Talk:Lesbian

Male Lesbians

Shouldn't there be a section about men who feel 'trapped' inside their bodies? They feel marginalized by the lesbian community and treated with suspicion. 70.238.220.122 (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian-identified male. If they feel trapped inside of their bodies, that is transgender territory, but the men noted in the Lesbian-identified male article that briefly existed did not feel trapped in that way. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And even if information were included on this topic in this article, it should be with WP:Due weight; in other words, the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources do not recognize males as being lesbian. The most I can see this warranting in this article, if it should have any space in this article at all, is a sentence or brief paragraph in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section, not its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The referent of this article is homosexual women. Are these people women or men? Are they homosexual or heterosexual? I don't think it's appropriate to include men or heterosexuals within the referent of this article. It seems strains the definition into meaninglessness. This term is vague enough as it is. Chrisrus (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's definition of 'gender'? I'd like to think that if someone has XY chromosomes but feels like a female and conducts themselves as such, that (s)he could be considered a lesbian. groovygower (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this article says, "A lesbian is a female ...". I've added a wikilink there to the Female article, which says, "Female (♀) is the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces non-mobile ova (egg cells). Most female mammals, including female humans, have two X chromosomes." The Gender article says, "Gender is the range of physical, biological, mental and behavioral characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity." However, also see Gender identity, Gender role, Gender identity disorder, etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a transgender woman can be a lesbian. But like I stated above, the men noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian-identified male did not identify as transgender. That's why I refer to them as "men" and as "male." They identified as male and as men. And as for including men or heterosexuals in the Lesbian article, of course men and heterosexuals/heterosexuality are included in the article where relevant to discus the topic of lesbian/lesbianism. And, yes, there are women who identify as lesbian but who occasionally (or not so occasionally) have sex with men, which is something the article addresses in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section. Sexual identity, as the Sexual identity article makes explicitly clear, does not always match up with sexual orientation or sexual behavior. And in that regard, there are also so-called political lesbians -- heterosexual (or previously bisexual-identified) women who identify as lesbian on a political basis. The point with regard to any of these definitions is WP:Due weight; they should not be given WP:Undue weight in the article. The first paragraph of the lead not only makes clear the female and homosexuality aspect, but the self-identity aspect as well; so it covers all grounds, except boys and men. And it does not cover boys and men because to do so would be giving WP:Undue weight to a very minority definition of lesbian -- that boys and men can be lesbians too. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

A lesbian who enjoys having sex with men - even if it's infrequent - is not a lesbian, she's bisexual. If the sex is for a child or whatever and so she's not attracted to men, that means that she is still just a lesbian. groovygower (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Groovygower (talk · contribs), as you likely know, there are cases where gay men and lesbians state that, for years, they did not know that they were gay or lesbian. The sex was not terrible in all of these cases. In some of these cases, gay men and lesbians were able to achieve some sexual pleasure for reasons unrelated to sexual attraction, whether it's because (due to heteronormativity) they did not believe that they were gay or lesbian, or for some other reason unrelated to sexual attraction. For example, some gay men state that they would fantasize about having sex with a man while having sex with their wives or girlfriends, and that they (the men) achieved sexual pleasure that way. All of this tells scientists, tells us, that sexual pleasure, including sexual arousal, can be separated from sexual attraction; see this reliably sourced section in the Sexual arousal article, for example. If a person uses a sex toy for sexual pleasure, it's usually the case that the person is not sexually attracted to the sex toy. Like I stated in this now archived discussion (from 2012), for some women who identify as lesbian but have sex with men, they state similarly -- that the guy (or rather the appendage between his legs) is like a sex toy that they are not sexually attracted to. Other women identify as lesbian because they have very minor sexual attraction to men and don't want a romantic/sexual relationship with a man; identifying as bisexual would suggest that they do want that. Now you can criticize these women as much as you want and state that they are not truly lesbian, but like others (including me) discussed in the sections below, lesbian is a sexual identity that various women wear, not all of them strictly homosexual, and the Lesbian article rightfully addresses that matter. There are also asexual people who state that they masturbate or have sex and/or enjoy masturbating or somewhat enjoy having sex without sexual attraction.

Either way, per WP:NOT A FORUM, this talk page is not a talk page for our personal opinions on the topic of lesbianism and lesbian identity, or general discussion among us. So such discussion should not be had at this talk page unless it directly affects the Lesbian article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to 'just discuss'; there was a point in there. You've stated that 'Other women identify as lesbian because they have very minor sexual attraction to men and don't want a romantic/sexual relationship with a man; identifying as bisexual would suggest that they do want that', which I do not agree with BUT you've negated my point though as I have always assumed that 'lesbian' is synonymous with 'female homosexual', however you've just stated that this is not the case, therefore my 'point' is moot. Cheers! : ) groovygower (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, Groovygower (talk · contribs), lesbian is synonymous with "female homosexual"; just not always (though something being sometimes synonymous can be considered odd or whatever else). Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, by "identifying as bisexual would suggest that they do want that," I mean that a person identifying as bisexual suggests he or she is open to romantic/sexual relationships with men and women; otherwise, why identify as bisexual if you are only romantically/sexually open to one sex/gender over the other sex/gender? That's how the women in question I mentioned look at the matter; they identify as lesbian because, unlike identifying as bisexual, it can (and usually does) signify to the general public that they are only interested in women romantically/sexually. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you saw my ongoing edit as I was making it on the page due to the clarification of your point above and the apparent modification of my formatting - if not, my mistake - regardless, for the purpose of others reading the discussion was:

"For clarification if your point was 'Some men/women identify as homosexual because they have very minor sexual attraction to the opposite sex and don't want a romantic/sexual relationship with a the opposite gender; identifying as bisexual would suggest that they do want that', would you advocate that? I ask because you've stated that ' ' lesbian is synonymous with "female homosexual"; just not always'. I'm guessing you'll say that you wouldn't agree with that, but if you do then I'd say that there's still something to be discussed here, because if attraction is involved then we're on sexual orientation, and sexuality isn't determined by whom you'd like a relationship with... unless I'm mistaken, n which case I'm happy to be corrected if that is the case."

