Talk:Lesbian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
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
Close

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)

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)

"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I found a paper here 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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)

Chainsaw edit

"Blue-ribbon bisexuals" listed at Redirects for discussion

"Amor lesbicus" listed at Redirects for discussion

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI