Talk:Lesbian/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Removed until consensus is reached

Some research has indicated that lesbians have higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and obesity than non-lesbians possibly due to heightened stress from societal prejudice and discrimination from health service providers.

Lesbians have a low instance of some sexually transmitted diseases, including gonorrhea, syphilis and genital warts, but tend toward a higher instance of sexually transmitted bacterial vaginosis, vulvo-vaginal candidiasis, and hepatitis C.

Sourcing

note:reflist pulls from entire talkpage

Discussion

In summarizing concerns raised previously this whole section seems to do nothing but postulate that lesbians are unhealthy in certain ways. This certainly may be true but we have several problems with the content as is. 1. Original research - this research has numerous issues including societal prejudice. I would be much more open to including summary findings from noted lesbian health researchers that gave a broad overview including why lesbians have notable health issues outside mainstream and even other LGBT communities. Many of the studies fail to adequately suss out who is identified as a lesbian as well as address that many research participants may avoid using a label considered societally taboo. 2. wp:Undue This material may be appropriate for an article concerning sexual orientation and medicine. A NPOV and accurate summary here might work but I also share concerns that it simply might not be needed. The BBC article above even flat out states it's too early to tell what these health implications mean and more research is needed. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. For reasons I stated above; if reliable sources provide a NPOV overview addressing all the concerns then consensus should be sought if and how to present the material. I would state roughly the same concerns about any historically victimized and oppressed communities. -- Banjeboi 14:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You say that the section "seems to [have] nothing but postulate that lesbians are unhealthy in certain ways. Yet it states facts that lesbians are actually healthier in certain ways.

You call it "original research". Original to who? Are you saying that the doctors who carried out the studies are the ones who posted it here?

You post a version which is quite old. Why didn't you post the newer version for discussion?

I like your ideas about improving the section. As it stands now, it's just a series of facts. You'd have to be careful though, because then you'd be getting beyond the simple facts and into more gray areas. You would like the article to tell the reader why, for example, lesbians are prone to breast cancer, but it could turn out that no one knows the answer. You might have to simply cite some speculation from different authorities, or just say "no one knows for sure why, but.... Or you may find an equally valid study that says it's not true, lesbians are not prone to any diseases more than anyone else. That would need to be cited, of course.

You list "sociatal prejudice" as your number one concern. Please explain. Because many people have strong POV's on this issue that prevents them from being objective about this article. I think that "it makes lesbians look bad" or "it's icky" or "it would give ammo to our enemies" are cannot be considered legitimate for deleting a fact. They could be good reasons to allow the fact to be presented or couched in certain ways, but not deleted. I tried to do that when I edited it to have the health concerns that lesbians don't have more toward the front. That's part of why I wanted you to post the later version. We can't allow people to come to any article, see a fact that makes their blood boil, and delete it. Facts are facts. You can present them as you want, but you can't change them or make them go away based on a personal prejudice.

Your objections to the research methods might be valid, but that is your original research. If you could cite a peer-review paper saying that the studies referenced were flawed in this or that way, it could be a consideration. All we're dealing with here so far are the references that were in the article when it was orignally angrily deleted on the grounds that they were "a pack of lies", and then I checked them and demonstrated that they were not. We haven't looked at any other references yet, though we should. No one seems motivated to look into what else is out there.

You say that this information is inappropriate for this article. I think we should discuss what this article should be. I was under the impression that it was a collection of facts about lesbians. People would come here to learn about lesbians for one reason or another, and they could learn what is citably knowable about lesbians. If, for example, you could cite a reputable source that said something along the lines of "lesbians are three times more likely to have cats, play softball, or not to like the color pink than their non-lesbian counterparts", I think that you would object, saying that presenting those facts would lead stupid people to believe that ALL lesbians had cats, and your purpose is to defend against prejudice. I don't have a POV on this subject, I just think it should state the facts as best as we can and let the chips fall where they may. The way I see it, if "lesbians rarely get AIDS", "50% of gold medals awared to women went to lesbians" or some other positive fact can be established as a fact, it should be in the article, but that would also be equally true about "Lesbians tend to get cancer" or anything else about lesbians, no matter how you or I feel about these facts.