I'm assuming now that you think that to be incorrect, if that is the case then I'd appreciate educating if I'm wrong. I know a lot of people who are bisexual but only want relationships with one gender or the other - I like 'having sex with my hand' but I'm not attracted to it. If ATTRACTION, not romantic interest is involved then as far as I'm aware, that constitutes 'sexuality'. groovygower (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Planned revert explained: Definition

I will revert this edit after waiting an appropriate amount of time, https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lesbian&oldid=prev&diff=612402828. We shouldn't first define it as a noun and then say that it is also used as a noun. We should say that it's a noun, and then say it's also an adjective without first repeating that it's a noun because we've already said that. Also, we should state clearly and upfront that, simply stated, a lesbian is a homosexual woman unless there is some doubt that a lesbian is a homosexual woman. Chrisrus (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already removed the "noun is a noun" problem and fixed the WP:REFERS problem. Feel free to improve or revert to earlier versions. I think it is more encyclopedic to use the word as a noun or adjective, rather than describe all the parts of speech in a dictionary fashion. Bhny (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest: my objection to 'female' as a noun to refer to female humans is that it's dehumanising and non-specific. I actually prefer both your versions to my own; I'm going to try some further tweaks to address the issues being discussed. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. At times, "genderists" (if your pardon my term, I guess the word "sexist" is already taken) people such as radical feminist separatists and extreme MGTOWS, as they call themselves, "Men Going Their Own Way", to refer to the "enemy" gender: "males" and "females" instead of men and women. Used thusly, it really sounds dehumanizing. However, let's not go on a crusade because it depends on the context, but, as a rule, we shouldn't call them "males" and "females" where "men" and "women" would do. Also, it's probably going to be more rhetorically effective to simply state that "men" and "women" is simply more precise than "males" and "females", which are used for any animal, and leave it at that, instead of explaining about the derogatory connotations. Chrisrus (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

First, there was this and this matter, showing AlexTiefling asserting that "female" is not a noun; I pointed out that "female" is used as a noun, but left in AlexTiefling's wording (and, yes, AlexTiefling, I considered that you removed "female" because of those who consider it dehumanizing; completely POV). Then there was this and this matter with regard to Chrisrus and my reverting Chrisrus while pointing out that the term lesbian is used in the ways that Chrisrus removed, that no one is going to think that we mean a non-human animal when we use "self-identifies," and that, no, the term does not simply mean "a homosexual woman." According to researchers, it does not even primarily mean that, unless, by "homosexual," one means "any homosexual activity." We just went over this in the #Male Lesbians section above. As the Sexuality and lesbian identity section makes perfectly clear, the term lesbian is not used consistently by women or by researchers; like this source used in that section makes explicitly clear, researchers say that there is no standard definition of lesbian because "[t]he term has been used to describe women who have sex with women, either exclusively or in addition to sex with men (i.e., behavior); women who self-identify as lesbian (i.e., identity); and women whose sexual preference is for women (i.e., desire or attraction)" and that "[t]he lack of a standard definition of lesbian and of standard questions to assess who is lesbian has made it difficult to clearly define a population of lesbian women." How and where study samples were obtained can also affect the definition.

The good thing about Moni3, who brought this article to WP:Good article status and the Stonewall riots article to WP:Featured article status, is that she understands the literature on lesbian sexuality and other LGBT matters. That's why she specifically had the lead not simply state "a homosexual woman" for its first line, which is not fully or even largely representative of the current state of the article. Chrisrus changed it back to "a homosexual woman" for its first line, but at least that first line still covers self-identifying as a lesbian, like it should. Might as well remove "primarily or exclusively," though, since I added that to get across the fact that a woman who some might call bisexual may also identify as a lesbian. Either way, now we have a lead that not only excludes mentions of girls, making "lesbian" out to simply be a woman thing, and partly because AlexTiefling seemingly objects to any mention of human females (or "female humans," depending on the grammar) as, well, "females," and partly because Chrisrus thinks readers will think we are referring to non-human animals, we have a lead that excludes the other primary ways that the term lesbian is used, leaving some of that to the lead image caption instead. For the record, I also considered that "female" can cover non-human animals (see my December 20, 2013‎ edits that show me going over different ways to word the definition); it's certainly sometimes used in the literature, but then I thought about common sense. Common sense tells me that readers are going to have the common sense to know that we are referring to human females. And as for "female" vs. "woman," that feminist debate is somewhat ridiculous, in my opinion. "Woman" often (not always) does not work when we are talking about girls and women. And "lesbian" is most assuredly also about girls. Furthermore, "woman" is gendered and therefore any man who wants to identify as a woman for one day can, with that self-identification being perfectly valid. "Woman mayor" does not sound right to me, while "female mayor" does. And if we want to state that "female" is too clinical... Well, yes, we use it in a lot of WP:MED and WP:Anatomy articles, considering that it's often very appropriate in those cases.

