Talk:Lesbian/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Kerfluffle on Lesbos

The world 'Lesbian' designs the person born in the island of Lesbos. A current trial against the use for sexual orientation in the European Court of Human rights has given the reason to the inhabitants of the island of Lesbos and has forbidden the use of the word 'Lesbian' except to identify such people. For sexual orientation, the word 'Lesbian' has been forbidden and replaced by 'gay woman'.

Sources:

http://www.insaneabode.com/Articles/lesbian.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7376919.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/7376919.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24386702/

http://www.gadling.com/2008/04/30/greek-island-of-lesbos-sues-over-term-lesbian/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_re_eu/greece_lesbian_pride

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3850185.ece

http://seattlepi.com/national/1103ap_greece_lesbian_pride.html

--87.221.5.107 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There has been no ruling of the kind and these sources do not support the IP's assertion of one. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a ruling on the matter, as far as I can tell. I find it very doubtful that this case will be successful, but it may deserve some mention in the article. Anyway, I don't think you will get much support for removing the word from all of Wikipedia, and certainly not until the case has been decided. silly rabbit (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good god, what is wrong with people... Anyway, couple of points:

From what I glanced in the articles, it seems that court case has started, but nothing has been settled yet.
Even if it had been settled, the European Court of Human Right does not hold dominion over the English language. It simply doesn't work that way. Lesbian is a word in the English language that refers to a type of sexuality. No court will change that, and I don't think Wikipedia is the kind of resource that tends to follow a prescriptive approach to language.

Mister Lambrou's ideas are either incredibly enraging, or profoundly silly. I'm going to stick with the latter for the sake of my blood pressure. risk (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Forbidden? What happens if I use it? Well, go ahead and try to forbid it on Wikipedia. Since words in English and other languages often change throughout time, this will not be a successful venture for you. But go nuts. --Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The kerfluffle on Lesbos doesn't seem to be meaningful, might even be a publicity ploy coming at the opening of the tourist season in the Greek islands. As Moni3 says, the word lesbian (though even I don't use it all that much) is a widely accepted English language word which has had this meaning for at least 400 years (that we know about) and likely lots longer. Language does change and I wouldn't be started if, for other reasons, the word was dropped from English over the next 100 years but it's going to be with us at the very least for another generation. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is wrong and insulting, it's wrong. It does not really matter for how much time it has been used. If it gets forbidden from literature, it will fall in desuse and slowly disappear. That is the idea. Because of the fact that the lawsuit was filled at European Level, it might well not apply as it is located in the states (right?). However, it will find its way there anyway. At least, for now, when searching in wikipedia for the word 'Lesbian' it should point to the disambiguation page, not to this article, don't you think? --87.221.5.107 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are going to lead a crusade to keep people from using a word? What? Even honestly offensive words will still be used. There's nothing you or I can do to stop it. As the great and bisexual (who knows?) Eleanor Roosevelt said, "No one can insult me without my permission". You're allowing yourself to be insulted by the use of this word. Wikipedia in English will point to the article in which the word is used the most. In English, "Lesbian" directs to a homosexual woman. In Greek, it may not. That is a matter for Greek Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also say, the word is not "forbidden" in the EU and I still think this could all be a publicity scheme, Lesbos has been getting lots of attention in the English language media lately and this will only draw more girls to Lesbos this summer.[1][2] Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would iike to see some commentary on this in this or any other article as it is quite contemporary and confess I find it both interesting and very humurous: for one, as it has brought the Lesbians on the Island of Lesbos more new (Sapphonite or Sapphite) lesbian tourists than they could ever have dreamed of. :-) Regards, 122.148.173.37 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

California legalizing same-sex marriages

Thursday, May 15th, 2008 California Supreme Court decision that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Wikipedia links: Same-sex marriage [20]news.yahoo.com, California's top court legalizes gay marriage & [21]nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling] Main article: Status of same-sex marriage (Kitchwidder (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

def. of lesbian @ the top of LGBT page

does it jive w/ this article? (not necess exclusively toward females?!?!) FzzQuizzl (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've tried to tidy that up. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over term "Lesbian"

Recent studies proved that Sapfo was NOT gay, she had a family and died - committed suicide out of her desire for a man. This should be communicated and the community should reconsider gradually the usage of the term for gay women. Perhaps the term ¨goman¨ /(gay woman could be established.

Following this, the Lesbians (i.e. the inhabitants and diaspora of Lesvos) feel humiliated by the use of their homeland name principally as a definition for sexual orientation. They demand to claim back the property of the name, a name bearing a long historical tradition and culture since ~1000 BC.

mikisv

You said: "Perhaps the term ¨goman¨ /(gay woman could be established."