Take for example the section on "parthenogenisis". What is up with that? I would take that out, on the grounds that it contains no facts or information about lesbians. What is that section doing here?

Ok, what about this a compromise? Just a rough outline, mind you:

Lesbian Health Part One Concerned lesbian heath researchers [who first said this when?] reported that lesbians are more prone to breast cancer, heart disease, etc. than other groups [cite]. No one seems to know for sure why this, but expert speculation includes increased nulliparty [cite], or never having gotten pregnant, which is a statistically high condition among lesbians. Other hypothesis include [etc., cite cite cite]. Acording to Dr. Jane Doe of the Springfield Lesbian clinic "lesbians should be careful to do this and that so that they will be healthy and happy" or whatever she might say.

Since that time other researchers have said "no, that's not true" [cite] "actually, according to my study [cite] lesbians don't actally get more breast cancer after all [cite] and that there were these flaws in the studies that were cited before and here they are [etc. cite].

Lesbians who engage in sexual activities are statistically the least likly group to catch many STDs, having almost no instance of AIDS, Syphalils, or etc etc [cite]. Lesbian sexual practices are not without risks, however [link to lesbian sexual practices: risks] Lesbians are statitically more likely to contract sexually transmitted BV, VVC, etc. [cite], but although these conditions are unpleasant, they are not life-threatening and are quite curable [cite] Of course, this is only true of lesbians who do engage in sexual activity, something which is not true of all of lesbians, some of whom neve have sex, and one can only get STD's if one has sex. And this is not just true of lebians, but any woman who has sex with other women, even if they aren't really lesbians, such as porn stars doing it for the money or women in prison who do it out of bordom and desperation. [I think these last two ideas are mind-numbingly obvious, but some will insist on their inclusion].

I think that's basically what it should look like. However, I'm an editor and a self-appointed defender of the facts, not an author or a researcher. It wasn't my idea to write the section, I didn't research it originally, and I didn't write it. If you don't like the facts, you can counter them with other facts or couch them with other facts or something like that, but you can't remove them from the encyclopedia. Not if I can help it, anyway.Chrisrus (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, what you've written is interesting but also not very helpful or encyclopedic. I'm still inclined to leave it out altogether until we have a more authoritative source - like medical professionals who specialize in understanding the health issues of lesbians - to poit us as to the best and most neutral summary information. I would state the same about any minority - X people have Y, Z and W health issues heightened because of ______. As is the only information that doesn't seem cherry-picked is from the BBC and that's because I rewrote it a bit. And that source was reporting the information is context that same-sex marriage was likely to improve the health status of LGBT people. And that source stated that drawing conclusions was premature as more research needed to take place. Really we need to look to books written primarily about lesbian health and offer an overview rather than a list of diseases. Even then it needs to work within the context of the article. There may be something of use here but I'm not seeing it quite yet. -- Banjeboi 15:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the paper that the BBC article was quoting: http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/60/3/188?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=king&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT You should add it to the references for the first statement. It needs both, the BBC link and this link too.

I have no particular interst in lesbians, personally. This page got on my watchlist in a convoluted way, starting with my interest in Emily Dickenson. Once something gets on my watchlist, I tend to defend it as best I can. The whole problem with the others seems to be in the intention of the original author of the section. I'm not anti-lesbian in any way, just pro-wikipedia and pro true facts. The author of the section, it seems, was out to embarrass lesbians with these facts, so they wanted them removed. I say, you can't do that, you have to keep the facts that are well-cited, relevant, important, and true, no matter what the first person who wrote it was thinking, facts are facts. The thing to do is to make sure they are properly presented. But still, I'm seen as the enemy, so what would happen if you heard this from Katherine A. O'Hanlan, MD, Former President, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association? Look at this: http://temenos.net/2007/11/10-things-lesbians-should-disc.html. Note this quote: "Lesbians have higher risks for some of the gynecologic cancers." Maybe you will react differently.Chrisrus (talk) 08:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal I see no consensus for the section as written, which stirs up meaningful sourcing and WP:WEIGHT worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Improvement

With all the hullabaloo going on here lately, it's high time the article is improved. I've held off for my many reasons, but it's time to tackle this to bring it to GA. So, I'll be checking out the books and sources and stuff to improve the article. However, since there are multiple related articles to lesbian sexuality and history of lesbianism, I'm unclear if the focus of this article should be one the term much like the Gay article, or of identity and sexuality.

