Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:37, 20 March 2011

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 21 days

	Lesbian has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 25, 2009 Good article nominee Listed March 11, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

es:Lesbianismo

Answering message from Moni3 in es:Lesbianismo

Hi Moni3. The article in es:Wiki is a translation of the English one, with some additions regarding European and Latinamerican History and hispanic lesbian Culture. The part you are asking about comes from:

• Mogrovejo, Norma (2004). «Relevancia de las lesbianas en América Latina: la recuperación de nuestra historia». In Drucker, Péter; Mercad, Enrique (in Spanish). Arco iris diferentes. Siglo XXI. pp. 263. ISBN 9789682324864. http://books.google.de/books?id=uidtsC1ncHkC&dq=Lesbianismo+m%C3%A9xico&as_brr=3&hl=es&source=gbs_navlinks_s

At the moment I don't have the time to help here, sorry, but if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer.

Ecelan (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No problems. Take your time. Raystorm replied on my talk page too. It'll get done. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Raystorm, I have some questions about the paragraph added today about Argentina. Is there a reason why Argentina has so much information about the groups there? Is the lesbian or gay community in Argentina more active than elsewhere in South America? If so, can it be stated in the prose? Or is this one of several edits that may also encompass Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and other countries, that you are making in increments?

What is "The TV appearance of Ilse"? Ilse is linked, but to the general woman's name. Is it Ilse María Olivo Schweinfurth?

Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I just saw this now. Yes, I'm translating country by country, in small doses because it's a big section. :) Argentina does have quite a bit of info, but so do other countries like Mexico. I have three more paragraphs to add to the section (Chile, Nicaragua, and info on the general meetings celebrated in Latinamerica and the Caribbean). And Ilse is indeed Ilse María Olivo Schweinfurth, sorry about that. Cheers, Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, just realised that with the inclusion of Mexico, the title of that section should be renamed to accommodate for Central America as well, don't you think? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. I'm pretty sure it needs a good copyedit, though. Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for translating all that! It has been a very interesting read. Siawase (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. ^^ If I can be of any more help, give me a yell! I've been thinking about adding some info about yuri in the TV section, for example, what do you think? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a small expansion on yuri would be a good idea, since right now it's relagated to the "see also" section. Maybe related roots like Class S and Takarazuka Revue could be mentioned if we have good sources. Siawase (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I also appreciate it quite a lot. I'd like to get some general input on these additions. It's six paragraphs in total, and when I'm nervous about adding a sentence or two because of the overall length of the article, and this section now dwarfs the Asia and Africa sections, I think it would help to consolidate the material into perhaps three paragraphs. Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the Africa section could be expanded. :P Not too much, but there is some info that could be added. For example, about corrective rapes in Africa, and the situation of lesbians in places like South Africa and Uganda (I am slightly motivated by this interview with Monica Mbaru that coincidentally appeared today in the paper). As for the America section, there is a lot of info on Argentina. It could be trimmed down a bit, as could be the very last paragraph about the biannual meetings, in order to get all the info in three paragraphs. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Americas section

As the section appears now:

In Latin America, lesbian consciousness and associations appeared in the 1970s, increasing while several countries transitioned to or reformed democratic governments. Even so, no regime in Central or South America, democratic or otherwise, has respected gay and lesbian rights. Harassment and intimidation have been common even in places where homosexuality is legal, and laws against child corruption, morality, or "the good ways" (faltas a la moral o las buenas costumbres), have been used to prosecute homosexuals. From the Hispanic perspective, the conflict between the lesbophobia of feminists and the misogyny from gay men, has created a difficult path for lesbians and their associations.

Argentina was the first Latinoamerican country with a LGBT group, Nuestro Mundo (NM, Our world), created in 1969. NM created in 1971 the Frente de Liberación Homosexual (FLH, Homosexual liberation group), along with five other organizations, clandestinely and in the homes of personal owners. Around 1972-73, the lesbian association Safo could be counted among its numbers. From the initial activities in Buenos Aires they went on to work with feminists in Córdoba, Mendoza, Mar del Plata, and even Tucumán. Persecutions and harassment were continuous and grew even worse with the arrival of the dictatorship in 1976, when all groups were dissolved due to the Dirty War. The autonomous lesbian movement began in 1986 with the creation of the Grupo Autogestivo de Lesbianas (GAL) and the magazine Codo con codo, both quite short-lived. In 1987 began publishment of the Cuadernos de Existencia Lesbiana (Journals of lesbian existence), which kept on until the 2000s. The V Feminist Gathering was the catalyst for the creation in 1990 of the groups Frente Sáfico (Fresa), Las Lunas las Otras and the Grupo de Reflexión de Lesbianas. The TV appearance of Ilse made possible in 1991 the creation of Convocatoria Lesbiana (Lesbian call), from which later groups like "Buenas Amigas" (Good friends) and "Sentimientos" (Feelings), emerged. Lesbian groups got together later in the Frente de Lesbianas, to get over their difficulties with heterofeminism and to work with the Comunidad Homosexual Argentina (Homosexual Argentinian Community).

Mexico has been the Latinoamerican country where the lesbian movement has been more active. One of its more prominent leaders has been Nancy Cárdenas, spokeswoman of the Frente de Liberación Homosexual (FLH, Homosexual liberation movement), the first LGBT association of the country, even if most members of FLH were gay men. In 1973, Cárdenas was also the main character of the first interview in public television to a homosexual person. Towards 1975, the International Year of Women, there was a feeling that males, gay or straight, focused their sexuality on the phallus, symbol of pleasure and power, a point of view rejected by lesbians. There were several tries from Cárdenas' entourage of creating their own lesbian association, but the legislation and the social repulsion aborted the initiative. The first lesbian association of Mexico was called Lesbos, and it was founded in 1977 to defend lesbian interests inside the feminist movement, which, despite tentatives of approachment by the new organization, rejected them in fear of being identified with the lesbians. In 1978, a more aggressive organization, Oikabeth, was founded; its aim was to fight for lesbian visibility and, after a brief collaboration, it broke apart from the Frente Homosexual de Acción Revolucionaria (Homosexual movement of revolutionary action) because of its misogyny, becoming the first independent group from both the homosexual and the feminist movements, opening the door for many others. Separatist tendencies were still evident in the first Meeting of feminist lesbians of Latinamerica and the Caribbean, celebrated in 1987 in Mexico; the controversies that arose there led to the creation of the Coordinadora Nacional de Lesbianas (CNL, National coordinator of lesbians), which later joined the Coordinación de Feministas de la Ciudad de México (Feminist coordination of Mexico City). At the beginning of 1997, there were 13 lesbian groups in Mexico City but, despite that, lesbian associations have had little influence both on the homosexual and feminist movements.

In Chile, the dictatorship forbade the creation of lesbian associations until 1984, when Ayuquelén was first founded. Key for this was when a lesbian was beat to death on a street, in plain sight and with numerous witnesses, under shouts of "Damned lesbian!" The association was tied since its conception to the feminist movement, although the relationship was sometimes strained. In 1987 they did their first interview for a newspaper, which gave them visibility, but it created problems with feminists that feared that both movements could be identified as one and the same. Around that time they contacted ILIS and ILGA, and later worked with MOVILH to abolish article 365 of the penal code (an anti-sodomy law still in force in Chile). Nowadays, there is a Lesbian Coordination that edits the magazine Amazonas.

In Nicaragua, lesbian consciousness began even later, in 1986, when the Sandinista National Liberation Front expelled gay men and lesbians from its midst. State persecution prevented the formation of associations until the apparition of AIDS, when educational efforts impulsed associacionism. The first lesbian organization was Nosotras, founded in 1989. A visibility effort in 1991-92 provoked the government to declare homosexuality illegal in 1994. The blow took all the energy from the movement, which would not recover until much later.

The meetings of feminist lesbians of Latin America and the Caribbean, sometimes shortened to Lesbian meetings, have been an important forum for the exchange of ideas for latinoamerican lesbians since the late 1980's. With rotating hosts and biannual gatherings, its main aims are the creation of communication networks, to change the situation of lesbians in Latinoamerica (both legally and socially), to increase solidarity between lesbians and to destroy the existing myths about them.

