Talk:Lesbian/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kinsey Scale.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Double-Venus flag / "New" Lesbian flag

In regards to the double-venus flag, the inclusion of this flag is being actively being discussed at here and here. Please avoid an edit war and engage in any of these two conversations.

@KamillaŚ and Pyxis Solitary: Please partake in these conversations... don't make WP:POV comments such as This flag was created in 2018 (on Tumblr) and is not yet widely used to represent Lesbian when the "new" lesbian flag has been reported on by the BBC, a reliable source. (Other issues for the double-venus flag includes WP:UNDUE.) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Lede claim

"When early sexologists in the late 19th century began to categorize and describe homosexual behavior, hampered by a lack of knowledge about homosexuality or women's sexuality, they distinguished lesbians as women who did not adhere to female gender roles and incorrectly designated them mentally ill"

Where's the citation for this? A [citation needed] should be slapped on this whole sentence if there's no source? 174.82.103.15 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CITELEAD. That's why the lead is mostly without inline citations. Whether to include them in the lead is a case-by-case basis. The matter you pointed to is cited lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The lead of an article briefly summarizes what you find in the body of the article. Read the article itself and you'll come across the material and source/s for why the sentence appears in the lead. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2019

The word homosexual is an offensive term and I would like it changed to gay. Wikiaccount2.00 (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. aboideau^talk 16:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Needless to say, such request and statement is offensive to homosexuals. Of which I am one. And damn proud of it. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 07:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I take it that Wikiaccount2.00 is speaking of the lead sentence. We state "is a homosexual woman" because WP:Reliable sources consistently do, it's succinct, and it's more accurate than trying to come up with our own wording or using a source's wording that conflicts with other sources' wording; see Talk:Lesbian/Archive 16#Lead sentence. Although some people today object to being called homosexual with regard to homosexual attraction and prefer the term gay, as made clear in the Gay article, "homosexual" (just like "homosexuality") is still used for the academic study of sexual orientation and gay is used significantly more often to refer to men than to women in the literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Also take note that the lead of the Gay article currently states: "Gay is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual person or the trait of being homosexual." This makes it even more unnecessary to change "is a homosexual woman" to "is a gay woman." Plus, the Gay article is about the term gay. The Homosexuality article is specifically about the sexual orientation and same-sex sexual behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2020

At the beginning, change "A lesbian is a homosexual woman." to "A lesbian is a homosexual woman: that is a woman who feel sexual attraction only to other women." Mariana de F Ferreira (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It's best to just propose the change and wait for a couple of days to see what feedback occurs. I haven't looked at the issue yet but this sort of thing should be discussed rather than performed as a result of an edit request. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Per Talk:Lesbian/Archive 15#Lead sentence, the lead sentence is fine as it is. The "a homosexual woman" piece is compromise enough, given how researchers and different women define and use the term...as noted in this 2014 (reprint) "Lesbian Women and Sexual Health: The Social Construction of Risk and Susceptibility" source (from Routledge, page 32). More up-to-date sources state similarly. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The description "A lesbian is a homosexual woman." is fine as is [1], [2], [3].
I'm a supporter of using the word homosexual (GLAAD can go F itself) to describe the romantic and sexual attraction between same-sex individuals, because sex and gender are not the same. Sex is biological (male and female), while gender is a social construct (man and woman). However, there has been a concerted effort in the field of gender studies to conflate sex and gender, and ignore biology. So in Wikipedia, we're stuck with "homosexual woman ".
P.S. An eight-year-old girl is not a "woman", but an eight-year-old girl can be a lesbian. A pre-teen girl is not a "woman", but a pre-teen girl can be a lesbian. An adolescent girl is not a "woman", but an adolescent girl can be a lesbian. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

