Talk:Lesbian/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Removal of All Things Lesbian from External Links

I have to say that I understand completely where TechnoDyke is coming from. All Things Lesbian is also a resource for lesbian women and has been around for years as well, yet it has been recently removed from the external links section. I'm baffled as to why - it's been listed for a couple of years now and there are other lesbian community sites that still remain on the list. Can someone please explain to me the criteria used when deciding which community sites stay and which are deleted? LavendarWoman 01:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)LavendarWoman

I think that link's helpful, as you say it's been there a long time and I support keeping it. Gwen Gale 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Has it been there? I'm sorry - a quick glance of the site (and the recent TechnoDyke incident) let me to remove it. Sorry if I offended! I'll put it back if it hasn't already been. My bad! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
All the display ads do give a misleading first impression these days, I must say, but that site is loaded with categorized links to thousands of resources. Gwen Gale 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, folks :)LavendarWoman 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)LavendarWoman

How can I edit?

HOw can I edit on this page? There is incorrect information about the meaning of lesbian in Japanese. I like to correct something about the anime and manga part.

--S&T Kawaii Love 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is almost always a helpful way to start. What's the "incorrect information"? Gwen Gale 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Cinema and T.V. suggestions

Firstly, I would like to suggest that the 1999 movie But I'm a Cheerleader be included with the other lesbian films mentioned in the Culture section of this article, or in the Media depictions section under Cinema. Secondly, you should consider including Jackie Warner in this article, maybe after “Since the 1980s lesbians have been increasingly visible in mainstream cultural fields” under television. She is the star of the BRAVO reality T.V. show Workout and a prominent lesbian role model on television . Thanks--Juliaavery 05:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Pat(rick) Califia as a lesbian author?

While I realize that Patrick Califia's early work was published with the assumption that he was a lesbian, he now publicly identifies as a man and has (I understand) undergone surgical and hormonal transition to a male body. As such I'd like to recommend striking him from the list of authors listed in 'lesbian erotic fiction' since a person who is both physically and psychologically male doesn't fit most definitions of lesbian. While one could argue that his pre-transition work is lesbian authored, my understanding is that most female to male transexual persons identify as male throughout their life, and so it seems logical that none of his work would have been written by a "women who is romantically and sexually attracted only to women". There are lots of unequivocably women authors who write on erotic topics, and surely these would make clearer and less ambiguous examples of lesbian erotic writing. 64.180.166.112 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)svancouver

Califia's work should stay. The viewpoint of a biological man is considerably different than a woman who lived as a lesbian and transitioned to become a man.Moni3 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

I agree that Mr. Califia should be included, as he identified as lesbian at the time of some of his writings. However, to show proper respect to Mr. Califia, as well as to inform readers of his current male identity, it might be a good idea to include some kind of note after his name to clarify. Brylram (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not opposed to that, "who has since transitioned..." or something might be appropriate or might it be more wikipedic to simply ensure that the article on Califia points out authorship of lesbian work and let the reader find that information if they care? Benjiboi 14:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we have an edit melee?

Is there a way to include perhaps both photos so this does not pass into the ridiculous?Moni3 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Have you read that editor's edit summaries and seen his contribution history? Gwen Gale 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I saw it. To me it's a reflection on him that he doesn't know what he's talking about, not a reflection of the article itself or the editors who care about this article. Moni3 04:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Yeah, that's spot on what I was thinking too. Gwen Gale 13:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyway I'm undoing that editor's image swaps as disruption (and possibly vandalism). His edit summaries are both inaccurate and show a worrisome lack of understanding about both the images and the article topic. If a disinterested admin would like to drop by, that could be helpful. Moreover, I'll stop undoing those edits if other editors assert that they are not disruptive and I am asked to do so. Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 14:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so how does one get an admin involved in this? I don't honestly see a point in having one image over the other - both are beautiful images and appropriate for the article, and perhaps both should be included. I think whatshisname has some agenda in promoting the image since it has a connection to Turkey, but beyond that, I'm baffled.Moni3 18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

My biggest worries are the wholly inaccurate and reactionary edit summaries and relentless attempts to swap out an image which has been in the article for many months. I have a secondary concern about the editor's extremely limited contribution history. I'd welcome the opinion of a disinterested admin as to whether or not User:Fidelfair's edits are disruption, which may even border on vandalism (if the opinion happens to be that they aren't, I'll stop undoing them). Meanwhile I'd very much like to hear from other editors as to which image they prefer or if they'd like to see both in the article (or even another image altogether, or none at all). Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 18:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry my english ist not perfect, i mean your image is vandalism. The orginal Gustave Courbet, Sleep Image stand here long time from 25 June 2006 over the most time up to 13 March 2007!! Then have you vandalism edit by 18:53, 13 March 2007 for your the new image!
However your new image have no content with article! I see only one child head from the bed there.
Therefore I that deleted. Your picture belongs into the article bed or sleep, but certainly not lesbian! Fidelfair 22:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If your English isn't too good, it's probably a good idea *not* to edit the English part of Wikipedia. Those are not children in the Toulouse Lautrec painting you keep deleting. They are women. The image is not vandalism. Both images are appropriate for the article. Moni3 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Even with the obvious language issue, it baffles me how anyone could describe their take on a widely-known Lautrec painting of two adult women in a bed as "I see only one child head from the bed there." Accordingly, I'm continuing to undo this relentless attempt to swap out the image as disruption. As ever, if a disinterested admin should offer an opinion that Fidelfair's mistaken edit summaries, combined with that user's limited contribution history (which has mostly to do with a few video game articles) is not disruption, I'll stop undoing those edits. Gwen Gale 22:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This is certainly a bizarre thread. I don't have a problem with either image, but I do feel that Fidelfair has no justification for continuing to delete the Lautrec image without explaining his actions to the satisfaction of others. Kootenayvolcano 23:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. If Fidelfair was accurately describing the Lautrec and articulating either an esthetic or programmatic preference for the Courbet, I'd look at this so differently, which is to say, not as disruption (and in that context Moni3's notion about including both images would be a helpful one, but I see no evidence of that context so far). Gwen Gale 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The Laurec picture is ugly, it shows only a Bed with a head and a half head, under a blanket. I do not see the context to the article. You reduce humans to its hair!
That is the same, if the artist paints only one wall and then somebody says, there meets 20 women behind. That is simply stupid. 1 head and a half head with indefinable sex, is no picture for the Article Lesbian! I would not use it or only as replacement for alternate censorship sign... Fidelfair 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well. That clears things up. Perhaps it is time for an admin to step in after all. This reasoning has no logic whatsoever. Lautrec's depiction of his subject is just as valid as Courbet's regardless of how much flesh is being shown (and it's starting to sound as if some naked chicks are to be featured above all). I say that with the authority vested in my as an artist and a total lesbo. Fidelfair is doing art critique, disguising it as editing, and forcing the article to suffer. Perhaps Dali should be called in since it has entered the realm of the surreal.Moni3 01:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I think Moni3 is spot on, Fidelfair wants a pic of "naked chicks" (having sex) in the article is all and characterizes the Lautrec as "censorship." I'm undoing that user's edits following Wp:disrupt and WP:Civility (the OT/OR reasoning, personal attacks, misleading edit summaries and so on). The user's very limited contribution history, which otherwise seems focused on video games, is another concern. I'll stop undoing Fidelfair's edits if asked to do so by a disinterested admin or 2-3 other editors. That said, if a few editors later support the inclusion of the Courbet (or any other image, or none at all, in the sexuality section), then consensus would have sway. Gwen Gale 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh a video game editor... to whom do you want with this statement what sell? And your vandalism counter is higher, ok, but is you therefore more qualified? Fidelfair 15:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

To the two other editors who commented/edited in response to this, thanks, I was hoping for input. All the best (to Fidelfair too)! Gwen Gale 10:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fidelfair was subsequently given a 72 hour block for persistent vandalism on project maintenance pages: He had uploaded many images relating to his strong PoV which were swiftly tagged for deletion. Given the whole context of that editor's history along with his inarticulate reasoning for insisting the Courbet be included and the Lautrec be removed (see above thread), I've rm'd the Courbet. Editors are more than welcome to articulately discuss restoring the Courbet to the article (I think it's a distraction from the text). Cheers to all. Gwen Gale 20:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Medieval European perceptions of lesbianism

