Talk:History of lesbianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tptrahan.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 23:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge?

While the material looks good, the whole unsourced viewpoint of the narrative suggests

original research. It is speculated...' - who speculated? I think the specific Sappho detail would be better merged into Sappho. Tearlach 13:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
]

I reverted this Sep 4th 2005 edit labelled "wikified further and removed tag" because it reintroduced spelling mistakes, altered headings to a non-standard form, and lost a great chunk off the end of the article, including the categories. Tearlach 10:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The material on this page is full of gross errors and copyright violations. It should be eliminated if it can't be fixed by a responsible individual.Ande B. 06:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sappho

I have removed the most egregious copyright infringeing materials. There are still more unattributed copyright protected quotes in this article. This entire page is full of strong POV. It's really too much to fix with a simple edit and needs serious workovers for which I have no time or interest. Good luck. Ande B. 07:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following text is not supported by any cite to authority and relies entirely on assumptions and Victorian era fabrications:

Sappho was married off and eventually gave birth to a daughter. A revolution temporarily forced her into exile in Sicily; when she returned, she gathered together a group of women and girls who shared her artistic and sexual preferences

There is no evidence that indicates Sappho was forced into marriage nor any evidence that her marriage was an unhappy one, as is implied by the statement. This type of strong POV demands the support of cited relaible authority.

Sappho's exile, while not life-long, lasted for at least ten years, longer than the impression given by the word "temporary."

I don't recall any historical documentary evidence that indicates that Sappho actively "gathered" any particular group of people together. While people may tend to gravitate to those of similar interests and Sappho's high reputation may have may have attracted "fans" or "followers," this does not imply that she actively "gathered" anyone for any purpose. So little is known about the woman that the description quoted above is mere assertion.

It has been more than a few years since I happily struggled through Sappho's poetry in their original language so if anyone has more current, reliable information about the above material, please let us know your sources-- they would be quite valuable to those with strong interests in these matters. 24.7.5.47 21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cry for help!

I put in a request for expert attention to this page, it really needs it. I also removed the request to merge this article with the Sappho article because it has been sitting here for months with no responses. Also, this page serves a totally different and much broader purpose than the Sappho page. Ande B 07:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I began thinking I could improve this article, but I've decided to write another for my topic, and if the two should later need to be merged, so be it, but I don't feel I can do much for the first part of this article, which is obviously pretty neglected. --Chuchunezumi 00:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Possible deletion

I am going to review and make a decision whether this article should be proposed for deletion. From what I've been able to construe, it is lifted directly from another article with little or no changes whatsoever, making it a copyright concern. While the other article might have copied from this one, I'm not sure. The article in question may be found at http://experts.about.com/e/h/hi/history_of_lesbianism.htm. I welcome discussion even before I propose its deletion, but hearing none, and if after rereading the criteria for AfDs, I may propose that this article be taken down. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 22:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, it appears that all of the content of the above website is lifted from Wikipedia, though they give no sort of credit at all. I'm still concerned with this article overall and would appreciate hearing what others think should happen. While I think this subject deserves an article, I'm not sure this one is doing the topic justice completely bereft of citation. Cheers! Chuchunezumi 23:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I feel as though this article should be labeled a stub, since I think it's pretty obvious that lesbianism didn't end in the Dark Ages. Chuchunezumi 23:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section needed

This article needs a summarizing introduction. See

Wikipedia:Lead section
for guidelines.

Apocalypse of Peter

Should this article mention the punishment of gay men and lesbians in Hell in the apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter? It could be slightly unusual to come across mention of lesbians from that period, even if only to condemn them?

"32 And other men and women being cast down from a great rock (precipice) fell (came) to the bottom, and again were driven by them that were set over them, to go up upon the rock, and thence were cast down to the bottom and had no rest from this torment. And these were they that did defile their bodies behaving as women: and the women that were with them were they that lay with one another as a man with a woman."

You were warned! PatGallacher (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Entire Canonical New Testament paragraph is wrong

There are no specific references to Lesbians. The Romans verse is talking about something Women are doing, but is only specified as Gay when Men do it. Clearly Anal sex is what's in mind. But not all agree any of these verses condemn Homosexuality at all, just specific Pagan practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.228.166 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding this?