OK, that's retarded. I was following you at first, but I, for one, would not enjoy being

called a "goman." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisky porcupine (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please cite some reliable sources? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source for the controversy on the island of Lesbos. I think this is noteworthy, perhaps in a one-sentence summary in History or in the very first paragraph. 24.177.128.131 (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Lesbos islanders dispute gay name" from BBC

This more balanced take from the Guardian notes it's not being taken seriously. Truth be told, it could have been a ploy to get Lesbos in the news and draw more tourists there in the spring and summer seasons. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose. I'm not a lesbian, in either sense, so I'm not really concerned. 24.177.128.131 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess that means we can end this thread then. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

update

They lost the lawsuit in a Greek court (Three residents of the Greek island of Lesbos have lost an attempt to ban the use of the word "lesbian" to describe gay women) and must pay a few hundred Euros in court costs. Whatever they may have had in mind, the outcome is they seem to have gotten some amazingly cheap publicity for the island in the run-up to the tourist season. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen,

Thanks for letting me know.

Lizzie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie Brookes (talk • contribs) 08:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the whole thing does not belong in the article after all. Move along. Nothing to see here. WP:WEIGHT and all that. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm, the consensus appears to be that this article is about lesbianism in its most common sexualized usage of the term lesbian, not the Greek island, nor any alleged "controversy" surrounding the sexual use of the term. I think the section on "history of the term" is a thinly-veiled WP:COATRACK for an apparent agenda to trump up this so-called controversy. I think it should be removed (once again). The lead sentence should also be adjusted (reverted) accordingly. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

1. the guardian is not an authority on adjudicating what is and what is not of relevance to Greek. Lesbians don't come from england. 2. There is the section redirect to lesbian sexuality "Sexual activity between women..." which, in esscence talks about the the identification and whateverelsehaveyou. Now see the article for russian, serbian, american, kenyan, etc, etc. And if you want to go beyond states see Gujarati, Texan, Maharashtrian, bengali, sindhi, etc, etc. In that same vein, there is no re-direct for the Lesbian inhabitants. Now we're not asking to completely take over this article, because there is another usage (albeit less popular with the west, in which case adding a globalize tag would be more fitting), however, there is still controvery outside the west. and a clear mention that the word lesbian refers to both.

I have acquiesced to certain calls because you were right and it was fair, however, to remove it altogether is quite another matter. verging on censorship perhaps. I have agreed to put the term seperately as the sexualized lesbian is more common these days, however, the other lesbian should still be mentioned. For the case, I have added something about the controversial semantical differences. Lihaas (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues with this article. First, it references the English use of the word according to the majority of reliable sources. That means, without any doubt, that in English "lesbian" refers to female homosexuality, and has for about 80 years. There is a disambiguation for other uses of the word at the top of the article.

Lihaas, I suggested you bring this to the talk page so those who watch the article can discuss the changes made, rather than make them rapidly in reverts that may cause an edit war. Please be respectful. The article was not a link farm before you began deleting links to lesbian organizations.

Clearly, however, languages change. This is evident in the article for Gay. Gay has meant several things throughout its use in English, including prostitute, happy, and homosexual. If we use Gay as a model (which is not a given), and consideration is given to other uses for "lesbian", under no circumstances should the terminology reflect anything but what the majority of reliable sources say - again, that lesbian refers to female homosexuality. Placing other uses for it above the use for homosexuality, or inflating the amount of space dedicated to other uses distorts the accuracy of the article. --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You were right, so I have not added back. Yes, clearly languages do change that's why it is a legitimate word in the sexual concept. I'm not advocating removing that definition. But it also has another meaning, as that should be here. It will be a smaller part because of conventional usage, I'm not denying that. However, that shouldn't mean there is no room for the other term that is non-westernized. Unless you want to diverge both articles to include the inhabitants and the sexual lesbians. That's fine too, because then it can cover both topics in it's own domain. The words of inhabitants may originate from other languages, but they are still used in English. For example what is someone from China, the USA, Brazil, Senegal, etc called? They too have terms in English that are Chinese, Americans, Brazilian, Senegalese, etc. And as you just elucidated, gay does mention the various meanings on the page. Likewise, the other (not even various, just one alternative) variation must be here too. It can't be absent.

