Talk:Lesbian/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Wrong definition

A lesbian is a non man who loves non men, not only a woman who loves women, non binary and other non men identifying people can be lesbians. 188.238.242.217 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

A non-binary individual can be lesbian, as long as they are woman-aligned or at least experience a gay/queer attraction to women.[1][2][3][4] There's also sapphic, which is meant to be a more broad/open/ample/inclusive term for non-binary gynephiles/femarics/trixics/feminamorics. Also, some lesbians are lesboys/boydykes/guydykes, so using non-man excludes them.Tazuco (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Tazuco (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
We should stick to what the WP:BESTSOURCES say on the matter. As of writing this comment we are using the definition from Oxford Reference's Dictionary of Psychology, and Zimmerman's encyclopedia on lesbian histories and cultures. The sources you are referencing here include an opinion piece in a student magazine and a blog post in a "peer led support and advocacy organisation". Endwise (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Endwise: I don't think we need to change the definition, rather just mention and include somewhere it's possible to be both lesbian and non-binary, as there are non-binary women. Tazuco (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I think experience a gay/queer attraction to women tracks well, but not all who do so - and identify as nonbinary lesbians - identify as non-binary women. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, Endwise. The current definition is very much in accord with WP:DUE as well. Crossroads -talk- 01:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Are we seriously trying to suggest someone biologically male who does not ID as a woman in any capacity can be a “lesbian” just because they ID as non-binary?? Is this for real??!! I thought this crap only existed on Tumblr! 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:85:54F3:B5BB:B9B2 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Umm, possibly, but it's really unlikely to happen. What would be more likely to happen would be for someone transitioning from male to female (MtF) have themselves try out being non-binary, then make the change to being a female. Other times, it could be one being "biologically female" (AFAB) becoming non-binary, yet still having a sexual preference for women. It's all about identity.
(Apologies in advance if I got any of this wrong. Correct me if needed.)
Explodicator7331 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
There are some information about transgender sexuality on its article — Tazuco (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
That sounds pretty accurate to me, Explodicator.
Also, the IP's qualifier, who does not ID as a woman in any capacity, sets a pretty high bar. Lots of people who are genderfluid, or who are nonbinary but whose gender presentation or gender expression varies a lot, would identify as a woman some of the time without having a "female gender identity" as an enduring fact or label. Some of these might carry "lesbian" identities at least some of the time - and labels have not been very kind thus far to fluid sexualities. Many of those who aver pansexuality, for example, might rather specify something more fluid or situational if the available language were less controversial and better understood. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
A lesbian is a homosexual female. Homosexual being the opposite of a heterosexual female. Wikipedia reports scientific facts, not whatever is blowing in the winds on social media and group think bubbles. 69.181.172.218 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports scientific facts about topics outside the sciences? That's a new one. Newimpartial (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Homosexuality is a scientific fact. Homosexuality exists in both human and animal species. So does bisexuality. Science is not going to change for the trends circulating in some circles at this moment in time. Female is biological. Biology is science. 69.181.172.218 (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't privilege biology over psychology or other social sciences, though. "Female" is a term used in many fields, and "lesbian" has not much to do with biology. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
That’s why this article should replace “woman” with “female” in the first sentence. Female homosexuality is not restricted to adults (women). Homosexuality exists in teen and pre teen females. A 15-yr old female can be a lesbian too. A lesbian is a homosexual female, regardless of her age. 69.181.172.218 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial I wasn't referring to anyone gender-fluid in my comment, for the record. However I stand by the idea that a lesbian does NOT mean "a non-men loving non-men". You cannot separate Lesbianism from the female sex and gender, period. No matter what the likes of Stonewall and Pink News say about the matter... --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:B0FD:ECF6:1265:5AB6 (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
This article is based on reliable sources, not on your feelings, and will continue to be so. Newimpartial (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
And yet that it is clearly you who is trying to push for lesbians to be redefined by anything other than women who are sexually and/or romantically attracted to other women. The idea that lesbianism can be divorced from womanhood is absurd - it is basically redefining a word.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:D0BE:614A:F2D1:34AE (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, you are offering a feelings-based rather than a sources-based argument. That isn't the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"A lesbian is a non man who loves non men..."
This ^^^ is not a good example of keeping it simple.
Chesapeake77 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The argument for a lesbian being a "non man who loves non men" does not, however, fall in line with the commonly accepted definition of the word. One can define a lesbian however one wishes. Most agree that a lesbian is a woman who loves a woman. Or, in simple terms, a homosexual woman. One can refuse to acknowledge both the commonly accepted definition of the term as well as the multitudinous dictionary definitions that repeat the same information and, in doing so, be met with disagreement from both the average person and the dictionary; neither will budge for that person's desire to advocate for change when the standing definition does not need to see alteration from one side or the other, as I could very well put forth the definition that a "lesbian" is a "man who loves a woman."
In any case, the same issue arises, as people will merely reference the dictionary and point out that I am wrong; however, I could then argue that the dictionary avers false definitions and that it is wrong and that I am in the right. As such, the bounteous voices here have already opined and seem to be in agreement; we do not see a reason to change the definition and thus shall not, though we will not bereave one of the same covetous need to define words how one wishes, no matter what fallout will ensue. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 17:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
"A lesbian is a non man who loves non men, not only a woman who loves women, non binary and other non men identifying people can be lesbians." - This is the most homophobic, misogynistic, and patriarchal statement imaginable. An article about same-sex attracted females becomes meaningless if it includes some males, however they identify. Is this really the anti-homophobic acceptance we fought for? JezGrove (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Using the word "female" is not accurate though, because trans teens and pre-teens girls do exist, and among them, some are attracted to other girls. Female refers to feminine or woman, and sometimes refers to "biological female". The second talks about biology, and it's an abusive language to use it as a synonym for "feminine". Here, we talk about gender and orientation, thus mostly talking about psychology and sociology, not about biology. This use of "female" feels confusing.
Anyway, I don't understand how can we use science to justify the use of biological words when it comes to gender and orientation, while it's already a scientific consensus that gender is a social construction, and that sexual and romantic orientations are a lot socially constructed (despite there is a biological part too).
I personally think that there are social orientations and biological orientations. Most of the time, we clearly talk about social orientations. I never hear someone saying "I'm attracted to bodies only, and personality and/or behavior do not influence my attractions". And even when I hear people saying "I'm attracted to that kind of body", I often found, by asking questions to them, that they actually do have social constructions that are decisive in what actually attracts them (and not about what they want to think attracts them - rejection is fundamentally different than non-attraction, and it's common to be attracted to people or things for who or which we experience rejection).
It's not a coincidence if the vast majority of people watching pornography involving trans women are straight men. Often including the most transphobic ones. Eleaudit (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Science explains that sexual orientation is also a lot socially constructed. Homosexuality is not only biological and social construction also exist in other species. We can't pretend social homosexuality and transidentities don't exist in any other species.
Assuming it would be considering humans as non-animals in some ways.
You're not attracted by genitals, and you're attracted a lot by how people are: how they behave, how they move, how they smile, how they express their identity (gender, social class, political beliefs, etc). When you're attracted to someone, there are really much social stuff that makes you attracted than biological stuff.
Your reasoning seems to be not as scientific as you pretend. The logic alone "it's as simple as that, period" without making nuances, makes me think you have a lot to learn about sciences. Eleaudit (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/08/13/can-you-be-both-non-binary-and-lesbian/
  2. ^ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1363460720981564
  3. ^ http://www.broadsatyale.com/in-defense-of-non-binary-lesbianism/
  4. ^ https://www.ygender.org.au/article/proud-non-binary-lesbian

Johns Hopkins University LGBTQ Glossary

In October 2022, Johns Hopkins University redefined the description of Lesbian as being a "non-man" in its LGBTQ glossary of alphabet soup terminologies. The change backfired when it made headlines in June 2023:

The Johns Hopkins University LGBTQ Glossary before the uproar — and the glossary after the uproar. We are "living in interesting times". Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I am relieved to see all the adequate backlash concerning this. Phew. SinoDevonian (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Non-man is deeply offensive to women and this definition of lesbian is yet another example of progressive excess. Thankfully, most sources seem to reject this nonsense. X-Editor (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing the definition

The article defines lesbian as a homosexual woman or girl, but that isn't really reflective of how the term is used widely since lesbian also encompasses homoromantic women and girls, and the article acknowledges as much a bit later.

A lesbian is a homosexual woman or girl. The word 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.

I'd propose to either change it to "A lesbian is a woman or girl attracted to other women and girls" or "A lesbian is a same-sex attracted woman or girl"/"A lesbian is a woman or girl with same sex attraction". This would also bring some parity between the lesbian and gay men articles since it already mentions that gay men includes homoromantic men. EldritchEmpress (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that gets over the difficulty and also avoids pointless discussion in the lede of the borderline between homosexual and homoromantic.Sbishop (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
"the article acknowledges as much a bit later" – can you point to where the "later" part appears in the article and the reliable sources used for it? Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 13:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The word 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.[1] EldritchEmpress (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I understood your "later" to mean somewhere within the body of the text after the lead, because the lead is meant to summarize the entire article. I wasn't expecting the "later" to be the second sentence of the lead. Solarz isn't the only source used for that sentence —the "Zimmerman" ref that precedes Zolarz is Lesbian Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia (2000) by Bonnie Zimmerman, ed. (Wikipedia no longer uses parenthetical refs.). I edited the ref so that readers can see how it verifies the sentence. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah minor mistake on me, as for why I only linked one of the sources I couldn't figure out how to do the other one. EldritchEmpress (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I oppose the removal of "A lesbian is a homosexual woman or girl." This fact is verified with reliable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and erasing homosexuality from this article in favor of a revisionist POV that ignores academic and scientific sources is antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
    Erasing homosexuality, revisionist? This isn't about erasing or rewriting anything, it's just an acknowldgment of the fact that there are people who use the label and are not homosexual. Also you can't really say that a label is academic or scientific when definitions of words change over time, that'd be like saying that because gay used to mean happy in English a hundred or so years ago it can't mean homosexual or queer now. I don't get where this sudden hostility is comming from. EldritchEmpress (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
    I don't understand either that sudden hostility. Eleaudit (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The current definition follows WP:Due weight. This is how sources almost always define the topic. Crossroads -talk- 23:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
    I don't feel like this is not due weight, like, what does sexual attraction have anything to do with being lesbian. To be lesbian is to just love another woman as a woman. Why does it have to be sexual attraction? I also did find two sources 1 and 2 for it(I think?) that say that 7% of lesbians identify as asexual, I unfortunately can't check either due to it not being available for free.
    Edit: Aditionally I have found another wikipage stating this with better sources than I had provided above. "Regarding romantic or emotional aspects of sexual orientation or sexual identity, for example, asexuals may identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer...AVEN: OverwviewSexuality and Gender for Mental Health Professionals" EldritchEmpress (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
I think "same-sex" must be changed to "same-gender". Using "same-sex" in this context equals to say that trans women are men, and that trans men are women. Eleaudit (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Solarz, Andrea L., ed. (1999). Lesbian Health: Current Assessment and Directions for the Future (1st ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0309060936. Retrieved October 16, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian/Archive_18&oldid=1214547989"