Lesbian history didn't end with the Low Middle Ages. Are we going to expand this article further? Beggarsbanquet (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article?

I tried to add some infos, but I still don't quite understand why do we need a separate article? Why not incorporate this content in LGBT history? --Dia^ (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I work mainly with antiquity, not LGBT history, but from that perspective I've learned that lesbianism is usually treated separately in scholarship from male same-sex relations simply because it was different in its cultural manifestations. The kinds of evidence that are available differ from those on male homoerotic desires and behaviors, in ancient Greece and Rome, anyway. (I've gathered from working on another topic that this is true also in later Western culture up to the 20th century; 19th-century "gay rights activists," for instance, seem to have been mainly concerned with male sexuality.) I don't think that LGBT history as a whole should treat male homosexuality as normative, but historically (and after all this is an article about the history of lesbianism) there's enough difference in available primary material and scholarly methodology to sustain an article that looks specifically at the problems of lesbian history. I suppose the arguments would be similar to those on how and why "women's history" can be treated as a distinct academic field of study. Then again, I'm not a member of the LGBT community, so I would want to recognize issues of self-definition. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hallo Cynwolfe, thanks for your answer. I think I understand what you are saying but I'm still not quite sure. Shouldn't we than have a "History of male homosexuality" separated from LGBT history? Otherwise we should change the first sentence of the lead section in LGBT history that goes: "LGBT history refers to the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) peoples and cultures around the world, dating back to the first recorded instances of same-sex love and sexuality of ancient civilizations." Isn't it better to incorporate the differences in history between male and female homosexuals in the LGBT history article? Or is too complicated? Than we should maybe have three separate article for male homosexuality, lesbianism and transgender (intersexuals too maybe?) and than the LGBT history can explain when the three groups worked/fought together? Any other ideas?

Thoughts on expanding or needing this article

I forgot to transport this discussion from

talk) 21:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Initially from Talk:Lesbian, during February-March 2011:

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

talk) 22:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I think there is good potential to expand the history of lesbianism. There certainly are good sources to do this. Someone has to do it, however. I wrote this one, so someone else--or several someones--should write the history of lesbianism article. --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But, Moni, my point is that I feel this article (Lesbian) more so represents the history of lesbianism, and that the History of lesbianism article seems like some poor, not even half-written, knock-off. To make that article about "the history of lesbianism," it would need to be like this one to be as accurate as possible...and then it would simply be redundant. Right now, it needs to be either merged or renamed, in my opinion.
talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I know. My point is that there is much more information about the history of lesbianism than this article can provide. History of lesbianism is a poor, half-written knock-off because someone hasn't rewritten it. Someone should. This one took me about 2 months to write. It just takes access to really good books (a decent college library would have them) and a lot of dedication. Nothing really more is necessary. --Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that more can be stated. I still feel that it would largely be redundant to the Lesbian article if expanded considerably...considering that the Lesbian article already covers so much about this topic (thanks to you, which is greatly appreciated and respected). That's why I'm still not seeing that article's title (History of lesbianism) as the best. You say there is much more that article can say on the matter, but I say it's not like every extensive detail about lesbianism is expected to be in either article (here or there). There is also the fact that
WP:SIZE
is not a factor for relevant information that is suited here. More could be added here on the history of lesbianism, despite WP:SIZE. And right now, the Lesbian article is "it" for most of the information on lesbianism, which I feel will be that way for a long time. It's not like the History of lesbianism article could not be merged until someone is ready to expand it. But I suppose we can wait and see if it grows in the way you seem to believe it is likely to.
If you don't mind, I will copy and paste this discussion to Talk:History of lesbianism, after others weigh in (if others weigh in) here, so that it can be there as well, for the consideration of anyone interested in expanding that article in the future.
talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
This is by far the longest article I've written on Wikipedia. I cannot read it all in one sitting most days. I don't think it a good idea to add information here. I call it a leviathan of an article.
I'm mostly ambivalent about the History of lesbianism article. However, I don't think it should be deleted because someone hasn't accessed the best sources about the history of lesbianism, and it's difficult to say that the Lesbian article has everything necessary to address the topic if those sources have not been consulted. Because an article is awful, poorly written, unsourced, and just plain aesthetically ugly (these are generic terms that I don't apply to the History of lesbianism article) doesn't mean it should be removed from Wikipedia.
Ok, so I've made my point. I'll let others weigh in in the discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Still, articles that are largely unsourced and felt to be better covered elsewhere are deleted or merged all the time. That's often how Wikipedia works, whether I always agree or not. Anyway, thanks for weighing in and indulging me.
talk
) 23:26, 23 February 2011
I'd say leave it there. Give it a few years, and it may grow into a more comprehensive treatment than this article can provide. --JN466 02:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few years? Yikes. I can wait, but I still feel that it should not be titled History of lesbianism, until it is sufficiently about the history of lesbianism. Right now, this article (Lesbian) covers most of that.
talk) 07:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know if anyone has revised it since then, and I don't have the sources too but since this article hasn't been removed I'm assuming there's been some sort of modifications QueerCB97 (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question on salzikrum