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality and gay have both been highjacked so I wouldn't look to those for meaningful guidance. I would summarize lesbian as a term here but focus on identity and sexuality instead. -- Banjeboi 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, don't use those articles as anything to go by, see also WP:OSE. Moreover, while it's ok if some editors disagree in good faith when I say this, they're not the same topic. One thing which might be helpful, would be to talk about the structure of this article. Might it be a meta overview with a link to a sub-article for each section, as it is now, or more lengthy and thorough as a main article, with sub-articles still linked but needed less for a deeper understanding of what sources have to say on the topic? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what we're going to have to do is determine ourselves what will be included. Though there are quite a few sources and books, I get the impression that much of the information on lesbianism has been written from the 1970s onward. I can get a sense from the sources what topics should be included, weight, and whatnot, but this is a unique topic. Apparently everyone knows what a lesbian is, though proving that may be difficult. If you know of any particular source that should be used, it would be helpful to let me know so I can see if I have access to it. If not, I may be able to get it through ILL.

Also, I write articles in my sandboxes, but I'm willing to make this a community effort by making a sandbox for this article off the talk page. Any ideas on this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would keep in your own sandbox and pull in others for feedback when ready. There is simply tons of information but like a lot of LGBT articles it simply gets targeted in uninspiring ways. I would also encourage you to build it as a mega article with an eye to spinning off large sections into their own subarticles with a summary on the main rather than pre-editing down everything. In this way when some POV editing creeps in we can point to the spun-off article where issues can be be drilled down into disparaging details. Also can we insert suicide cult information? Lol! Kidding! -- Banjeboi 17:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! Good luck with that. Just remember, "NO POV; just the facts." In the meantime, put the distasteful-to-you facts back in the article please, however you'd like to present them. Chrisrus (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what interest you have in these issues? --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It’s very simple. One day, I noticed someone hacking off a section of a page on my watch list saying it was “a pack of lies”. Curious, I checked the references and found them sound, so I undid it. The rest is above. Chrisrus (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Parthogenesis

What is up with the parthogenesis section? That needs to be removed completely as it is totally irrelevant to the entire article 69.134.229.198 (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this article about?

Is this article about Lesbians, or the word "Lesbian"? Is it about the adjective or the demographic group? It seems to have been created to be about the adjective, like the article gay. Since then, it seems to have evolved into being about the demographic group, lesbians, like police officers or uzbekis or something like that. This might at first to seem like a minor point, but it is actully quite important. Chrisrus (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That is what the above section is addressing. I'm planning a complete rewrite based on the best available sources. Do you have ideas as to what should be included? --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for responding. Yes, I understood what you were saying above and thank you for pointing out what may be the fundemental problem of this page, but thought it deserved its own talk page section, don't you think?

To answer your question, I think that if it's about an adjective, it could follow the model of gay, and use just the first part and then all the other parts should be spun off onto a separate articles. It could be formatted much like that of any other demographic group, like eskimos or giants or police officers whatever, if you know what I mean. This is where the health concerns section should go, as you said, and all the other demographic data. Then you could have a third page on lesbianism, which could look like homosexuality and treat it as a kind of phenomenon that people who don't understand it could come and learn about.

Then again, you could just change the title of this page to "Lesbians" and then have separate sections on the word "lesbian", then another about the phenomenon, and then the demographic data. Or combine the last two. I donno, but I think that's at least the easisest thing to do right now: Change the title by adding an "-s" and then try to orgaiize the sections of what's here along those lines. Just some ideas. Good luck, let me know if I can help! Again, I don't write much except on talk pages, I'm mostly a sort of wiki-watchdog.Chrisrus (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an issue, at least in the English-speaking West, about whether it is "okay" to be a homosexual. Moral considerations aside, there are considerations of health - both public and personal. Wikipedia probably ought not to decide these issues. Perhaps we contributors could simply describe the positions asserted by various researchers in the field.

Are there are reports, studies or even peer-reviewed scientific papers published in well-known or influential medical journals? If so, we should summarize them and link to them.