I've added some information about medieval European perceptions of lesbianism, but it was removed a few times (note: twice --Gwen Gale 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)) by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs). I feel it belongs on this page. Historical perceptions of lesbianism are an important aspect of this article, critical or not. I think the phrasing of the addition is very neutral. --Eyrian 00:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

While the information is interesting, it lacks the context of a date. The source cited says "2000" but if the text included is indicative of Medieval Europe, it needs to say that. The way it is currently written makes it sound a bit...present tense. ZueJay (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added some date information. --Eyrian 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Much better; but should it be "This reflected" instead of "reflects"? ZueJay (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Changed. --Eyrian 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that will alleviate some of the concerns of some editors, myself included. : ) Thanks ZueJay (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The added context helps a lot. Thanks for tweaking it. Gwen Gale 02:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Anime/Manga edits

I removed the mention of Azumanga Daioh as far as Lesbianism for two reasons; 1. This sort of admiration from one female peer to another in Japan does not necessarily mean the characters are lesbian (I wish I had a good reference I could point to on this, but unfortunately, I don't) and 2. Even if this were an example of Lesbianism, the reference is relatively small, from a culturally and artistically relatively unimportant anime (which is not to say it isn't good; merely not groundbreaking or especially important in this particular area), and including it could open the door to hundreds of other anime that include relationships of this sort. (ie, any anime with an older/masculine/rich/sophisticated female main character.)--Sailor Titan 22:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Comics

There was a character from Alpha Flight, Northstar, who was gay. I mention it only because it says in the article that homosexual characters weren't allowed in mainstream comics before 1989.