I'm not sure salzikrum means what the author of the reference thinks it means. A quick google search reveals that the only relevant references to word quote the source on this article. I don't have access to the book, but it seems that it's referring to § 172. Here's a linkto a translation of the code. § 172 clearly refers to a widow, not a "male daughter" and the inheritance right referred to is simply that which she is entitled to if her husband fails to leave her any of his estate.

Furthermore this is a link to a line-by-line literal translation. The word appears in the author's 172A in his transliteration as zinnistum. Look in the glossary and you'll see it's translated as woman and used elsewhere in the Code in that context.

Unless someone has access to the book and can tell me what the author cites as a source (and I'll try to find a copy) I'd like to remove that section, as the other (indeed, every other) translations provide more reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark C M (talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been trying to track down any confirmation of the idea that "the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 BC) is widely considered to be the earliest known mention of lesbians in surviving historical documents", and failing miserably, so I'm glad it's not just me. There doesn't seem to have been much academic discussion of what "Sal-Zikrum" means recently at all. What I could find is Driver and Miles (1939), which suggests that the word refers to "a man regarded as a woman"(p.68), and Luckenbill (1917!!!), which suggests that it refers to women in a harem. (Lauren Talalay, in 1997, quoted Driver/Miles without comment in "Reflections on Identity and Ethnicity in the Ancient World"). More recently, I can find an article suggesting that "sal-zikrum" refers to "the transgender priestesses of... Inanna/Ishtar" (Conner 2000), but that was published in Parabola (magazine), which wikipedia doesn't even call an academic journal in its own article!
And though I don't have access to the book quoted, I find it highly unlikely that it discusses the meaning of "sal zikrum" at all, considering that it's a book on art history, and not on Mesopotamian legal texts. Certainly it cannot be said that it is "widely considered" to be about lesbianism, though, even if against all odds it is mentioned in the book cited. So I'm going to go ahead and remove the section entirely... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages / When Rome came to power

The section "Middle Ages (476—1049 AD)" begins with "When Rome came to power, it began to frown on such relations". This doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. 476 is usually considered the time when the Western Roman Empire collapsed, and the beginning of the middle ages. Perhaps this is trying to say the rise of the Western Church (later the Roman Catholic Church), although that was not particularly focused on that point in time, and Rome itself was not particularly authoritative in the Western church for quite some additional time. Perhaps the general rise of Christianity? Or...? Rwessel (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The article currently misreads the Iphis and Ianthe episode as expressing something more positive than it does: after all, their love can be fulfilled only if one literally becomes a man; otherwise, it's considered unnatural. Roman attitudes toward same-sex relations are rather complicated, and the sources are much harsher toward relations between women than those between men (as long as the upper-status man "dominated" the other male)—no doubt because the sources are all men. The article Homosexuality in ancient Rome doesn't do a good job with same-sex relations between women, but while male writers thought such things were weird (they seem not to be titillated by lesbian sex, as seems to be the case with contemporary men; being a woman, I can't speak to that), I don't know that they would trouble to "punish" lesbians by trying to turn them, or prosecute them, or subject them to violence. So while lesbianism might be regarded with disapproval, I haven't seen any evidence of persecution among the Romans.
More to the point, in the sentence you quote, it does seem to mean "Rome" in the papal sense, so I'm going to fix that one thing. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to progress further in time than just 1049 to be relevant

Just as the subject line says... I was amazed when the history of lesbianism only went to 1049??? I would say that the last 100 years would be of vastly more importance. Why hasn't anyone gone further forward in time? -- 69.151.64.188 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC) (anonymous gay male)[reply]

Spain

The article says that laws created during the Inquisition in Spain prohibited female-female sexual relations.

Aside from the reference to the Inquisition, which should be removed (the Inquisition had nothing to do with civil legislation, only religious matters), I have a Ph.D. in Hispanic studies and know quite a bit about the history of sex in Spain, and I've never heard of this. Is there any documentation for it? If not, I think it should go. deisenbe (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a reference to Crompton 1981.
Firstly, he argues that lesbianism was interpreted as being illegal under Roman law in medieval Europe (including Spain), thusly (p.15-16):
  1. The Codex Justinianus contains a law (9.9.20) which sets down penalties for women who "surrender their honour to the lusts of others" (translation from Crompton's paper).
  2. The jurist Cino da Pistoia glossed this as applying both to women who have sex with men and women who have sex with women.
  3. Bartholomaeus de Saliceto (by analogy with 9.9.31) suggested that the death penalty was mandated in 9.9.20.
  4. "Since, according to Roman tradition, the opinions of eminent jurists often have the force of law, it would have been possible... to argue for the death penalty for lesbianism" even if there was no local/national legislation specifically against it.
  5. Spain was heavily influenced by Roman law.
  6. Therefore, in Spain it would have been possible to argue that lesbianism was illegal and punishable by death.
Secondly, he gives Spanish examples of women being punished for lesbianism: two nuns burned for "using 'material instruments'",(p.17) and women in Granada who were whipped and sent to the galleys (p.19)
Thirdly, he cites Gregorio Lopez's gloss on Title 21 of the final book of the Partidas, arguing the law which provides for the death penalty for sodomy applies to women as well as men (citing St Paul as well as the glosses on CJ9.9.20 discussed above, as well a conflicting opinion that while homosexual acts between women were criminal, they were not as severe as sodomy and therefore shouldn't be punished by death). (p.18-19)
It is not true, however, as the lead claims, that "Laws created during the Inquisition in Spain[...] specifically mention lesbianism". (The law in the Holy Roman Empire, according to Crompton, did.)
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization

Currently the article is significantly focused on the US and UK, with occasional forays into the state of affairs elsewhere in Europe and a few mentions of the Arab world. Missing entirely is any discussion of:

  • Anywhere in Asia
  • Anywhere in the New World before it began to interact with Europe
  • Anywhere in sub-saharan Africa
  • Anywhere in South/Central America

it would be great if anyone who has any level of knowledge of the history of female same-sex relationships/sex in any of these places could either add some relevant stuff to the article, or give some pointers to sources that other people might want to look at here.

Relatedly, I'm not sure about the organisation of the article at the moment. The periodisation is very western-centric, the most egregious example being the section on modern history, where modern is essentially defined as "post-Stonewall", though "medieval" and "early modern" are fairly Eurocentric concepts too. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this any still maintain any semblance of a coherent article is, though. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Lesbian seems to have rather more historical information than does this article. Rwessel (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've looked at the Lesbian article, and it's got some stuff which is much better than this article. I'm going to take inspiration (and reading suggestions!) from there, but I thought I'd open up a discussion on the talk page here in case anyone reading this article has any suggestions Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it because if there's going to be a "history of" article, it would normally be because the main article is too large, and the history has been broken out. So the two choices are really merging what's different/unique here back into Lesbian, and deleting this article (rather turning it into a redirect to the history section of main article), or doing this article properly by moving most of the historical stuff from the main article here (and leaving only a summary, and link, there). Lesbian is fairly large, so that would tend to argue for the second option. Note that this article appears to have a fairly independent history from Lesbian, and was never started as a split from the main article. What I'm really saying is what's required here is a merge of some sort. Rwessel (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this was already discussed in 2011 (see above, Expanding this?), with no apparent action. Rwessel (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to rename this article "History of Lesbianism in Western Culture" because as it stands now, that's pretty much what it is. If this article is to be globalized, and kept as a separate article without bringing in the historical info from
Lesbianism article. I do see that Caeciliusinhorto and others have done some expansion since 2011. Having a separate, more expanded article does have some advantages, for those who want to delve more deeply into the history. If consensus is to keep this article and globalize it, new geographic sections would need to be added. ABF99 (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of lesbianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of lesbianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sor Juana... and Others