See gay and homosexual both have different web pages. One goes into detail of the sexual phenemenon and the other is more generic (although it does mention current conventions). See the whole history part under gay (which is the same thing I did here), and also see the lead. Lihaas (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article Lesbian is not about Lesbos. The term lesbian is thoroughly disambiguated through the link at the top of the page. Wikipedia articles cannot be cited as to content for other Wikipedia articles (WP:WAX). The lawsuit failed and was likely notable only as a publicity stunt to draw tourists to Lesbos last spring. Perhaps it should be included in the Lesbos article. See WP:Weight, WP:Coatrack, WP:Soapbox, WP:3rr and WP:Consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just come into this, so I don't know what the recent history of the current section was, but I saw that the article curently says that "The word lesbian dates back at least to 1732". Of course it dates back much further than that. Milton wrote that Orpheus's head floated "down the swift Hebrus to the Lesbian shore" in Lycidas (1637). Of course he meant the shore of Lesbos, but that shows that the word does not date to 1732, only the word with the meaning "homosexual female" may date to that moment. We need to clear this up - if the dust has now settled. Ideally we should have a discussion like the one in the "gay" article, indicating when the modern usage came to be more common than the geographical meaning and how the term Lesbian was used with sexual implications before the 20th century (was it 'code'? Was it in specific explanatory contexts?). Paul B (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

1732 has to do with earliest etymology sourced by editors of this article as to use in English. I agree the section could use ever more cleanup and sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are telling me what I've already said. It does not alter the fact that the statement is inaccurate as it it stands and that accuracy and full information are desirable. Paul B (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

~~No, you mentioned an unsourced use of the word in Greek. The article statement The word lesbian dates back at least to 1732 is sourced and reasonable, so far as it goes.~~ If you could give us some verifiable sources of earlier uses in English, that would be very helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please can we have a reasonable discussion. I did not mention "an unsourced use of the word in Greek". Milton did not write in Greek, he wrote in English, and it is not "unsourced" since there are any number of books on Milton. If you mean I did not immediately provide a footnote, this is the talk page for discussing the content of the article. I am doing just that. The accuracy of the quotation can be verified at the click of a mouse. A note can be found easily, and earlier references can probably be found using the OED. I raised the point here rather than just adding it because I see there has been a recent edit war. Paul B (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was needlessly snippy and I wasn't at all clear in my reading of your post or my answer, which is wholly my botch. I think the pith may be that we need to discuss and source on this talk page both meanings in English: Of Lesbos and Sapphic. Then come to a consensus as to how to deal with these two etymologies in the article. Until now, since the article is about the Sapphic meaning in English, only the Sapphic meaning has had consensus for inclusion in the text. My own thinking is, noting Milton's use of the word as an adjective meaning of Lesbos wouldn't be notable to the topic. However, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe a wider discussion of the word in this article would be helpful to readers. If this was done, even the little Lesbos lawsuit could be noted, since it would be in a wider, historical context. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've had a look at the OED and other sources. I can't see where the assertion that "the word lesbian dates back at least to 1732" comes from. It's not supported by any of the footnotes here. The very recent book Carnal Knowledge (2007) by Charles Hodgson states that "the word lesbian comes from the Greek. In 1601 it appeared with the meaning "from the island of Lesbos, which is now Lèsvos [! I thought it was still Lesbos]. The connection between homosexual women and the word lesbianism appears first in 1870" (p113), which seems to refer to the OED source also given here. He says nothing about any timeline difference between the words "lesbian" and "lesbianism", though "ism" coinages are typically 19th century. Earlier uses of the word "lesbian" with a sexual meaning would probably be adverbal or adjectival, but we'd need to know the verb or noun to make sense of the context. Paul B (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Other sources also state that the term lesbian became established with the modern meaning in the late 19th century, but that there were scattered uses beforehand. The most detailed discussion appears to be in The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome, by Martha Nussbaum and Juha Sihvola (University of Chicago Press, 2002), in which there is an account of the terminology used by ancient authors and its replication in post-medieval medical literature. The standard teerm before Lesbian became established was "Tribade", could mean either a masculine woman, or a woman who has sex with another woman, and this was used in medical literature in Europe. There are scattered uses of "Lesbian" (not necessarily in English - since latin was used for textbooks, so it was "lesbiai", meaning "like the women of Lesbos"). Paul B (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly see the article gay, "article is about "gay" as a term. For the sexual orientation, see homosexual orientation. For other uses, see Gay (disambiguation)." The same overarching concept as this page.

Secondly, gwen, your comment "was likely notable only as a publicity" is synthesis and subjective opnion. There is no substantiated corroboration about the intention of the Greek case.