Questions, because I don't understand everything:

• How did Ilse make possible the establishment of lesbian groups? It's not clear in her article or this one what she did.
• Is heterofeminism a word in English? I actually don't know.
• I'm very interested in finding a flow and featuring cause and effect relationships. It helps make the article more cohesive, emphasizes major points for the readers, and consolidates some points. To this end, has there been any influence from the gay rights groups of Argentina to Mexico, from Mexico to Nicaragua? Is there a link between the political upheavals in Argentina, Chile, and Nicaragua to the establishment of gay rights groups?
• I know this is a translation issue, but what does "impulsed associacionism" mean? Forced people to band together?
• Did Pinochet forbid only lesbians to associate, or all gays?
• Were Pinochet's forces, military, or maybe hired thugs responsible for the beating death of the lesbian that started Ayuquelén?
• Feminism and lesbianism seems to be a repeated theme in this section, and it also seems to mirror the same issues that hurt the feminist movement in the U.S.: the most active feminists were often lesbians, but the feminist movement often had to deny that they were lesbians or promoting lesbianism. Is this true of the issues in Central and South America?
• If the gay rights movement took a long time to recover in Nicaragua, what is the most recent status of it?

My attempt at consolidating this information:

In Latin America, lesbian consciousness and associations appeared in the 1970s, increasing while several countries transitioned to or reformed democratic governments. Even so, no regime in Central or South America, democratic or otherwise, has respected gay and lesbian rights. Harassment and intimidation have been common even in places where homosexuality is legal, and laws against child corruption, morality, or "the good ways" (faltas a la moral o las buenas costumbres), have been used to prosecute homosexuals. From the Hispanic perspective, the conflict between the lesbophobia of feminists and the misogyny from gay men, has created a difficult path for lesbians and their associations.

Argentina was the first Latin American country with a gay rights group, Nuestro Mundo (NM, or Our World), created in 1969. Six mostly secret organizations concentrating on gay or lesbian issues were founded around this time, but persecutions and harassment were continuous and grew even worse with the arrival of the dictatorship of Jorge Rafael Videla in 1976, when all groups were dissolved due to the Dirty War. Lesbian rights groups have gradually formed since 1986 to build a cohesive community that work to overcome philosophical differences with heterosexual women. The Latin American lesbian movement has been the most active in Mexico, but has encountered the similar problems in effectiveness and cohesion. While groups try to promote lesbian issues and concerns, they also face misogynistic attitudes from gay men and homophobic views from heterosexual women. In 1977, Lesbos, the first lesbian organization for Mexicans, was formed. Several incarnations of political groups promoting lesbian issues have evolved; 13 lesbian organizations were active in Mexico City in 1997. Ultimately, however, lesbian associations have had little influence both on the homosexual and feminist movements.

In Chile, the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet forbade the creation of lesbian associations until 1984, when Ayuquelén was first founded, prompted by the very public beating death of a woman amid shouts of "Damned lesbian!" The lesbian movement has been actively associated with the feminist movement in Chile, although the relationship has been sometimes strained. Ayuquelén worked with the International Lesbian Information Service, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, and the Chilean gay rights group Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Homosexual (Movement to Integrate and Liberate Homosexuals) to remove the sodomy law still in force in Chile. Lesbian consciousness began even later in Nicaragua, in 1986, when the Sandinista National Liberation Front expelled gay men and lesbians from its midst. State persecution prevented the formation of associations until AIDS became a concern, when educational efforts forced sexual minorities to band together. The first lesbian organization was Nosotras, founded in 1989. A visibility effort from 1991 to 1992 provoked the government to declare homosexuality illegal in 1994, effectively ending the movement, which would not recover until much later.

This section has so much detail that I'm wondering if it can be spawned into its own article: LGBT rights in Central and South America??

At any rate, any input is appreciated. If I compromised accuracy in my consolidation, please feel free to correct me. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ping. --Moni3 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't have much time now, but I'll comment on a couple of points from the top of my head.

The beating of the lesbian in Chile was nothing "official". The murder was done by an ex-policeman that was jealous, as his girlfriend seems to have left him for the woman. He just beat the woman to death and no one intervened. The family of the dead woman didn't dare/want to do anything about it. The case illustrates the acceptance or social status of lesbians: they could be killed on the street, with witnesses, in plain daylight, and the murderer could just walk away without any further problems.

On the other hand, the repression in Chile was of all homosexuals, oppositional forces, or anyone that Pinochet and his people didn't like, not only lesbians.

I don't think the influence from gay groups in America went from Argentina --> Mexico --> etc. At the beginnings, they all were probably more influenced by North America(/Western countries). Where all these movements from different countries influenced each other and exchanged ideas was in the Encuentro de Feministas Lesbianas de América Latina y el Caribe. It was in these meetings where a big part of the ideas and the dynamics came from.

Mogroviejo does not say "most active feminists were often lesbians", but that lesbians very often were part of the feminist movement (a small difference). The other part is right: "feminist movement often had to deny that they were lesbians or promoting lesbianism".

You have to take into account that there aren't many books about this topic. Mogroviejo is possibly the best, but her interest is the "lesbian" movement, separated from the "gay" or LGBT movement. So she tends to focus on the "independent" lesbians, and tends to ignore those that were included in the LGBT movement together with gays.

Homosexuality is legal in Nicaragua only since 2008. I haven't found any information about recent developements.

"impulsed associacionism" => boosted the creation of associations/groups

And this has gotten longer than I thought. I'll try to respond your other questions as soon as possible.

About your attempt to consolidation, Mogroviejo had an overview of all Latinamerica, but I'll have to recheck the book. Maybe that'll help.

--Ecelan (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Today I have a bit more time.

I have found soem more information about Nicaragua It looks like there is a lesbian organization called Grupo Safo / Grupo de Mujeres Lesbianas de Nicaragua since (Feb. 21st) 2004, 4 years (March 2008) before homosexuality was made legal. They belong to the Alianza Centromericana de la Diversidad Sexual.

As for what Mogroviejo («Relevancia de las lesbianas en América Latina: la recuperación de nuestra historia» in Arco iris diferentes, 2004) says about the lesbian movement in Latin America in general. The second feminist wave in Latin America helped organize the LGBT movement. Homosexual women and men parted their ways soon, due to men's sexism. "Homosexual women" became "lesbians". The evolution of lesbians and their fight follows the evolution of feminist theory in Latin America.

• The first stage was the fight for equality, their civil and political rights; resumed in the motto "for a non sexist socialism". Lesbians looked for equality, identifying themselves with the ideas on the left and saw themselves as a marginalized part of the society that would achieve freedom with the rest of the society (this is the case of the Nicaraguan LGBT movement).
• The second stage was the fight for being different and independent from gays and feminists; evolving then into separatism and clandestine organizations around the (heterosexual) feminist circles. Men became nonexistent, and so lesbianism became subversive (Mexico and Chile are the examples chosen).
• The third stage, still ongoing, breaks the boundaries of gender, looking for a new, radical theory that analyzes persecution of sexual dissidents (transvestites, transexuals, prostitutes, sado-maso). Men (gays, transvestites, transexuals) are being reanalyzed as possible allies.

But these stages don't exclude each other, they complement each other, as the discussion nowadays shows. Mogroviejo then studies this evolution in three cases, Mexico, Chile and Nicaragua, that is, formal democracy, dictatorship and revolutionary government, typical for Latin America. As conclusion, Mogroviejo states that no government in Latin America, independent of its type, respected LGBT rights. Repression was the norm, in spite of homosexuality not being illegal in most of Latin American countries.

I hope this helps you to find a frame for the Latin American part.

--Ecelan (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'll try to take a look on Mogroviejo's other text, Un amor que se atrevió a decir su nombre (2000), as soon as I have the time.

Thanks, Ecelan, for your replies. I gave this another copy edit. I highlighted problematic issues as red links with questions below:

In Latin America, lesbian consciousness and associations appeared in the 1970s, increasing while several countries transitioned to or reformed democratic governments. Even so, no regime in Central or South America, democratic or otherwise, has acknowledged gay and lesbian rights. Harassment and intimidation have been common even in places where homosexuality is legal, and laws against child corruption, morality, or "the good ways" (faltas a la moral o las buenas costumbres), have been used to persecute homosexuals. From the Hispanic perspective, the conflict between the lesbophobia of feminists and the misogyny from gay men has created a difficult path for lesbians and their associations.