Are these reports, studies and papers controversial? If so, we should describe the published positions which authors, scientists or politicians have taken - along with whatever reasoning they have supplied.

Here is an example (with fictitious names, obviously):

• Sam Weyoff, M.D., wrote in The Advocate: "All these lesbian studies are invalid, because they include prostitutes."
• Om Rye Eeet of the Atlanta CDC wrote: "My study clearly separated sex workers from ordinary lesbians."
• US Senator Polly T. Kull (D-VT), interviewed on Good Morning America, said, "Discrimination against the LGBT should never be based on junk science."

Note that I myself am carefully refraining from taking a position on this. As writers, we should all just report the published views of verifiable sources. The last thing we want to do is have a debate here amongst ourselves about which side is right. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The definition is incorrect. (It includes bisexual women).

One way to fix it might be to add “and not to men” or something.

Another way would be to change it to “A lesbian is a female homosexual.”

Or we could not change it and leave it.

Which, in your opinion, of these would be better, and why:

1. “A lesbian is a female homosexual.

2. “A lesbian is a woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to women, and not to men. (or "...instead of men" or something)

3. “A lesbian is a woman who is romantically or sexually attracted to women.

Chrisrus (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The third definition is correct. Lesbianism is defined as attraction to women, not non-attraction to men. There is no need to exclude bisexual women, since bisexuality by definition is inclusive. Particularly because sexual orientation in many ways is a social construct and is fluid, a person may consider themselves bisexual at one point and later lesbian. It is not necessary to attempt to argue semantics in the lede. l'aquatique |✡| talk 07:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the word "Lesbian" is distinguished from bisexual women in this way. You can look it up yourself. To say that the word "lesbian" means anything other than "female homosexual", even if you say that in completely different words, would be to split hairs about semantics in the lead, not to do the opposite. To be a lesbian, you must be female, at least under some stretch of the imagination, and homosexual. If you would like to add to the "terminology" section with a discussion of the gray areas between "lesbian" and other words, that would be fine. Chrisrus (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me just ask you this, are all women who are attracted to other women Lesbians? If you answer "yes", what about bisexual women who are not lesbians?

Very well, I'll concede somewhat to you. You are probably correct in something you are saying. You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that a person could be not a lesbian at one point in her life, and then a lesbian at another. This is a very interesting and perhaps complicated phenomenon that deserves to be dealt with somewhere, maybe here, below, in the "terminology" section, I think. But the fact that a woman can become a lesbian after having not been a lesbian doesn't mean that the word "lesbian" doesn't very simply mean "homosexual woman."Chrisrus (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Terminology Section

The "Terminology" Section needs work. It's tattered and torn, and though some good citizens of Lesbos have fought valiantly, the word means what it does, no matter how they on Lesbos feel about it: the OED alone proves that “female homosexual” is the primary meaning in modern English. Nevertheless, this is an article, at least in part, about a word, so their strong feelings and well-cited fact (the original meaning survives) and objections should be incorporated, noted, and clarified.

I'll start by putting things in Chronological order, putting the objections and synonyms in perspective, and removing redundancies.

Ancient Greek

The Greek word for an inhabitant of the Isle of Lesbos has referred to female homosexuality at least since the ancient Greek Lucian used it as an adjective. The reason he did so, and the reason this word has caught on and become so established in languages all over the world, lies in the celebrity and renown of the most famous person from Lesbos: the great lyric poet Sappho, whose poems, nearly universally recognized to be among the best ever written, depict heartfelt love and desire for women so powerfully and convincingly that countless readers everywhere, then and now, have assumed her homosexual; and that therefore a writer could reasonably assume that educated, literate readers would be aware of that fact and would consequently understand the reference. In fact, the only word to have seriously rivaled this word for this meaning also refers to Sappho.

Modern European Languages

While the word “lesbian” has always been, and continues to be, used in its original sense, medical literature in European languages have been using the local transliteration of the origninal Greek word in the eighteenth century The French 17th century writer on human sexuality Pierre de Bourdeille, seigneur de Brantôme, may have been the first to do so when he used the French version, “lesbiennes," to refer to female homosexuality.

