Talk:Lesbian

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lesbian article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 60 days

Lesbian has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 25, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
March 11, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed

Current status: Good article

Gold star lesbian was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 April 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Lesbian. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Lesbian page edit statistics

Wikipedia Page History Statistics
http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl

project: en.wikipedia
page: Lesbian | or | page: Talk:Lesbian

Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 10:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MeganTheeStallion123, FluffyTeaPancakes (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MeganTheeStallion123 (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, before students dive in. "Lesbian" has been rated a Good article.
Per WP:CAREFUL > "...changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view." Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 06:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the lines: “Throughout history, women have not had the same freedom or independence as men to pursue homosexual relationships, but neither have they met the same harsh punishment as gay men in some societies. Instead, lesbian relationships have often been regarded as harmless, unless a participant attempts to assert privileges traditionally enjoyed by men. As a result, little in history was documented to give an accurate description of how female homosexuality was expressed.”

To nothing. The entries for male homosexuality mention lesbianism once, only to point the user to female homosexuality. The entry on female homosexuality should be about female homosexuality, and should not include mentions of men in the first four sentences. 2600:1700:FCC:D2D0:7C9F:FCE1:DD27:F815 (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use a photo in the lede?

An ongoing discussion at Talk:Gay men has displayed general support for that article to keep using this photo by Elvert Barnes of two men kissing at a pride parade]] as the primary image, as opposed to this painting by Claude-Marie Dubufe of Apollo and Cyparissus. One argument that came up was consistency with this article, this does use a historical painting as its lede image. That drew my attention over here.

This is an article about a social identity, and therefore, the group of people with that identity, so I'm surprised the article has very few photographs of lesbians. Ideally we should have several images throughout the body, representing displaying a diversity of age, race, masculinity etc. If a suitably illustrative and encyclopedia photo exists, would it be acceptable use in the lede, and move Sappho and Erinna down into Lesbian § Ancient Greece and Rome? What characteristics would we want that photo to have?

As a sample proposal, here's another photo by Barnes of two women kissing at a pride parade (B). Alternatively, we could move the photo of two black lesbians (C) up from Lesbian § Lesbians of color and use that as the primary photo. Thoughts?

A: Sappho and Erinna in a Garden at Mytilene
B
C
D: Jeanne Córdova
E: Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas
F
F.2 (retouched).

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say No. Why? Because there is no proof that either one or both of the women in the B and C photos are actually lesbians.
B: two anonymous women kissing does not equal two lesbians kissing — they could be bisexuals (or pansexuals). Who's to say they are not?
C: two women standing next to each other does not equal two lesbians standing next to each other. Not only can they also be bisexuals, but they can also be just two women showing their support for NYC Pride Parade and the LGBT community.
If you want to use a photo of a lesbian or two lesbians in the lead, then find a photo of a female who self-identified as lesbian and is known publicly as being lesbian, or a couple who are/were publicly known as being lesbians (examples: Jeanne Córdova, or Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas). Don't make assumptions about anonymous people in photos.

Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 08:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above message originally included File:Jeanne Cordova Lammy.jpg and File:Gertrude Stein and Alice Toklas in Venice.jpg, which have been moved into the original post, as Option D and Option E. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if they're lizard people? That would be embarassing. MOS:PERTINENCE says that Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. It's obviously preferable to choose women who are strictly verifiably self-described lesbians, but this vastly narrows the selection of high-quality and appropriately-licensed images (readable at small scales) down, basically to people who meet the GNG. I'm not sure this is a realistic goal. It also disqualifies Sappho herself, beyond the geographic sense of Lesbian.

I don't think a solo portrait of a famous lesbian (D) holds very much illustrative value as a MOS:LEADIMAGE. The shot of Stein and Toklas (E) would be nice if it were in color. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 17:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Roxxyy🤘🤘 41.121.96.187 (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sappho existed in a time when people labeled us in a behavioral way, not in an identitarianly attractional consensually self-perceived way. Nowadays, bisexual women are not lesbians, but in the past, when the word bisexual didn't exist yet, maybe. Web-julio (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one which carries a lesbian flag? Web-julio (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one (now Option F) even more than B, both aesthetically, and for depicting a non-white lesbian of color. I may take a stab at a cropped version. The flag comes as close to declaring "I am a lesbian" as is feasible (unless we are to believe these women are simply displaying great heterosexual allyship). Does Pyxis Solitary feel satisfied by that?

Someone has gone ahead and edited Option B into the article, which feels slightly premature but I'm perfectly content to leave it there. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 04:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This lead photo discussion was opened on 23 July 2024.
This lead image edit made five days later on 28 July 2024 should have not been done until this discussion was decided. (WP:CLOSE).
I think Option F is the lead image that should be added to the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 05:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with a desktop computer handy is welcome to undo that change. I can't do a partial revert like that myself at the moment. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like option F as well. ABF992 (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shouldn't use any photo of two lesbians as the lede image as of now. The symbol of lesbian is perfect for the lede image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.5.37.238 (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image F matches the content and tone of the article perfectly. In my opinion, it is positive and clearly illustrates the concept of loving, female-to-female relationships. PS: I got here because this discussion is (bizarrely) being used to try and replace a similar photo in Gay men with the interlocking alchemical symbols for Mars, literally the opposite of the consensus that seems to be building here. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input! I think we're in agreement on image F (I've made some non-controversial tweaks and added these to the gallery as image F.2). Given the positive consensus and otherwise quiet discussion (beyond the comment above which does not offer any reasoning but strikes me as a call for censorship), I'm going to go ahead and introduce it as the lede image. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 15:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expunging the double-venus description and sources

I protest this 15:40, 5 September 2024 edit which deleted the description "Symbol representing lesbian made from two interlocked astronomical symbols for the planet Venus. In biology, the singular symbol represents the female sex." — which was verified with two highly-regarded reliable sources: Lesbian Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia (2000) by Bonnie Zimmerman, and The Origin of the Male and Female Symbols of Biology (1962) by William T. Stearn.
It was replaced with "Two interlocking female signs (⚢) can symbolize lesbianism." — (can symbolize lesbianism ?) — and two unexceptional sources: an archive of the former Eastern Illinois University webpage explaining LGBT symbols [the current webpage is "Symbols within the GSD Community" @ https://www.eiu.edu/lgbtqa/symbolism.php], and an archive of symbols webpage by the now-defunct lambda.org (LAMBDA GLBT Community Services) with content based on a bibliography of questionable sources.
There is no justifiable reason for deleting the description based on the Zimmerman and Stearn sources, and removal of these two reliable sources. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 11:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, I think the original wording was more accurate, but understand that the new wording is more accessible to modern readers. Most will think of the symbols as representative of the female sex and gender. I lean toward accuracy, and the ♂ and ♀ symbols have only recently (in relative terms) been used for male-female -- as an aside, I've been surprised that more queer/trans folks don't object, since that 1770s categorisation is rooted in obsolete stereotypes; Ares/Mars 'means' male because he represents violence, aggression and conquest, and Aphrodite/Venus 'means' female because she was beauty and romantic love. That said, I still would lean towards the old wording complete with its fraught origins. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]