Argentina was the first Latin American country with a gay rights group, Nuestro Mundo (NM, or Our World), created in 1969. Six mostly secret organizations concentrating on gay or lesbian issues were founded around this time, but persecution and harassment were continuous and grew worse with the dictatorship of Jorge Rafael Videla in 1976, when all groups were dissolved in the Dirty War. Lesbian rights groups have gradually formed since 1986 to build a cohesive community that work to overcome philosophical differences with heterosexual women. The Latin American lesbian movement has been the most active in Mexico, but has encountered similar problems in effectiveness and cohesion. While groups try to promote lesbian issues and concerns, they also face misogynistic attitudes from gay men and homophobic views from heterosexual women. In 1977, Lesbos, the first lesbian organization for Mexicans was formed. Several incarnations of political groups promoting lesbian issues have evolved; 13 lesbian organizations were active in Mexico City in 1997. Ultimately, however, lesbian associations have had little influence both on the homosexual and feminist movements.

In Chile, the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet forbade the creation of lesbian groups until 1984, when Ayuquelén was first founded, prompted by the very public beating death of a woman amid shouts of "Damned lesbian!" from her attacker. The lesbian movement has been closely associated with the feminist movement in Chile, although the relationship has been sometimes strained. Ayuquelén worked with the International Lesbian Information Service, the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, and the Chilean gay rights group Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Homosexual (Movement to Integrate and Liberate Homosexuals) to remove the sodomy law still in force in Chile. Lesbian consciousness began in Nicaragua in 1986, when the Sandinista National Liberation Front expelled gay men and lesbians from its midst. State persecution prevented the formation of associations until AIDS became a concern, when educational efforts forced sexual minorities to band together. The first lesbian organization was Nosotras, founded in 1989. An effort to promote visibility from 1991 to 1992 provoked the government to declare homosexuality illegal in 1994, effectively ending the movement, which would not recover until much later.

• I changed "respected" to "acknowledged". Is this still accurate?
• Same: prosecute to persecute.
• It's not clear to me what "lesbians and their associations" means. Does associations here mean groups? Liaisons, as in partners, or families/friends?
• Any idea how the last sentence about Nicaragua can be rewritten to make this clearer?

• Is there an English equivalent for "Ayuquelén"?
• Any information on Ilse?

Thanks again! --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Ayuquelén" means "the joy of being" in Mapuche language.
• You have to be careful with "Even so, no regime in Central or South America, democratic or otherwise, has acknowledged gay and lesbian rights". This is true and right (acknowledged is OK), but only until the wave of modern democracies arrived to Latin America, after the dictatorships. Argentina and parts of Mexico have homosexual marriage nowadays.
• I think "persecute" is more accurate, as homosexuality was not illegal in many countries (lesbians were often forgotten in the laws anyway), and often they didn't even need an excuse to beat up a homosexual.
• "associations" means groups.
• Nicaragua: "... effectively ending the movement until 2004, when Grupo Safo / Grupo de Mujeres Lesbianas de Nicaragua was created, four years before homosexuality became legal again."
• "In Chile, the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet forbade the creation of lesbian groups until 1984," this text gives the impression that in 1984 homosexuality became legal, which is not the case. The sodomy law was repealed in 1999, and lesbianism was never illegal; in the 1980s there was just a slight reduction in the repression, that allowed clandestine LGBT bars, discos and groups; they were closed again mid 80s as aids turned up.
• About the text itself, I don't see the line you are following. I'd follow a time line, using the three periods Mogroviejo explains, or divide it in countries, which is the solutions Wiki:es follows. If you want to, I can make a proposal.

Cheers, --Ecelan (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've found more information about "Ilse", her name is Ilse Fulkova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecelan (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Literature addition

In addition to The Well of Loneliness, three other novels with lesbian themes were published in England in 1928: Elizabeth Bowen's The Hotel, Woolf's Orlando, and Compton MacKenzie's satirical novel Extraordinary Women. None of them were banned. The Hotel, like earlier English novels in which critics have identified lesbian themes, is marked by complete reticence, while Orlando may have been protected by its Modernist playfulness. A fourth 1928 novel, Ladies Almanack, is a roman à clef of a lesbian literary and artistic circle in Paris; its American author Djuna Barnes includes a character based on Radclyffe Hall and passages that may be a response to The Well. It was published privately in France in a small edition, becoming more widely available only in 1972.

• Who are Winning and Parkes? These people were not added to the bibliography. What is the page number for Parkes?
• I don't understand the point about The Hotel being marked by complete reticence.
• Who considers Ladies Almanack to be of such importance? A scholar should be named here. I'm assuming it's someone who wrote the intro to Barnes' book and not Barnes herself.
• When I constructed the Literature section, I used surveys of literature with lesbian or gender-bending themes. Using the introduction to a novel in this case concerns me. Clearly the article is quite large. Using introductions to books, this section can become unreadable quickly if the person writing the introduction considers is a widely influential book. Instead, surveys of literature indicate trends or overall themes. They highlight individual works that were groundbreaking or indicative of a particular trend. Is this much information necessary for Ladies Almanack? Particularly if Barnes' novel was not widely read until 1972, and with such unknowns (Orlando may have been protected by its Modernist playfulness., passages that may be a response to The Well ), could some of this information be put in a footnote or moved to Barnes', Hall's, or other articles? --Moni3 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving Parkes and Winning off the bibliography; I'll add their details, though would welcome help on the formatting. There is no page number for Parkes really, as it is an online article. The "reticence" of The Hotel is meant with reference to Foster's suggestion in the paragraph above it, about obscuring the actual lesbianism in a text, prior to The Well. The commentary on the importance of Barnes is from the scholar who wrote the 1992 intro, whose name is in the references. I looked her up, and it turns out Susan Sniader Lanser is now Professor of English, Women's and Gender Studies, and Comparative Literature at Brandeis University and has written a lot on lesbianism, (literary, cultural, historical, economic). It might be worth working her name into the article.

My perspective on this article is that The Well is arguably the English-speaking world's single most well-known and influential creative work with a lesbian theme; it might not deserve to be, and many lesbians today may not have read it, but it casts a long literary (and legal) shadow. As such, it behooves us to give it as full a context as possible, given the constraints of the article. That's all. I could live with bits of this being moved to footnotes here, but I think the first sentence is pretty solid. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree that The Well of Loneliness is a hideous book, and one that is an odd choice to define generations of lesbians. I hated the book when I read it for the first time and only when I learned of the circumstances surrounding it: it was written to defend inverts in the early 20th century mindset, did my view on it soften, although not by much. Radclyffe Hall certainly did not set out to write a defining work, it seems, but despite my distaste for the book, scholars put a lot of importance on it. There's a discussion about the novel and how it coincided with the heightened profile of lesbians in England in the Construction of lesbian identity section. I think the information about the other novels with lesbian themes that were not suppressed could be included there.

What do you think about: "the crystallizing moment in the construction of a visible modern English lesbian subculture" by professor Laura Doan. Or somehow otherwise smoothly integrated into that section (Construction of lesbian identity). --Moni3 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not feeling very inspired at the moment. Thanks for your suggestion. I still think something of what I've added needs to stay in the literature section, or at the very least notes thereto. It's a definite mini-wave (bump?) of lesbian literature a generation before the pulp ficiton; call it a sign of the zeitgeist. I think the novel by Djuna Barnes is worhty of inclusion because of the circle it would have circulated within. Also, I'd suggest linking to The Well within the literature section itself (Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (linking) allows this, "where the later occurrence is a long way from the first", and I think the reader, perhaps skipping only to this section, would find it helpful). I am about to go offline and expect no access till Monday, so your patience in discussing this would be appreciated. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize with the lack of inspiration.

The mini-wave of lesbian literature before pulp fiction is an important point to make--if a source makes it. It has been a while since I read the sources I used (Foster, etc.) for this section, but if they make this point, then it needs to be clear in the prose. If they don't, of course, the article cannot make the point.

As for the Barnes novel, your statement because of the circle it would have circulated within gives me more pause. I get the impression that it did not circulate at all until the 1970s, so any influence that may be placed on it before then would not be accurate in a discussion of how lesbians were represented and represented themselves in literature.

I look forward to your reply on Monday. --Moni3 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Back a little earlier than expected! Though not with access to all the sources I would wish.

I am not suggesting we use the term "mini-wave". I am just saying that the article should reflect the C20 of lesbian literature: not very much - 1928 SPIKE - not very much - pulp fiction - 2nd gen feminist influence - etc. The boomlet is there, in the publishing record of one remarkable or anomalous year. The article should reflect that reality by listing the books that cluster around The Well; if you want to drop the sentence of commentary on The Hotel and Orlando, I won't object.

As for the Barnes novel, I worded that abysmally. The Ladies Almanack did circulate in 1928 or shortly thereafter. Google Scholar has helped me find this, by Susan Sniader Lanser 13 years before she wrote the intro to the republication.

"Published in 1928, which Jeannette Foster calls a 'peak year' in lesbian literature (not only Barnes, but also Radclyffe Hall, Colette, Elizabeth Bowen, Virginia Woolf, and Gertrude Stein were all writing lesbian that year), this cryptic and fascinating volume is, in the words of Bertha Harris, 'in its way and for its time, a document of lesbian revolution' and one of the most celebratory lesbian artifacts of the First Wave."

Speaking in Tongues: "Ladies Almanack" and the Language of Celebration. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies.

Vol. 4, No. 3, Lesbian History (Autumn, 1979), pp. 39-46

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3346147

Lanser is clear that "its readers were its own cast of characters", i.e. Natalie Clifford Barney and her salon. (Foster wrote Sex Variant Women in Literature, a pioneering study issued in 1956, and Harris was a novelist.) LA was printed privately, but a small circulation does not mean a lack of influence, far from it, if the readers are significant figures in art, literature, and lesbian culture. (I seem to recall that LA was sold by Barnes and her friends to anyone who wanted it -- it was not clandestine. The Herring biography of Barnes gives a fair chunk to LA, but, alas, I don't have the bio to hand.)

So: the importance of the year 1928 -- backed up by Foster. Circulation of Ladies Almanack -- documented by Lanser.

Wording -- I am not that bothered as long as the main point gets in, that The Well has an immediate context. By the way, I take it you don't object to the proposed relinking, as explained above? BrainyBabe (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually confused a bit as to how this may now read, and I'm not sure what edits you're proposing. Sorry. Can you indicate what your ideal edits are?

Are the scholars' points about Ladies Almanack that the few who purchased the novel, luminaries in the Paris salons, were also characters within the novel, and that they were, as writers and hosts, etc., influenced by Ladies Almanack? So although its readership was very limited, the people who did read it were themselves very influential in lesbian culture and influenced by Barnes' book? --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll draft an "ideal edit", or a step towards it. This is still within the Literature section, in the paragraph beginning "in the 20th century". How about:

Foster claims 1928 was a "peak year", as, in addition to The Well of Loneliness, three other novels with lesbian themes were published in England: Elizabeth Bowen's The Hotel, Woolf's Orlando, and Compton MacKenzie's satirical novel Extraordinary Women. Unlke The Well, none of them were banned. A fifth novel that year, Ladies Almanack, is a roman à clef of a lesbian literary and artistic salon in Paris and circulated at first within those circles; Susan Sniader Lanser calls it a "sister-text" to Hall's landmark work, as its American author Djuna Barnes includes a character based on Radclyffe Hall and passages that may be a response to The Well.

So Foster and Lanser are worked into the text. (By the way, I've found a few copyediting errors, but won't tweak the article proper till we've agreed wording on this; I did add a date to the refs.) BrainyBabe (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I need to get the entire paragraph in context:

"In the 20th century, Katherine Mansfield, Amy Lowell, Gertrude Stein, H.D., Virginia Woolf, Vita Sackville-West, and Gale Wilhelm wrote popular works that had same-sex relationships or gender transformations as themes. Some women, such as Marguerite Yourcenar and Mary Renault wrote or translated works of fiction that focused on homosexual men, like some of the writings of Carson McCullers. All three were involved in same-sex relationships, but their primary friendships were with gay men. Foster further asserts 1928 was a "peak year"; in addition to The Well of Loneliness, three other novels with lesbian themes were published in England: Elizabeth Bowen's The Hotel, Woolf's Orlando, and Compton MacKenzie's satirical novel Extraordinary Women.", Unlke The Well of Loneliness, none of these other lesbian-themed novels were banned."

I did a little bit of copy editing. I think the above is a nice addition. What's below, still, is not clear how important Ladies Almanack is the way it is written. My primary concern is the integrity of future edits. If sources do not say outright that Ladies Almanack was widely influential or somehow the result of a trend in publishing, there's not a way to keep the article free of everyone's favorite lesbian-themed books. There are a few critically acclaimed novels where scholars say a particular book is a response to another, or well-written, but not necessarily a trend in publishing. Without a source to say this book is part of a larger, global perspective in lesbian-themed literature, it's kind of hanging there. If more editors decide to highlight particular works not mentioned as trend-setting, it shifts the article from sources-driven material to editor-driven material. What do you think of a footnote for it? --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"A fifth novel that year, Ladies Almanack, is a roman à clef of a lesbian literary and artistic salon in Paris and circulated at first within those circles; Susan Sniader Lanser calls it a "sister-text" to Hall's landmark work, as its American author Djuna Barnes includes a character based on Radclyffe Hall and passages that may be a response to The Well."

Edit to add: Emma Donoghue came out with an overview of lesbian literature last year. I haven't read it yet. I used three sources for this section: Foster, Terry Castle, and Lilian Faderman. It might be worth it to check out Donoghue's book to see what she says about stuff. Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I can live with that: the paragraph as you've consolidated it above, with Ladies Almanack in a footnote. NB there appears to be a stray comma in the sentence beginning "Some women, such as Marguerite Yourcenar and Mary Renault wrote or translated works of fiction". (I noticed a few other comma-type quibbles, as mentioned earlier, but will wait on those.) Also, the repetition of "lesbian-themed" in the final sentence of the proposed paragraph may be more than is needed, but I leave that to your taste. Thanks for the pointer to the Donoghue book. BrainyBabe (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I made the edit. One final question: the cite (Lanser, 1979, p. 39.): there is only one Lanser mentioned in the References list, and that's the intro to Barnes 1992. Is this the same book or a different one? Can you clarify that? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. The note about Ladies Almanack now reads "as its Barnes includes a character", whereas I had proposed "as its American author Barnes includes a character". Her nationality is nowhere mentioned in the article, and the note refers to the Paris salon, so it seems reasonable to make it clear where she was coming from. The Lanser cite is the one I provided above, within this thread. Again:

Speaking in Tongues: "Ladies Almanack" and the Language of Celebration. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies.

Vol. 4, No. 3, Lesbian History (Autumn, 1979), pp. 39-46

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3346147

I might come back with comma-quibbles elsewhere in the article another time. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Men have historically shaped

This template must be substituted.

"Men have historically shaped ideas about what is respectable for women in love, sex, and family," Respectable is subjective, there is no set of universally respectable standards for women. Ideas are communal and formed without discriminating the gender of an individual. It's absurd to say that, historically, only one half of the population identified and expressed ideas. Male opinions may have been more influential for reasons relating to aggression and fear, but that doesn't mean women didn't contribute to ideas.

Also, "Historically, men have shaped" would be more accurate since "historically shaped ideas" could indicate ideas shaped by history. OhSqueezy (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I know! It's crazy to think that for several hundred years women were not allowed to engage in intellectual pursuits that would have led to their recorded opinions about sex and sexuality! But there you go. Sources make this point multiple times, so it's an integral part of this article.

The article does not say that there is an immovable standard for women to behave respectably through time across the globe. Just that, for a particular time or place, men have set the standards of what it means for women to be respectable.

As for where to place "historically", until the past century men have written history, and thus ideas shaped by the history they have written, it seems to be an accurate statement. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Squeezy's point (one of them, anyway, the last one) is that "Men have historically shaped ideas" could be read as "Historically, men have done this" or "Men possess such ideas" making it a vague sentence.

Squeezy's main point, however, seems to be doubt as to whether the clause is true as written. Chrisrus (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If the sentence was supposed to read that men have ideas shaped by history, would that not need a hyphen, as in "Men have historically-shaped ideas"? --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a good explanation about using a hyphen in this situation on Misplaced Pages: Hyphen#Compound_modifiers. I think in this case, if the unintended meaning was intended, a hyphen would be appropriate but not necessary.

I think the sentence is true, actually. However, I'm saying that women have formed ideas about women as well, and the sentence is either implying that is false or ignoring that fact. Let's look at it this way, if a child watches their mother, the child will form ideas about female roles that were shaped by a woman.