English

The Oxford English Dictionary reports that the adjective "Lesbian" for "female homosexual" entered the English lexicon at least as early as 1870, and that noun was not found until 1925. It was used interchangeably with “Sapphist” until the twentieth century, becoming the dominant English word for this meaning by the 1920s. Since then, most other scholarly words have fallen into obsolescence.

Notes

Further post-battle clean up is needed, but I think that’s a good start. If someone would please help me transfer the proper citations, we will be on our way to a better section and a better article. Good luck and thank you for your good faith efforts.Chrisrus (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

colorado

I have just recently learned that in the state Colorado gay people have no civil rights. I am a Lesbian and find this extremely repulsive. I could walk down the street and be beat up and the police would do nothing about it. Now I'm not postive this is correct so could someone elaborate for me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.216.34 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Assault and battery is a crime, punishable by meaningful jail time along with civil liability, in Colorado USA. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This link to the Human Rights Campaign state page for Colorado will give you some of what you should know. I should add, though it is now nonsense, that the talk page is for specific discussion of the article, not general discussion of the topic. --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite update

My rewrite is almost ready to be posted. I have to write the sections on literature, mental health, families and politics, and expand the section on lesbians outside of western culture. I have to read 5 more books to do that. I can post the majority of the article as it is and continue to add to these sections as they are written, or wait until all of it is completed and post it. Thoughts?

I've asked User:GrahamColm to assist with the section on physical health. Graham is a microbiologist and frequently edits medicine-related articles.

• Note: Moni and I have already discussed this section at some length here. And, although it still needs a little tweaking, I think think Moni has done an excellent job in summarising. I'm still looking for a reliable reference to support the fact that the incidence and prevalence of STDs in lesbians are significantly lower compared to other groups e.g. gay men. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I will be asking for a Wikipedia-wide peer review for the article as soon as it is about 95% complete. I will also nominate the article for GA. I have my personal doubts if it will be able to get promoted to FA, but I would welcome a discussion on that.

If there's anything I can do to encourage any article watchers to participate in the discussion about the rewrite, I will do it. I do not think I should be the only person shaping knowledge about this topic. --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit to add: my sources on media representation of lesbians are centered in North America. I don't as yet know what to include for significant moments in film and television outside Hollywood, unfortunately. --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a swedish movie which was far better than any American lesbian themed movies I've ever seen. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for acceptable use images, and will be adding to a literature section, and expanding the one on lesbianism outside western culture. --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, nice job Moni! It's so much better now. I'm impressed.Chrisrus (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Chrisrus. --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Early Modern Period

Beginnings of a secret market of pornography, illustration to vol. 1, p.50 of the 1766 Fanny Hill edition.

I changed the headline "Renaissance" into the broader term "Eraly modern" as the paragraph goes up to Marie Antonette, and felt somewhat uneasy about the entire passage. Regular 17th- and 18th-century texts in which I found allusions to what is today read as lesbianism are far from any focus on "Tribadism" or Hermaphroditism. The female-female sexual encounters I came across (in a reading of some 400 novels and other texts) were by and large substitute encounters. The general implication was that sharing a bed - a usual practice in houses among Maids and especially in boarding schools - could easily lead to female-female sexual encounters. Masturbation was a close phenomenon. Here the passages: Richard Head's English Rogue slips into a female dress after he has lost his clothes and escapes into a boarding school where he works as a female servant. Sharing his bed with a woman he is surprised by the interest of his bedfellow, a maid who thinks he is of her sex who is in unhappily love with another man - the narrator can satisfy her instead. The implication remains that women sharing beds can have intimate contacts. The 1723 edition of the Heinous sin of Onania includes a letter of a woman who reports how she learned the (allegedly unhealthy) practice: Lying in a boarding school in one room with a couple of other girls they read (restoration-)plays. The more experienced girls taught the less experienced how to masturbate. There is finally the well known passage in John Cleland's Fanny Hill depicted in the first illustrated edition (which is why I switched from the novel-article I was working on into this article to see what you did with it).

Queen Anne and Sarah Curchill... - read a lot about them but not this particular piece of rumor. I found instead a group called the "Cabal" in Delarivier Manley's Atalantis, something of a group of women sworn against men.