I suggest changing the second line from "...or as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns with female homosexuality or same-sex attraction" to "... or as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns with same-gender attraction or attraction between two self-identified women." It has been largely recognized that the word lesbian has been used by individuals who's sex at birth may not have been female, but who identify as women. Therefore, same-sex does not fully or accurately encompass the scope of attraction, sexual identity, or sexual behavior attributed to the word lesbian as it does not account for the distinction between gender( a social construct) and sex (a biology). Most cites do not use the term "same-sex" and instead use "woman" so as to not conflate gender and sex as well as to be inclusive.[4] + [5] + [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useraarti (talk • contribs) 03:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's best to just propose the change and wait for a couple of days to see what feedback occurs. I haven't looked at the issue yet but this sort of thing should be discussed rather than performed as a result of an edit request. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll never get why some think that phrasings like "self-identified women" are somehow more inclusive, since it reduces people from "women" to "self-identified women". Anyway, this change is not justified. The "female homosexuality" aspect is well-sourced. Also, same-sex is a very common definition for homosexuality, especially in peer-reviewed WP:Scholarship. [7] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Sex is not the same as gender. Gender is a social role label created in 1955. Human homosexuality (same-sex sexual behavior) is based on scientific research. Same-sex behavior has also been documented in zoological research. As User:Crossroads stated: same-sex is a definition for homosexuality. 1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., etc. etc. etc. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I also oppose the proposed change. But Useraarti is distinguishing sex from gender, although people often don't. What Useraarti is proposing is that we add "same-gender attraction" because the term lesbian is sometimes used by trans women and many (perhaps Useraarti as well) do not consider it accurate to use "same-sex attraction" with regard to trans women in the case of lesbianism because of their birth/assigned sex. As for "Most cites do not use the term 'same-sex' and instead use 'woman' so as to not conflate gender and sex as well as to be inclusive.", that's not why so many sources use "woman" when defining "lesbian." The "a woman who is sexually or romantically attracted to other women" definition has been used for many years and before there was the debate there is today about trans women identifying as lesbian. Notice that this definition also excludes explicit mention of girls, but we know that there are women who say that they knew they were lesbian since they were a child or adolescent (although they might not have had the word for it when they children). And there's the fact that the term "woman" can broadly refer to girls. Also, the "or as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns with female homosexuality or same-sex attraction" wording is about how else the term is used; it's not about defining the meaning of "lesbian." And, yes, "self-identified women" can and would cause offense. The article does at times state "self-identified lesbians", but that's because the sources do, especially when speaking of sexual attraction vs. sexual identity. vs. sexual behavior. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Funny: heterosexual men and women can be lesbians too

"The word lesbian is also used for women in relation to their sexual identity or sexual behavior, regardless of sexual orientation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C297:3600:F486:AD50:439B:B508 (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The article states nothing about heterosexual men being lesbians. Some editors have brought up the topic of trans women in that context, but that is obviously a controversial assertion and topic. Political lesbianism is also controversial, and includes heterosexual and bisexual women identifying as lesbian. You don't have to like it, but it exists, and so this article covers it in the "Second-wave feminism" section. The sentence you quoted is focused on how the word may be used. It does not state, for example, that heterosexual women are lesbians. But political lesbianism is a thing. That sentence also aligns with this section in the article about lesbian identity. Sexual identity does not always align with actual sexual orientation, which is made clear in the lead of the Lesbian article, and in that section. The lead also states, "Some women who engage in same-sex sexual activity may reject not only identifying as lesbians but as bisexual as well, while other women's self-identification as lesbian may not align with their sexual orientation or sexual behavior. Sexual identity is not necessarily the same as one's sexual orientation or sexual behavior, due to various reasons, such as the fear of identifying their sexual orientation in a homophobic setting." That sexual identity does not always align with actual sexual orientation is also made clear in the Sexual orientation and Sexual identity articles. You might also want to read Talk:Lesbian/Archive 15#Syntax correction, which includes discussion of researchers defining lesbian inconsistently or people using the term for themselves in ways that others disagree with. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. But remember ... in Wikipedia, "speaking in woke" is de rigueur. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"Heterosexual virginity" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Heterosexual virginity. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 11#Heterosexual virginity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Straight virginity" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Straight virginity. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 11#Straight virginity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing

This article was first created with Harvard-style citations (i.e. parenthetical). As years have passed, using citation templates has become the preferred method for citing sources.
A "Deprecate parenthetical citations" proposal was discussed between 5 August–5 September 2020 and closed with the following consensus: "This discussion has reached a consensus that inline parenthetical referencing should be deprecated. Please see the section #Parenthetical citation closure for details and rationale." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It is very important to realize the rfc ONLY referred to "inline" parenthetical referencing (ie things like "texty text,(Smith (2006), p. 26)", with no "ref" templating at all). Looking at the history I can't see this was the first style the article used, or was used at all in the last few years. The close by User:Seraphimblade made this clear, but it seems not clear enough. The Rfc was very badly drafted, & the proposals were amended various times during its run. That an experienced editor has this misunderstanding shows the importance of notifying/discussing changes to citation styles on talk before making them. The Rfc has nothing to do with the changes you wish to make, so I suggest you explain clearly here what these are, and why you want to make them. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"I suggest you explain clearly here what these are, and why you want to make them" ... why don't you tell the rest of us what you think I meant? I don't respond to pit bull demands. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

From your first post in this section, you appear to think your changes had something to do with the recent Rfc. But they didn't, at all. Not sure why you are proposing yourself as a subject for my mind-reading skills. Probably not a good idea. Your first post lacks a "call for action" or even a "call for consent". If you want either of these, you should probably say so, and what it is about. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020

delete "due to their many identities" under the "Lesbians of Color" section. under "Lesbians of Color" it says "and experienced racism, homophobia, and misogyny due to their many identities" but that's incorrect grammar. they have experienced this due to cruel or misinformed or bigoted people. i don't know why "due to their many identities" is included. Woodlk (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 17:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of items from "Further Reading"

I've taken the liberty of removing some opinion-based articles linked in the "Further Reading" section, as they violate Wikipedia:Further reading#Considerations for inclusion of entries, specifically the requirement for them to be Balanced. My apologies for forgetting to add an edit summary.

• Barnes, J.J. (July 8, 2017). "Lesbianism is under attack, though not by the usual suspects". Feminist Current. Archived from the original on April 13, 2019. Retrieved April 13, 2019.
• Cox, Susan (December 26, 2016). "Lesbian spaces are still needed, no matter what the queer movement says". Feminist Current. Archived from the original on October 4, 2019. Retrieved April 28, 2020.
• Dobkin, Alix; Tatnall, Sally (January 28, 2015). "The Erasure of Lesbians". Gender Identity Watch. Archived from the original on 2018-11-05. Retrieved 2019-01-13.
• Heuchan, Claire (February 22, 2017). "Lezbehonest about Queer Politics Erasing Lesbian Women". Sister Outrider. Archived from the original on June 26, 2017. Retrieved June 28, 2017. (Sister Outrider received the 2016 Best Blog award from Write to End Violence Against Women.)
• Heuchan, Claire (May 2, 2019). "Stonewall Calls Police on Lesbian Protesters, Further Dividing the LGBT Movement". AfterEllen.
• Kirkup, James (16 May 2018). "The silencing of the lesbians". The Spectator.
• Obinwanne, Ashley (April 18, 2016). "Why I'm a Lesbian (Not Queer)". Lesbians Over Everything. Archived from the original on August 22, 2018. Retrieved August 22, 2018.
• OLOC Boston (Old Lesbians Organizing for Change) (2016). "Erasing Lesbians". The Proud Trust. Archived from the original on 2019-06-22. Retrieved 2017-06-28.
• Robertson, Julia Diana (December 21, 2018). "Co-opting the L: Homophobia & The Thought Police". AfterEllen.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

•forivall•^irc•L and Q• 09:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It also seems like many of these same further reading links are duplicated on Lesbian feminism and Lesbian erasure •forivall•^irc•L and Q• 09:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleting a bulk of further reading and then add these https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2018/08/03/lesbians-want-a-church-of-their-own-and-irs-approves/ , https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/megan-rapinoe-lgbt-girl-crush-lesbian-us-womens-football-soccer-world-cup-a9002846.html reading sources at the same time reeks of WP:OWN and deciding to control who gets to read what.
Additionally, it doesn't matter where else a source is found (be it via citation used or further reading section) -- different articles are different articles. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 21:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The items removed show a clear bias, specifically against "Queer", which isn't the topic of this article. All of the removed articles are specifically applicable to the topic of Lesbian Erasure and not Lesbian in general. Your hasty reversion and accusation of WP:OWN without any interrogation of the items removed. To mirror your words, it reeks of WP:OWN and deciding to control who gets to read what. These links are simply in clear violation of WP:NPOV •forivall•^irc•L and Q• 23:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If "lesbian" or "L" is in a title -- it regards lesbians. The silencing of the lesbians by James Kirkup is relevant to the subject. Erasing Lesbians by Old Lesbians Organizing for Change is relevant to the subject. Co-opting the L: Homophobia & The Thought Police by Julia Diana Robertson is relevant to the subject. How is your preferred source, Straight women need to stop claiming they'd ‘go gay’ for Megan Rapinoe by Kitty Wenham, superior? I see bias and cherry-picking in your edit. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 02:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea why you reverted again after being reverted. I agree that different articles are different, so duplication doesn't matter, and that the articles relate to lesbians so they're worthy of inclusion. Individual pieces need not be balanced. Instead, the section taken as a whole should be. So if you have concerns, add countering pieces, rather than removing valuable content. But that hardly matters, since I disagree that the section was unbalanced prior to your edit. Urve (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Should the first image be changed?