Paul, that is simply what I am saying. I don't want to make it an article only about Greek Lesbians, but something along the lines of gay would be better. Both terms have ambigous meanings (that are, albeit, less ambigous in certain parts of the world). Unless of course the best choice is still to split off Lesbian (Greek) and lesbian (sexuality) (which is already a redirect here, it can simply be made into a page of its own (not a bad idea now that i think about it)) Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any point in having a separate article on the islanders, but there's no rule against it. We have articles on French people for example. The equivalent title "Lesbian people" would seem rather weird to the average English speaker, so some clarification would be needed. But if you think there is enough material on the cultural identity of Lesbos to merit it, go ahead. I think this article should focus on the dominant mening in modern English. If a word has two different meaning we don't have a single article about both of them. In fact even the article on Lesbos recognises that, since there is one on the island (Lesbos Island) and one on the modern administrative prefecture of the same name (Lesbos Prefecture). This article should certainly explain the history of the term and link to the articles on the island and prefecture. Paul B (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. So where do we stand now?

We agree the need to include both (in the lead) and thus the inclusion of the controversy merits placement too. Is this a consensus?

Something, again, on the lines of gay, where both meaning are mentioned, but details can be added to homosexuality. Or perhaps lesbian sexuality can redirect to a section on the same homosexuality page? Lihaas (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well,I've waited several days for any comments,so I will go ahead and add material based on the sources I've identified. Paul B (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE 1. "sometimes it is only when your changes are reverted or substantially changed that you learn that you did not, in fact, have full consensus." This is why the conversation come here in the first place. 2. "Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, you can assume that silence implies consensus." Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Who was silent? Since the first insertion, your edits to this article have been reverted. This talk page is busy because of them. --Moni3 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The {{otheruses4}} tag, aka the {{about}} tag, has the ability to include within it alternate meanings in addition to a link to the disambiguation page. This is the normal method of linking to such content when there's debate as where the tag should point - list mutliple so that the text doesn't need to be in the body of the article. I've attempted to cleanup the tag to contain other uses, although I was unsure if the language mention should also be in it. This seems a safe compromise, as it still retains the alternate meanings here, while segregating the content into the otheruses tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you were, who has not got involved in the discussion here. To quote you here "Maybe one of the reasons I don't really want to take this on is because it's too close and I do a lot better working on articles that are a bit distanced from me." That may well be your reason not to discuss, but that doesn't excuse an assumption on here if you haven't discussed it. I admit I can and will admit that I was over-zealous until I was brought to the discussion which this thread has shown.

Barek, you have good intentions here. But let's talk it through before changing the page.

Like Paul's comment above "waited several days for any comments,so I will go ahead..." the same held, for not just one person of course. Now tracing the conversation you can see we were discussing the efficacy of mentioning the other option on here. For which the disamb. link discusses the island and the language, not the word. This article is for the word,not the phenemenon. There are other articles (and redirects here which could split off) that discuss the sexuality of women, which, like the disamb. for the island and language, can be split off. Now that we agreed, as per above, to include other materials, wikipedia's lead guidelines state that:

"lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist."

Of this, obviously, like gay, there is then the need to put in the content of the article, not someone's personal opinion on the matter. Reading the article one will ntoe the term and it's history comes first. (as does the gay article) and then sexuality follows. Lihaas (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

All right. You are claiming that no one is discussing your changes. They have been discussed above. You have no consensus to insert the information about the Greek Isles in the lead or anywhere else in the article. You have no consensus. You have no consensus. You have been reported for edit warring. It is painfully clear that you have no consensus. --Moni3 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lihaas, there is no consensus for your edit, which many editors have now reverted. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's still in there, btw - after he was reported. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've undone it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Lihaas should take their POV editing offsite until they can edit without a blanket of lesbiphobia. It is mean-spritid and they can get their thrills on other websites instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.38.237 (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving article

One of the reasons this article is assailable is because it is poorly written and constructed. I attempted to improve it or inspire others to do so some months ago, but things happened and I didn't get to do what I wanted to do. Maybe one of the reasons I don't really want to take this on is because it's too close and I do a lot better working on articles that are a bit distanced from me. However, I'm willing to plug along and work on it here and there as necessary.

