Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian-identified male


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Lesbian-identified male

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This term is nonsense. There's no such thing as a male lesbian. The word "male" as part of this term I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) is a reference to the point of view of people who think trans women are really men. We aren't supposed to use this point of view in Wikipedia. Georgia guy (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, per WP:NEO and the absence of WP:Notability. Like I stated here, "No neologisms without a very good reason." Looking at the sources used to support this article, I see no WP:Notability to base this article on. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Re. the nomination, I believe the term is used to indicate people who are not explicitly trans*, as opposed to "the point of view of people who think trans women are really men". Having said that, delete as a poorly-sourced neologism. BTW, I've only really ever seen this term used in jest, and I'm struggling to understand it. Not a reason to delete, as I don't fully understand nuclear physics either, but ... - A l is o n  ❤ 00:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Alison, before you linked to, and I clicked on, that article, it'd been quite sometime since I last visited it. I remember when the transgender debates were constantly going on there (I even partook in the "Not LGBT" one, though I now somewhat cringe at the "sex they were born as" text I used there, even though I was speaking of biological/anatomical traits present at birth), and I do wonder how serious he is about calling himself a male lesbian. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, he only uses the term in jest. He's a stand-up comedian, after all - A l is o n  ❤ 17:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as poorly sourced (2 sources used), WP:NEO, WP:FRINGE, and not WP:NOTABLE. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete any real sociologist would find this laughable. A straight man can't be a lesbian due to not understanding the experience. This is due to male and heterosexual privilege. The article has made clear this isn't a trans-issue but about men who identify as lesbians. I believe I stand with sociology, feminism and LGBT activists when I say this doesn't work.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The term male lesbian isn't something new. It goes back at least twenty years. I used to hear Jerry Williams refer to himself as one back in my radio talkshow listening days and that ended in 1993 or 1994. The article may be badly written(I did some tweaks to it but I'm not a gender studies expert) and many people might consider the concept hogwash but the term does exist and it has been portrayed in mainstream media....William 15:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't about usage its about validity and I really highly doubt that even if this word is used seriously which I hope it isn't that any major LGBT scholar or activist would consider a cisgender heterosexual male a lesbian. I mean even if we keep the article there would need to be a huge criticism section which many of the people criticizing the concept would be lesbian. We don't only need usuage but both validity and reliability.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it's exactly about usage not validity: at Wikipedia we write about commonly used concepts regardless of whether they're true or false, logical or meaningless, sensible or silly (you want to delete ontological argument, invisible pink unicorn, or fascism)? There's an article on "male lesbians" by Jacquelyn N Zita in Adventures in Lesbian Philosophy edited by Claudia Card. There's also coverage in lower-quality sources, and other brief mentions in books (mostly about the L-Word). I'm not absolutely certain it meets notability requirements, but this should be evaluated on the basis of whether the concept has enough coverage in reliable sources, not based on personal opinions about whether it's stupid. Of course, it's fine if the article says it's stupid as long as that's the majority opinion of the reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete/merge well-sourced content (if good target can be found). There are two notable examples as far as i can tell. Eddie Izzard, and Lisa from the L Word. Lisa is fictional, but being a hallmark of contemporary lesbian culture, the show's impact should be taken into value. I think a paragraph in a suitable article about identities might be appropriate. But I'm not sure where. Covering the topic, even in a limited way, certainly makes sense. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. "Male lesbian" is definitely not a new term. I've more often heard it phrased that way or as "guydyke" (analogous to "girlfag") than as "lesbian-identified male" though. Regardless of whether anyone considers this gender identity to be valid or not, I think the article should stand if more sources are found. Funcrunch (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If this were attempting to establish a gender identity I would be more open to the idea but I quote directly from the article "Despite this disposition, lesbian-identifying males express no desire to undergo the physical nor social transitions transgendered people experience in the pursuit of true gender-identity performance." Does that honestly sound like they are attempting to identify as women. This is about Cisgender Heterosexual Men who wish to identify as lesbian. I don't think most lesbians would consider these people lesbians.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One does not have to undergo any kind of transition to claim a gender identity. And for the purposes of Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks about the validity of this identity. The point is that "male lesbian" is how some people identify themselves, like it or not. The question of whether the entry should remain in Wikipedia should center around whether the term is suitably notable and adequately sourced. Funcrunch (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment the word lesbian in every dictionary I could find refers to women, girls or females. Not men. Therefore a lesbian-identified male is like Hindi-identified Christian or an Atheist-identified Muslim. If you don't believe me I will gladly post some definitions.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak merge I think there might be just about enough to keep this, but it's a very difficult one, since the term "male lesbian" clearly has several different uses, ranging from a jokey expression meaning "a straight man with a strong feminine side" to a rather marginal theory that there are straight men who see themselves as "really" women in some sense. As a phrase, it's common enough in variant forms, but as a coherent concept in psychology or gender-theory it seems to be less stable. There are really very few sources, a weak article from the '90s written at the height of po-mo gender-theory babble, and something by Brain Gilmartin, a writer whose own article was recently deleted because he is not notable enough:Articles for deletion/Brian G. Gilmartin. I should add that there was recently a long and acrimonious deletion discussion about an article on "incels", one of Gilmartin's other contributions to psychology. It was merged. See here. However, it's clearly on the borders of notability. It certainly can't be deleted for the reasons given by Rainbowofpeace, because Rainbowofpeace has decided that "a straight man can't be a lesbian due to not understanding the experience." That's a complete non-sequitur. It has the same (il)logical form as the argument that gay people can't get "married", because the word married has to refer to heterosexual couples. You don't get to decide what the "true" experience must be. And in any case it misses the point entirely, since Wikipedia policy simply requires that a concept is sufficiently notable and sourcable to have an article. We don't delete articles to suppress content we don't approve of. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of whether anyone believes you or the dictionary definition, it's a matter of whether or not some people claim this identity. If there are enough reliable sources to support that a sizable number of people identify as "male lesbians", then it is worth keeping the article, no matter how ridiculous, distasteful, or offensive you or anyone else finds that term. More reliable sources can always be added to the article criticizing the use of this term. Funcrunch (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How is this not a dictionary issue. I could find people who identify as cows. That doesn't mean they are I have not found a single dictionary that defines the term "lesbian" as encompassing men, boys or males. Wikipedia is not here to have an article on every psychosis someone decides to call themselves. It would be one thing if we were talking about trans lesbians but as I pointed out earlier with the quote that is clearly not what we are talking about.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not possible or desirable to include every identity in Wikipedia. The question is how notable this particular identity is. There almost certainly aren't enough people who believe they are cows to include an article on "Cow-identified humans", but there are enough people who identify as (partly or wholly) non-human to merit an Otherkin article, for example. Whether anyone deems this to be a legitimate identity or a "psychosis", the question is one of notability. Funcrunch (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ETA per above: You might want to check out the AfD discussion on Otherkin for similar arguments to the ones we're having on this topic. Funcrunch (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether there is coverage of the term. Huffington Post writer Ali A. Rizvi considers himself an atheist-muslim, btw, and has written some good articles on the topic. If that term gains some secondary coverage, it could realistically merit a wikipedia article at some point. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Flyer22. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not a conversation about whether or not they exist. It is not wikipedia's job to make such conclusions.  It is wikipedia's role to disseminate established information.  If secondary sources on a subject area are lacking (as they are here), that falls to the researchers to correct.  Deleting the article is not an invalidation of a group's identity, it is simply stating that there is not yet enough coverage to establish that the term is notable. If the term gains more traction, then a new article will be warranted.  In the mean time, it is our job as editors to reflect the consensus of reliable sources.  Personal opinions about the sanity or intentions of members of any group are always irrelevant to the discussion.Wickedjacob (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think this might be a titling problem. The Hypatia article in the footnotes lends weight to the argument that this is an encyclopedic concept, except perhaps not under this precise title. For what it's worth, I had an employee (male) who went the TS road so that they could become a lesbian, so I know first-hand that it is a real thing, contrary to the nominator's assertion. Is there more coverage than this out there? What should be the real title? Matters to be resolved, for sure. But I think the two sources here make for a (weak) GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I want it to be known that for me this is not a trans issue. If we were talking about trans women identifying as lesbians I would have no problem with it. However I point I out two quotes "Despite this disposition, lesbian-identifying males express no desire to undergo the physical nor social transitions transgendered people experience in the pursuit of true gender-identity performance." and "The men studied in Gilmartin's work differentiate themselves from transgendered people and are comfortable with their heterosexuality." I think this makes it clear that we are not talking about trans-women who identify as lesbians but Cisgender Heterosexual Men. That's what I have a problem with. I want my position to not be mistaken. For me this isn't a trans-issue its an issue of definition-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.