Talk:Lesbian

"Female" vs. "woman," and linking "woman"

Spacemarine10, regarding this edit you made, it's been discussed before. "Female" was used because "woman" is so often taken to refer to adults, but the term lesbian refers to girls in addition to women. That stated, the Woman article does note that "woman" can also refer to girls, which might be why Pyxis Solitary linked to it. I reverted Pyxis Solitary per WP:SEAOFBLUE and WP:Overlinking. But if it's felt that "woman" needs to be linked in this case for context, maybe we can work something out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the term lesbian, though, I'm sure that people know that it can refer to girls as well. At least the vast majority of people know that. And for the few who will think that we only mean that the term applies to adult women, the lead does state the following as well: "The term lesbian is also used to express sexual identity or sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation, or as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns with female homosexuality or same-sex attraction." So, yeah, people should know that "girls" is included somewhere in that. There's enough in the media these days about teenage lesbians for them to have a clue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the reason people want to emphasize female is to make it clear that male people can’t be lesbians, without disrespecting people’s gender identity, which might involve identifying as a woman despite being male. — AtomicBeth —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason you gave when changing the article. And it wasn't my concern in the past either. Both of our concerns were about "woman" possibly being seen to exclude minors. Anyway, I answered further in the #Recent edits section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead sentence

As seen with this and this edit back in 2017, I removed the colon from the lead sentence, so that the lead read as follows: "A lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women." I never liked the colon it and didn't see them as needed (except for the fact that stating "a lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women" can imply that there is some other type of lesbian woman with regard to romantic or sexual attraction). It was only there as compromise wording worked out years ago. Recently, Sandstein changed the wording from "is a homosexual woman who" to "is a homosexual woman, that is, a woman who is." As seen here, here and here, I found this wording awkward and changed it to "(or a homosexual woman)" before deciding on "or a homosexual woman" without the parentheses. With this edit, Sandstein went back to the colon style. Rivertorch and Popcornduff, can I get your opinions on this, since you two deal with grammar well?

Why are we even defining what homosexual means when it's common knowledge what it means? Why not just leave the sentence at "A lesbian is a homosexual woman."? The rest of the lead addresses the identity aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I think many WP editors get an overwhelming itch to change existing text just for the sake of change. The opening sentence
"A lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women."
was understandable as written -- but I would change the "or" to "and". (I would also favor addition of the adverb 'exclusively' or 'solely' before "romantically" because in today's LGBTXYZ world the idea that all humans are capable of banging anything that moves regardless of the biological sex of the sexual partner is becoming forced feeding). Pyxis Solitary talk 10:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"Exclusively" (or "solely") has been discussed before. The reason it's been left out of the lead sentence, even back when Moni3 (who is now retired with the occasional return) wrote most of this article and brought it to WP:GA, is because of reasons indicated by the "Sexuality and lesbian identity" section. The term is not defined consistently by researchers or the lesbian community. Numerous reliable sources discuss this, which is why there is a section detailing it. That stated, "homosexual" is usually taken to mean "only into the same sex/gender," and I have been thinking about noting the "exclusively" aspect (as in "may be defined as exclusively [...]") to go along with the "also used to express sexual identity or sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation" part. As long as we have both the attraction and identity aspects in the lead and lower article, we've done our job. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22, I think you've already identified the problem when you wrote: stating "a lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women" can imply that there is some other type of lesbian woman with regard to romantic or sexual attraction. It's tautological, so a colon or parentheses or something else is necessary to at least avoid the sentence being essentially silly. I think the colon is an elegant solution, myself. Popcornduff (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff, yeah, I get that. I also find it redundant without a colon, but I additionally find it redundant with the colon portion of the line. Again, why not just go with "A lesbian is a homosexual woman."? What need is there to spell it out, as if readers don't now what homosexual means? We also link to the Homosexuality article for further detail. So "is a homosexual woman" is enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22's proposal is ok for me. My original change was to amend the wording "A lesbian is a homosexual woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women", because this could be read to imply that there is some other category of homosexual women who are not attracted to other women. The descriptions are basically redundant, and I'm OK with just keeping "homosexual". Sandstein 15:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

That works for me. Another option would be to remove the "homosexual" part from the lead sentence: "A lesbian is a woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women". (For the record, I'm not much bothered by the colon either. I do see the wording that Sandstein changed as potentially confusing, but I think the "that is" construction was awkward.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing "homosexual" if it weren't for the fact that it's an essential aspect of what being lesbian means and a bisexual woman is also "a woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to other women." So per that, and keeping Pyxis Solitary's comment in mind, I'd prefer not to remove "homosexual." Again, that the lesbian identity may not align with sexual orientation and/or behavior is already covered in the lead and lower in the article. We should at least first define the term by its common "homosexual woman" understanding. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we need "homosexual" for the reasons Flyer mentions.

To be honest, I don't have a problem with spelling out the implications of what a homosexual woman is, since the article feels like a salient place for it. But I wouldn't object to removing it. Whatever we do, though, I think the "a lesbian is a homosexual woman is attracted to" etc phrasing has to go, for reasons of tautology. Popcornduff (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Aaack. I shouldn't have commented when I was so fatigued. Of course you all are right: that lesbians are homosexual needs to be stated. I think we can just say, "A lesbian is a homosexual woman". "Homosexual" is linked, which ought to suffice for that rare reader who doesn't know what it means. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"A lesbian is a homosexual woman". Plain and simple, and suitable. No ifs, ands, or derrières. Pyxis Solitary talk 07:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Tried the simple version. But now the lead paragraph seems lacking and very tiny compared to the other paragraphs in the lead. Should we move anything from the second paragraph to the first paragraph? Pinging Sandstein and Popcornduff since I know that Rivertorch and Pyxis Solitary are watching the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Nah, reading over the lead again, it seems that the paragraphs are well-constructed and should remain as is. I figured that removing the excess from the lead paragraph would make it look even smaller compared to the other paragraphs. And now I wouldn't mind adding it back, LOL. Actually, I got used to the colon use again sometime after Sandstein added it and we discussed it. It's just that I've never been a fan of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I can see some benefit to spelling out what "homosexual" is in the lead: a reader who wants to know what "lesbian" means may not know what "homosexual" means either, and if they don't click on it the rest of the article is just going to confuse them. Sandstein 18:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Per above, I don't think we need to spell out what homosexual is. People usually know what it means. I don't think we should say "A lesbian is a homosexual woman.", and then say "Homosexual" or "Homosexual woman" "means [so and so]," which would then be followed by what else the term lesbian means and how it's used. I'd much prefer to just go with the colon aspect than do that. If by "spelling it out," you meant the colon aspect, then okay. I don't object to it as strongly as I did before, and I did note that it fills out the lead paragraph better, but I still think it's safer to just go with the simple setup. In the past, editors (me included) have gotten tripped up on trying to define "lesbian" in the lead. One issue has been the fact that "lesbian" can also apply to girls (teenage girls in particular), but we currently say "woman." You can see the brief section above where I revisited this. I guess now we could say "girl or woman" easily. For me, an issue has also been my familiarity with the literature and (like I noted above) therefore knowing that women and researchers don't always define "lesbian" consistently, and also knowing that it's hard to come by sources that state "exclusively sexually attracted to" for the term. But "is a homosexual woman" is the common understanding of the term, and, like I stated, we should at least begin with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine now. I'm not a fan of adding prose to define common words—it disrupts the flow, and besides, that's what Wiktionary is for. "Homosexual" is linked to homosexuality, which places a full explanation of the word one click away for those benighted souls too lazy to key in function+F12 (or whatever the Windows equivalent may be). I'm guessing that less than one percent of readers will be unclear on what the word means, but whatever the percentage, we're making it easy for them. I'm dating myself here, but it wasn't so long ago that I used to have to reach for a printed, bound dictionary to look up unfamiliar words. I confess that I still do this on occasion, and I generally suffer no harm from such an undertaking. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Titles: Identity and gender in historical western culture and Outside western culture

Are these titles OK? Why should the history be divided between western and outside western? Why does western history have more space than all other regions combined have?--Abutalub (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's more or less inevitable. While broadening Wikipedia's coverage to make it more global is well worth doing, the content is based on what reliable secondary sources say. For many topics, including this one, the majority of sources are western. It occurs to me that non-western cultures (and I don't necessarily mean that in a strictly geographical sense) have tended to view sexual orientation and sexual identity in a rather different light than most western cultures have, so the division probably makes sense. Why? Do you have a different idea for how to structure the artice? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what Rivertorch stated. The titles are fine, and the vast majority of sources on sexual orientation and sexual identity are western. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If the sources about western culture is huge then another article (Identity and gender in historical western culture) could be created and information could be summarized in this article. Then all regions will have the equal space.--Abutalub (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is concerned with due weight, not equal weight. If the majority of reliable sources about lesbians that we can access are western, then it would constitute undue weight to limit our coverage of what such sources say to a summary while including more thorough coverage of non-western sources. We don't create inequalities in the world, but we mustn't pretend they don't exist by artificially inflating the relative importance of some sources over others. If you've identified specific deficits in an article's coverage, all you can do is seek out additional reliable secondary sources to help fill the void. (I'm speaking in general terms, not suggesting this article has such a deficit.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted the recent edits by AtomicBeth. For one, editors have complained about using "female" instead of "woman" for that lead sentence. That, and the fact that adolescent girls can also be lesbians has been addressed before; see the #"Female" vs. "woman," and linking "woman" section above. We could state "woman or adolescent girl," but I don't see that it's needed, and sources don't state that anyway. They state "woman" (which can also mean "adolescent girl"). AtomicBeth removed "to express sexual identity or sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation," and stated, "Lesbian is a sexual orientation." Lesbian is not solely a sexual orientation. It is also a sexual identity (and is more so that since it's primarily used to refer to a homosexual orientation or behavior), and the article is explicitly clear about that. Some don't have to like it, but lesbian is not defined consistently among researchers and those who identify as lesbian. The article is explicitly clear about that. Per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. And, yes, that different application of the term lesbian should be in the lead paragraph. And, finally, AtomicBeth talked about removing speculation. None of that is speculation. It is supported by the sources. Yes, not every sentence has an inline citation after it. That is because Moni3, who wrote most of this article, did not believe in overciting. See WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

AtomicBeth's editing also included a little WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I restored these "female husbands," changes, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you reverted the bit actually mentioning lesbians in the paragraph about honor killings. It reads like such a non-sequitur without that connection. My other edits were intended to make it clearer that lesbianism is a specifically female phenomenon. The article needs to be clearer on that. — AtomicBeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicBeth (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

AtomicBeth, I wasn't focused on reverting just one of your edits. I focused on reverting all of them. But when it comes to adding in things, if the content is supported by the sources, I am open to doing that. Your "including at least some who are killed because of their lesbianism" addition is not supported by the source. Add a source for it, and it will be fine. As for "clearer that lesbianism is a specifically female phenomenon," the article is very clear about that already. In the #"Female" vs. "woman," and linking "woman" section above, I see that you are concerned with the suggestion that a man might identify as a lesbian. But the article does not address the lesbian identity as something men can claim. A man saying that he is a lesbian is usually viewed in a joking manner, not seriously. And when viewed seriously, it's still WP:Fringe and not WP:Notable in terms of having its own article; see Talk:Lesbian/Archive 14#Male Lesbians and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian-identified male. Do not comment in the archives or that closed deletion discussion. If you mean trans women, well, trans women are considered women by enough LGBT academic sources. Anyway, per your concern, I added in "used to describe women" for the second sentence. I thought about wording it as "by women," but there's the fact that researchers use the term (and not always consistently) as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding symbols and flags to article

The more image files added to the body -- the more cluttered the layout becomes. Perhaps a Gallery section should be created and the majority of files moved there per MOS:LAYIM.
The recent addition of a "Lesbian Pride flag", imo, is questionable. When did this reinterpretation of the rainbow flag become an "official" representation of lesbian pride? I have seen this flag and this one at dyke marches and other lesbian gatherings. I've yet to see the one with pink bars (and some descriptions I've read about it say its a flag representing feminine lesbians or "lipstick lesbians").
I think we need to reach some consensus on what flag image, if any, is going to be used as the flag representing lesbians. Pyxis Solitary 14:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss. JaneSwifty, you mind reverting yourself and discussing first, or just discussing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks like there isn't a real consensus in the LGBT community about what flag to use. I have a source here saying that the pink striped flag is the 'official' flag. I think it is important to note there is no 'official' flag because there is no supreme council of lesbians that decides these things. I for one have never seen the purple axe flag. Though others are commenting that they have only seen that one. A flag like this is only official if most people feel that it is official. I think we should take this into account when deciding what flag to show on this page (if any) Leprecon (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I was mistaken. This is a better sourced flag.

JaneSwifty (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I reduced the size of three files on the left margin because they were a wee bit too large for the overall layout. I still think we should consider including a Gallery section. As for the pink bars flag ... there are two versions of the "lipstick lesbian" flag: (1) with a kiss superimposed on the left corner, and (2) bars only (the latter is a .jpg file uploaded on 24 June 2018). Pyxis Solitary 12:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)