Talk:Lesbian/Archive 5

Feminism section
What would you add to this section? What are the best books and sources you've read about feminism and lesbianism? --Moni3 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I'm going to admit here that this subject is not my forte, but I'm working on articles for The Ladder and the Daughters of Bilitis (in my sandbox), and the issue of feminism is directly involved in both of them. Instead of editing this section directly, I think it would be better for me to present this info on the talk page and have someone better versed in feminism edit the section.
 * Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon joined the National Organization of Women in 1966, and wrote in The Ladder encouraging other women to do so, even saying they got a family discount.(Marcia Gallo, Different Daughters, 2006) Martin, actually, wrote in the first issues of The Ladder in 1956 that DOB was to focus on the problems of women and her problems being homosexual. Del Martin responded to what she considered misogyny of gay men at the North American Conference of Homophile Organizations (the unfortunately named NACHO) in 1970 with a furious letter stating, "It is a revelation to find acceptance, equality, love and friendship - everything we sought in the homophile community - not there but in the women's movement. I will not be your "nigger" any longer."(Kay Tobin. The Gay Crusaders, 1972) It just as notable to mention that Barbara Gittings and her partner Kay Lahusen, the author of that book just referenced, both disagreed enough to remain in the homophile movement, although they were quite in the minority of lesbians doing so.
 * The issue of feminism was a large part of why the DOB "imploded", according to Gallo. An article in The Ladder in 1968 claimed lesbians had "less civil rights than any other group," which confounded the editor at the time, Helen Sandoz, who rather insisted racial inequality was a much more important issue. In 1969, DOB president Rita LaPorte wrote in The Ladder, "the real gap in humanity is between men and women, not between homosexual and heterosexual. When all the homosexuals, male and female, have their rights as homosexuals, we Lesbians will have all the rights that women have."(OF WHAT USE NACHO? By: Laporte, Rita. Ladder, Aug69, Vol. 13 Issue 11/12, p18) In the same issue, Wilda Chase wrote an essay provocatively titled "Men Are the Second Sex!" that stated because they have XY chromosomes, the Y is a nonfunctional derivative of the XX chromosomes women have.(MEN ARE THE SECOND SEX!  By: Chase, Wilda. Ladder, Aug69, Vol. 13 Issue 11/12, p33) I suppose it's also noteworthy to state that Barbara Grier, who was the last editor of The Ladder, thought Rita LaPorte dominating and inconsiderate in the extreme.
 * The April/May 1970 issue of The Ladder removed the word "lesbian" from the cover that had been placed there by Gittings in 1964, and also lacked the mission statement of the Daughters of Bilitis created in 1956.(Gallo) --Moni3 19:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality section
(Thank you, Flyer, for your support. I do heart a mutual admiration society so much.) Were I not so steeped in being the big ol' homo I am, the lead would confuse me greatly. I understand what it means, but for an encyclopedic article I still think that sexuality should be one of the most important sections. Let me define this by saying I think the topics to be covered should be same-sex attraction, coming out, and self-identification of lesbian, bisexual, or queer, and other topics that have to do with the identity of realizing one's same-sex attraction. I wasn't quite thinking of the description of sex acts in this section, so I don't know if that is the major reservation to placing this section higher. Thoughts? --Moni3 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3