Along with the etymology of the word, other sections should be improved. If we can come up with a list of ideal changes (and the best sources possible), I can work on researching and writing it. Or, really, we all can. Writing, as well as content, should be improved. --Moni3 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and same here, by the bye. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Error

"Calling an historical figure" should not use "an" but "a," "the" etc. Just wanted to point it out since the page is locked and I can't edit it :] Maggie 3:17AM PST 06/08/2008

Nevermind I fixed it.- Magsxemail (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a grammar error at all, but a usage thing which is swayed mostly by pronunciation. Either an or a is ok in front of histor.... Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Faceless photo

Having a lead image of two headless women from behind holding hands isn't very impressive. This is a media cliche used too often to show same sex couples, usually employed because of concerns about 'outing' those photographed. As hiding the women's faces suggests shame and depersonalisation can't this image be replaced by a new one - or one of the far better images further down the article? 92.12.208.70 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this. Banjeboi 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I'd suggest that, since it's of greater historical interest, the picture of the bust of Sappho be shifted to where the picture of Ellen DeGeneres currently is. Skoojal (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Fertility Ruling

On August 18th, 2008 the Supreme Court justices rejected a San Diego County fertility clinic's attempt to use its physicians' religious beliefs as a justification for their refusal to provide artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. The ruling, based on a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against customers because of their sexual orientation, comes three months after the court struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage. HuskyMoon (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

WP:EL "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

"Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." This is not about any organizations to link to their sites. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource" "Links mainly intended to promote a website" --> of which the community websites certainly do. "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject" --> advocacy sites "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising" --> all things lesbian

And finally, "Due to the rising prominence of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites."

As per WP: Silence, I have edited the links out. If someone wants to question it now come to discussion BEFORE additions. Lihaas (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of those removed[3] were fine as links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.28.21 (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have restored them, as they were removed without consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian Health Concerns

Health Section Statement #1: “Lesbians have higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and obesity.”

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4708710.stm Gay marriage 'is good for health'

“Research has shown that lesbians have higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and obesity”…the article said”

Which article?

“Professor Michael King, of University College London” … “co-wrote the article“ in “The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health”

Clearly, statement one is a fair citation of the article. Both the citation and the article it quotes seem reputable.

I have just now listened to a woman from the LBGT community on NPR who said “the lesbian community have a higher rate of breast cancer.“ She said no one knew why but that it might be their higher rate of “nulliparity”, never having had babies and that there was an awareness campaign in that community about it. So I am confident further research would bear this out: members of the lesbian community have a higher rate of breast cancer. The lesbian community is not only being very pro-active about this, but also possibly pointing something out to “nullipartic” women in every community who might need to be aware of this health concern.

I had never heard the claim about heart-disease before. It seems reasonable to me, though, because both heart disease and lesbianism might be more common among females with certain levels of certain hormones. Certainly heart disease is more common among at least one group of humans who statistically have more testosterone and less estrogen: males!

About obesity, I don’t know, but I don’t see any reason to question to doubt professor King, he seems to be more in a position to know than either you or I are to disagree. If you’ve got a good source, that says otherwise, cite it. Otherwise, back it goes into the article.

Health Section Statement #2

“(Lesbians) are more likely to have bacterial vaginosis.”

Citation: Bailey, Farquhar, and Owen |“Bacterial vaginosis in lesbians and bisexual women “ Sex Transm Dis vol. 31 Issue 11 p. 691–4 2004 November

Url: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16227212

Quotation: “BV is common in women who have sex with women (WSW).”

Conclusion: If it’s more common in WSWs, it’d stand to reason that it is more common among lesbians because of the much higher statistical likelyhood that a lesbian to have had sex with another woman.

Citation: Marrazzo JM, Koutsky LA, Eschenbach DA, Agnew K, Stine K, Hillier SL “Characterization of vaginal flora and bacterial vaginosis in women who have sex with women” Infect. Dis. volume 185 issue 9 pages 1307–13 2002 May

URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12001048

Quote:

“Bacterial vaginosis (BV) may be common among women who report having sex with women (WSW) and frequently occurs in both members of monogamous couples. The results of Gram staining of a vaginal smear were consistent with BV in 81 (25%) and intermediate in 37 (11%) of 326 WSW included in this study. Lactobacilli were detected in 64% of subjects, and 42% of subjects had H(2)O(2)-producing strains. BV was associated with a higher lifetime number of female sex partners, failure to always clean an insertive sex toy before use, and oral-anal sex with female partners. Neither recent douching nor sexual practices with male partners were associated with BV. Vaginal smears from each partner were concordant in 55 (95%) of 58 monogamous couples; BV was present in both partners in 16 couples (28%) (P<.001, compared with expected distribution). BV was common among subjects who did not douche, who did not have concurrent sex with male partners, or who did not have a new sex partner, which suggests that other risk factors for BV exist. These data support the hypothesis that sexual exchange of vaginal secretions is a possible mechanism for acquisition of BV.”

