Jump to content

Talk:Discrimination against lesbians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 32.219.217.173 (talk) at 00:40, 27 July 2022 (→‎🕺🕺: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Male-specific homophobia?

(Since no one is paying attention to this, I'm moving it up to the top.) If we're going to have a "lesbophobia", there ought to be a male-specific equivalent article, because it DOES exist, and quite frankly lesbian women and straight men are generally the groups displaying these problems. Is there even a phrase for this? Gayphobia? If this isn't going to happen, then lesbophobia needs to be merged with homophobia. You aren't going to have one and not the other. --24.21.148.155 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody have an answer for this???? Looks like a legitimate question to me --98.232.176.109 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve years later, this conversation is happening now. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayphobia. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views

There is already an article on religious views on transgender people and religious views of homosexuality, I am thinking that a section on religious views might not be such a bad idea within this article, given that thre association Act Up has commonly blamed the existing religions on the various sex-related phobias in contemporary society. ADM (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me!Kootenayvolcano (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that traditional Judaism says no penalty on female female relations, only male. Judging by STDS alone, 60-70% of versus 5-10% of a population nature says something about who is prone to the giving the STDs more, the receiver simply acts as a base of operations. A host of literature says lesbian relations are generally discrete, and selective, while males are promiscuous as much as any orientation or gender regardless. If anyone can find 'certified' (cough) studies to prove or prove otherwise for a Wikarticle help with this. The man violates, and the woman is violated, so no violation can occur between two violatees (unless implements are involved) no feminist can scientifically argue with this concept. - Friendly Jew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.221.24 (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be written NPOV and sourced. I just deleted a whole section from another article because of these concerns. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Leviticus only explicitly bans male (not female) relations, Leviticus' bans in general only directly adresses men. Rules on what women are not allowed to do are formulated as what men may not allow women to do. It was simply taken for granted that men did not allow their viwes to have sex with other people. That does not mean that lesbians would have gone unpunished in ancient Israel, since the legality principle was not even conceived in Leviticus days. Granted, the greater visibility of homosexual men in society confirms that lesbians tend to be more discrete. But since open homosexuality is more risky than private ditto at the same degree of homophobia, it undermines any concept of a type of homophobia aimed specifically at male gays.2.68.244.172 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IP, why do you keep visiting these talk pages to express your personal opinions? First, the Homosexuality talk page, and now this one. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not visited that talk page. Click my IP adress and check.2.68.244.172 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have. It's the same IP range as the other IP, and you are making the same argument above about gay men being more visible than lesbians, and lesbians supposedly being punished to the same degree as, or more than, gay men for being homosexual. Oh, and of course I'd already checked your IP. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many anonymous users have similar-beginning adresses. I have not edited that talk page, and it is not in my IP history either. I checked it after you mentioned it. While that anonymous user admittedly share some of my opinions, I did find the argument about identical twins looking identical too unrigorous to count. Different people can share some opinions, as shown here by the similarity between the opinions expressed by Friendly Jew and those expressed by Flyer 22. I do not assume you to be the same person.2.68.244.172 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While many anonymous users have similar-beginning addresses, few are as experienced with editors being the same person as I am experienced with that matter. If you are not that person, I apologize. If, after this, I see your IP range popping up at other articles making the same arguments, however, my benefit of the doubt stops there. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lesbophobia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

🕺🕺

Dancing Emoticon, Dancing Emoticon 32.219.217.173 (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Discrimination_against_lesbians&oldid=1100651253"