Obviously Sappho is an import figure regarding lesbianism but it seems wrong to have her as the first image since she was bisexual and not in fact lesbian. Finnigami (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Considering that most of what we know about Sappho is associated with her relationships with women and poem fragments regarding them: No.
Considering that men wrote the history of Sappho, erased the history of Sappho, rewrote the history of Sappho, destroyed the writings of Sappho, and her homosexuality was whitewashed: No. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

OK with me😎😁 Aziwe (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Inclusivity

The first line is "A lesbian is a homosexual woman." Plenty of people with nonbinary gender identities, as well as bisexuals and pansexuals, use the word "Lesbian" to describe themselves. There is also controversy over whether they get to call themselves Lesbians. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so IDK whether there should be a whole section on the discussion over whether Bi people and nonbinary people are lesbians, or whether changing the first line would be fine (with some citations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willow.iam (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources overwhelmingly define the term as we do, and per WP:Due weight, we go with that. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement is supported and verified with Oxford Reference and Lesbian Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia. The standards for including content in Wikipedia are: WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  WP:RS and What Wikipedia is not help you understand the purpose of this project. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

If there exist sources which meet wikipedia's standards and define the term differently, would that be grounds to edit the opening paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willow.iam (talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE > "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science.
Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."
WP:NOTRELIABLE > "Questionable sources: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.
Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves....
Predatory open access journals are also questionable, due to lack of effective peer-review.
Self-published sources
Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves
Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it".
While this sinks in, add WP:ADVOCACY to the reading list about contributing to Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 16:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nonbinary lesbianism, however, is a real phenomenon, and is making its way into high-quality sources. Give the overall sourcing time to catch up to reality, and I'm confident it will eventually be DUE for the lede. But in cases like this, patience is required. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are you responding to me (yada yada)? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 17:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding was that you were intending to clarify what state of sourcing would be grounds to edit the opening paragraph, as the previous poster had asked. I was, in turn, pointing to the existing state of available sourcing, in response to the policy framework you cited. Good sources for nonbinary lesbianism now exist, but it would be WP:TOOSOON to modify the lede of this article on that basis. IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this source, it's pretty clearly not any sort of WP:Secondary source, but rather the views of the author and hence a primary source; this isn't exactly a top journal in the field either. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That's true, but this isn't a MEDRS topic, for the most part, and most of the currently cited sources are not MEDRS (nor should they be, IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I certainly didn't claim this was a MEDRS topic. The strong preference for and weight given to secondary sources is found in WP:NOR and WP:V and applies across Wikipedia; my comment was on those grounds. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The references cited in that article are a mixed bag, but I discovered this one in the bunch: "If the Future Is Nonbinary, It's a Bleak One for Women", Katie Herzog, November 30, 2018, The Stranger. Interesting. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question directly: yes, if there's enough of them. Wikipedia works as basically an average of reliable sources (see this policy page). Some areas (news, politics, etc.) produce RSs faster than we can read them, and some (smaller fields with fewer researchers/writers) produce RSs more slowly. In that second category, our articles will always trail behind the real world. This gap is often frustrating, and it makes WP a blunt instrument for describing reality, but no one's thought of a better way to crowd-source an encyclopedia yet. Unfortunately gender/sexuality studies seems to fall into that second category. However, it seems that non-binary/bisexual/queer lesbianism as an identity is beginning to be picked up by reliable sources, so I would expect that it will start to be due for inclusion in the lead soon. Srey Sros^talk 18:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Noting here that the second sentence of the lead already alludes to other uses: "The word lesbian is also used for women in relation to their 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." It's also important to keep WP:SOURCETYPES in mind; some types of reliable sources, namely academic ones, inherently carry much more weight than others. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerning that last point: yup, and that's why I cited an academic source. Concerning the first point, no, nonbinary lesbianism is not covered in "women in relation to their sexual identity or sexual behavior" or "female homosexuality or same-sex attraction". But TOOSOON continues to apply. Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Change heading to use the word "lesbian" as an adjective?