 * I like Benjiboi's suggestion for ordering sections. Gwen Gale 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I need a schematic drawn: So per Benjboi's suggestion, the sections would read as History, Feminism, Sexuality, Culture, Media Depictions, Politics, and Public Policy? (It seems more logical to me, obviously, that Sexuality should be first, but I'll make it so on Moni3's very short encyclopedic website that no one else will read. If it's majority opinion that it's farther down, I'm ok with that, too.) --Moni3 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Hey Moni3, when you say, "Were I not so steeped in being the big ol' homo I am..." you remind me that clearly, different editors and readers will have different takes on what is meaningful or important to them about this topic. While I think the/a sexuality section is both helpful and important, I don't think putting it first would help readers understand the historical and cultural sway of lesbianism. I would like to say again, only for perspective and context, I don't think homosexuality and lesbianism are the same thing. Gwen Gale 01:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeh, this is what talk pages are for: figuring out what goes where. The differences between homosexuality and lesbianism should probably be explored somewhere in the article. They're not so clear for everyone, lesbians included. --Moni3 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I'm not 100% decided on whether or not I feel that the sexuality section should go first. I see and understand the reasoning for it being farther down. But again, I am also really feeling where Moni is coming from on placing it higher. It doesn't have to be first, but maybe it would be better-placed a little higher. Flyer22 04:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait. It being third as Benjiboi stated, is high enough, if we won't have it first. Flyer22 04:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

World's longest caption alert!
Lol. The caption on the black triangle is way too long. Can someone trim it down and move any needed content into the article? Benjiboi 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a long caption. I'm not sure what to do with it. Personally, I dislike the use of the symbol because there is one documented case of the "branding" of a lesbian with a black triangle and I think it's historically inappropriate to use it. The caption does a decent job of acknowledging the black triangle wasn't specifically used for lesbians. If the caption is a problem, perhaps the use of another symbol might be better. Like a labrys. --Moni3 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I'd use both actually. Maybe move the black triangle into the history section and the extra content can be woven into that text. Benjiboi 02:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving it to the history section would be helpful IMHO. Gwen Gale 02:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This conversation stirred me to think about it more. I've rm'd the image and made a link to Black triangle (badge) in see also because the badge was used in concentration camps for all kinds of folks labeled as "asocial" by the Nazi industrial genocide machine and the black hued inverted triangle is not widely used by lesbian orgs. Hence, I think putting it in the article could be very misleading for the casual reader. This said, put it back if ya like, let consensus have sway, cheers to all. Gwen Gale 08:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see it's inclusion n the history section, lesbians have been erased from a lot of history so even a ominous inclusion is better than not existing. Having stated that i think it should balance out that modern symbols trend toward the more recognized pink triangle and rainbow. Benjiboi 12:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, we're talking about a badging standard briefly used to identify persons classified as "asocial" in fascist-socialist concentration camps, not a lesbian, I don't think any lesbians will be erased from history by keeping this reference limited to a link in the see also section. WP:WEIGHT. Gwen Gale 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly bothered either way but someone added so was trying to keep that in mind. Benjiboi 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lesbian links
Hey all, I've been taking a break (or at least trying to) and now have two articles I'm trying to save (content from one the other is AfD). So I wanted to share this pile of links (lesbian titled articles on wp) that might be of use for the improvement drive of this article. I've added some in already but since I will be tied up for a few days more with the other articles I want to share if anyone can use them. I sectioned them for organizing purposes but they can go wherever appropriate. They are here. Benjiboi 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual practices section
A new user has added this twice:



Sexual practices
Different sexual activities practiced among lesbians:
 * Kissing, petting, embracing and other forms of intimacy.
 * Oral stimulation, cunnilingus and even anilingus.
 * Mutual masturbation and fingering.
 * Tribadism - rubbing one's vulva against partner's body.
 * Using sex toys, such as double dildo, strap-on dildo etc.

I'll go with consensus but I don't think it belongs in the main article because it might surprise/distract casual readers. I'd be more than ok with it in an article called Lesbian sexual practices which linked from the sexuality section though. Please say what you think, thanks! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, WP:BOLD, I started Lesbian sexual practices and have linked to it from the top of the sexuality section. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If we're to work to get this toward a GA, GA doesn't usually approve of lists. Perhaps it's worth mentioning these types of sexual practices, but it might make them seem less sensational to put them in paragraph form. Then cite them. --Moni3 (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * They're no longer in this article, but in Lesbian sexual practices. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reformatted into paragraph. This also links to target article, and hence "see also" can be removed. Adding it to article without subsection named "sexual practices" would make it least intrusive. Please give a look at my talk page. Vaas chan (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added summary, this much summary is there in article homosexuality also. I feel image can be included Vaas chan (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope editors will comment on this. The content of other WP articles is not citable, lesbianism is not the same thing as homosexuality, I don't think the main article should contain content which could surprise readers and I think the see also link to Lesbian sexual practices is helpful. Please note, the content is acceptable in this article under WP policy, my take is, the link at the top of the section will quickly lead readers to this content if they want it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of this, actually. The fact that it's listed or described like that rather makes me feel..."oogie". Like it's there for the lechery of straight men who get off on reading the article. But then, it's not like it's a secret what lesbians do in bed. To ignore it completely is also a form of censorship. And I can cite these sexual practices with books on my bookshelf right now (esp. the Joy of Lesbian Sex 1974 edition I "borrowed" from a library back in 1995 - they had two copies and I enjoy it more than the library did...) --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is spot on how I feel about it, hence my notion that prominently linking to a separate article which deals with it is the more helpful way to go. Moreover, while Vaas chan has been very civil and all, it's a new, single purpose account so I have worries about that editor's "PoV" on this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps making it so full of citations and pretentious physiological vocabulary that it becomes deathly dull is the way to go.--Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But that wouldn't be helpful to readability and flow. I think a prominently linked separate article is the way to go... truth be told I've no probbies with WP's "sex manual" type articles, I think they're helpful when placed where readers can both easily find them but aren't surprised when they see their content. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the see also link (prominently at the top of section as is now) pointing to the article with the content IF we make a commitment to improving that article as well so as to not banish the content to guaranteed deletion thus reverting the cycle back again. I suggest adding cites to that article so those who are looking for further research (for whatever reason) have good resources to turn to. Benjiboi 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I too think the linked-to article Lesbian sexual practices, along with overall article stability, would be helped by verifiable citations, expansion and an encyclopedic narrative. Meanwhile it's clearly marked as a stub so I don't think deletion is much of a worry for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we are skipping half of the fundamentals of this article, mentioning physical practices weighs half, other than feelings. It would be WP:UNDUE, summary from is hardly intrusive to the readers. Vaas chan (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good lord, homosexuality is a massive article and the paragraph (salaciously similar to the one above) sticks out as just as bad. Having stated that there are some ideas we could import from that article but I still think we should build up many other areas before delving into what lesbians can do sexually. This is an encyclopedia not the letters section in Penthouse magazine. Benjiboi 13:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Since sexual activity in all its sundry forms is more or less ubiquitous among our species, I would strongly disagree folks' ordinary physical expressions of emotion and intimacy would or should "weigh half" in this article. Not even. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So there is no consensus to add summary. I keep text here for "future use" :) Vaas chan (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the link will provide enough for those in need. Benjiboi 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile the new article Lesbian sexual practices is much lacking and in dire need of help. Please have a look at it (and if you like, my take on the talk page). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been much grown and cited since I posted the above. Gwen Gale 08:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Transwomen and trans-inclusion section
Gwen Gale, I feel that this section should be reinserted into this article, except with valid citations, of course. In real life, I've often seen what is mentioned in that section. And even though I have linked to the Bianca Montgomery article three times now, recently, while discussing a gay or lesbian topic (well, I mean, I'm working on that article and will be nominating it for Good Article status soon), I also saw it on the internet with the uproar on message boards about the writers putting Bianca with a transgendered woman. Although, I could/can honestly see why so many people were angry, as was I about that, considering that the transgendered woman they were linking Bianca to romantically was still of the male form (and still is at this time, though Bianca isn't with her any longer in the romantic sense) and they (the writers) completely acted as if a person's sexual orientation can be negated simply based on "soul"-love. Many lesbian women, as well as gay men, were outraged over that Bianca storyline. The way that the show played it was just off to many viewers, some heterosexual viewers as well, even though the ones more so supporting Bianca with her transgendered romantic interest were heterosexual. It was just one of the biggest uproars I'd seen all over message boards, and I would go into further detail about that, but that's too long of a point. My point is...is that I know that a lot of the transwomen and trans-inclusion section that was in this article can be cited. So are you saying that you'd rather the valid citations for all of that be gathered before that section is reinserted into this article? I'm not sure if you would rather that section not be in this article at all. Flyer22 08:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen it too, lots. As I wouldn't try to write this up from my own experiences (WP:OR), I think after more than three whole months of being tagged with a citation request and not one citation forthcoming enough was enough. Meanwhile I think tomboy is more relevent to this article than transwomen and tomboy has its own article, hence I do feel this should be dealt with in transwomen, perhaps with a link from this article's see also (both have much to do with cultural identity clashing here and there with biological gender or whatever). If consensus supports a transwomen acceptance section here, I strongly think content should be re-added only with meaningful citations for any assertions or history, especially since this can be a highly emotional and nettlesome topic for so many. Thanks for speaking up! Gwen Gale 08:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you as well for your input. I understand what you mean, of course. And I'm sorry that I haven't been helping out much with this article. It's just that I've been so busy with other articles. Anyway, I love the work being done on this article. And I'll talk with you later. Flyer22 08:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the Bianca stuff is about, and sadly my head is swimming with other drama to take on much more but do feel that a section Trans-inclusion with sub-sections for both Transmen and Transwomen is absolutely needed. Personally I've seen both not-accepting and integrated lesbian communities with the latter being much more the rule. I'll probably have more free time in a few days but my brain is mushy so give a shout out if help is still needed. Benjiboi 14:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol! OK, had a quick look at the Bianca article, yes can certainly see why folks would get tizzied over it and it's seems a fair criticism that she doesn't get one regular Ellen-like romp loveroll of her own but instead psycho-drama. This reminds me a lesson a bisexual activist taught me that the whole of the LGBT communities should learn, that once the "problem" of either trans or bisexual love is "solve", that being that it doesn't matter who you love but that you do love, suddenly gay marriage is so not a big deal. Benjiboi 14:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * comment. Lesbian-identified could be a part of that section. Benjiboi 15:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Benjiboi. Good to see you chime in about this. You cracked me up with your "she doesn't get one regular Ellen-like romp loveroll of her own but instead psycho-drama" comment. Funny but true. Yeah, I just added a citation of comments from Sarah Warn's blog about that Bianca storyline uproar, seeing as I know blogs by well-established publishers, writers, sites, etc. are allowed as sources on Wikipedia. That, and that uproar is not well-documented yet in many places that I can use as a valid source. I mean, I cannot just use a bunch of blogs and message boards for what went down with that storyline. Anyway, for the Lesbian-identified section, did you mean the Bianca article or this article? I got a little confused at that part of your post. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lesbian-identified could actually fit in both as it speaks to those who are not "typical" lesbians so for the Bianca article her rock and roll lover could either be Lesbian-identified or not necessarily Lesbian-identified. Benjiboi 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't know that article existed. I do think that's the place to cite sources on trans-acceptance. It already has a couple of uncited sentences on the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh, Zarf/Zoe Bianca's lover? I can just hear some board posters now: "Bianca and Zoe only shared a few kisses! They are not lovers!" LOL. That's what I'd hear over and over from bitter fans. But, as for the Lesbian-identified article, I knew about that. I stumbled across it months ago and felt it was a decent read, although, as Gwen Gale says, it does need a few citations. That should not be difficult to provide. I might add that article as an internal link to the Bianca article in concerns to Zarf/Zoe (and, really, I need to fix up Zoe's, as I mostly call her, article), but a section on the topic of lesbian-identified I'm not sure would fit in the Bianca article...since it kind of goes away from the topic of Bianca and would focus more on Zoe and the topic of lesbian-identified. As for this article, I see we're not a 100% in agreement on whether or not to have a section about trans-inclusion. I say that I'm still for it, but if consensus here is that it really is best addressed in other topics, then it's not like I'm going to throw a bitch fit. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No Lesbian softball (or any sports discussion)!?!
OMG! Isn't lesbian softball a core tenet of butchness or is that all oldschool now? Regardless I think a section on sports is needed. with refs to the WNBA and a link to List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople. And golf, Colgate Dinah Shore even has a ref "spring break for lesbians". Benjiboi 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This would be helpful :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs more Work
This article is not very encyclopediatic, it reads like a promotional site for recruiting. May I suggest that the article be cut down, also please show a little more neautrality. As for images please don't misinterpret 18th century art or art of an earlier period. I am sure you can read anything into a subject or interpret history as you would like with enough assistance to further particular ideas. This article needs work. --Margrave1206 (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cut down to what? Recruiting? Is it really that attractive, this article? Actually, I think it needs to be greatly expanded but the topic is huge and I don't know where to begin. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The historical section needs to be merged with the full article. Also less propaganda and more facts with no bias statments.--Margrave1206 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What parts are propaganda? --Moni3 (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol. Recruiting? Promotional? I didn't notice any sign-up or form where one registers interest in becoming a lesbian although I'm sure it would be utilized if wikipedia offered such a service. I also disagree that the article should be cut down it indeed needs to be greatly expanded and sections built into their own articles as the article grows. Also, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec produced 300 pornographic works so his painting here is unlikely to be seen as terribly controversial. Benjiboi 23:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the takes of Benjiboi and Moni3 on this. I mean, it seems to me Margrave1206 may be WP:soapboxing with a groundless claim this article strays into... WP:soapbox. Oh and by the bye, the de Toulouse-Lautrec is late 19th century, not 18th. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding A New Link
There is a website which I like: LEZ WORLD http://lezworld.blogspot.com I would love to add it.But I am not sure about WikiPedia Policy. If there is anybody who knows wikipedia terms, and it is suit, can add here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smptkgrl (talk • contribs) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs aren't allowed by WP:EL. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with few exceptions and there doesn't seem to be anything there that can't otherwise be covered in the article. Benjiboi 07:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical error
The image under Sexuality (Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec's 1893 painting In Bed) is covering some lines of text on my browser. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.4 at the resolution of 1280*1024. Browser window is maximized. When shrinking the browser window the problem disappears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.17.100 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done some tidying up which should fix this. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