There was also this and this matter showing Bhny referring to WP:REFERS and WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and me responding to that. As has been told to Bhny by different editors, including in this December 2013 discussion, it is not a WP:NOTDICTIONARY problem to include primary definitions in the lead or to have a Definitions section in an article, especially if those lead definitions summarize the article and therefore adhere to WP:Lead. In fact, Bhny often moves definitions to the lead, asserting that the lead should define the topic, even if significant elaborations of the definitions are better left to the lower part of the article. So why Bhny has objected in this case is beyond me. As for any WP:REFERS problem, WP:REFERS (which is an essay, not a guideline or a policy) is about the first line of the lead and I took care of that problem months ago after Bhny made an edit that clearly needing tweaking; Bhny thanked me for that edit via WP:Echo. It seems that I introduced Bhny to that essay, considering that from then on out Bhny started to apply that essay to Wikipedia articles and altered that essay at one point. Anyway, I altered the title of this discussion above with ": Definition" so that the subheading is clearer as to what this discussion is about. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making by saying "any man wants to identify as a woman for one day can"; that's really not how trans identity works. I agree with you, though, that including 'girl' somewhere in there would be good. If you can see a good way to work it in, please go for it. My terse edit summary claiming that 'female' wasn't a noun was too simplistic. I'm a descriptivist, and it's obvious that people use it as a noun. What I was driving at was that it was very far from being the best noun. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

AlexTiefling, I know how transgender identity works; my point was to indicate that "woman" is gendered. Keep in mind that transgender is an umbrella term for all kinds of transgender aspects, including genderqueer people (some who state that they feel like a man one day or a woman the next day, or are a combination of genders). Chris Crocker is one example. As for the lead, I mainly disagree with Bhny's removal; I feel that some of that, if not all of it, should be added back. I obviously would prefer that "girls" be mentioned in the lead, but I can accept simply using "woman," especially since authoritative sources on sexual orientation, such as the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association, as seen here and here, do the same. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I think we may be approaching a consensus version of the introduction. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The American Psychiatric Association source doesn't state "woman" for "lesbian" initially, but it does initially state "A person attracted to another person of the same sex is said to have a homosexual orientation and may be called gay (both men and women) or lesbian." Anyway, yes, we are close to a WP:Consensus; I state "close" because I still object to Bhny's removal, which I feel has the lead lacking in the scope of the term lesbian; not to mention that stating "A lesbian is a homosexual woman" and "A woman having the primary attribute of female homosexuality may be characterized as a lesbian" is redundant; Chrisrus changed that latter part to "Used as adjective, it describes a noun as characterized by female homosexuality.", which is better wording, but somehow still lacking in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll ago ahead and remove the WP:Overlinking of "homosexuality" from the first paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposed change to the opening sentence doesn't flow as well as the previous version, so reverted. Zad68 23:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point I hadn't thought about. If we say a lesbian is a homosexual woman, it does technically exclude underage girls. I hadn't thought about that. That's not perfect either. So "homosexual female" does have that over "homosexual woman". On the other hand, "homosexual female", as stated earlier, implies animals as well, and just sounds worse. I can see both sides of this. However, I think it's definately best for the lead to say "...is a homosexual (either "woman" or "female") before going into the longer noun clause. Chrisrus (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Regarding your latest edit, adding back "homosexual," I agree that "homosexual woman" sounds better than "homosexual female," which is partly why I added "woman" back. The other reason I added it is because (as stated in my edit summary) "girls" is covered in the lead again, so "woman" is not a problem; it's rather the initial definition. I've often told Wikipedia editors that the initial definition does not have to mean that it negates the definitions mentioned after it (similar wording order is done in dictionaries). I'm usually for going with the most common definition for the first line anyway, per WP:Due weight. Not to mention that, like the Woman articles notes, the term woman can at times refer to girls (especially post-pubescent underage girls). Regarding "females," I think that it's best to change the first instance of "female" (which is plural in the article) to "women"...for consistency with the first instance of "woman." But I feel that the second instance of "female" is fine, since, like I mentioned above, no one is going to think that we mean a non-human animal who self-identifies as a lesbian. I also understand what you mean about it being redundant to state that the term lesbian can be used as a noun, when that's already clear from the first line (to those who understand what a noun is anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I dread replying to you when it will be met with a wall of words and strange links to my past edits, but anyway WP:REFERS is about words used inappropriately in the introduction, not just the first sentence, and all this waffle- "The term is also used as a noun....or as an adjective, to describe" is exactly thing that it is trying to prevent. It is also poor writing. Bhny (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If people are too lazy to read my wall of text, then that is on them. But many editors at this site appreciate a thorough reply and don't let WP:Too long, didn't read get in their way. My wall of text apparently didn't get in the way of AlexTiefling and Chrisrus reading it. As for "strange links to [your] past edits," there's nothing strange about them; for example, the WP:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Writing better articles pages are on my WP:Watchlist (WP:REFERS is a section of the latter page). And your user page, was, for a time, on my WP:Watchlist as well. And if an editor does not learn from his or her past mistakes, I will remind that editor of one or more of those past mistakes by pointing to them. And WP:REFERS does only refer to the first sentence (generally anyway), as indicated by the examples there at that page before anyone (such as you) tries to change them, and as seen in practice. If it was about the lead as a whole, it would be telling us that we can't specifically refer to a definition, and with those descriptors, in a lead at all, which is flat out wrong. I've been using the WP:REFERS essay longer than you and I am far more familiar than you are with how editors apply it. And again, it is only an essay, which is why I almost always note it as an essay when I use it, as seen in that aforementioned edit you thanked me for via WP:Echo. The main point that WP:REFERS is getting across is use–mention distinction; as long as that distinction is applied, there is no problem with "refers to" language (as long as the editor keeps in mind that, unless the article is about the term, it generally should not begin with "refers to" wording). The last line of WP:REFERS clearly allows WP:WORDSASWORDS in the introduction. As for the rest, I already addressed that above. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)‎

