Talk:Lesbophobia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rationale for "Lesbiphobia" article

I believe that an article on the topic of Lesbiphobia is a valuable entry on Wikipedia, as there are a not insignificant number of lesbians who prefer to use this term to the more 'mainstream' and general "Homophobia". I believe, as I have also stated in the article, and I am aware of other lesbians who also believe this, that to be included in the rubric of "Homophobia" lumps the specific concerns of lesbians in with gay men once again, and I believe that, while we do share many concerns, the two subcultures are quite distinct politically, socially, and in other ways, and the oppression of Lesbians can play out differently as well.

I realize that technically and historically, Gay men and Lesbians have often been included in the "Homo" category of Homophobia, due to the interest of each in a same-sex culture, but I believe that Lesbians can be considered at least as distinct from Gay Men as from Bisexuals or Transgendered Individuals, and these other two are considered as viably distinct categories in Wikipedia.

Thank you for your interest in my article, and for your time.

Also, I am sorry, but I don't know how to remove the "For Deletion" Tag, so I didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kootenayvolcano (talk • contribs) 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I do know how to delete the "for deletion" tag, so I did, wanting to give you an opportunity to work further on this article and improve it/justify it further. However, if not further improved, it may still be subject to the Articles for deletion process (AfD for short), which while a longer process still may lead to this article's deletion. In fact, I would almost guarantee it, without significant improvements.

Some of those I would suggest, at the very least:

• Citations to back up the assertions made in the article. This is in line with the Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. If you're unfamiliar with how to do it, see WP:CITE.
• Any sources (& text to go with it) that might demonstrate the importance of the use of this term as against homophobia.
• Addition of categories to connect this article up with related topics.

I'm a lesbian myself, but am not as of this moment convinced of the necessity for this article as a separate article. If you're unable to make improvements as suggested above, I would recommend trying to integrate some of your text into the existing article on Homophobia.

I appreciate your use of edit summaries when making edits -- so many people neglect to do it! But please remember also when writing comments on talk pages to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~. This will automatically add your username & the date/time of your post, so that other users can know who/when a given comment was written. --Yksin 16:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Unstubbified

Looks like work done especially by WJBscribe yesterday has whipped this article into pretty good shape, not even a stub anymore but rather "start" class. His additions also convinced me that yes, this article is worthy of standing on its own, separate from the article on Homophobia. --Yksin 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you WJBscribe for your input. The article has been much improved!

Kootenayvolcano 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Kootenayvolcano

Lesbi vs. Lesbo phobia

Something that keeps coming to mind that I just want to put out there for possible use. When I see the term "lesbiphobia" I think of les(bian) + bi(sexual) and the intersections of the prejudices they each and both face whereas with "lesbophobia" I more notice the slang "lesbo." I can imagine both spellings being used but have no idea of the etymology of either. Benjiboi 18:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

But I think WJBscribe was correct in moving the article to Lesbophobia. When I did a literature search yesterday in Academic Search Premier, I got five hits on lesbophobia (& I some facts & a cite from one of the articles I found that way), zero hits on lesbiphobia. A Google search gets about 11,300 his for lesbophobia, just 126 hits for lesbiphobia. So the "o" version seems to be the one that's mostly in use. --Yksin 18:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Whichever one is used is whatever to me. I think there might be more to the spelling variation than simply a spelling variation. Benjiboi 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. I don't know if there is more to it than simple spelling variation or not. --Yksin 22:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I was unsure of proper spelling, but lesbophobia seems good to me- just based on number of ref's ect Kootenayvolcano 02:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Discrimination sidebar

Can this Lesbophobia article now be re-added to the "Template: Discrimination" page? It had been removed previously. Kootenayvolcano 16:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Kootenayvolcano

I personally don't see why not. I noticed the same person removed it from Template:Discrimination sidebar as put the prod on for this article to be deleted. However, it might be good to first initiate a discussion at Template talk:Discrimination, since the template is placed on numerous pages, so establishing consensus first would be a good & politic thing. I'll gladly take part in discussion there in support of "Lesbophobia" being added to the template.