What else: a number of strange occurrences: There are Women who dress as men, several. The most interesting is the Niederländische Amazone 1718 (Dutch Amazon), who becomes a male soldier and can't believe herself that (once in her new dress) she feels like a man, but does not have any genitals. She is later loved by a woman, whom she cannot satisfy - which infuriates her lover. More interesting: Chavigny's, La religieuse chevalier (1691) - with a woman who has to revenge her dead male lover. She assumes a man's role for that purpose and does not change back into her female role that soon. As a woman she falls in love with a woman - a situation both heroins can finally bring to a happy ending by becoming nuns in the same monastery. These are all the incidents that come to my mind on a quick consideration, and they hardly fit into that paragraph with its extraordinary theories, so that I leave them here. (Audiences: Head's book was most certainly written for men, the Onania seems to have addressed and reached both sexes, The Dutch Amazon and Chavigny - at least the latter will have had a mixed to predominately female audience. Manley was widely read by men and women.) --Olaf Simons (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw your change to this section, and I fought with myself about how much I cared about it. I do care about accuracy more than anything else, and the section starts off with the Renaissance and the second paragraph discusses how the fashion of female homoeroticism passed. The semantics between Renaissance and Early Modern Europe are something I just don't want to get into. I see Early Modern Europe and think...wtf is that?

As for your points about literature, I appreciate the feedback on this section. Did you read the Literature section in Media representation? There is more there. I depended on three sources for the literature portions included in this article, and used their references. If it was cited in by the source, I cited it here. The sources' interpretations of how it affected the visibility of female homosexuality is in the article, not mine. If you have reliable, excellent sources that discuss the interpretations of these works I'd be interested in reading them to get their input. If you're suggesting much more be added to this article about Literature, it might be better to add more information to List of lesbian literature (not really a stellar compilation, I admit, but neither was this article until I rewrote it). --Moni3 (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Renaissance is a limited term for the period 1350 (northern Italy) to 1600 (Shakespeare), it is broadly connected with the idea of reevaluating the antiquity (Romans and Greeks) against the middle ages. "Early Modern" is today rather neutral for the period 1470 (beginning of printing) to 1800 and includes renaissance.