"The term is also used as a noun....or as an adjective, to describe" is just bad writing and I'm sorry that you can't see that. Bhny (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere above did I state that "The term is also used as a noun....or as an adjective, to describe" is good writing; so your being sorry about my failing to see it as bad writing is solely your interpretation. Maybe editors who approved that writing as WP:Good article status writing should have seen it as bad writing, if it truly is bad writing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have the solution: First, you've right, "female" is better in the aspect that it doesn't exclude girls, as the word "women" does. That's all you really needed to say because it's convincing enough just to point out that not only women but also girls can be rightly called lesbian, so that's your semantic precision problem right there. At least older girls, anyway, can be lesbians, not just women. Anyhow, trying it different ways just now, I notice that the negative connotations associated with speaking of "males" and "females" is far less pronounced when you use it as an adjective. I should explain: For example, if you were to say "male nurse", or "female prison guard", that's the natural way to say that. As an adjective, it doesn't sound the same as using it as a noun, like, "I saw three (fe)males walking down the street." See how that sounds odd. You'll see what I mean when I do the edit. I figured out a way to use it as an adjective and omit the word "woman" but still maintain the same naturalness. I'll do it now. Please keep up the article-improvement focused discussion, and, as always, feel free to edit! Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I obviously had more to comment on than that semantics issue. I also considered wording the first line as: " A lesbian is a girl or woman who expresses romantic or sexual attraction to other females, whether primarily or exclusively, or a female who self-identifies as lesbian." But then I thought about the implication of "girl" in the line -- how "girl" can refer to a minor at any age and some people may object to indicating that a five-year-old girl, for example, could express romantic or sexual attraction to other females (though a lot of women have stated that they knew that they were lesbian or bisexual at that early of an age). As for your edit of "female homosexual"... That's not better, in my opinion. For one, you partly objected to "female" because it can include non-human animals. Well, some researchers refer to some non-human animals as "homosexual," not just the animals' behavior as homosexual; see the Homosexual behavior in animals article. And I also thought about how the term homosexual is offensive to some people; see the Gay article, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual. But, yeah, I now feel that it would be better to sick with "woman" for the first instance of "female" and the first instance of "females." Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did that and made some other edits, too. Feel free to check the article history for a look at each. I'm taking a break now, so, as always feel free to edit. I'm listening to you; you have some good ideas for further article improvement. Chrisrus (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Did what, Chrisrus? The first instance of "female" and the first instance of "females" are still currently there, instead of "woman." Yes, I saw the other most recent changes you made; all good changes. Have a nice break; I understand needing one of those after editing Wikipedia (many of us do). Flyer22 (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this edit, though; it removed mention of girls, and added lesbian community. How is "or belongs to the lesbian community" not redundant? Besides that, it redirects to the LGBT community article. Another thing is this: I don't like straying from what the sources state. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed "or belongs to the lesbian community" as redundant; if she is a lesbian, she is of course a part of the lesbian community (whether she participates in it or not). I'm fine with you adding "lesbian community" somewhere in the lead, but I don't think that it fits in the sentence I removed it from, or that it is needed in the first paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok.Chrisrus (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO, the word "female", used as a noun, sounds stilted to me. On the other hand, "woman" doesn't necessarily exclude adolescent female humans. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

With regard to "woman" including adolescent female humans, I stated similarly above (my "02:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)" post); that's partly why I changed my mind about "woman" being used. If we use "woman," I still feel that we should state "girls" somewhere in the first paragraph, though, since so many people don't think of (and actively exclude) adolescent girls when they think "woman" or when they use the term in speech or writing. The far more common usage of the term woman, as the Woman article points out, is to refer to an adult woman (not simply a female who can be considered adult because she is pubescent or post-pubescent, as in "a biological adult"). Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

...or a female who self-identifies as lesbian...

I worry about "...or a female who self-identifies as lesbian..." in the lead. I worry about the effect on the reader. It doesn't make sense. I should explain. For example, if you were to say "A genius is a person who ......., or anyone who self-identifies as a genius" or "A Native American is a person who...., or anyone who self-identifies as a Native American" See what I mean? A reader is going to look at that and think that it's absurd, because s/he'll think "People aren't things just because they say think they are that thing." If s/he goes on to read the entire article, s/he will get that about all the gray areas and vagueries and moments where a person could be somewhat a lesbian and somewhat not at the same time. Yes, things can get complicated and sometimes it's not clear whether everyone fits the definition perfectly or not. But that's to be expected! I should explain. A table is what it is, even though that there are plenty of things that might either be tables or not, it's hard to say, it depends. Or take for example the referent dog. There are things such as dingoes and wolfdogs and so on that might be dogs or which aren't. These things are best dealt with in the body of the article, where they belong, not in the lead. Leaving that there, the reader could rightly think that this is a ridiculous article, because just because a person says she's a lesbian doesn't mean she really is one. She might not be telling the truth, or she could be confused or wrong. The thing about the self-identification is, as it says further down in the article, studies on lesbian health and such nowadays such quite rightly don't try to identify them by observation or something. That wouldn't work. but only classify a person as a lesbian if she self-identifies as one. It's the best way to do such research. That doesn't mean that such researchers are really saying that the definition of "lesbian" is "anyone who says "I'm a lesbian". We should remove this from the lead because it's too confusing and complicated for the lead. Chrisrus (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2014‎ (UTC)

I understand your concern, but we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, with WP:Due weight, at Wikipedia over our personal opinion. And many WP:Reliable sources, especially when discussing sexual orientation, make it clear that sexual identity, which is not necessarily the same thing as sexual orientation, defines what a heterosexual, lesbian, gay man or bisexual person is...in addition to sexual orientation. Not only is this made explicitly clear in the rest of the lead (past the first paragraph, which means the lead does elaborate on it), but also in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section lower in the article. I told you in the #Planned revert explained: Definition section above that the term lesbian does not simply mean "a homosexual woman." According to researchers, it does not even primarily mean that, unless, by "homosexual," one means "any homosexual activity." As the Sexuality and lesbian identity section addresses, the term lesbian is not used consistently by women or by researchers; like this source used in that section makes explicitly clear, researchers say that there is no standard definition of lesbian because "[t]he term has been used to describe women who have sex with women, either exclusively or in addition to sex with men (i.e., behavior); women who self-identify as lesbian (i.e., identity); and women whose sexual preference is for women (i.e., desire or attraction)" and that "[t]he lack of a standard definition of lesbian and of standard questions to assess who is lesbian has made it difficult to clearly define a population of lesbian women." How and where study samples were obtained can also affect the definition.

Sexual orientation vs. (or simply compared to) sexual identity is in the literature, in the vast majority of studies about sexual orientation. Read the Sexual identity article, for starters. As also indicated by the American Psychological Association, "lesbian" is not technically a sexual orientation, though it's often indicated as or stated to be one; "homosexual" is a sexual orientation (both a sexual orientation and sexual identity). "Lesbian," like "gay," is more so a sexual identity, which is the main reason why it, like "gay," is not listed on Template:Sexual orientation, but is listed on Template:Gender and sexual identities (the sexual identities that are listed on Template:Sexual orientation are only there because they represent non-binary categories); the term lesbian describes a homosexual woman and other women with female same-sex romantic/sexual attraction who may identify as lesbian. Yes, a woman who says that she is a lesbian is counted as a lesbian. Anyone who claims a sexual identity or sexual orientation is counted as that sexual identity or as having that sexual orientation, since there is no mind-reader device to tell us who is "truly" heterosexual, lesbian, a gay man or bisexual. Furthermore, many women who some would call bisexual identify as lesbian. It's extremely common for a woman who has a bit of sexual attraction to a man to identify as lesbian (as also shown at sites such as AfterEllen.com, where heated debates have gone on between lesbians/lesbian-identified women on the matter); the majority of these women who have a little bit of sexual attraction to men identify as lesbian because they are primarily romantically/sexually attracted to women (which, again, is why I'd added "primarily or exclusively" to the lead, though it's context is changed now since your wording has it implying that a homosexual woman may not be exclusively romantically or sexually attracted to women). These women believe that identifying as bisexual is false advertisement, since they don't truly want a man romantically or sexually; so they identify as lesbian. I won't be agreeing to remove a core way (sexual identity) that the term lesbian is defined from the first paragraph of the lead. And per WP:Lead, it should be in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This is helpful and interesting. Please be assured that I am aware of the things you say about how it works on Wikipedia. At the moment we are talking about the lead, which some prefer to spell "lede". As you probably know, we don't ideally cite leads, the lead should basically be a good summary of the rest of the article, and, in turn, the article a good summary of the WP:RSes, with in-line citations where appropriate, as you know. So I can't really take what you say on this talk page and summarize it in the lead, I can only take the whole article, and base the lead on that. I'm just reading the article body and trying to keep summarize it in the lead. If you can get all the above ideas from the sources to be a good summary of the body, then I must support having the lead say that as well. Chrisrus (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, where you traded out "identity (social science)" for "sexual identity," I also thought about that, but I held off on doing so because "sexual identity" was already linked in the lead and it seemed more relevantly linked where sexual identity is mentioned later in the lead (especially since the specific word sexual identity is first mentioned there). But, anyway, since you linked it higher, I went ahead and de-linked the second instance (per WP:Overlinking). I'm fine with your having linked it right there at the beginning. As for the lead as a whole, it does adequately summarize the article, including the sexual identity aspect, which is why it passed as a WP:Good article; the lead and the article as a whole is pretty much the same as when the article passed as a WP:Good article on February 25, 2009. That stated, if you think we should elaborate a bit on the "sexual identity not always lining up with sexual orientation" aspect in the paragraph that goes into detail about sexual identity, I'm fine with that. But the lead has one decent-sized paragraph (the first paragraph) and three big paragraphs, and, per WP:Lead, the lead should typically be limited to four paragraphs; expanding any of those big paragraphs any further would lead to a paragraph that certainly needs to be split or condensed. As for citations being in the lead, like the WP:CITELEAD section of WP:Lead states, whether the lead needs citing or not is a case-by-case matter; it often is best to cite the lead in the case of contentious material. See the lead of the Circumcision article, for example. The definition of a lesbian can be contentious, as this discussion section clearly shows, so it is cited in the lead; it's obviously the only part of the lead that is cited. I don't think that we need to cite any other parts, though there are other parts of the lead that can be contentious. If any editor disputes any of that, then we should consider citing it even though it is cited lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 016:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

a lesbian is "a female who self-identifies as lesbian"

This is logical fallacy. It is begging the question of what is a lesbian. I guess what is really meant by this is that some women who are not lesbians identify as lesbians. And that is good and fine and we can say that. If a short person identifies as a tall person it doesn't mean that they are tall. All it means is they think of themselves as tall. Bhny (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You needed to start a new section on this? As for your commentary on the matter, we already address in the lead what a lesbian is. And I already thoroughly addressed sexual identity in the #...or a female who self-identifies as lesbian... section above. If you don't understand what I stated there, then I don't know what else to state to you on the matter. But I won't be agreeing to remove a core aspect of lesbian identity (sexual identity). And we are not going to state that "these women identify as lesbian, but they are not really lesbian," therefore invalidating their sexual identity, especially since none of the WP:Reliable sources state that. You are confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity. And like I stated above, lesbian is a sexual identity. I suggest you read the Sexual identity article, and research on lesbian identity to boot. Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the logic of the sentence, not the content. This is all in the first sentence, so the circular fallacy is currently part of the definition. My suggestion- Some women who do not fit this definition may identify as lesbians. Bhny (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what the source states: "self-identified"? Do you have RS stating otherwise? If not, please let the matter drop. Getting on to OR, it's not exactly practical to test for "experiencing love or sexual attraction for women". People often take self-identified descriptors at face value. If I ask a women out and she says "I'm a lesbian", I'm not going to push the issue. I don't see what the problem is with that statement. Jim1138 (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Bhny, your suggestion would still be straying from the sources and invalidating those women's sexual identity as lesbian; this is because the term lesbian, like I stated above, is used to refer to homosexual women and to other women who have a romantic/sexual attraction to women. A woman's sexual identity as lesbian is usually valid to her, no matter what reason she has for identifying as lesbian or if others don't see her as a true lesbian. And in that respect, it's similar to gender identity. Many people don't see Chelsea Manning (previously known as Bradley Manning) as a woman, but Manning identifies as a woman. In the same way that it would not be appropriate to state on Wikipedia that a trans woman does not fit the definition of a woman, it is not appropriate to state on Wikipedia that a woman who, for example, has a bit of sexual attraction to men but self-identifies as a lesbian is not a lesbian. Sexual identity is a personal thing. To some women who you would probably call bisexual, they are lesbian because, to them, the term lesbian fits them better than the term bisexual (the "primarily romantically/sexually attracted to women" example I gave above). I understand that just about every woman who is listed as lesbian has identified as lesbian, and so "self-identified" can seem like a logical fallacy, but sources do use that term; it's used in the source I mentioned above about lesbian identity. And it's used in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section in the Lesbian article because those sources use the term. And the reason I stated "just about" for "every woman who is listed as lesbian" is because some researchers will list bisexual-identified women as lesbian, like the aforementioned source notes; that bisexual case is the only case that I can see it being appropriate to state that the term lesbian does not fit all women who have been identified as lesbian. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