To summarize, I'm saying this is an unreferenced assumption about the formation of ideas, and it detracts quality from an otherwise well-researched article. I think a lot of what you said in your comment would be more appropriate, particularly that women have been threatened by alienation, oppression, or punishment while pursuing new standards. This approach has the added benefit of empowering women. It's also true and easily referenced. OhSqueezy (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not unreferenced. Citations are not required for the lead and in fact it is mentioned so frequently by so many sources in the body of the article that citing it in the lead would be a bit ridiculous. While I agree personally that naturally women help form other women's opinions in society, there isn't a way we can look back on 12th century France, ancient Rome, or modern-day Yemen and find out what women thought/think of sex because their ideas are not recorded.

The article should not set out to empower women. It should just summarize what sources have written about what "lesbian" means and how female homosexuality has been practiced and perceived. The pursuing new standards while being alienated, oppressed, punished, and threatened--I'm not sure this falls within the scope of what the sources are addressing. While some women are threatened and punished, and keeping women ignorant and subservient to the point of telling them what sex is, what makes it good, what makes it virtuous, and how to attain a saintly glow in one's life is oppressive, much of what you described seems to be feminism, which has only been around--as a movement--since the mid 19th century. The article covers much more in scope. The lead also accurately describes the core issue: men have defined--and often continue to--what lesbians are and how valid or not their relationships are. Replacing this wording with more general terms like alienation, oppression, or punishment, makes that idea more vague.

If I misunderstood your point, please clarify or perhaps offer rewording of what you think the sentence or passage in particular should be. Keep in mind it must summarize the points made in the body of the article. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion: "Historically, the male-dominated standard for respectable female relationships in love, sex, and family has either omitted lesbianism, rejecting its possibility, or regarded it as an invalid expression of sexuality. More recently, this standard has been challenged and abjured by various lesbian and feminist movements." I think this connects with the article well, particularly the section regarding second wave feminism. OhSqueezy (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's a start. My nitpick with this is that standards don't reject or regard, people do. The people who set the standards and then follow them. What about this: "Historically, men have set the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality. More recently, these standards have been challenged and abjured by various feminist movements."

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, that says men have set a precedent for what is respectable female behavior. I understand standards has two meanings, but I read precedent or level of quality when the word set is used. How about replacing set with defined? This is also more concise, which I think is appropriate for the introduction.

"Historically, men have defined the ascendant standards in society, often overlooking, omitting, or rejecting lesbianism. These standards, traditionally approved and observed by most, have more recently been challenged and abjured by various feminist movements." OhSqueezy (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer an amalgamation: "Historically, men have defined/created the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality. More recently, these standards have been challenged and abjured by various feminist movements." This is accurate to the multiple points made my sources, and still explains the issues plainly. While brevity is necessary in the lead, this point, that men create the standards for relationships, love, and sex, should be made clear. This sentence has had to be rewritten a couple times to make it clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Most importantly, "have often overlooked" is more correct. Otherwise, I feel you're not recognizing the clarity and sophistication of the other statement, which includes everything you want explained about relationships and respect. If men have created the standards for society, they've created standards for love, sex, and all relationships. And if that were somehow unclear, the statement mentions lesbianism specifically as a subject relating to the standards. The word standards implies connotatively good things like respect. Lastly, the word ascendant is crucial because it addresses the fact that there were other standards in existence, though they were recognized by few, if any, individuals. OhSqueezy (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

This statement is a broad generalization that disregards boundaries of nations and cultures. It seems there is a group policing this article seeking to gain legitimacy of the concept that "Men have historically shaped women's sexuality". But as the article states, it is an opinion promoted by feminist writer "Naomi McCormick". If activism is your goal, do not promote it on Misplaced Pages. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Following a discussion where the last post was made 13 months ago on this talk page (see here), User:Elephanthunter has removed the statement Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality. from the lead without providing any valid reason other than a vague accusation of POV sexism in an edit summary.

Because this continues to be addressed on the talk page, it's probably about time I have to spell this out for editors who have not read the body of the article.

In Origin and transformation of the term:

• Magnus Hirschfeld, Richard von Krafft-Ebbing, and Havelock Ellis define normal sexual types for men and women. They are defining norms in sexuality. Lesbianism is considered a mental defect.

In Identity and gender:

• Women in the U.S. who could not visit Harlem or live in Greenwich Village for the first time were able to visit saloons in the 1920s without being considered prostitutes. The existence of a public space for women to socialize in bars that were known to cater to lesbians "became the single most important public manifestation of the subculture for many decades", according to historian Lillian Faderman.
• The issues of economic independence from men is also addressed in Great Depression. Also: The increased mobility, sophistication, and independence of many women during and after the war made it possible for women to live without husbands, something that would not have been feasible under different economic and social circumstances, further shaping lesbian networks and environments.
• Postwar years: In 1952 homosexuality was listed as a pathological emotional disturbance in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

Female homosexuality without identity:

• Right there in a blockquote: Because of society's reluctance to admit that lesbians exist, a high degree of certainty is expected before historians or biographers are allowed to use the label. Evidence that would suffice in any other situation is inadequate here... A woman who never married, who lived with another woman, whose friends were mostly women, or who moved in known lesbian or mixed gay circles, may well have been a lesbian. ... But this sort of evidence is not 'proof'. What our critics want is incontrovertible evidence of sexual activity between women. This is almost impossible to find.
• Female sexuality is often not adequately represented in texts and documents. Until very recently, much of what has been documented about women's sexuality has been written by men, in the context of male understanding, and relevant to women's associations to men—as their wives, daughters, or mothers, for example.
• Most of the Ancient Greece and Rome section also addresses this.
• The 2nd paragraph of the Early Modern Europe section, starting Ideas about women's sexuality were linked to contemporary understanding of female physiology.
• To a lesser extent in the first paragraph of Re-examining romantic friendships. But certainly the last paragraph: Faderman calls this period "the last breath of innocence" before 1920 when characterizations of female affection were connected to sexuality, marking lesbians as a unique and often unflattering group. Specifically, Faderman connects the growth of women's independence and their beginning to reject strictly prescribed roles in the Victorian era to the scientific designation of lesbianism as a type of aberrant sexual behavior.

Outside Western cultures:

• Paragraph on Middle East, all of it.
• Africa, the discussion about the definition of sex in Lesotho.
• Asia, the discussion about sexuality among men and women in China, and what is considered virtuous in Korea. Note also the repeated issue that there is no term for lesbian in many Asian cultures.

Media representation:

• The entire section.

Current issues of lesbians:

• The subsection Lesbian chic and popular culture addresses selective packaging of lesbians or women who admit to sexual histories with other women to appeal to heterosexual men.
• In Sexuality and lesbians, According to feminist writer Naomi McCormick, women's sexuality is constructed by men, whose primary indicator of lesbian sexual orientation is sexual experience with other women. The same indicator is not necessary to identify a woman as heterosexual, however. McCormick states that emotional, mental, and ideological connections between women are as important or more so than the genital.

Returning to the sentence that was removed, Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality. it is quite clear that multiple sources addressing disparate issues acknowledge that men shape women's sexuality by telling them what is good and what is not. While the concept behind this may be sexist, there is no POV, and certainly not mine, involved in this summary. Without it in the lead it does not fully summarize the concepts presented in the article. There is no reason to remove it, and it should be replaced immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let the reader make such assumptions by the content of the article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested a neutral third party to look into this and added a dispute tag --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I just provided at least 14 separate examples of cited statements in the article, some of these are entire sections cited by multiple sources, that illustrate that

1. lesbianism is often invisible, not considered a valid expression of sexuality in many forms of media
2. men have constructed ideas about women's roles in relationships for thousands of years in multiple societies
3. women have been subservient to men in relationships, and unable to associate with other women for economic or social reasons

So I'm at a loss here. What is the reason this sentence is being removed? Can you provide sourced material to refute this? Is it the wording of the statement? Should it read differently while still summarizing the same major points? I simply do not understand. It is very, like...blindingly clear to me, that multiple sources make these points. Such a concept made by so many sources needs to be covered in the lead of the article. You respond with Let the reader make such assumptions by the content of the article. What does this even mean? This is your argument? This is the reason why you think the 14 cited statements that cover these concepts should not be included in the lead? Surely you know this is not a valid response and will be dismissed not just by me, but by anyone familiar with content disputes. --Moni3 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The evidence you provided does not support the claim. It's a broad generalization, the propaganda of Naomi McCormick, and does not belong in the article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