Titillation

I can't believe there's nothing in this article about lesbianism being exploited in media for male titillation. It really needs to be acknowledged. A gx7 06:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add something supported by a verifiable reference in a secondary source (WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR). Cheers! Gwen Gale 06:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's better suited for the lesbian disambiguation page. You can write a whole topic about it if you want. Sakura rin24 10:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking about starting Lesbian exploitation. I think it would be justified considering there's an article for "nunsploitation". I still think it should be mentioned in this article though. A gx7 11:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this topic, and the only thing that comes to mind where references can be used is the deliberate appeal of lesbian pulp fiction to men, specifically the cover art. Otherwise, if one does a Google search of the term, "lesbian" how can you use that as a reference to show the majority of the sites that come up with be porn sites designed for men? --Moni3 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
This topic is already dealt with in Lesbianism in erotica. Gwen Gale 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be misleading to include the exploitation of 'lesbianism' when the article is about lesbians. In the context of porn, the women involved are not expressing their sexuality, they are doing a job for money (regardless of their orientation). I'm also not sure it would fit with 'lesbian expoitation' as it exploits the concept or the sexual activity, not lesbians themselves. I think it is better left out as it confuses the issue. However a passing mention is relvant in my view. MegdalePlace 19:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel that it would confuse this topic if it had a section on lesbian exploitation. The article Sexual intercourse touches on other aspects of sexual intimacy, although the term Sexual intercourse, in its original context, means coitus. Thus this article does not have to have a big section on Lesbian exploitation. It could be one that gives a brief overview of the topic, then points to the main article for more on it (when or if one is created...or rather to the article Lesbianism in erotica, as Gwen Gale points out). Flyer22 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Why would this be characterized as lesbian exploitation? Either way, lesbianism is not pornography. Gwen Gale 20:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You mean why would Lesbianism in erotica be characterized as lesbian exploitation? I didn't state that it would be, and I wasn't implying such. I was rather pointing to the fact that you told A gx7 or Moni3...or both...that lesbian exploitation was already covered in Lesbianism in erotica. And, yes, I'm well aware that lesbianism is not pornography, though it can be, just as other topics relating to sexual orientation can be. Flyer22 21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You might be muddling lesbianism with Lesbian erotica. Cheers! Gwen Gale 21:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not. And back to the subject, since I wasn't the one who stated that lesbian exploitation is already covered in Lesbianism in erotica, I again state that I am all for A gx7's suggestion for this article. A gx7 doesn't seem to be around Wikipedia now, however. And I don't feel like typing up that suggestion into an actual section in this article, so it seems that this discussion has come to an end for now. Flyer22 23:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You said earlier, "lesbianism is not pornography, though it can be" but I don't think lesbianism is ever pornography, they're not the same thing. There are lots of Xploitation genres in popular commercial culture, they all spring from rather much the same entertainment formula. Lesbianism in erotica already deals with this aspect of Xploitation genre (and it's in the see also section of this article). I also think Lesbian exploitation might easily stray from WP:FORK. Meanwhile I see no need to write a section about Lesbianism in erotica for this article, as I see no need for a Pornography section in the article Woman, or a Child pornography section in the article Girl. Gwen Gale 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And I wasn't stating that lesbianism in of itself is pornography, but rather that an aspect of it can be, such as Lesbianism in erotica. And I wouldn't compare an exploitation of lesbian section being put in this article as the same as Lesbianism in erotica for this article, or a Pornography section in the article Woman, or a Child pornography section in the article Girl. The fact of men exploiting lesbianism does not have to mean the same thing as pornography. A gx7 was suggesting a section in this article that addresses lesbianism being exploited in the media for male titillation, which you seemed to be okay with being added to this article, and is what I was stating that I was okay with being added to this article. Even if this article did include a topic on Lesbianism in erotica, I don't feel that it would take away from this article, since that is related to lesbianism; no one is saying that that is what lesbianism is about. And your saying that "there are lots of Xploitation genres in popular commercial culture, they all spring from rather much the same entertainment formula. Lesbianism in erotica already deals with this aspect of it" is what I was saying about your stating that that article already covers this. However, a section in this article about lesbianism being exploited in the media for male titillation, I felt and still feel can be different than what is in the Lesbianism in erotica article, which I don't really feel covers this topic as thoroughly. But, anyway, I was merely agreeing with A gx7, not hard-pressed on this topic being added to this article. Flyer22 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If when you write "lesbianism being exploited in the media for male titillation" you mean non-pornographic depictions of lesbian characters in popular entertainment, if someone found a citation from a reliable source which comments on this, I'd support putting it in either the film or broadcast media section. Gwen Gale 01:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure that another part of what A gx7 meant is how lesbianism is often used as male titillation in such instances where a network may introduce a scene of two women kissing to boost television ratings, etc. (the non-pornographic type of instances, at least what I wouldn't call pornographic)...such as what Spike TV often does. Yes, I'd be fine with your suggestion about this matter, Gwen Gale. Though I'm not up for going and typing up some of these types of instances and gathering valid sources for them...yet. Flyer22 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 15:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

She hate me

Someone mistakenly added...

...to the broadcast media section. It's a film. Before mentioning it in the prose film section though, I read the WP synopsis. It sounds like a comedy which gets its laughs partly by exploiting mossy stereotypes about lesbians. Hence I don't think it belongs in the article but I haven't seen the film, or even heard of it before. Comments? Cheers to all! Gwen Gale 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Rock

I'm confused. Was Chris Rock the first one to suggest Peppermint Patty was a lesbian? If not who suggested it first? Did the term Peppermint Patties come about as a result of his monologue? 76.64.208.181 21:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Gamma

The Peppermint Patty thing is an urban legend, from wence the term came and which Chris Rock repeated. There is no support for it within the strip. Schulz said he named her after a dish of peppermint patties on his desk. Gwen Gale 21:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Strawberry Panic!