The media section does come closer to my impression of what you find, once you read your way through the materials - that's what made me feel uneasy. The chapter I referred to does not fit to this later chapter, it is obviously taken from a modern source whom those who wrote the article trusted without even seeing the alleged sources (they are not mentioned). The theory offered as the "renaissance theory" is spectacular, it might fit into a sequence of gross theories but - well, makes me feel uneasy. The steps to Queen Anne and Marie Antoniette are somehow glued to these statements, simply a feeling, that one should read original sources in EEBO and ECCO using the facilities of a good university campus and write with one's own understanding. --Olaf Simons (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I wrote this article using the sources listed. I posted it on February 10. Above, you can see my request for input, but I have not yet received much. Yesterday I wrote to Lillian Faderman to ask for her input. She said she would read it and reply. However, since two of her books are used as a source, one of them for literature interpretation, I am always open to other views. I also used Jeannette Howard Foster's Sex Variant Women in Literature and Terry Castle's The Literature of Lesbianism, all three considered the best sources available. "Writ(ing) with one's own understanding" would venture too far into original research for my standards. If you could please explain your unease with what is written. If you have suggestions for other materials, please give them as detailed as possible. While I am certainly willing to balance the views already presented, it also depends on by how much. This can be its own article, and List of Lesbian Literature should certainly be expanded. Do you think the section now is inaccurate? Does it give a slanted view (what kind, if so)? We also need to consider the length of this article. Because it is such an abstract concept and covers so much ground, it is already quite long. Thanks for your input. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the look into primary sources is—fun. If I'd know what primary sources they used to make these statements I would take a look into them. Early modern things (hopefully written in English), medical stuff, 15th or 16th century that's no problem I know how to get these things and read them speedily. The problem I have is that I only get "Aldrich" and "Jennings" (both not on my table), no footnotes for the texts that they used to say these things. I had no idea about any history going on on this page, was only here to see whether you might need the Fanny Hill image, and perhaps that bit of first hand info I just had. If you feel uneasy about reading such sources, give me titles and I get the pdfs of the original prints. I can send you these titles or read them myself. The topic is not my area but the period 1470s to 1800 is part of my daily work. So I can offer you to check these sources. --Olaf Simons (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aldrich corresponds to a book in the References section edited by Aldrich. Jennings corresponds to another. I do, actually, have access to a university library, and it is now completely empty of most materials involving lesbianism, and my house is full of these books... Many, many more literary works were mentioned in books by Faderman, Foster, Castle, Jennings, Aldrich, et al., but I had to choose which to include. The decision was based on what the sources said. If the sources indicated it was a significant text, I cited it. If the sources indicated several works represented a trend, I cited it. It's 2,500 years of literature I summarized in 5 paragraphs, so I hope I got the arrow somewhat close to the target. I am representing their scholarly views, not my own. I don't feel uneasy reading porn, the 17th century's answer to Penthouse Forums, but the OR and SYNTH policies preclude me from interpreting the works by myself. Are you suggesting that footnotes should expand upon literature claims made in the article? --Moni3 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought: if you had these books on your desk, go to the pages you quoted, find out what primary sources they used to substantiate their views, and I'll be able to state things with that primary knowledge. It will not be pornography, it will be early modern medicine or comparable stuff I guess. Ah, yes, I think it is good policy to name primary texts and to state modern literature that interpreted these texts. --Olaf Simons (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that there are chapters upon chapters in these books that discuss particular literary works. Terry Castle's book is an anthology that is well over 1,000 pages long. Both Foster and Faderman devote their entire books to examples of literary representation of same-sex desire, taking pages and pages to discuss a particular poem, novel, or story. Jennings' A Lesbian History of Britain I do have with me right now; this is one of the texts that suggests female homoeroticism became trendy in the Renaissance because it was reflected in so many works at the time. The first chapter is about the representation of lesbianism during the Renaissance (hence, the subheading title), and she cites 43 different works. I've been clocked at typing 78 words per minute, and the notes section is simply too long for me to transcribe. I need to make sure I understand what you are proposing: if "I'll be able to state things with that primary knowledge" means that if I give you the works listed in the books I used, say Lives of Gallant Ladies, for example, you can then explain why it was cited by one of these scholars—that is original research, and it cannot go into an article on Wikipedia. What is included in the article must be introduced and explained by a reliable source.

This is a strict policy. I now have personal relationships with some of the people mentioned in the articles I have written. I email them, but I cannot place their email statements into an article because all statements must be cited to a 3rd party reviewed published reliable source. Any interpretation of literary or artistic works must come from the authorities who published their interpretations. They cannot be my interpretations or yours, or any other editor's. I don't know if you understand that; I notice your edit count is around 1,000 and you may not have come across this yet. --Moni3 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My edit count and status is not only where you detected it, and I know the guide lines. I just had the feeling that this was second hand. Being part of that academic world, that produces these books, I try to see things myself. Other authors are other authors. They have their views, and must be quoted on them. I was just interested in primary sources that backed these statements. Do not worry. --Olaf Simons (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of words

Moni, Once again, you’ve done a great job with the article. I am very impressed with your objectivity, something I did not expect, I admit, from you. I didn’t think you wanted any information in the article that would not depict lesbians in a 100% positive light to everyone, and that making lesbians look good was your goal. I was wrong about you. Not that the article makes them look bad -- it’s just factual, as it should be.

My only objection is this:

As I see it, the article must state at the top and straight away that the word means “female homosexual”, using those two words. My argument for this is the same as the argument I compiled from the old article - and placed there by others in the process of arguing against those proud Greek islanders attempts to make the word mean what they wanted it to. “Female Homosexual” just simply is, has long been, and will continue to be the simple primary meaning of the word. For a citation of this fact, I point to any good dictionary, but please see the "terminnology" section I created just above for my full arguement. The word means what it does, period.

I am not saying this because I have any position on Lesbianism. My only bias is in favor of the simple meaning of words, and against any slipping into linguistic relativeism. It is no different from positions I have taken elsewhere in defense of the meaning of words. (“Organic” for example.) Individuals or small groups may not take a word and redefine it for the rest of the world‘s speakers. They may add new, secondary, definitions, which may someday become the primary ones, but they may not redefine words for the rest of the world.

Note that by simply stating that lesbian = female homosexual does not mean that there will not be cases where an individual is arguably both a lesbian or not a lesbian, or partly one and partly not one, or one today but not tomorrow, or any gray area you could think of. A person might be arguably not really female, or not really homosexual, depending on a person’s perspective. There is lots of gray area around almost any word or concept. The definition of “tree” is what it is, despite bushy trees or treeish bushes. You deal with the fuzzy edges around the concept very well in your article, as you should, further down, and all types of problems with the simple definition of the word. That‘s good; that‘s right; well done. But I insist (if you get what I mean by “insist”) that right at the top, simply stated, must be the accepted dictionary definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. My first response to this is that I have some issues overcoming the fact that the first 2 sentences in the lead define what a lesbian is, and the rest of the article addresses how the definition of what a lesbian is has clearly been subjective since its broad use in English.

My second is that the way it reads now is redundant. "Female homosexuality" is used twice in 2 sentences, and that is not good writing. Further, Oxford uses both, so the previous wording is accurate:

2. (Freq. with lower-case initial.) [After the alleged practice of Sappho, the poetess of Lesbos; cf. SAPPHIC a. and n., SAPPHISM.] Of a woman: homosexual, characterized by a sexual interest in other women. Also, of or pertaining to homosexual relations between women.

B. n. A female homosexual.

Hence {sm}Lesbianism, female homosexuality.

Respectfully, the word does not mean what it does to all people in the Western world. It simply does not. I love the Djuna Barnes quote in the notes: "I am not a lesbian. I just loved Thelma." The article states many times, perhaps to the point of distraction, that lesbian identity and lesbian behavior are separate concepts for people. I also wrote Mulholland Drive (film) and was really turned around by that movie...let's say out of my tree insane, just so there are no misunderstandings. Laura Elena Harring got naked with Naomi Watts in the film and made out, clearly a sex scene which was noticed by Maxim and all kinds of disreputable publications, only to have Harring say to a reporter, "I don't think we're lesbians". She means the softball playing tool-belt wearing diesel dykes. She means the kind that aren't interested in attracting men. What a disconnect, to be caught naked in bed with another naked woman touching all over just say calmly and rationally, "Oh, I'm not a lesbian!" Wtf?

I'm not sure if we're saying the same thing and missing, or we have a significant difference in opinion here. Regardless, the issue with the repeated words needs to be addressed ASAP. --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for your opening comments. Lesbians almost always look good without my assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is ambiguity about the term. The same is true for almost every term that you can name. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that Ellen is, but I’m not as sure about Ann. I suppose you could say that she both is and isn’t, or that she wasn’t, then was, and now isn’t again. Or maybe she never was, but said she was. Fine; whatever; I’ll leave that to you all to sort out and don’t want to get involved, other than to say “This is what the word means: female homosexual. Deal with it; if you feel you must.

I say the same is true for most words. Subjectivity is par for the course when dealing with words. A dog is a quadruped, that’s part of the definition. But some dogs have three legs, and for all I know some might have five. Think about any other word. House, police officer, road, city, star, movie, car. Definitions don’t have to be ambiguous just because individuals don’t always fit them perfectly, or even particularly well. We have to be comfortable with ambiguity sometimes. You have and continue to deal with it thoughout the article, as you should.

About the stylistic issues, I can try to rectify that, or you can. I am willing to wager, however, that perceived and proscribed style “rule” will turn out to be “simple definitions first; synonymous, wordier, re-phrasings later.”

I have a bit more to say later, and then I'll drop it.Chrisrus (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think having homosexuality mentioned in the second sentence is prominent enough. Putting it as the first sentence would not only be bad writing due to repitition (per Moni), but i think is less clear. As the homosexual and gay articles show, those terms can be very complicated, so defining lesbians initially with equally complicated and ambiguous words does not help the reader. I think the current first sentence is more concrete then "female homosexual", even if longer. Also lesbian is very often used as the adjective, so defining it only as the noun ignores how it is really used - i think pointing out both uses from the very start is a good idea.YobMod 10:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, it'd have to be re-written for style with this in mind. I'll try again soon.Chrisrus (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)