1. McCormick is one of many sources to make statements that justify the sentence in the lead. If your issue is with McCormick, please present why using this as a source is unacceptable. Why is McCormick not a reliable source? If your issue is McCormick, should you not then present your argument to her instead of this article?
2. Again, McCormick is one of multiple sources to address this. You would also have to remove Aldrich, Faderman (both), Hamer, Foster, Castle, Rabinowitz, Russo, Streitmatter, Brenshoff, Tropiano, Verstraete, Sullivan & Jackson, Murray & Roscoe, and Schlager, and give valid reasons why each of these sources is not considered reliable. --Moni3 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Like the authors you mention, we should stick to specific cultures, men, and points in history. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means. Please help me out here. You're responding with one or two sentences that are enigmatic at best. I'm responding with huge lists of statements, sources, authors, and evidence. You're not. Why am I working so hard to address this? The article is, in my opinion, very clear about these issues. If it's not and I'm just crazy then make concrete suggestions as to how it can be improved. Offer sources. Offer ways to reword if the idea is not being expressed as well as it can be. You've offered nothing so far, just your personal dislike of one source and these incoherent minimalist statements. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have evidence, but Misplaced Pages is not a place for original research. Which of those authors you mention came to the same conclusion as you? --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What? What conclusion? I don't understand what you're....what? Do you understand what original research means? That it's my opinion--or yours, inserted into the article without sourcing? I have no opinion on this. These points are made by the sources. Do you understand that sources, experts, historians, professors, authors, make these points? Not me. --Moni3 (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this the tactic you use on everybody? You're going to mock me like you did to OhSqueezy? I can't do this. We need a third party opinion. You took evidence for specific instances and used them to generalize the men. Read: The sources you mention do not support the conclusion in your summary. If you have no opinion then you should stop policing this article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If by "tactic" you mean "efficient communication", then yes. I pretty much "use it" on everybody. I'm such an asshole, what with assuming you should know what you're talking about. But for clarity, this is the deal: you can't really back up your claim that the statement is NPOV or sexist, but you accuse me of inserting original research into the article. That's pretty much the definition of original research: you don't think this statement belongs in the article, so you remove it despite the fact that all the sources listed back it up. Then you say the logical summary in the lead is a conclusion I reached, when it's clearly not my conclusion, but a summary of a dozen sources making the same point. You put it in bold for some reason, because, what, that's going to change the fact that you still have no sources to back up your claims, and you cannot speak intelligently why the sources that are currently in the article are unsatisfactory. You edit here and there, gone for 13 months, return. The last time you discussed this, you were relatively content, but not now. And you come to exhibit a rather astonishing lack of knowledge about Misplaced Pages policy. This is pretty much the reason why I'm semi-retired. This is utter bullshit, a complete waste of time, and I'm starting to think you're trolling. Inb4 NPA. If that gets you hot under the collar, then do some work here. Try to answer with concrete suggestions instead of these enigmatic "let the readers decide" and the various gibberishy statements you seem to like to give. This is not an abstract exercise. Suggest improvements to the article, not taking out the bits you disagree with personally. If you just don't feel like it, let's accelerate this process. Whatever is going to school you the fastest on how to back up your assertions with sources, let's go do it. ANI and topic banning? Probably too early. The Reliable Sources noticeboard? An RfC? Whatever is going to get you to engage in a meaningful manner. If you would rather celebrate your flawless troll victory, go do that too, just somewhere else. --Moni3 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Listen Moni3, I'm not the only person challenging your summary. I replied to an *existing thread*. And you can state as many sources as you want. How many of those make the broad conjectures that you made in your summary? How many of those sources actually intended to blame men? How can that possibly be seen as NPOV statement in an article about Lesbianism? That statement is sourced once! By one Naomi McCormick. And while I don't doubt she is a well-respected sex therapist, it is certainly not noteworthy of being in the summary! You are taking all these specific instances of men in history and advancing your position of blaming men. You are conducting original research through synthesis. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead is supposed to summarise the main arguments made in the article; that is not synthesis. --JN466 01:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Look at the sentence in question: "Historically, men have defined the standards for what is respectable in love, sex, and family relationships, including those where men are not present, and thus often overlook lesbianism or consider it an invalid expression of sexuality." Read that again. It's basically saying, Men defined sexuality, and therefore overlook lesbianism. That is not a summary of the content of the article. Who made that claim? --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A dozen sources make this claim. (You like bold, so maybe you will understand me when I say it yet again, but in bold.) They are listed just above here. All you have to do is scroll up to read them. I listed them for you. Good lord, dude. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much? I think you've wasted enough time here with this. If you can't provide some solid reasoning for keeping the NPOV template, it's ready to come down. In 24 hours, if you can't provide a source that refutes the dozen or so already in the article, or you cannot provide solid reasoning why the sources in the article should not be considered reliable, I'm going to remove it. If after that, you decide to replace it and continue this farcical snipe hunt, I'm going to request the attention of ANI. I f*cking hate ANI, too. So, gee...yay. Thanks for that. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The article says for example, "Female sexuality is often not adequately represented in texts and documents. Until very recently, much of what has been documented about women's sexuality has been written by men, in the context of male understanding, and relevant to women's associations to men—as their wives, daughters, or mothers, for example." (Rabinowitz) In the Middle East section, it says, "Women, however, were mostly silent and men likewise rarely wrote about lesbian relationships. It is unclear to historians if the rare instances of lesbianism mentioned in literature are an accurate historical record or intended to serve as fantasies for men. A 1978 treatise about repression in Iran asserted that women were completely silenced: "In the whole of Iranian history, has been allowed to speak out for such tendencies ... To attest to lesbian desires would be an unforgivable crime."" (Murray & 'Roscoe). There are other such passages indicated by Moni3 above. It means that most attested writings are by men, and men didn't write much about this because they had no first-hand experience of it. --JN466 13:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may, I think the point of the sentence in question is that, at first at least, it was viewed as pathological, and this upset lesbians, many of whom didn't appreciate being treated as "sick" individuals, as if in need of a cure. This explains the reactions referred to in the sentence that follows. I could be wrong about that, though, but if that's what it's saying then why not say that in so many or similar words. You've got these early sources all of which take the point of view that this is pathological, and then you've got all these lesbians saying "no, it's not, and you wouldn't be saying that if you weren't all men", or some such, if these early lesbians can be found to be pretty united in saying so, could be put forward as their historically significant point of view.

I do think, and have been saying so for some time, that this explanation of the pathological point of view should not be stated as fact because many women also may have tended then as now tend to view it as a problem in need of fixing: I'm thinking for example of mothers of lesbians, who, like most mothers, and for pretty obvious reasons if you think about it having to do with evolutionary psychology, tend to be very interested in seeing their offspring reproduce, and therefore they reacted to a lesbian daughter as an individual with a problem in need of fixing from their point of view; they quite logically might have worried that a lesbian state would lower the chances of their daughters reproducing successfully. So that explains why they dragged their daughters to these early doctors, who, for complicated historical reasons, yes, happened to be pretty much all men at the time, but it could easily have been a mother saying something like "fix this problem with my daughter, doctor, I'm at my wit's end, what's wrong with her yadda yadda", and so the doctor was just trying to help and looked into it and wrote about it as a problem in need of fixing. I think even if they had all been female doctors at the time and even if the society had been a matriarchy; I don't see how it would made any difference if the reason for the pathological perspective comes from the perception that it lowers the statistical chances of reproducing, which is statistically true but not a viewed as a problem so much any more unless maybe it's your daughter.