I find it a little hard to believe there even has to be a discussion about strawberry panic in a real-life lesbian article. In any case, why are you so adament about the title staying? Sakura rin24 12:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I for one, am not at all adamant about that title staying in the article. Please consider the following:
  • The article has developed an emphasis on rather detailed descriptions about the representation of lesbian characters and topics in the popular media. I'm not at all sure this is helpful, although it makes the article kinda fun to read. I think most of these references should be broken out into a separate article though.
  • Responding to your question made in an edit summary, I think the editor who used the term "mild lesbian" meant "lesbian content which is not aggresively so, or constantly overt, never mind explicit." I was ok with putting it that way when the edit was made by another editor but can also understand why some editors might not grok what this means, since this is a high profile article which tends to attract a wide range of readers worldwide, who bring their own vocabularies and cultural perceptions to it.
  • I propose looking about for more cited commentary about lesbian characters and topics in the popular media rather than having these prose lists (as cool as they may be).
  • So yeah, I do way agree with what you said in the edit summary, that some rewriting is still in order.

All the best! Gwen Gale 13:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I do see your point now. I'm sorry if I came off sounding a little..harsh/off. It was a mistaken assumption on my part and I apologise for it. Sakura rin24 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Anime Section

As I don't know if I can edit this section yet, under Anime, would someone add that in a later publication of Cardcapter Sakura, the "allusions" of Tomoyo's attraction to Sakura are confirmed, as the publisher re-produced the Manga in a much more authentic format and translation? Thanks. Interestingly enough, there was a similar homosexual relationship between Sakura's Brother Toya and his best friend (and her crush) Yukito.

Props to CLAMP.

~~Val~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.196.93 (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Improving article for GA??

Is the article to a place where it can be improved or possibly nominated for Good Article status? Is that a goal for the folks who maintain this article? If so, now that is has partial protection, it's probably a good idea to get it done pretty soon. My suggestions:

  • Move "Sexuality" section to the top, since the article is in essence, about sexuality.
  • Expand the lead to summarize the points of each section.
  • Reference as much information as possible. Add fact tags to information that should have references. I don't like it really when people do this to the articles I maintain, but it does help me to know where I need citations. Good article guidelines state that there should be at least one referenced citation in each paragraph, and the more the better (although quality of references is by far more important than quantity).
  • The article seems short for a topic so large. I don't quite know what to add without going overboard, and I know there are extended articles off of this one (lesbian history, or lesbian literature, for examples). Can we add a paragraph that briefly summarizes these other articles and add main article tags?

I didn't want to start editing stuff without consulting the folks who have added the most to the article. Anyone else have suggestions? Thoughts on these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article is about sexuality, or Lesbian sexuality, I think it's about the topic Lesbian. Gwen Gale 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all right. Fair enough. The topic "Lesbian" however, as pointed out by the first sentence in the lead and the Sexual Orientation and Sexology template is a topic that essentially addresses the sexuality of women. Should that not be represented by the first and most significant section? --Moni3 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I don't think those templates define Lesbian, nor can they. I see no reason to swap out the history section as the first in the article, since it provides helpful and meaningful context to this topic, which has significant cultural and historical aspects along with the attraction which defines it (and which is clearly addressed in the first sentences of the header). Gwen Gale 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Okeydoke. Any comments on the other changes I proposed? Are you fairly happy with the article the way it is now? --Moni3 22:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
My take on nudging the article towards GA would be to greatly expand the culture and feminism sections with sundry cited commentary along with adding more history. Also, I do think the Media depictions section (other than the part dealing with film) is way shy on cited commentary and context and too much a bunch of prose lists (which are lots of fun to read, so they've stuck, but it's not very encyclopedic). That's how I see it anyway. This article is helpful and educational but has a long way to go before it gets to GA. I'm not thrilled about the Transwomen and trans-inclusion section being in this article at all, but this is very controversial and I think consensus should have sway. Gwen Gale 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I must say, the article still has a way to go before it gets to GA but with the restored sections (see below) maybe I wouldn't call it "a long way." Gwen Gale 12:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I brought this up then, in light of the rediscovery of missing parts...I agree that the feminism section should be expanded greatly. In fact, the article should cover so much information, when I sat back to think of what should be added, I got a little frightened. A whole lot, and I don't even know where to begin. When I start working on an article, I go to a few that are good quality and steal some inspiration from them. In looking at the Homosexuality article, it's quite extensive, and in equating that parts I think should be added, I realize there's no way I can do that all. It might even be a project to bring up to WP:LGBT to get a team of editors working away like beavers. Ha. Beavers...

I have quite a bit of research information available to me. I can do my best to seek out specific topics, but I think I need help in narrowing the focus. I'm way too ADD to start at the top and work down. I'm also concerned that the information I have access to is limited to a US-centered approach. Help. --Moni3 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Yeah. While I very much hope others will comment here, I must say homosexuality is not the same thing as lesbian, so I'd be wary of using that article as any kind of model: Lesbianism has as much to do with culture, anthropology and feminism as it does sexuality. So far as a US/UK-bias goes, one might keep in mind a) this the English wikipedia, b) the article in a few spots does note the sway of lesbianism in Japanese culture and c) a "bias" towards US/UK/Japanese sources tends to reflect the wider availability of sources and open referenced to it in those cultures. This is not to say the article couldn't use more narrative about other places and cultures, but these are harder to find and verify so the article tends to follow the available sources in proportion. Gwen Gale 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean about the differences involved in Homosexuality vs. Lesbian. In some instances, lesbian issues can be included under the homosexuality article, but there are many separate issues homosexuality doesn't cover well enough, as you mentioned (although it was the closest good article I used as a first visit). Might it help if we took it section by section to suggest what needs to be cited and what needs to be added to each section? What comes to mind now is asking folks their best sources for their information. For example, what's your best source for information on lesbian sexuality? Susie Sexpert? Joanne Loulan? The Whole Lesbian Sex Book? Books? Magazines? I'd ask the same for Public Policy, History, Feminism and Lesbianism, etc. I think I might nudge some folks at WP:LGBT to enter this discussion. --Moni3 23:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I suggest moving up Feminism as the second section after History; to me the women's movement dovetailed with the rise of lesbian empowerment. I think I would put Sexuality next with differing takes on importance within the communities; followed by Culture which I think dovetail nicely into Media depictions which, in turn helps shape Public policy. I think a section on Politics could stand alone and go in front of Public policy. Benjiboi 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict). I wouldn't say that this article or the topic of Lesbian isn't about sexuality or Lesbian sexuality. I mean, it cannot escape its sexual aspect, and even the lead of this article addresses sexual orientation first, as it should. I'm sure that that's what Moni3 meant in suggesting that we put the sexuality section first. Either way, I'm glad that work will begin to get this article up to GA status. I'd love to help out. Flyer22 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Great discussion, everyone. I like Benjiboi 's suggestions for order of the sections. And I absolutely agree with Gwen Gale that sexuality is not the bedrock of this article. It is an aspect among many relevant to lesbians. Kootenayvolcano 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
As a side note- I agree with Moni3 and Gwen Gale that the

Feminsim section needs some serious improvement and expansion. Maybe a good first step? Kootenayvolcano 00:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that sexuality is just one aspect of the topic Lesbian. That's what I was pointing out in my above post. I saw why Moni suggested that the sexuality section be listed first, but I'm more for Benjiboi's vision of this article as well. I've seen Moni and Benjiboi's work on articles here at Wikipedia (it's great), and I'm glad that they will be working with us to improve this one. Flyer22 00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored sections

I'm rather happy Moni3 brought up the topic of GA, not the least because this stirred me to re-read the article during which I found the entire history section was rm'd by an anon three weeks ago and never restored. I've put it back. Gwen Gale 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

...And I've restored the Reproduction and parenting rights section along with the Parthenogenesis subsection which were also blanked in that same edit three weeks ago.

The content blanking seems to have been missed because the helpful (anon) editor who rm'd the vandalism didn't do so by reverting back to the latest intact version :/ Gwen Gale 12:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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:

Allegorical kiss between Justice and Peace.
Allegorical kiss between Justice and Peace.

Sexual practices

Different sexual activities practiced among lesbians:

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)
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).[1] [1]

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)

External links

The EL section was getting rather crowded. I've moved both news articles and websites not specifically having to do with lesbian topics here, for discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:37, 11 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)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.