Even though it is commonly used, the word "lesbian" as a noun may be slightly derogatory to some. This is similar to how the terms "A gay" or "A transgender" are highly derogatory, albeit... it's somehow less applicable to the term "a lesbian". Should the starting sentence be reworded in order to avoid using the word "lesbian" as a noun? My suggestion: "Lesbian is a term that primarily refers to a homosexual woman" could be a good way to start off this article. Casspedia (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think those terms are comparable; different words have different usages and connotations and I see no evidence that this term would be viewed derogatorily in that sense at all. Also WP:ISATERMFOR applies. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand the initial hesitancy to use lesbian as a noun, but it is appropriate; the usage of the term is, as Crossroads says, not too comparable. But also it has a separate and parallel history to gay and transgender that distinguish it. Reliable sources use the noun form pretty often, maybe more than adjectival, so it seems fair to keep it as it is - follow, not lead, yada yada. Better wording to comply with WP:ISATERMFOR would be something like "Lesbian women are those that [whatever]", but not needed here. Urve (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It really all depends on how "A" is used. For instance, when describing homosexual females in an LGBT list (e.g. Trixie is "a lesbian" vs. Trixie "is lesbian") it may sound derogatory, just as we don't refer to homosexual males as "a gay". But when "A" is used to begin a sentence as an indefinite article before a noun to indicate something that is not defined (and here, "is a homosexual woman" follows the noun) it is grammatically correct. (Grammar gives me a headache so this is as painful as I can go.) And ditto User:Crossroads and User:Urve. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Change the definition to non-men loving other non-men. Lesbians can be non-binary people as well as women. Marine.flatworm (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 18:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Already addressed in this archived discussion. Also, most people don't like being referred to as what they are not. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Butch and femme dichotomy

"Although many municipalities had enacted laws against cross-dressing, some women would socialize in bars as butches: dressed in men's clothing and mirroring traditional masculine behavior. Others wore traditionally feminine clothing and assumed a more diminutive role as femmes."
"Diminutive" means "small". What does this article mean by claiming that the role of femmes is small? It it suggesting that femmes are/were less important? 50.30.176.26 (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was an unfortunate wordage and I'm sure the editor responsible did not think it through at the time the content was added. I checked the Faderman source and edited the paragraph according to what's in the RS. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

change “a lesbian is a homosexual woman” to “a lesbian is a non man attracted to non men” because it excludes non binary lesbians 2A02:C7F:8638:2000:28A3:9675:DB1A:3C56 (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Living Concrete (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic

Sorry but unless you identify as a woman to some degree then you are *not* a lesbian. Stop this madness.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:9075:13C4:92B0:FCC (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC) That doesn't quite make sense. If you were to say that, you would have to say that gay meant a non-woman attracted to non-women. And then what if someone is both? 50.30.176.26 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Groan. It does when you think about it like this - *maleness* and *lesbianism* are totally exclusive of one another. If someone NB wants to self ID as a lesbian then so be it. But if someone were to insist their male identity, aka “I a man”, is then part of their Lesbian identity - then they are… probably just trying to piss people off. Someone NB saying “I am a man and a woman, sometimes both and sometimes neither, and I exclusively attracted to women and therefor a male lesbian” is a big fat no no no. The maleness of their identity is not related or part of their lesbian identity- because get this, a lesbian is a homosexual *woman*. The definition is clear and not exclusionary to NB Lesbians. I think we’re done here…2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:C1E0:E144:A8E4:2A77 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

A Lesbian is a Non-Man attracted to a Non-Man. This includes Woman, Agender, Genderfluid, Demigirl, Demigender, Bigender, Xenogenders, Genderdoe, ect. (Anyone under the non-binary label, with only some exceptions 2600:1009:B01C:9EAC:E349:5B79:70B2:DB41 (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 04:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)