But again, none of this is to say that lesbiansism is pathological, per se, any more than some monk who takes a vow never to have sex at all, or someone who chooses to remain childless by using birth control, and so on. These states are only pathological if you view things that lower your chances to reproduce as pathological. In fact, it occurs to me, lesbianism is less likely to lead to childlessness than these other states, as many lesbians do, in fact, have children, although of course not nearly as often as heterosexual women do. And of course these states don't harm the individual as in the normal meaning of the term "pathological" kind of implies. And certainly conditions that lower the chances of reproducing are viewed today as mostly none of anyone's business but their own and not a problem unless the individual thinks so, and in any case can be dealt with today by artificial insemination or some such, so most people today don't view lesbianism as pathological, although I assume there are still many such mothers and fathers who still view it as a problem they wish could be fixed and may still drag her to the doctor and ask about hormome treatments or some such, athough if the do that today the reaction would likely be for the doctor to explain the modern non-pathological perspective and reproductive alternatives. My point is this: it isn't obvious equally to everyone that the only possible reason lesbianism was orignally viewed as pathological by those early sources lays simply in the fact that the authors were all men and the society male dominated, because other reasons having to do with evolutionay psychology exist to explain the pathological view even if everyone involved had not been male. I think that is why again and again, people who don't see the explanation for the early pathological view given in the article as obvious a fact as the article presently does, that such people read that sentence; therefore look at that sentence and object, and will probably continue to do so until some compromise wording such as the first part of this post or some such can be found. Chrisrus (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "Men have, in the past, shaped ideas..." - and I agree that the statement is true. One only has to think about voting and various nasty practices regarding female mutilation to begin to see that society has been unbalanced for some time. We have nmanaged (as a society rather than as sexes) to restore some balance but there is yet a long way to go. How many Prime-ministers, how many presidents have been women? Chaosdruid (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It is true that voting and various nasty practices prove that society has been like that for a long time, and that it continues to be, in a manner of speaking, "a man's world". I don't think that these facts prove that the only reasonable explanation for the early sources having seen the phonomenon as a problem in need of solving. I think the simplest explanation for that is the evolutionary psychology of parents responding to a state of being that would seem to lesson the chances of procration causing parents to bring lesbian daughters to early scientists for "fixing". To inject some objectivity, please imagine you had a vested interest in the procreation of a group of non-human animals, for example, such as a horse breeder or some such, and you found that one of your prized individuals would only mate with others of its own gender. You would see it as a problem and want to fix it. Look at what Freud and the rest had to say about it at the time and it seems consistant with this analysis - a state of sexuality that is focused on the "wrong" object if one is going to procreate, that being the "proper" (in their view) purpose for sexual behavior. It's the same as a their view of a man who spends all of his sexual energy on a fetish, or who lacked a sexual drive, these people are also viewed the same way in the early works, and that's clearly not because men worried about controling women and the society being sexist because the referents in these cases are not female. Lesbianism was mearly listed in those old sources among many "deviant" sexual conditions, many or not most of which were primarliy conditions affecting primarly men. Therefore,the statement should be phrased as a summary of the opinon of notable lesbian theorists, not as a simple fact that this was definately the reason early sources viewed it as a disorder, in turn causing the reactions that follow in the following sentences. It's easy to understand why lesbians would object to being seen as "sick" people with a mental disorder and respond as described with that analysis and in the other ways described, and the readers would not continue to periodically object to that sentence as being a statement of personal point of view being presented as a statement of knowable objective fact. Chrisrus (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In other words, early sexologists viewed lesbianism as pathological because they believed all forms of "devient" sexuality were pathological, not because they were sexist. See Freud, for example, he doesn't discriminate between male and female sexual "devients". Nor do the others. Furthermore, there is no more reason to believe that heterosexal women are less prone to this view it as pathological than anyone else. Chrisrus (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Heading Picture

{{subst:DNAU|365}} This section was archived by the bot and re-placed on the talk page by --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the girls holding hands and also motorcycle helmets shot. Kind of stereotype encouraging and cliche. Can we find something that represents the idea at a more basic level, and actually connotates a romantic/sexual relationship, as well? Plus it's not totally clear that they are both women. Pretty obvious, but it could be overlooked. If somebody comes to this article not knowing what a lesbian is, that picture won't exactly clear things up for them at a glance, which I'd assumed was the point.

Maybe a simple, not seedy-looking kiss, instead? Or even a kiss on the cheek, or maybe two women in wedding dresses? Also the caption is a bit mealy-mouthed, and grammatically unwieldy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.128.222 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been brought up previously. There are several issues about this. First, an image needs to be free to be used. Second, images of faces may need to be released by the people in them unless they are public figures. Third, any image of a woman's face used at the top of this article will instantly represent the picture of what a lesbian is. Even two. That means issues of race, gender, and age arise. Should they be feminine? Butch? Butch and femme? White? Black? Asian or Latina? Young or old?

To resolve these problems, what would you suggest? --Moni3 (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest getting rid of the picture until we find something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.234.154 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this Misplaced Pages stuff, but I agree with the person who says that the picture should be deleted until something better is found. Maybe a shot of a huge group, or something without people in it--pride flag? a shot of a lesbo history museum? or something historical? I don't know. But that's a HORRIBLE shot to open this article with. I came to this article to find out (for highly personal reasons!) what someone from a homophobic culture would find on the internet if she were nervously starting to explore her identity. And this is NOT what I would want. It enforces stereotypes that aren't representative at all. Even if I DID support those stereotypes, it should NOT be attached to an "objective" encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.186.226.63 (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it a bad idea to remove the image without replacing it with one that could be much better. The problem is the "much better" part. I don't quite grasp why an image of two women from behind holding hands is offensive; if any user is offended by the image, no doubt any other image would be just as offensive. There is so much baggage involved with the Lesbian label that readers will be coming here to discover more about themselves and many of them no doubt will feel trapped by any image at the top of the article. Women will want it to represent them, but will not accept another image they don't want to be included with. No fat, anorexic, unattractive, pretty, masculine, athletic, androgynous, fashionable, dour, feminine, young, old, historical, contemporary, wealthy, poor, white, Hispanic, black, Indian, or Asian women, because that's not who they are.

For the multiple times this issue has been brought up previously, no one has been able to provide a suitable alternative. In my opinion, most of the people who complain about it are allowing themselves to be offended by the image. I'm open to alternate suggestions, but they must fall within a set of parameters:

• The image must be free. Misplaced Pages Commons has a repository of images that could be used, and that is available here. Many of these images are poor indeed.
• If no suitable image can be found there, one may be able to be loaded if it is in the public domain or released into the public domain using the GNU free documentation license (meaning it can be sent to the Wikimedia Foundation and released by the copyright owner/photographer). An original image can be taken for the purpose of heading the article. I've considered doing this, but the same offenses taken at the current image I fear will be taken at any newer image.
• If people's faces are in full view, they need to release their permission to the Wikimedia Foundation.
• It is possible to make a composite of images showing a variety of women, modeled on the opening image at African American.
• An image can focus only on an action, as two women holding hands (as currently showing) or kissing, zoomed in to show only hands or parts of faces. Sepia tones or other effects on the image can resolve issues of race or age. This still obviously will bring complaints for one reason or another.
• Instead of a photograph of people, a symbol can replace it. The problem with this is that a symbol, such as the double woman symbol, double-headed axe, or black triangle, are inaccurate to illustrate an article that for the history of lesbianism has not been used or recognized as a symbol of female homosexuals, or in the case of the black triangle, simply historically inaccurate to represent lesbians.
• To avoid specific issues, a simple line drawing can be used, but this begs the logistical questions of how to produce one, and then aesthetic questions about why a line drawing must replace photographed flesh.
• No image at all so as not to offend anyone. I'm not a fan of this particular solution. It's my belief that readers are coming here with the concept of Lesbian they have learned within their life experiences. The article should broaden their knowledge and show them how these concepts were developed and that they are entirely social constructs.

Anyone else have any ideas? --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the lead image at all and it's lasted there quite awhile. I would say most readers are smart enough to know that a tame snap like that is not meant to be a definition of the topic. The symbols all have political meanings/backgrounds which don't match up with the wider topic. One might think about doing a grid of women historically identified with this topic, but I can foresee how even that could draw unhappy posts from some. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I much prefer the lead image we have now over having no image at all. I really do like the collage at African American though, but I'm not sure it's possible to create something similar here. Likely if we did there would still be ongoing disagreements over who should be included. Siawase (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it about time to create a FAQ at the top of this talk page to address this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dunno but if anyone could write a helpful FAQ on this, I'd think it would be you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've only done this once, very quickly in an outline for when Gropecunt Lane was on the main page. So...let me give this a shot...

Q: Why is there a picture at the top of the page representing two figures from behind, holding hands? Does this really represent what a lesbian is or what the word means?

A: Readers occasionally drop by to complain about this image and it has been discussed several times since early 2009. Resolving this issue is problematic.

• There are strict limitations on the kinds of images that can be used on Misplaced Pages. The image at the top of the article is free and the least offensive because it shows an action instead of faces, thereby avoiding most problems associating age, gender expression, and appearance with what it means to be a lesbian.
• The article addresses the different ways "lesbian" has been used in English. Simply showing the face(s) of one or two women who identify as lesbian is too limiting. "Lesbian" can refer to actions, objects, or types of media, like books or film. Women of all races, ages, classes, and other various descriptions can either identify as lesbians or be involved in same-sex relationships, declining to use a label. An image of one or two people cannot possibly represent the various visages that "lesbian" can describe.
• Symbols, such as the double female symbol (left): , labrys: , or black triangle: have only been used recently, since about the 1970s and do not represent the breadth of concepts discussed in the article.

However, the image can be replaced, which means anyone can take another photograph and load it to Misplaced Pages, but there are certain parameters that another image must meet:

• It must be free. The photographer or copyright holder should release it into the public domain or creative commons license.
• Anyone whose face is identifiable in the image needs to release their permission for it to be used.
• It should account for the above considerations and not attempt to illustrate what one or all lesbians look like.

If readers have creative suggestions to resolve these issues, please present them below on the talk page.

Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've read the discussion and seen the issues in play, I suppose that the best course would be to wait for a lesbian couple to put up their own photo. I'm a bit surprised this hasn't been done already, but I suppose I shouldn't be. Good luck! kencf0618 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

History of lesbianism article

I'm bringing this topic up here because there are more people here (watching the Lesbian article), and because History of Lesbianism is related to it. On to my concerns: I feel that "the history of lesbianism" is already covered quite well here at the Lesbian article. Therefore, I question whether we really need a History of Lesbianism article. It's mostly unsourced, and surely what is there can be covered here. As I touched on, the Lesbian article covers most of the history of lesbianism. This makes the History of lesbianism article seem like some small, missing part of it. It needs a better, more specific title if we are going to keep it. It used to be called Sapphic love. So maybe a rename to that? Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is good potential to expand the history of lesbianism. There certainly are good sources to do this. Someone has to do it, however. I wrote this one, so someone else--or several someones--should write the history of lesbianism article. --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But, Moni, my point is that I feel this article (Lesbian) more so represents the history of lesbianism, and that the History of lesbianism article seems like some poor, not even half-written, knock-off. To make that article about "the history of lesbianism," it would need to be like this one to be as accurate as possible...and then it would simply be redundant. Right now, it needs to be either merged or renamed, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know. My point is that there is much more information about the history of lesbianism than this article can provide. History of lesbianism is a poor, half-written knock-off because someone hasn't rewritten it. Someone should. This one took me about 2 months to write. It just takes access to really good books (a decent college library would have them) and a lot of dedication. Nothing really more is necessary. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that more can be stated. I still feel that it would largely be redundant to the Lesbian article if expanded considerably...considering that the Lesbian article already covers so much about this topic (thanks to you, which is greatly appreciated and respected). That's why I'm still not seeing that article's title (History of lesbianism) as the best. You say there is much more that article can say on the matter, but I say it's not like every extensive detail about lesbianism is expected to be in either article (here or there). There is also the fact that WP:SIZE is not a factor for relevant information that is suited here. More could be added here on the history of lesbianism, despite WP:SIZE. And right now, the Lesbian article is "it" for most of the information on lesbianism, which I feel will be that way for a long time. It's not like the History of lesbianism article could not be merged until someone is ready to expand it. But I suppose we can wait and see if it grows in the way you seem to believe it is likely to.

If you don't mind, I will copy and paste this discussion to Talk:History of lesbianism, after others weigh in (if others weigh in) here, so that it can be there as well, for the consideration of anyone interested in expanding that article in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is by far the longest article I've written on Misplaced Pages. I cannot read it all in one sitting most days. I don't think it a good idea to add information here. I call it a leviathan of an article.

I'm mostly ambivalent about the History of lesbianism article. However, I don't think it should be deleted because someone hasn't accessed the best sources about the history of lesbianism, and it's difficult to say that the Lesbian article has everything necessary to address the topic if those sources have not been consulted. Because an article is awful, poorly written, unsourced, and just plain aesthetically ugly (these are generic terms that I don't apply to the History of lesbianism article) doesn't mean it should be removed from Misplaced Pages.

Ok, so I've made my point. I'll let others weigh in in the discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Still, articles that are largely unsourced and felt to be better covered elsewhere are deleted or merged all the time. That's often how Misplaced Pages works, whether I always agree or not. Anyway, thanks for weighing in and indulging me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2011

I'd say leave it there. Give it a few years, and it may grow into a more comprehensive treatment than this article can provide. --JN466 02:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

We could profitably include a little more about lesbianism in the African American community. At the moment, we only mention –

• Harlem: "Among African American residents of Harlem, lesbian relationships were common and tolerated, though not overtly embraced.",
• Nearby in Hartford, Connecticut, African American freeborn women Addie Brown and Rebecca Primus left evidence of their passion in letters: "No kisses is like youres".
• the first film about African American lesbians, Cheryl Dunye's The Watermelon Woman

As a summary of the African American lesbian experience overall, that gives an overly rosy picture of the black community's attitude towards lesbianism. In the South in particular, lesbianism has not been popular with Blacks, for reasons of both race and religion. See for example Liddell & Kemp, or Patricia Hill Collins' Black Sexual Politics, which states that LGBT African Americans have been widely seen as "disloyal to the race", and many lesbians and gays felt it necessary to "pass" as heterosexual.

Liddell & Kemp also mention the common accusation that lesbians are "man-haters", a term which doesn't occur in the article at all presently. That term is of course is not restricted to the black community, or to males for that matter; see e.g. Arlene Stein. I feel some work could profitably be done on these aspects. --JN466 14:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but per the section above, I'm wary of adding too much information to the article, primarily for its size. It's just very, very long. Also, for a global topic such as female homosexuality, it focuses quite a lot on English and American experiences. That's primarily because most of the source material is written in English, and much of it originates in the U.S., which has been prominent in gay activism in the past 50 years, eventually leading to academic scholarship about homosexual cultures. I'm eager to read the sources you provided, though, and discuss the appropriate weight with which the issues should be included. --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Related: ""Iffe Degman, a professor at a local" is an interesting search term. Quite specific. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For a general discussion of African-American lesbian and bisexual issues, there's this article, which may be more appropriate as a source for an overall review:

• African American Lesbian and Bisexual Women Article first published online: 17 DEC 2002 DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00163

There are, of course, articles and books written about homosexual Latinas, American Indians, Asian-Americans, Jews, and other groups in the U.S. Potentially, it's possible that an entire new section about racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in the U.S. has to be created to accommodate all this information. But then the question is why American minorities and not English, Irish, Canadian, Australian, or South African? Were you envisioning something in particular? Because it's supposed to give a general overview of social complexities (i.e. the way women's sexuality is perceived, why and how lesbians are considered a minority, and how they function with that minority status), the issues in the article should apply to the lesbian concept as a whole, and direct readers to separate articles about more specific issues. Again, I'm not averse to including detail where it belongs, but quite wary of adding an entire section. --Moni3 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested in African American studies, and the South, and I just noticed that to the extent that the article touched on African Americans, it didn't seem representative of scholarship in that area. I've just started reading Hill Collins' book; I love it, and would recommend it to you. I've also just noticed that we actually have an article on it: Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. If you want to have a peek, the title hasn't got Preview in Google Books, but it's got Look inside in amazon.

I realize it's a big article already ... and you've done really well. But given that we give ample room to American sources, a bit on Hispanics and African Americans is not unreasonable; together, they represent about a third of the US population.

The search term Iffe Degman ... was just a trick to get Google Books to display the section where that particular discussion started. ;) --JN466 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The article "African American Lesbian and Bisexual Women" which you mention above is accessible here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_2_56/ai_66419864/ From looking at it, it very much mirrors Collins, including the charge of disloyalty to the race, and other fundamental points found in Collins (who is cited multiple times). I don't think an entire section on African American lesbians is needed, just a few sentences at an opportune place or places to balance the African American material presently in the article. --JN466 06:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll read through the article. I have access to it, but I have to go get it. I will do that today. --Moni3 (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ Foster, 281–287. Cite error: The named reference "Foster-281" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
2. Winning, 375; Parkes.
3. Barnes, xxxi.
4. Barnes, xv-xviii.
5. cited in Lanser, 1979, p39
6. Lanser, 1979, p39
7. Barnes, xxxi.
8. Lanser, 1979, p. 39.
9. Lanser, 1979, p39
10. Barnes, xxxi.

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Social sciences and society good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• GA-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles