Talk:Lesbian

Former good articleLesbian was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 25, 2009Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 22, 2026Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Lesbian page edit statistics

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

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

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

Article review followup

Following up this archived discussion, there are still uncited statements in the article, overly detailed information that can be spun out, and the lead doesn't summarise all major aspects of the article. @Pyxis Solitary and Seven77seas: or anyone reading this: are you still interested in working on this? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to continue working on condensing the article -- spinning out information to relevant other articles, fact-checking statements, etc. (in collaboration with anyone else who would, of course). Seven77seas (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I got a bit obsessive about this project in the last few days, and I hope the biggest issues, and the issues that made the article no longer Good, have been addressed. All citation needed tags have been addressed, writing has been condensed down to 12k words (without, I hope, sacrificing thoroughness), and the lead section has been rewritten after approvals from a couple other users on the Talk page.
One remaining issue with the article organization is the "history" section contains information dating into the modern day (e.g. on corrective rape in south africa). It could be useful to entirely merge and retitle the two sections (history/legal rights), or else to set a cutoff date for what is "history", move information that's more modern than that to the legal rights section, and flesh out a more "modern day social issues and legal issues" section for the present-day information. (Since the article is worldwide, I'm also having trouble organizing the geographic areas AND time periods simultaneously. But that's another fish.)
As another suggestion, for either my future self or another editor: different religions are a major cause of contention over lesbian topics in various societies, and the article doesn't half mention them. I think it would make sense to add a Lesbianism and World Religion section, very briefly reviewing different religions' past and current views on lesbians/lesbianism/women(implicitly), from islam to dianic wicca to catholicism and back again; the article would need to be condensed or spun out elsewhere to make room for this paragraph or two, and the place the article still tends to ramble on the most is in the nitty-gritty details of european and white american history.
I'm going to log off for a bit. I plan to check back in when I'm feeling less wikiholic and have worked down my to-do list. Have fun, yall. Seven77seas (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your edits have been very constructive and, more importantly, respectful of the subject. You have managed to balance the need for condensing the volume of text with the need to provide useful and accurate information. (I wish I could dedicate as much time as you have dedicated towards improving this article, but unlike how I tackled articles in the past, I can no longer take on projects that require heavy research and a pointed focus.) I should have said it earlier, but, thank you the concentration you have devoted to this article and how you have edited it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). 09:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's very kind of you, thank you. I want information on lesbian culture to be thorough and accurate, and I am glad I've been able to contribute. I appreciate your work, past and ongoing, maintaining the article! Seven77seas (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the uncited text has been resolved. The remaining concerns I have are the length of the article and merging the one-sentence paragraphs together. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seven77seas and Pyxis Solitary: and any other talk page watchers: while the uncited statements are resolved, the article length is still a concern and I think information should be spun out or summarised more effectively. I think a good place to start would be the "Media representation" section, in which every sub-section is quite long and can be moved to various child-articles. I also think a lot of information from the "History" section can be moved to the "History of lesbianism" article, while this article highlights the most important information. I also see lots of one-sentence paragraphs that can be merged together throughout the article. Is anyone interested in fixing up the article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-binary lesbians

Hello, I'm new here, so I wanted to ask this, since it's been bugging me for a long time. Is there a possibility someone could write anything about the inclusion of non-binary people within the label? Many, many lesbians have been the label not only to describe their attraction to women only, but also to non-binary people as well (the thing that doesn't change at all in both the old and new definition is obviously the lack of attraction towards men) for years now, and as one myself, it's sad to see that apparently nobody has thought about adding this to the page. Do you think it can be possible to write anything about this? By the way, I'm not a native English speaker, so I apologize for any mistakes (if I've made any). This is also part of the reason why I'm not directly offering myself to write something, because I wouldn't want to ruin the page somehow. Have a nice day! Michibani (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-binary" is a genderqueer identification. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a gender identification. There is a main Non-binary article. You should consider adding content in it about women who identify as both non-binary and lesbian. Then perhaps a {{For|}} template can be added under the "Butch and femme dichotomy" section (or another section where it would make sense) linking to the "non-binary lesbian" content in the Non-binary article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). 09:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are also people who identify as both non-binary and lesbian, and lesbians whose attraction is inclusive of non-binary people, there is no reason that content should not also exist here.
While some people take a reductive view of gender, not all people — and not all lesbians — do. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Non-binary main article exists precisely for information about people who identify as non-binary; and attraction is not sexuality, nor gender identification. Is there a section for non-binary gay men in the Gay men article? No. Is there even one sentence about it? No. Are there non-binary people who also identify as gay men? I don't know. But why are lesbian subjects always a target? Pyxis Solitary (yak). 09:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because lesbianism is an identity much more politically contested (political lesbianism) than gay identity. I find it curious that there isn't even a single word for gay men, besides maybe an acronym mlm. I think the term achillean is supposed to fill this lacuna, but it hasn't caught on. I think more nonbinary people use broader terms like gay and queer.
You highlight what's probably a gap in theory about gayness, someone should probably get on that! Katzrockso (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are non-binary people who also identify as gay men and yes, they should also be included in the article Gay men. With regard to But why are lesbian subjects always a target?, can I remind you please to assume good faith? Nobody is "targetting" lesbian subjects and, as a gay man myself, I would hope to see equivalent corrections made to the article Gay men, as well as to the article Non-binary.
Regarding attraction is not sexuality, nor gender identification, I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say. If I were to make assumptions, I would suggest it's worth remembering that, while some lesbians are opposed to including non-binary people and trans women in their midst, many lesbians are supportive of trans and non-binary people. (Indeed most lesbians, according to surveys in the UK and USA.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"and lesbians whose attraction is inclusive of non-binary people" – your words, not mine. Unless the intent of words is made explicitly clear the first time, the written word becomes open to interpretation. And yes, lesbian articles are always the target of contributors with various ideological backgrounds who want content to align with their standpoint (from time to time, a request is made here to change the definition of lesbian to "a lesbian is a non man who loves non men" — because, I suppose, lesbians should accept that even their identity revolves around men). Pyxis Solitary (yak). 19:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll rephrase more clearly. There are some people who describe themselves as lesbians who do not consider that to be contradicted by also identifying as non-binary or by being attracted to non-binary people or by including trans women in their understanding of who women are. Just because you personally don't like it doesn't make that not be the case. That's why we rely on references from reliable sources.
Again, while there will always be vandals here, and people trying to advance unsourced fringe arguments such as "non man who loves non men", please try to remember to assume good faith and not project your (perfectly legitimate) frustrations onto unrelated editors. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People can describe themselves and their sexuality in an ever-increasing number of ways. But there is always the danger that the same term has acquired multiple contradictory definitions and implications, depending on the social circles which use them. Which would result in different audiences interpreting certain phrases or texts in wildly different ways. Dimadick (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think rather than a "danger", the multiplicity of these concepts have often been interpreted as a positive. Katzrockso (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the important thing for an encyclopædia is to describe those definitions and descriptions of a term, rather than determine that some real-world uses are somehow invalid. We can cite reliable sources to show that some definitions are not universally accepted, of course — so our coverage of non-binary lesbians should include a mention that some lesbians reject the inclusion of non-binary people under their umbrella. But that non-acceptance doesn't mean we ignore the real-world use if there are RSes to cite for that real-world use. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:29, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a paper here [1] that diacusses non-binary lesbians. For what's it's worth we already have a category Category:Non-binary lesbians. Katzrockso (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I search "define lesbian", the definitions that come up are 1. a woman whose sexual orientation is to women, and 2. a female homosexual. Both specify: female, woman.
There used to be a paragraph in this article that specified that some women identify as both lesbian and bisexual. I removed it, because the definitions are contradictory. The same goes for non-binary and lesbian; if you are not female, you definitionally are not lesbian.
People can call themselves whatever they want, whether it's contradictory or consistent or not. But contradictory definitions should not be included in encyclopedic entries. Seven77seas (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree with what you said, except that at the end of the day, lesbianism excludes men, but in recent years, many people in the lesbian community have come to agree that the term could also include non-binary people, since they're not men either. There are some lesbian who agree with this definition but are still attracted exclusively to women, if that can help. I thought that including a section where we talked about non-binary lesbian would be helpful, and in my opinion, the dictionary and Google definitions are kind of outdated since, again, today many lesbians accept the definition that also includes whoever isn't a man. I'm also talking from personal experience, both in real life and online! I understand why this would sound strange to someone who isn't aware of non-binary lesbians and why people accept this definition as well now, but if we could add the section here, it would be a step forward for educating people :) As I've said at the start of the message, I agree with your decision of excluding the contradictory terms (I would also be against adding bi "lesbians" here since they're not lesbians by definition), but in this case it's not that contradictory because this new meaning still excludes men, which is a big part of lesbianism. Sorry if I sounded repetitive, I just woke up and I wanted to answer as soon as possible! Michibani (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Seven77seas: Regarding

There used to be a paragraph in this article that specified that some women identify as both lesbian and bisexual. I removed it, because the definitions are contradictory. The same goes for non-binary and lesbian; if you are not female, you definitionally are not lesbian.

, your opinions on what is or is not contradictory need consensus before they are incorporated into articles, please.
Could you please restore the previous version of the content you consider to be contradictory, so that it can be discussed here and consensus gained?
Thanks! — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One of the major points in the past months of this article has been condensing it, since when I began editing it was something like 17k words. It is now down, after editing from myself and one other contributor, to standard article size. This was one of MANY things I removed to shorten the article. I am not going to add them all back in lol, and especially would not want to spend valuable word count on facts like "some people have contradictory self-definitions" Seven77seas (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a statement in Wikipedia rules -- "statements in articles shouldn't contradict each other" -- Wikipedia:Consistency proposal. Right now, the first sentence in the article, after great discussion, is "homosexual woman or girl". Keeping the article consistent with that, is, I think, great; articles don't always live up to the consistency, but I think we should try to.
Describing lesbians elsewhere in the article as bisexual would be self-contradictory with the first-sentence. If we did incorporate everyone's self-definitions, and then make the article self-consistent, we would have to say "lesbians are homosexual or bisexual women, girls, non-binary, or agender people, or some heterosexual trans men" (some trans men oriented to women do id as lesbian, in my experience, and some agender people object to being called non-binary). This change would lead to an article that 1) does not match the commonly-understood, dictionary, cross-cultural definition of lesbian, 2) is extremely difficult to handle in size and scope, and 3) makes it difficult to determine WHO should be included in the article, particularly historical figures, who do not use the same identity labels that some modern Western subcultures do (or any identity labels at all). Seven77seas (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reality is contradictory. We cannot ignore that some peopledo identify both as nonbinary and lesbian, as bisexual and lesbian. The labels "gay" and "lesbian" used to be used more widely than they are now. It is POV to ignore that that is the case. And we already handle that historical figures fit poorly with our modern definitions.
I'm not saying nyou should revert all your edits. I am saying that you should revert the POV changes you made that remove the fact that some lesbians also identify as bisexual or nonbinary. The neutral way of handling contradictory information is to report the contradiction and report that it is not universally accepted.
So again, I am going to ask you to revert your POV edits (and only the POV ones) and restore those parts of the original content. I can see that you have done excellent work cutting the article down from 16,000 words prose size down to 4,000. But you have removed relevant content without consensus. Please restore that content. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people identify as lesbian and bisexual" and "A lesbian is a homosexual woman or girl" are not contradictory statements. You are confusing Wikipedia's role in cataloging/describing facts about phenomena (i.e. that some people identify as "bi lesbians") with endorsement of that fact (that "bi lesbian" is a coherent identity or people are correct to do so). Katzrockso (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The term "lesbian" is socially constructed, why not accept it's possible to have multiple overlapping definitions? WP doesn't and cannot decide which is "valid". (t · c) buIdhe 16:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the definition of lesbian is homosexual, then the definition of lesbian cannot also be bisexual. What's next? A lesbian is also a heterosexual?
Instead of relying on social media trends, the latest GenZ fads, queer activism, and academics with personal agendas: what do reputable science-based sources have to say about lesbians, aka homosexual females? Pyxis Solitary (yak). 11:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, @Pyxis Solitary, I would advise that you stop dismissing points of view you personally disagree with. social media trends, the latest GenZ fads, queer activism, and academics with personal agendas is a very long way of saying you don't like it.
Humans are messy and we don't fit into neat boxes. There are people who define themselves as blurring those boundaries; that is a fact just as much as it is a fact that some people (yourself presumably included) who don't like that blurring.
Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is POV to pretend that these social categories are clearly and discretely defined — just as it is to pretend that these people don't exist. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:04, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not definitively constrain terms to one particular meaning, it reports what reliable sources state about a topic. There are plenty of seemingly contradictory things out there (and for people who accept dialethism, this isn't a problem) and Wikipedia's role isn't to exclude them from the encyclopedia because we hate contradictions or think that these people with the seemingly contradictory stances are evil, but to neutrally report on these phenomena.
Do you think that the statement "some people identify as both bisexual and lesbian" is violative of any Wikipedia policy or guideline? If so, please explain which one and how. Katzrockso (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"I think this article needs...xyz." "Can someone add xyz to the article." "Could you add xyz." Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. (Thank you, King of Siam.) Do the BOLD dance, and bite the bullet when other editors get the "Me no likey" feeling. Pyxis Solitary (yak). 06:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but as a man why are you including your opinion on lesbians when you are not one. I think you should let us define ourselves and leave us and our definitions alone. ~2026-10986-31 (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If there were unanimity among lesbians, of course I would do so. But there is not. Also, as chair of the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, I am not only representing my own thoughts.
Given you are using a temporary account, you might not already be aware, but there is a guideline to assume good faith here on Wikipedia; it might be worth taking a look. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS failures

The "Health" section has some MEDRS claims cited to sources that are over 20 years old. That's not acceptable. (t · c) buIdhe 02:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are also extensive issues with missing time periods and other clarification needed, some of them are tagged. I think this article would need a substantial rewrite to be considered GA quality. I also don't consider the excessive detail issues to be fixed, there needs to be substantial trimming of excessive detail (eg. the Nicaragua history section or pop culture details about specific works) Z1720 (t · c) buIdhe 02:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chainsaw edit

Where did all this chopped-off material (text, images, sources) go? It wasn't transferred to the History of lesbianism article because the last edit in it was on 15 December 2025.

Pyxis Solitary (yak). 06:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing. The material remains permanently in the history. I left a note, complete with a navigable diff, at Talk:History of lesbianism in case anybody needed to find it. Here on this talk page it's of no help to anyone, and should probably be archived or removed immediately; the editing was because of the ongoing GAR, and is explained both there and in edit comments here. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary: "since we have a whole article on History of lesbianism, replace the very long text here with a "main" link and a summary of the topic".
Yeah, sure, we have an article on the History of lesbianism, but YOU should have transferred the material you deleted to it, instead of expecting other editors to do the heavy lifting. This wasn't a "bold" edit — what you did was deletion for the sake of deletion. It's destructive.
And please don't start wagging the "good faith" finger, because the flip side of "good faith" is "bad faith". And I don't see anything good in what you did. Pyxis Solitary (yak). 11:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry the effort has not been welcome. Three things:
  1. The edit was one of the things agreed to be an improvement at GAR.
  2. It is no part of a GAR to start improving other articles.
  3. I will do no further editing here, nor will I watch this page; please do not ping me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This extensive deleted content is significant material and should have been merged into the History of lesbianism article. This content represents the contributions of many dedicated editors. To simply delete is outrageous. This is not how you build an encyclopedia and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. The discussion at GAR is to find consensus for a rewrite of the article — it is not for obliterating valuable and useful article content. Pyxis Solitary (yak). 13:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing stopping you from adding any well-sourced content to History of Lesbianism as you see fit, instead of complaining here. CC WP:VOLUNTEERed to improve this article, not the other one. (t · c) buIdhe 05:43, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't clean up after another editor's elephant.
I have contributed 204 edits to this article since 2017, not including 28 minor ones. You've only made 5 nothing burger edits in it: 02:38, 5 December 2025 – 02:52, 5 December 2025. I've been keeping an eye on the GAR discussion and you're good at telling editors what should be done in this article, but you won't do it yourself. So please ... shush. Pyxis Solitary (yak). 11:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following paragraph as it's not related to legal rights.

I also think there are some problems with it, so have not searched for a new home.

Before the 1970s, the idea that same-sex adults formed long-term committed relationships was unknown to many people.[1]: 117  Sociologists credit the high number of paired women to women's higher propensity to commit to relationships. Unlike heterosexual relationships that tend to divide work based on sex roles, lesbian relationships divide chores evenly between both members. Studies have reported that emotional bonds are closer in lesbian and gay relationships than heterosexual ones.[1]: 118–119 

  1. ^ a b Gay & Lesbian Almanac (1998) Schlager

The first sentence is a reasonably accurate reflection of the source Prior to 20 years ago ... most people... but there are a few issues:

  • 20 years ago would have been 1978 indeed the author specifically mentions "pre 1977" in the next sentence.
  • Most is not the same as many, it's far stronger.
  • This seems to be the author's opinion, based on research outputs, and should probably be attributed. "They seemed unaware..."
  • There is no geographic or social scope. The world did not wake up to same sex couples in the same year, decade or even century. Indeed a case could be made that even in societies where "such things were not talked about", if they were not known in one era, they had been previously and were later.

As to the second, I believe there is more extensive and recent research, than that cited in Schlager, at least in some countries. Importantly the widespread availability of same-sex marriage in many countries has removed a confounding variable and provided additional points of comparison (marriage, separation and divorce, for example).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

The redirect Blue-ribbon bisexuals has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 1 § Blue-ribbon bisexual until a consensus is reached. Abesca (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Amor lesbicus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 18 § Amor lesbicus until a consensus is reached. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).