gayelle
I've moved the following to the talk page for discussion:

Due to the perceived derogatory tone of the word lesbian, a group of women in Australia is seeking to update the term to gayelle (for "gay female", elle meaning she in French). 

This seems to be a localized effort to promote a neologism. I don't see evidence of this term having taken hold enough to be encyclopedic. Please comment. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Truth, and even verifiability, are not enough; information must be encyclopedic.  But, on a related issue, you deleted my attempt to discuss the use of other words such as dyke (and thus their reclaiming).  Surely this belongs somewhere -- where would be best? BrainyBabe (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a separate article, Terminology of homosexuality, listed in the see also section. One reason for this is some of these terms are quite volatile and controversial, even given some reclaiming here and there. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit to lead
The unreferenced text below was added to the article lead. The lack of citations along with many choices in wording which are not quite supported by the article narrative, along with some shreds of possible WP:OR leads me to think any expansion of the lead (which could indeed be helpful following WP:lead) should be discussed here first. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The first recorded examples of lesbianism are allegedly documented in the works of Sappho, an Ancient Greek poet who lived around the 6th century BC, on the island of Lesbos. The Greeks of this period were generally tolerent of some homosexual behavior, and pederasty was common practice between males. Research has also suggested that lesbianism may have been part of conventional ancient Chinese culture.


 * As lesbian culture has become further established, and works related to lesbianism have become more prevalent in mainstream media, writers concerned with the social and political aspects of it have sought to redefine the term in different ways. Various writers have attempted to affine lesbianism with feminism; use lesbianism as a general term for women who have bucked a heterosexual lifestyle, although this usage has largely been consigned to history; or have tried to define lesbianism as a more inclusive term that encompasses platonic love between women.

I added a Discrimination and Violence section
I added a Discrimination and Violence section, including homophobia and lesbophobia. I think it could be expanded. Kootenayvolcano (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition
"Some groups widened the definition to mean any woman who didn't live a traditional heterosexual life.[4] In 1970 the Radicalesbians stated, "A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion."[5]"

Have these things really widened the definition? I really doubt it. There are always people stating inaccurate definitions, but it makes no difference to a word's definition. The definition of a word only expands if _lots_ of people start using it in the new sense, such that the new meaning becomes its accepted meaning.

Example: 'a fig is any fruit'. Have I just widened the definition, or have I merely stated a fallacy? Tabby (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is only a reference to one group which historically adapted the word in a polemic way. I don't think the text asserts the term does or should mean this. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

example Davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.210.51 (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Media portrayal of lesbianism
I have created a separate article for media portrayal of lesbianism, and gave link to media portrayal of bisexuality also.. It is a long list and table of content became too long, so i separated it from main article. If you feel otherwise please redirect that new page to here. Thanks. Vaas chan (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a media portrayal section improves the article, but I have to disagree with the second sentence of the section and must suggest that it needs to be expanded or removed. The sentence reads: "Some writers have asserted this trend can lead to exploitive and unjustified plot devices." This statement fails to meet with wiki standards because "some writers" is too vague, and the opinion stated can only be attributed to a single writer whose credentials come into question. Also, I did my best to find out what constitutes an "unjustified plot device" but could not find any literature on the topic. Mrathel (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian-identified merged
I'm dating this section so it can be archived after a bit. -- Banj e b oi   12:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Just 2 q's
1. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=248017358&oldid=248016285) In this edit you say "...always still directly linked to the women of Lesbos" but the quote doesn't end up "always" linking the word to Lesbos. Perhaps it would be better to say, "dominant meaning...rather than any sexual identity. Despite this, Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, the French 17th century writer on sexuality..." 2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&diff=247954066&oldid=247953903) With this your edit summary says "there was no 'corresponding conventional orientation.' Ancient writers have virtually no concept of sexual orientation." But this is precisely why the phrase is correct. Simply because they didn't have these terms, that is why it is the corresponding convention and not the sexual orientation. Lihaas (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In response:
 * 1. The passage from the book says that Brantôme always links the uses of the word lesbian to women of Lesbos. In other words when he says lesbians he is using the word to mean women of Lesbos, as exemplified by their sexual practices that other woman also adopt. It's comparable to saying "the people of New York are notoriously brash and pushy, but there are many of these "NewYorkers" in France too. In fact Paris is now full of "NewYorkers"". That is in fact what the quotation says. He always links it to Lesbos, but he is extending usage to use Lesbian woman (woman of Lesbos) to exemplify a type of person. Check the passage in the book. However an addition to the beginning the sentence seems reasonable to make the links less stark.
 * 2.No, that's why I think the phrase is unhelpful. Firstly "'corresponding conventional orientation" is, to me at least, an almost unintelligable phrase, because it is far from clear why you are using the word "conventional". I can't even understand your last sentence. There is no "convention" in any sense that I can make of the word, so I don't even know what you mean by "corresponding convention". Paul B (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I agree you here. Just tweaking the sentence a little would match the quote. i'm not questioning the quote
 * 2. Fair enough...how about contemporary? Lihaas (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete Deletion of entire section entitiled "health"
"Lesbians have higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and obesity. They are more likely to have bacterial vaginosis, vulvo-vaginal candidiasis and a higher prevalence of hepatitis C and HIV-risk behaviours (but a lower prevalence of genital warts).  Like gay men, they are also more likely to suffer from depression, drug abuse and suicidal urges than heterosexual people."

In the section on health it is said that lesbians have higher rates of Hepatitis C and HIV behaviors, and that they have higher rates of suicide than the general population. In actuality lesbians have LOWER rates of Hepatitis C and HIV behaviors and are one of the social groups (in the U.S.A) with the lowest rates of Hepatitis C and HIV. With regards to suicidal behavior- homosexual teenagers do not have a higher rate of suicide than the general population, but have reported more suicidal contemplation and thoughts than the general population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.245.192.21 (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to urge some cautionary skepticism to including such stats to begin with. It might well be that, say, people named Mary consume more peanut butter than people named Sally.  Drawing causative conclusions from such statistics is questionable.  I think it's reasonable if it's somewhat in context, of course.
 * I think the current section needs revision. Just listing those facts without explanation borders on propaganda.  Discussion of reasons would make it better.  As it is, I'm reminded of homophobes trying to link homosexuality with the concepts of disease/crime/perversion through implication and association.  --GenkiNeko (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, my suspicion is that the statistics include female prostitutes, swingers, and others who have engaged in varied and extreme sexual pracitces on the basis that the come into the category of WSW. It may even derive from data preceding information about HIV, but it's very supicious. I'm not happy about it either, but we need accurate and reliable statistics, not just assertions about what is really the case. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just had a look at it. Several of the statements are sourced to a BBC report which does indeed say that lesbians have "higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and obesity", but specifically excludes them from higher risk of HIV. Others are to medical journals which require institutional subscriptions. Given the misrepresentation of the accessible report, the accuracy of the reporting of the others cannot be trusted. Indeed one Pubmed cite specifically says that "All women with any history of sex with a woman were compared with women who denied ever having sex with another woman (controls)." This clearly is not the same as "lesbians". Paul B (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources cited at Lesbian_sexual_practices tend to support your take on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you have read "Vulvovaginal candidiasis in women who have sex with women", etc. or can point to someone reputable who has and agrees that it is, I don't see how you can call it "a pack of lies" The sources seem reputable and to claim what the text says they do.  Chrisrus (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree, given the misrepresentation of the two viewable sources, the ones behind subscription cannot be trusted to support these assertions. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not read "Vulvovaginal candidiasis in women who have sex with women", but the texts make it clear that they are about WSW, which is absolutely not the same as "lesbians". Almost all sex workers count as WSW, which means that drug use and risky sex are primary factors, not lesbianism. Indeed some of the reports explicitly say that, but this is not included in the account. The one accessible Pubmed summary on Vulvovaginal candidiasis says nothiing whatever about it being "more common" among lesbians, the summary simply provided evidence that it can be transmitted via lesbian sex and that promiscuity was the main factor. In any case this whole section is just a list of all possible negative medical conditions that the author could find, with no context an no attempt to explain the distinction between WSW and lesbians. Paul B (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gwen and Paul, the sources given do not reliable support the material. Dayewalker (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the BBC article and the part that referred to it. I hope this compromise is acceptable.  The remaining section seems well-documented by the author.  Chrisrus (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this whole section was added by User:Joshuajohanson an editor with a long history of tendentious editing on topics related to homosexuality. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a "compromise" at all. The sources either straightforwardly do not support the assertions or are not verifiable. I think the whole section should be taken out and kept out. I'm also not happy to see that User:Chrisrus has edit warred, restoring this content (or most of it) three times in the last 24 hours in spite of the worries brought up here by other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already warned them for the WP:3RR, and I still agree. Dayewalker (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, I am acting in good faith. Someone wrote that and cited it very well. I went and checked all the sources and they do in fact say what the author of the section says they do. They are all reliable sources. Anyone who disagrees should check out what I've posted below and show me where these sources don't say what the author says they say or that they cannot be checked when they easily can be checked. I am perfectly willing to see it moved or edited for clarity or balance or tone or whatever, but you can't say that it's "a pack of lies" and go around wiping out entire sections on false claims about the references and expect no one to undo you.