Conclusion: Pretty self-explanatory, I’d say, and very important information for lesbians to have. Again, good information for lesbians and those who care about them. Well cited support for Health Section Claim #2, and definitely something that belongs in a lesbian health concern section.

Claim #3: (Lesbians) are more likely to have Vulvovaginal candidiasis

Citation:

Bailey JV, Benato R, Owen C, Cavanaugh “Vulvovaginal candidiasis in women who have sex with women”

Sex Transm Dis Vol. 35 issue=6 pages=533–6 2008 June Url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18418293

Quotation:

“OBJECTIVES: To determine whether vulvovaginal candidiasis (VVC) is associated with sexual activity between women. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of 708 new patients attending 2 sexual health clinics for lesbians and bisexual women in London, UK. Questionnaire for demographic variables, sexual history, symptoms, and sexual practice data linked with the results of Gram stain and/or culture of vaginal preparations for identification of Candida species. RESULTS: VVC (either symptomatic or asymptomatic) was common in this sample of women who have sex with women (18.4%). Logistic regression showed that VVC was significantly associated with larger numbers of female sexual partners in the previous year [OR 2.18 (CI 1.35-3.53) for 2 female partners compared with 0 or 1] but not with specific sexual practices, numbers of male partners, use of lubricants or vaginal douching. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing odds of candidiasis with greater numbers of female sexual partners raises the possibility that Candida species could be sexually transmitted between women.”

Conclusion: As Lesbians are obviously more likely to have had sex with many other woman, it makes sense that they would be more likely to have VVC. This is important information for any woman who has sex with many women, even if they are not true lesbians. Also important information for a lesbian health section.

Health Section Statement #4: …”and a higher prevalence of hepatitis C and HIV-risk behaviours (but a lower prevalence of genital warts).

Citation: Fethers K, Marks C, Mindel A, Estcourt CS “Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women” Sex Transm Infect Vol. 76 issue 5 pages 345–9 2000 October

Url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11141849

Quote:

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and blood borne viruses, risk behaviours, and demographics in women who have sex with women (WSW). METHODS: Retrospective cross sectional study using a multivariate model. Demographic, behavioural, and morbidity data were analysed from standardised medical records of patients attending a public STI and HIV service in Sydney between March 1991 and December 1998. All women with any history of sex with a woman were compared with women who denied ever having sex with another woman (controls). RESULTS: 1408 WSW and 1423 controls were included in the study. Bacterial vaginosis (BV) was significantly more common among WSW (OR 1.7, p < 0.001). Abnormalities on cervical cytology were equally prevalent in both groups, except for the higher cytological BV detection rate in WSW (OR 5.3, p = 0.003). Genital herpes and genital warts were common in both groups, although warts were significantly less common in WSW (OR 0.7, p = 0.001). Prevalence of gonorrhoea and chlamydia were low and there were no differences between the groups. The prevalence of hepatitis C was significantly greater in WSW (OR 7.7, p < 0.001), consistent with the more frequent history of injecting drug use in this group (OR 8.0, p < 0.001). WSW were more likely to report previous sexual contact with a homo/bisexual man (OR 3.4, p < 0.001), or with an injecting drug user (OR 4.2, p < 0.001). Only 7% of the WSW reported never having had sexual contact with a male. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated a higher prevalence of BV, hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviours in WSW compared with controls. A similar prevalence of cervical cytology abnormalities was found in both groups. Measures are required to improve our understanding of STI/HIV transmission dynamics in WSW, to facilitate better health service provision and targeted education initiatives.

Conclustion: As Lesbians are much more likely to have sex with other women, this citation supports this statement and statement two. Important, useful, and appropriate information for a Lesbian Heath Section. A definite keep.

Health Section Statement #5: “Like gay men, they are also more likely to suffer from depression, drug abuse and suicidal urges than heterosexual people.”

Citation: None.

Conclusion: This statement is unsupported by any evidence. I tend to think it might be true, however, as lesbians, like gay men, may have a statistical tendency towards suffering from social isolation in many areas. Nevertheless, until properly cited, it should be removed from this otherwise well-cited section.

Chrisrus (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You are to be commended for your diligence, but I still think that the whole section is fundamentally misplaced for several reasons. The first is given above - the serious problem that the statistics are likely to be massively skewed because of the inclusion of the sexual behaviour of prostitutes, female convicts etc who do not self identify as Lesbian. However the other serious point is that it is simply a list of possible health problems that are designed to create the impression "Lesbianism is bad for you". I don't see a section on "health" in the artricle on heterosexuality. It would be easy to construct one saying "the majority of serial killers are heterosexual"; "heterosexual sex is associated with the transmission of X, Y, Z conditions"; "heterosexuals are more likely to be child molesters" [4] etc etc. An accummulation of data of this sort is essentially useless. Some conditions may be more easily spread by some practices, others by others, but this tells us very little of value when presented in this way. Essentially the more promiscuous you are then the more infections you are likely to get. That's true of heterosexual and homosexual sex alike. The whole section is really not about lesbianism, but about picking out some condidions that happen to be spreadable by female/female sex. If a section were created listing all possible diseases that could be transferred by straight sex and then were added to the article on heterosexuality then I've no doubt it would be very soon deleted. Paul B (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over this comment from Paul again and comparing it to the citations just above, I would like to ask you what evidence you see there makes you think that there were any prostitutes or convicts in the populations studied.

In the Baily, et. al. study, the population was "Cross-sectional survey of 708 new patients attending 2 sexual health clinics for lesbians and bisexual women in London, U.K." I see no reason to think that there were prositutes or convicts in that population based on this information. Why should 708 lesbian and bisexual London clinic attendees be more likely to be prositutes or criminals? Thinking about it, I guess it must be the word "clinic". Here in the United States, the word "clinic" tends to conjure up images of free clinic for the poorest people, and that might have caused you to believe that they were enough such women there to "massively skew" the data, as it seems to you that poor people probably are much more likely to have to resort to a life of crime. Was that it? Because I may be wrong about this, but I think that the word "clinic" in Europe is used more often as something closer to the AmEng word "hospital" or "clinic" as in "private clinic" for rich people, like The Betty Ford Clinic. I say this because in some countries I've visited, I noticed that "clinic" means a place for rich people, whereas only poor people go to "hospitals".

In the Feathers, et. al. study, it says that the population all came from "a public STI and HIV service in Sydney". I don't really know much about it, as we have just the summary here, but I suppose you could be right. A population of women availing themselves of such a service in Sydney might actually be so "massively skewed" with criminals to render the study's results unreliable. But I'm not so sure as you seem to be. Certainly you should know a little more about it before before thinking that it is so.

The Marrazzo, et. al. study, well, you can read the whole thing if you register here http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/83/6/424, I suppose, but the part that you can easily read doesn't say anything about where they got the women who have sex with women. So unless you've read more of it than I have, you not only have no reason to think that the population is "massively skewed" with criminals.

Please explain yourself.Chrisrus (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As to what impression it is designed to create, I am agnostic about that, as you should be without some evidence. If that is the impression it made on you, so be it. This is an encyclopedia, facts are facts. We are all free to feel any way we want about them, but we don’t get to delete them from the encyclopedia because of what people might think if they knew them.

On whether heterosexuality has a health concerns section or not, I don’t know, but if it doesn’t, I don’t know why not. I think it should. If that would satisfy you, why not do it? I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure it’s a lot more dangerous than lesbianism. Just make sure everything is well cited, that’s all I ask.

The same also goes with any true facts about heterosexuality that you could find, like the ones you mention or others. If they are more likely to catch colds, or steal cars, well, fine with me if you want to put it into the article heterosexuality Just site them well! I don’t care who it might offend. If, as you suspect, it would be quickly deleted, I volunteer to undo that delete until someone could prove your sources unreliable, falsely cited, or wrong. I don’t discriminate.

On your “useless” comment, so is knowing the name of the first capitan of a Klingon Bird of Prey, probably, but it doesn’t stop there being in a wikipedia article. Plus, by the way, knowing you in a high risk group for a health concern is far from “useless” information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is the behaviour of the editor who added it but it is also common sense. Your support for such edits to the heterosexuality article is irrelevant because the point is that this information tells us nothing more than the fact that lots of sex leads to the likely tranfer of various microrganisms, viruses etc. It's not relevant to articles on lesbianism or heterosexuality to point to a long list of potential conditions that sex can result from sex, or indeed a long list of conditions that you won't get. And no, it would not satisfy me, because I have no tendentious wish to list diseases associated with sexual orientations. It's a recipe for childish edit warring of the kind that weakens wikipedia. Paul B (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You say that “this information tells us nothing more than the fact that lots of sex leads to the likely tranfer of various microrganisms, viruses etc. “ Later, you call the “health” section “a long list of potential conditions that“…“can result from sex, or indeed a long list of conditions that you won't get“ That may be true of one, maybe two of these health concerns. That is, one or two of them might be associated with a large number of sexual partners. For example, breast cancer is not thought to be related to sexual behavior. No one seems to be saying that their sexual behavior is the reason that lesbians tend to get more breast cancer. As far as I know, no one knows why lesbians get more breast cancer, but the current thinking seems to be their statistically high level of never having gotten pregnant in comparison to the general population. (Actually, that would be good to add to the article. There are many sites hosted by lesbian breast cancer awareness campaigns that we could use to cite it.)