This article seems lacking in a couple of categories. I noticed that the Mexican poet

Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz wasn't mentioned at all, nor were the Daughters of Bilitis
. Both seem fairly important in understanding the history of lesbianism not just in Europe but in other places as well. Unfortunately, I haven't done enough research on either to add them in just yet, and I'm certain there are many other people missing. I'm also not sure what the best way to integrate the two in would be, so if anyone has suggestions that would be awesome. MultiverseTheory42 (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title is misleading

The article should be re-titled. The current title erroneously implies that lesbianism is an invention. This fits with the erroneous belief that homosexuality is an invention, a cultural practice that is taught. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.198 (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the section citing the NKJV dubious. Different versions of the Bible can vary quite radically in content, even if the changes are only apparent when one pays close attention. Some of the more recent versions, like NIV, add and change material in order to further an anti-gay agenda. For example, "all the people of the city, young and old" from KJV has been changed to "all the men of the city", to further the ridiculous idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were populated exclusively by homosexual men. Perhaps Sodom was because it was a military outpost (which would explain "all the people, young and old, even the men of Sodom") but not both. Another line in which it is made clear women were present has been changed to excise women from the scene. Things like this are, unfortunately, a popular practice in many more-contemporary Bibles. This is not the result of improved translation/scholarship. It's the result of an anti-gay agenda coupled with the belief that embedding more anti-gay content will improve Bible sales — the contemporary expectation that Bibles must clearly present the concept of homosexuality and strongly condemn it. The point I'm making is that before Wikipedia says anything definitive about the Bible it should be very very certain that what it's saying isn't debatable due to there being quite different language in different versions of the Bible. It also bears noting that even the KJV and earlier Bibles are the result of agendas, revisionism to further them.
Better titles might be Known History of Lesbianism or Lesbianism, Current Historical Knowledge. Those makes it clearer that it's not about pretending that lesbian is an invention that started at some point after the beginning of humanity — a practice that's spread due to culture (socialization) rather than being innate to human sexuality (biological). The same goes for any article calling itself "History of Homosexuality". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.194.198 (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree with the premise that the title "History of lesbianism" implies that lesbianism was invented; it does so no more than History of Earth implies that the earth was invented, or History of HIV/AIDS implies that HIV was invented. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocentrism—change to header or content needed

This article should either be called "History of lesbianism in the Europe/North America" or else should add considerable sections on gay women in other parts of the world. Jackie.salzinger (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"should add considerable sections on gay women". I'm just throwing in a couple of cents: this article's title is "History of lesbianism " -- not "History of gay women". Before the identity activism of the 1970s–early 1980s, lesbians were the unacknowledged half of the homosexual community, in which male and female homosexuals were all referred to as "gay", knowing full well that "gay" is associated with homosexual males. For some, "lesbian" sounded like a 'dirty word'. For many, it upended patriarchal social and sexual expectations. Lesbian, lezzy, lezzo, lesbo. That's all Folks! Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography

Some sources about lesbian historiography may be of use to this article. They may also be useful for a split-off called Lesbian historiography.

Thanks, Urve (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HOMOSEXUALITY IN EGYPTIAN CULTURE IS FALSE INFORMATION

There were no traces of homosexuality in Egypt and the picture that yoshi and Elliot keeps reverting back to this topic is false. Idet and RIU WERE SISTERS, not lovers. furthermore, there are no sources out of the 115+ references that deliberately highlight or provide evidence to the claim they were trying to stick in on the behalf of homosexuality in Egypt or the picture they keep reposting yet trying to etch this case as history. 2600:4040:72E5:3400:B001:5F30:97FE:D5A (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_lesbianism&oldid=1206910276"