BTW, when you use the four tildes to sign talk page posts, it's unnecessary to also manually sign your name: the four tildes take care of both your username & the date/time, automatically. --Yksin 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Two days without further discussion at Template talk:Discrimination -- & the only protest being from the same guy who originally prodded this article for deletion, but who does not seem to have taken time to see how the article has improved since then. Anyway, so I've added Lesbophobia back to the template, & added a further justification to the talk page there, & added the template to this article besides. If there are additional difficulties with this, one place to get support is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, which is where I first heard of the attempt to delete this article in the first place. --Yksin 01:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I didnt see something

I might have missed it, but I didnt see anything about straight or bi males having lesbophobia. Correct me if I'm wrong though. If it's not in there, then could it be added? because as male of one of those two groups (its not one else's business but my own which one I am) and my...dislike of lesbian women (I'm not prejudice, I accept their existence, I just had a rather bad experience with them, and do not wish to think about two women together) I think it should be added. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Really, mention of heterosexual (straight) males showing lesbophia is not in this article? What the ....? It surely is not mostly gay men and straight women carrying out lesbophic actions. The reason I linked to this article from the Bianca Montgomery article is because I could have sworn I read something in this article about men raping lesbians due to lesbophia. I would mainly take that to mean heterosexual men. Let me check this article again. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...Czarbender, you must have missed it. This article most certainly mentions heterosexual males, and as I stated before, mentions the rape aspect. I'm not sure it has to note on bisexual men, since it mentions heterosexual men, as well as gay men. I mean, that pretty much points out that there's no way that it can be absent in all men who consider themselves bisexual either. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Template change + addition

I added the LGBT studies template. Plus, I changed the Discrimination template to a footer until the article gets fleshed out.

I'd like to start a serious discussion of major work on this article (structure and content) being that so much important information is missing despite the great start. --CJ Withers (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Intersectionality

I just added some precisions to the intro. As I wrote above, I think the article is missing a lot and needs a structural overhaul. More specifically, the notion of intersectionality deserves its own sub-section instead of being lumped into the "related terminology" heading. In the meantime, I'll be working on the linguistic background of the term. --CJ Withers (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro section

I've just recast the intro section to include more things. Plus, I've removed harassment because I think the topic deserves its own sub-section later on; clearly, harassment is a form of abuse and abuse is included already. As for the Louis-George reference, I think it can be useful in another section. So, I've placed it here in the meantime: Tin, Louis-Georges (Ed), The Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay and Lesbian Experience, (Arsenal Pulp Press, 2007) --CJ Withers (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep it

Although controversial (In general), this is a valid article, and should remain. It does, however, need adding to for additional content, as well as a little formating. This article should not be deleted, much like an article about arachnophobia or agoraphobia should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CloneDeath (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this fall under homophobia? Also, if we're going to have it, why not have gayphobia, too? Why is the community constanty trying to splinter itself? Come on. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is...ridiculous. Perhaps it's because I'm gay, I have a particular bias, but this has to be one of the most blatantly sexist articles I've seen. As a member of the community I see gay women acting as if they deserve special treatment over gay men, because they have it more difficult than us...Because all straight men hate lesbians, am I right? I find this article to be some sort of...soapbox for them. If we're going to have this, why not "Gayophobia" or "Biphobia" or "Transphobia" Lesbians fall under homophobia as they are homosexuals. Neuro√Synapse ▪ ∆ 10:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Neuro√Synapse: There ARE already articles for Biphobia and Transphobia in Wikipedia, so one for Lesbophobia is not a stretch. I am not familiar with the term "Gayphobia", but if you can find sources for its usage I'd suggest you might write that one yourself.Kootenayvolcano (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It simply sounds redundant, that is my only issue...And like it's pandering to separate itself for some sort of politically correct minority privilege. The term "Gayphobia" like all "Phobias" of homosexuals is covered under homophobia, at the very least this should be merged with Homophobia and simply be a small section.Neuro√Synapse 21:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT and Discrimination templates

