Talk:George Sand

Order of sections

There is probably a rule for this that I am unaware of but George Sand: A writer more renowned in her time than Honoré de Balzac and Victor Hugo. Yet in this wiki her attachments to men, gender expression, personal life, political views and death are covered before her writing.

This just seems out of order — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemid (talk • contribs) 06:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sexuality

Although Sand has indeed been bisexually rumored due to her romantic friendship with Dorval, I am confused as stated in the article. The only mention leads to a clearly entertaining book, which, with very big doubts, can be considered scientific and historical. Even sources on Dorval's own sexuality describe their potential relationship as "short-lived if there was one", referring to the subsequent straight relationship of both women. I am not at all opposed to creating a section on her sexuality and even support it, but at this stage it looks like just adding to the article rumors about a woman who was known mainly for affairs with famous men like Chopin (for example, article on Dorval hints that the novel about Mademoiselle de Orbigny could have been written as a satire on rumors about her relationship with Sand, but at the moment the article about Sange does not even have any queer categories). Based on the discussion, the earlier article contained speculation about her being transgender due to her love of menswear, so I want this issue finally resolved without any speculation about her gender or sexuality. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sange? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sand, the auto-translator has very strange habits sometimes. Is this the only question that my text caused you? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought it might be a good place to start. But your text seems to be more of a proclamation/demand than a proposal. I think the issues of bisexuality and "transgender due to her love of menswear" might be usefully separated. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It would be easier for me to rewrite it myself than to demand, but I do not have time, so for a start I just pay attention. My main goal is to describe the issue without speculation or silence. That is, both without trying to make her look more queer than she really was, and without erasing any mention of such matters. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You could list all of your intended sources here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that they were romantically involved is not doubted. In fact the very same article acknowledges that she sounded “infatuated” in her letters to Dorval. Considering that relationships between women were disapproved back in the day, it makes sense that it wasn’t made public. Additionally, a romantic but non-sexual relationship is still more than a friendship. We might as well not ostracize that calling them “friends”, since they were clearly more than that. Kanor (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The "sound" of their personal correspondence or whether she had reasons to hide the relationship is pure speculation. Because you're drawing conclusions about their relationship based on circumstantial "evidence", not on the individuals themselves or on secondary, authoritative sources that would attest to the objective fact of such a relationship (the same applies to determining gender based on male clothing). Incidentally, I don't know why you interpreted the term "romantic friendship" as a reference to a romantic relationship; the term is used to describe passionate platonic relationships that would be considered too intense for friendship today, not literal romantic relationships. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Said sound is not my interpretation, it is literally pointed in the sources,

> the intimate endearments of Sand's correspondence with Dorval, while not different in kind from that customarily written between women friends of the time, express a passion not present in her letters to other women. Indeed, they imply that Dorval was the great love of Sand's life.

I presume you are aware that relationships between people of the same sex have been historically ostracized in western culture. Authors may find, as you put it, circumstantial evidence at most. So either we trust the experts in the field who interpret these traces, or we assume no one ever in history had a relationship other than the culturally-appropriate, heterosexual type. Kanor (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You're cited exactly the same assessment of people's relationships based on the "emotional side" of their correspondence. We can easily write that some authors found their correspondence passionate or homoerotic, but we can't describe it as fact just because someone found their correspondence too passionate. Not to mention that the source you cited is obviously biased on this issue. The argument that "at that time people had to hide their same-sex relationships, so the fact that Sand doesn't write about them openly means a priori that she hid them" is even more speculative. But let me remind you that this is not the place for a direct discussion of her sexuality. We can describe how a number of sources interpret their relationship in this way, but this is not a forum for speculation about the sexuality of historical figures. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Wearing men's attire in itself, in that era, was no indication of transsexuality or homosexuality. Precise sources would be needed to suggest either. Zaslav (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The term transsexuality is rather modern. It is well documented that she obtained a “transvestite pass”, and it is indeed in the sources. Now we know that the two of them are often linked, but we should at least be honest with the term used back then. Kanor (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

We're not writing this article for 19th-century readers. Wikipedia is a modern encyclopedia, so if we're writing about people of the past, we must provide the full context for things that might be misinterpreted by a modern reader. Based on secondary sources, of course. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I am slightly confused here: are you suggesting that we explain what being a “transvestite” back in the day means nowadays? Kanor (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I propose not to affix modern labels to historical figures based on our personal understanding of the historical labels that someone somehow associated with them. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Untitled

What on earth is a platonic affair? Whoever wrote that should re-write it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.107.131 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)