From my reading, I don't think the body establishes that definition of the word "lesbian" is "anyone who thinks they are a lesbian". It's very clear from this article that, if a person is a woman, and also homosexual, she's a lesbian, by definition, all other facts be damned. Of course, there could be many gray areas in which it might not be clear whether that person really is so clearly woman, or whether that person is really %100 homosexual in every way; cases where a person might or might not be one depending on how you look at it and exactly where one draws the line. Except for proper nouns, that's true about the referent of pretty much all articles on Wikipedia. For example, there are spoons that might not fill the definition perfectly, but that's not part of the lead of that article. You give the primary definition in the lead. It's pretty clear, however, that all it takes to be a lesbian is to say you are is how people should behave in daily life, obviously, in order to be nice and get along with other. If someone says they are a lesbian, why question it? That's just being a jerk. But we're not meeting new friends here. We're writing an encyclopedia. I think what is needed is to spell out exactly what the clause in question is trying to say, which can't possibly be that all that a lesbian is nothing more that one who so identifies oneself, it renders the definition meaningless. For example, there was a suggestion here to include so-called "male lesbians". We decided not to include them, because to be an actual, not metaphorical, lesbian, you have to be female, by definition, at least in some conceivable sense of the word "female", which is not always clear, and that the term "male lesbian" was just a sort of analogous use of the word, not literal, and therefore outside of the scope of this article, because by definition a person whose maleness is absolutely clear is not a lesbian. Chrisrus (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Reliable sources in the article establish that the term lesbian, in addition to referring to a homosexual woman, includes a woman who self-identifies as a lesbian. We already went over this in the section above. I'm not sure if you are not understanding something about what the lesbian identity source I provided above says, or are ignoring it. That source (which is a very good source about lesbian health and lesbian identity) is explicitly clear that there is no true standard definition of lesbian and that self-identity is a core aspect of identifying as lesbian. It also shows that it's very likely that the vast majority of women who identify as lesbian are not 100% homosexual. Some researchers debate whether a person can be a 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, by the way. I have no problem adding two of the sources from the lower body of the article (whether from the Sexuality and lesbian identity section or another section in the article), or two newer sources from Google Books, to that first paragraph in the lead to further support "self-identifies." I reiterate that the self-identity aspect is a big deal, which is why it is elaborated on (not simply mentioned) in the lead and there is a section on it in the article. It is very much WP:Lead material. It's not at all comparable to your spoon example. And comparing tables, spoons or other such objects to the complicated topic of sexual identity or gender identity is highly dubious. I saw such highly dubious comparisons during the Chelsea Manning Wikipedia debates, and I still see such comparisons on Wikipedia regarding Chelsea Manning.

Once again, I remind people to stop confusing sexual orientation with sexual identity; the term lesbian is as much of a sexual identity as the terms gay and queer are, and it is used by all types of women to indicate their sexual orientation or simply their sexuality. At Wikipedia, with regard to Wikipedia articles, no one gets to state that any of these women are not truly lesbian. Not unless a WP:Reliable source states that. And if a WP:Reliable source does state that, it is not WP:Lead material because it is not WP:Due weight-compliant. We didn't add "male lesbian" because not only did the idea of including that get no valid support, it is far from being WP:Due weight to include it. Including self-identification in the lead, or anywhere else in the article, is not stating that all there is to a lesbian is a female who self-identifies as a lesbian; the rest of the lead before that point makes clear that there is more to being a lesbian. And so does the rest of the lead after the first paragraph. All that the self-identification parts of the lead are doing is summarizing identity aspects of the article, especially the Sexuality and lesbian identity section. Regarding your commentary in this discussion section, I don't know what else to do, except to, via WP:Echo, call on Siawase and Asarelah, who seem to understand LGBT topics as well as I do, and to remind you to try not to impose your personal opinion on this article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please pinpoint the specific language in the Sexuality and Lesbian Identity section you are referring to. Chrisrus (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why I need to, when it's there plain as day, and when part of it is quoted wording from the source above. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 pinged me, and I've been following this discussion on and off (no time to read all of it, so apologies if I'm repeating something that's already been said) but maybe try to take it back to who we are writing the lead for? I can parse "or a female who self-identifies as lesbian" because I'm already familiar with the different facets of sexual orientation/sexual identity/sexual behavior. But most readers are not going to have that background knowledge going in. I think it would be more helpful to readers to explicitly spell out what we mean by using the term sexual identity. Not sure on the wording exactly, but right now the start of the lead refers first to sexual orientation, then to sexual identity in an oblique way, and the next sentence would include instances of "lesbian" being used to refer to behavior (as in "lesbian sex" or "lesbian kiss") but it doesn't spell that out. Something like "Lesbian is used to refer to sexual orientation, sexual identity, as well as behavior" would be much clearer. Siawase (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "sexual identity" has been WP:Pipelinked under the "identifies" part of "self-identifies." I mentioned that the rest of the lead (past the first paragraph) elaborates on identity/sexual identity; the rest of the lead is where I think any lead elaboration on the material should go. The first paragraph is obviously meant as a basic introduction; what is mentioned there is expanded on after that first paragraph. That is a common approach for Wikipedia leads. We should have more faith in our readers reading past the first paragraph for further detail. And it's obviously their decision to only read the first paragraph. I'm against using "refers to" language for the first sentence, per what was noted about WP:REFERS language in the section immediately above this one. For my "016:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)" post in that section, I stated that "if [one thinks] we should elaborate a bit on the 'sexual identity not always lining up with sexual orientation' aspect in the paragraph that goes into detail about sexual identity, I'm fine with that. But the lead has one decent-sized paragraph (the first paragraph) and three big paragraphs, and, per WP:Lead, the lead should typically be limited to four paragraphs; expanding any of those big paragraphs any further would lead to a paragraph that certainly needs to be split or condensed." Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The "self-identifies" aspect appear to be supported by reliable sourcing so should remain included. Maybe the wording could be improved to flow better but the mention of this aspect needs to remain. Zad68 18:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no argument against self-identity. The argument is that a definition can't use the word to define itself. The first sentence actually contains two definitions. the second being that a lesbian is "a female who self-identifies as lesbian". This is circular and not logical. I have already suggested a re-wording for a second sentence- Some women who do not fit this definition may identify as lesbians. Bhny (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I mostly don't understand your objection and have already refuted your suggested wording above. You still don't see why your suggested wording is wrong, but to re-suggest it obviously is not a solution. As for the sourcing that Zad68 is referring to, besides sources in the article, everyone can refer to these Google Books sources on the importance of sexual identity with regard to defining lesbian and the importance of the exact "self-identifies" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read Circular definition Bhny (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A "Zblwoof" is a person who says they are a "Zblwoof". How does that explain to the reader what a Zblwoof is? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bhny, do read the sources I've pointed to. They absolutely show that the word lesbian can and is used to define lesbian, and that the way that is done is with the wording "self-identifies as lesbian" or "lesbian-identified."

Also, the "romantic or sexual attraction to other females" part is not supposed to be referring solely to homosexual females. Chrisrus's semicolon messes up the lead a bit. With that semicolon, it's as if we are stating that a female homosexual is either one who experiences romantic or sexual attraction to other females or simply one who identifies as lesbian. While some females may identify as lesbian without experiencing romantic or sexual attraction to other females, that is not the norm. Before Chrisrus's changes to the lead, the lead read as: A lesbian is a female who expresses romantic or sexual attraction to other females, whether primarily or exclusively, or a female who self-identifies as lesbian." It now reads as: "A lesbian is a female homosexual; one who experiences romantic love or sexual attraction primarily or exclusively for other females, or a female who self-identifies as lesbian." I suggest that it be worded as: "A lesbian is a female homosexual or a female who self-identifies as lesbian; one who experiences primary or exclusive romantic love or sexual attraction to other females." Or something like that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A circular definition is empty. It has no meaning. We don't have to copy erroneous empty definitions from sources. A word cannot be used to define a word. That is a fact of language. Bhny (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22: Looking at the sources, I'm not really seeing the support you seem to see for the truncated, circular definition you use here. From what I can see, they use self-identification as one element of more nuanced and complex definitions, and as an "also" rather than the "or" you used here, ie "a homosexual woman who also self-identifies as a lesbian." Can you point to the specific sources that you think support your definition? Siawase (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying there is no support for our current circular definition? Basically, I think we need to remove self-identification from our definition and then supply a sourced non-circular sentence explaining self-identification. Bhny (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(E.C) The whole phrase is also pretty insulting, as it appears to include a value judgement: some people are lesbians, but some people who aren't real lesbian might think they are. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What is your suggested wording? Bhny (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IdreamofJeanie: I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Flyer22 is trying to avoid, only this wording may not be the most effective way to do so. Siawase (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bhny, though you sometimes have good ideas for the leads of Wikipedia articles, you don't always know what's best for the leads of Wikipedia articles, and I wish that you'd stop thinking that you do and stop trying to always get your way with the leads of Wikipedia articles, so much so that you almost watch the lead of every Wikipedia article you've altered. What we are supposed to do on Wikipedia is stay true to the sources, not stray from the sources to fit our personal opinions and present a topic (such as a sexual identity matter) in an inaccurate way. Nothing empty and/or erroneous about that. The sources give a significant amount of weight to "self-identifies as lesbian" or "lesbian-identified" for defining the term and concept "lesbian," which means that such language is not empty or erroneous to those sources; what they state is very clear as to why "self-identifies as lesbian" or "lesbian-identified" for defining the term and concept "lesbian" is not empty and/or erroneous. And that is the wording that I will continue to support, for reasons I've already made explicitly clear above, unless someone comes up with better wording. And, as stated before, if anyone one wants to know what we mean by "self-identifies," they can click on the link or read past the first paragraph. Readers know how to read past the first paragraph. In the meantime, I will go ahead and tweak Chrisrus's semicolon issue.

Siawase, I'm not sure what you mean by "I'm not really seeing the support you seem to see for the truncated, circular definition." My point is exactly that "self-identification [i]s one element of more nuanced and complex definitions." The sources indicate an "or" and "also." Again, refer to the lesbian health and identity source I keeping pointing to. Many sources on lesbian identity, such as the ones I pointed to on Google Books, make "self-identification" points similar to that source.

IdreamofJeanie, the value judgement argument is a good point and that perception is what I've objected to above concerning Bhny's initial arguments and wording proposal in this section. But the point of the sources is that a woman's sexual identification as lesbian does not always line up with her sexual orientation. The aforementioned lesbian health and identity source is one of the many sources that are very clear that the term lesbian refers to homosexual sexual orientation, sexual behavior and/or self-identification as lesbian (and, yes, Bhny, the Lesbian article is about the term and the concept, as it should be). In fact, and I've already noted this above, the aforementioned source is very clear that the term lesbian sometimes includes bisexual-identified women (other sources I pointed to on Google Books are also clear about that), which further shows how much more of a sexual identity "lesbian" is than it is a sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22: You conflated/confused the concept and the term with how you used it in the lead. The source (this is the source you're talking about, yes?) is talking about the term, but when you changed the lead to prioritize WP:REFERS you used the source to describe the concept. The source does NOT say "A lesbian is anyone who identifies as a lesbian" but that the TERM lesbian has been used to describe women who self-identify as lesbians. It's not the same thing. If we have to start with "A lesbian is" we should use sources that actually define that (the Lesbian Health source does not, it explicitly AVOIDS authoritatively defining it in a factual voice, so we cannot use it to authoritatively define the concept in Wikipedia voice either) and then make it clear we're talking about the term if we're going to use sources that discuss broader usage of the term. Siawase (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Siawase, would you care to rewrite the lead paragraph? It is becoming unreadable and could do with a fresh start. I know my attempts will be reverted by the WP:OWNER of the page. These, for example are unbelievable-"one is experiences primary or..." and "used as an adjective to characterize or associate nouns..." Bhny (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

How about "A lesbian is a female homosexual–a woman who experiences primary or exclusive romantic love with or sexual attraction to other females–or a woman who self-identifies as such." If it's just a matter of copyediting I don't see a reason to remove the concepts. Zad68 00:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Siawase, let's begin with the way you are distinguishing the term and the concept... Women who identify as lesbians and researchers who identify women as lesbians define what a lesbian is; by extension, they define what the concept of a lesbian is. It's not simply that the term lesbian refers to sexual orientation, sexual behavior and/or sexual identity. Women and researchers who use the term lesbian in those ways have made it so that the concept is about that. WP:REFERS is very clear about the use-mention distinction; it's not much of a distinction, really; just a change of a few words/grammar. If you want to use a different source, one that does not emphasize the word term, there are plenty to choose from on Google Books. But that aforementioned source is not used in the lead; it's used in the Sexuality and lesbian identity section of the article. Which change of mine to the lead are you referring to? The change to the lead with regard to WP:REFERS started with this edit by Bhny edit in December 2013; I followed up with this edit, which was an improvement, as noted in my initial post in the section immediately above this one. I avoid "refers to" for the first sentence of articles, and so does Bhny. The first paragraph would very likely still be the same as it was for years if Bhny hadn't shown up to this article to alter it to Bhny's preferred wording. When leads are changed to conform to the WP:REFERS essay, the source is not changed simply because the source is about defining the term. If you can come up with a non-"refers to" wording, then do, because Bhny and other editors (much more than myself) are not going to let "refers to" wording stand for the first sentence.

Bhny, all one needs to do is look at your talk page and edit history to see who thinks they WP:OWN articles; out of the two of us, I'm not the one constantly fighting to have the lead be my way. But since I object to your almighty prose, I'm WP:OWNing the article? What great logic. You've been told by various editors when your so-called improvements are not improvements and yet you still persist. After all, you WP:Edit war over leads, and revert at the drop of a hat to get your way, like you did here with me. The way of life, I guess. And Siawase is for WP:REFERS wording, if you haven't noticed.

Zad, your wording is a bit off because it is leaving the "a woman who experiences primary or exclusive romantic love with or sexual attraction to other females" portion to the female homosexual aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I will be adding self-identification to the second sentence, which is specifically about how the term is used. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, as seen here and here. And, for goodness sakes, like I noted during the fixes, the "is" in "is experiences" was obviously a typo that was meant to be "who." Choosing to remove easily fixable content instead of fixing it? I guess a person has to do what a person has to do to get their way. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Further tweak here. Looks like these latest edits take care of the "self-identifies" dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And added "sexual behavior" along with "sexual identity," of course. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Also noting on this talk page for documentation: I have added the other aspect of self-identification as lesbian to the lead paragraph that details identity, sexual identity and sexual behavior, as seen here and here (the second edit is a fix). Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, I forgot to relink "homosexuality"; so re-linked. Flyer22 (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is profoundly personal, and only the person themselves (if they are alive) has the authority to self-identify as anything. This isn't as though this were an objective, observable trait like being tall. I am in agreement with Flyer22. We should follow the rules regarding Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as far as living individuals go, which is that they must self-identify with the label in question. Period. This is Wikipedia's official policy on the matter, and if you disagree with it, work to change the policy. Asarelah (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Asarelah, the matter in question is not a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) issue since we are not naming any specific living person in this regard (debating their sexual orientation or sexual identity) in the lead or lower in the article, but rather how the term/concept is used with regard to people in general, but I thank you for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the previous 15 edits of this page 14 were by the same person. That's what I meant by (WP:OWNER). All the other editors have been driven away. Me too, I've stopped following this article. Bye. Bhny (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I seem to have overlooked your reply. I'll reply now: Bhny, then you clearly don't know what WP:OWN means (a policy that is clear about what WP:OWN is and isn't), just like you seemingly don't understand some other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; for example, WP:Dictionary, a policy you've tripped over more than once (as told by different editors). As for others being driven from this page by me as a result of this discussion, I'm certain that you are additionally wrong in that regard. I'm certain that this article is still on their WP:Watchlists. What this discussion having slowed means is that it has come to its natural end, as is clear by my "01:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)" commentary above, and as is the usual way of things on Wikipedia and in any forum. If editors were driven away from this discussion by me, then I am only part of the equation; this is because if they were driven away, it is a result of the bickering that has gone on in this discussion. It takes two to tango. But, yes, bye. It's not the last I've seen of you, however, since you like to control the leads of Wikipedia articles and since your WP:Watchlist has Wikipedia articles on it that I also watch. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)