As far as your accusation againt me of "edit warring"; first of all, it takes (at least) two to tango. After we hit the three undo limit, we met at the talk page to try to work something out in good faith. My behavior, I believe, has been proper.Chrisrus (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me to make some changes in the interest of balance, accuracy, and in the spirt of compromise. What do you think? Chrisrus (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As I and others have noted above, I think the whole health section should be removed as unsupported/unverifiable through the sources given: The text is at most original research (cite spanning). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the article as a whole is not comprehensive, the health section seems out of place and odd. In an ideal article it should actually be expanded to describe how and why these studies were completed, but since there's so little information about the rest of lesbian identity, history, and culture, it puts undue weight on health problems. I think it should be kept, but until the article can be expanded (and it's on my list to do), perhaps kept here on the talk page or in hidden tags. --Moni3 (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Moni for your help. I agree with what you said about what the section should ideally look like, and that at the moment, it leaves much to be desired. Not much of the origial section remains, and that what remains represents those parts that stood up to heavy scrutiny, but I may concede to delete even more. Instead of deleting the STD section, the second sentence of the section, I desided to try re-phrasing it as a Lesbian STD health item. Paul has backed off a bit on his complete condemnation of the references, which I have shown to be reliable and accessable, but a problem remains: is it safe to assume that, just because something is a proven WSWSTD, as the references do, it a proven LsbSTD? Paul, etc. suspects that there might be so many non-Lsb WSW in the study that what they found about WSW might be false about Lsbs. I'm not quite convinced by this argument yet, though, so please read the second sentence of the new edit, and please read (at least) my summary just above of the references, and let me know if what you think about that.

Having said that, however, the first sentence alone, about the non-STD health facts, has the potential within it for a very nice section. First of all, the reference is secondary, and there are plenty of primary sources out there for this fact. It's pretty interesting, I've looked around a bit on this issue, and there are many points of view from many sources with lots of different takes why lesbians have more breast cancer, etc. You could make something very helpful for many people about that.

Also what does this mean?: "...smears from each partner were concordant in 55 (95%) of 58 monogamous couples; BV was present in both partners in 16 couples (28%) (P<.001, compared with expected distribution)." You'll see the context above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 05:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is already a reliably sourced health risks section at Lesbian_sexual_practices#Health_risks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so maybe we reconcile and move the section about sexually transmitted diseases there, (maybe, I'm not agreeing to that yet). That still leaves the question of breast cancer, etc. which, as you know (because you've read through this section, right Gale?) are somewhat of a mystery but not thought to be associated with sexual practices. So you would agree to the first sentence as it stands in the article but would like to move the second sentence to that page. Is that right Gale? I mean, that is your position as it stands?Chrisrus (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't support any of that section anywhere in the mainspace at this time, for the reasons already given. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

err?.......i'm nose bleed...... i mean, with all the topic here.. anyway, this talk page is really on fire... its much more interesting and much more educational, unlike the other talk page about emo...well, still i don't get why some other girls prefer to be lesbian... i mean, why do they become lesbian... and i'm really confused,,, why other girls fell for another girl...... by the fact that she's aware that they have the same gender...... is it hard for a girl to avoid not becoming a lesbian...??? --Vanessa2403 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Vanessa2403

I suspect some women choose to become lesbians for the same reason some women choose to have type AB blood. --GenkiNeko (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I admit I haven't fully read all the debate above, as it is quite extensive, but here's my take on the issue: if something about being lesbian (e.g. types of sexual activities that lesbians do more often, if such things even exist?) has health effects, it is possibly worth listing, with an explanation like, "Many lesbians do X, which has health effects A B C." (Personally, I think it would make more sense to put that under the page for those sexual activities.) If you're just doing demographics, you're falling into the "the majority of serial killers are heterosexual" trap mentioned above. That is, the "Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide" fallacy. But personally, I just don't see the point of a lot of this.

As for the present version, the line:

Lesbians have higher risk of breast cancer, heart disease and obesity than non-lesbians.

Doesn't seem relevant or useful. It's just random statistical correlation with unclear causality and no real relevance to the topic. The line about diseases makes more sense...especially if some information on why these differences might occur were provided. --GenkiNeko (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)