Why not add parts about all the health problems lesbians are LESS likely to have, or something? Or reconcile it with the article on lesbian sexual practices and more it there. But I watch my watch page like a good Wikipedian and will not stand idly by and see someone wipe out entire sections of well-cited material on baseless hyperbolic claims that are not supported in the references. Chrisrus (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the central point. Many of these studies are not about lesbians. A lesbian is a woman who self-identifies as homosexual. These studies are typically about WSW, which includes prostitutes, women who have spent time in prison, etc etc. These are far more likely to be injecting drug abusers and sexual risk-takers than are lesbians. They are also far more likely to use sex contextually. Sex is not about identity in these cases. It's about a lifestyle of sex as a tradeable commodity. The summary in this case make it clear: "All women with any history of sex with a woman were compared with women who denied ever having sex with another woman (controls)." In some cases it's true that the term "lesbian" is used, thougfh this often seems to be shorthand.Paul B (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your theory might be right in some cases, but you should really do more research. We have no evidence here that breast cancer, heart disease, or obesity are related to sexual activity of any sort.  BV is known in virgins, and vulvo-vaginal candidiasis has a bunch of causes.  In conclusion, although your theory might be right, we really don’t know for sure why these health concerns are statistically higher among lesbians, although the much higher likelyhood of lesbians engaging in certain activities is likely the cause of some of the statistical phenomena that have been noted.
 * Nor is nomenclature my problem. It's just that, the likelihood that a WSW is lesbian and the other way around seem obviously high.
 * My problem is people who go around deleting whole sections of pages without demonstrating good reason. Chrisrus (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Chrisrus, I think you're now straying into original research and cite spanning here. There is no evidence these studies are about lesbians, much less that the samples were scientifically randomized among all self-identified lesbians. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the following section "lesbian health concerns". If you need to, please check the sources yourself.  Next, Please check the new compromise edit in the article and either agree to it or suggest how it could be improved, or both.  Please do so in that section.  Please do not make any major changes, especially deletion, there until it is agreed.
 * Also, you might want to check on your understanding of the definitions of "original research" and "cite spanning" and then explain to why specifically what I have done constitutes that. If you want to respond to this point, please do so here, in this section.Chrisrus (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As has been said many times now, there is strong evidence the samples were not from randomized groups of of people who self-identified as lesbians. Spanning the outcome of these studies into any assertion about health characteristics found in a lesbian population (never mind the overall lesbian population worldwide) is at most original research and at its root, a misrepresentation of the sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not "expressed my own opinions, experiences, or arguments" in the article. I have not included "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" or "any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position"?  Please accusing me of this either here or in the section below, where we compare the claims in the article to the referrenced sourses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been unable to find any citation of the term "cite spanning" either on Wikipedia or Google which is not attributted to you, Gale. Have you invented the term?  Do you know where I can research it?  What does it mean when you use it?  You should try Googling it.  Chrisrus (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cite spanning is not my own term. It's also called synthesis. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Sorry, but I could not find any case anywhere of anyone using the term but you. Could you cite one?
 * Second. while searching for the term, I did find this: "...when a person superficially judges other editors and their actions by jumping at conclusions and slapping labels while brandishing Wikipedia policies as a tool for defeating other Wikipedians rather than resolving a conflict or finding a mutually agreeable solution." Do you know what that's called?Chrisrus (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, with regard to you accusations of "synthesis", I have put no point of view of my own on anything. I'm just trying to sort through the good from the bad here and mediate between you and others who want to hack the whole section off, on one side, and the author and his sources on the other.  Please just scroll down and carefully read the next section and I think you will see what I mean.Chrisrus (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)