I've restored these two templates as there was no reason to remove them. The footers are collapsible and appear where they should, i.e. where someone has reached the end of the article and cannot see the earlier templates or does want to scroll all the way to the beginning. If the discrimination one is too long, then contribute by collapsing it or the sections within it, not deleting it. I should add that User0529 has removed the discrimination template from LGBT related articles only despite how all the other non-LGBT discrimination related articles have both the template and footer. Also, there's no need to target LGBT-related articles by removing LGBT references, links, and templates. --CJ Withers (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(mirrored from Heterosexism talk page..) I removed the Discrimination template as it was already represented in the footer to free up space (and likewise moved LGBT to footer). Navigation templates that take up so much space take away space from more interesting and relevent things like photos, illustrations, and other infoboxes. The reason the discrimination template was removed from 2 or 3 LGBT pages and not other discrimination pages was that I chiefly only edit LGBT pages, as that is my interest area. I am not going to revert your reverts, but you should do your homework before making such inflammatory accusations against other editors. --User0529 (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A Phobia?

Something tells me this isn't a legitimate (a.k.a. recognized) psychological phobia, is it? So, should it really be categorized as one? "Homophobia" isn't. 72.191.23.43 (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

not a phobia but a meme

I've removed the category phobias because this isn't one. This term is a meme.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Related terminology section

The article implies that lesbophobia, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia are synonymous except for the differing demographics. That's not the case. Lesbophobia is the oppression which exists specifically at the intersection of homophobia and misogyny - it's a form of homophobia, but it takes specific forms (such as "corrective" rape) which effect gay and bisexual women far more than their male counterparts. Biphobia, similarly, isn't just homophobia against bi+ people - it's specific forms of oppression against bi+ people, such as the assumption that they're "confused" or "indecisive" or that they need a partner of each gender and can't be monogamous. Transphobia is a different oppression entirely. This section needs to be re-written completely. 94.14.124.174 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Added some references into the lesbophobic violence section and removed citation needed tags Acb314 (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Religious views

There is already an article on religious views on transgender people and religious views of homosexuality, I am thinking that a section on religious views might not be such a bad idea within this article, given that thre association Act Up has commonly blamed the existing religions on the various sex-related phobias in contemporary society. ADM (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me!Kootenayvolcano (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that traditional Judaism says no penalty on female female relations, only male. Judging by STDS alone, 60-70% of versus 5-10% of a population nature says something about who is prone to the giving the STDs more, the receiver simply acts as a base of operations. A host of literature says lesbian relations are generally discrete, and selective, while males are promiscuous as much as any orientation or gender regardless. If anyone can find 'certified' (cough) studies to prove or prove otherwise for a Wikarticle help with this. The man violates, and the woman is violated, so no violation can occur between two violatees (unless implements are involved) no feminist can scientifically argue with this concept. - Friendly Jew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.221.24 (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be written NPOV and sourced. I just deleted a whole section from another article because of these concerns. -- Banjeboi 02:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

While Leviticus only explicitly bans male (not female) relations, Leviticus' bans in general only directly adresses men. Rules on what women are not allowed to do are formulated as what men may not allow women to do. It was simply taken for granted that men did not allow their viwes to have sex with other people. That does not mean that lesbians would have gone unpunished in ancient Israel, since the legality principle was not even conceived in Leviticus days. Granted, the greater visibility of homosexual men in society confirms that lesbians tend to be more discrete. But since open homosexuality is more risky than private ditto at the same degree of homophobia, it undermines any concept of a type of homophobia aimed specifically at male gays.2.68.244.172 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

IP, why do you keep visiting these talk pages to express your personal opinions? First, the Homosexuality talk page, and now this one. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not visited that talk page. Click my IP adress and check.2.68.244.172 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have. It's the same IP range as the other IP, and you are making the same argument above about gay men being more visible than lesbians, and lesbians supposedly being punished to the same degree as, or more than, gay men for being homosexual. Oh, and of course I'd already checked your IP. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Many anonymous users have similar-beginning adresses. I have not edited that talk page, and it is not in my IP history either. I checked it after you mentioned it. While that anonymous user admittedly share some of my opinions, I did find the argument about identical twins looking identical too unrigorous to count. Different people can share some opinions, as shown here by the similarity between the opinions expressed by Friendly Jew and those expressed by Flyer 22. I do not assume you to be the same person.2.68.244.172 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

While many anonymous users have similar-beginning addresses, few are as experienced with editors being the same person as I am experienced with that matter. If you are not that person, I apologize. If, after this, I see your IP range popping up at other articles making the same arguments, however, my benefit of the doubt stops there. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)