something in the sexuality section (which does contain the phrase "some women") and not the intro (which does not) I'm ok with that... Gwen Gale 05:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence
I think an important statistic that's missing from this article is the prevalence of lesbianism. I know that there isn't a consensus on its prevalence, but some information about it would be an excellent addition in my opinion. Walther Atkinson 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A statistic is mentioned in the sexuality section. Mind, helpful numbers on this topic are hard to come by. Gwen Gale 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection tag
I just added a modifier to the Semi-Protection tag so that it now appears as a "padlock" icon in the upper right hand corner. Hopefully editors and readers alike will find this icon more visually appealing than the "banner" style display. Doc  Tropics  18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Miss Martindale article nominated for deletion
I know it's slightly off-topic, but Miss Martindale has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to vote at Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Martindale. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

technodyke.com deletion
I am wondering why technodyke.com was deleted from the resources list? It is a long-standing site d edicated to queer women with a wealth of archived articles. It is a valid resource and one of the oldest-standing sites for lesbians that still exists independently. Given there are other community sites listed in the archive, I find it odd that technodyke.com was singled out for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Women only (talk • contribs)

Men and non-lesbians are editing this page
There seems to be men editing this site. My colleagues and I decided to do a test with an external link to see if this man would remove the link. Repeatedly he did. This entry should be authored and edited by lesbians only. Patriarchal surveillance and censorship is ironic. 'Clowns' only hold wikipedia down as a possible authority.

Whilst I understand that wiki is not a links directory - removing techodyke further solidifies why non-lesbians should not edit this page.

Women make a complaint each time this happens and perhaps we can be heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Women only (talk • contribs)
 * ZOMG men are editing this page! And muslims are editing the jesus page! And FOREIGNERS are editing the USA page! We're all doomed! #29(talk) 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles are not restricted in who can edit them. Anyone can edit any article on Wikipedia, regardless of race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, religion, favorite flavor of ice cream, etc.  To suggest that only lesbians can edit this article is completely contrary to this principle.  Remember also always to assume good faith when dealing with other editors.  We are all trying to create the best encyclopedia we can. Aleta 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To the point, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Technodyke.com hasn't been part of the article for at least two months as far as I can tell.  If you're talking about the link that  has added over and over again - www.lesbian.pro - it's a blog with almost no content. And don't be too picky - lesbians, gay men, straight men and women, even transsexuals all have something to offer to make this a better encyclopedia. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  05:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving --Moni3 01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3