My point is the information in the piece implies just short of stating the lesbianism. To anyone for whom that identification matters the identification is obvious. Are you protesting that heterosexual women who act like lesbians but are not actually lesbians are besmirched by this article that describes blatant lesbian characterics without using the word?
Maybe it would be easy to guess or figure out, but that's not the point. A reporter is supposed to give an explanation for bizarre things that come up in his story--not to leave them unexplained and make the reader guess at what should have been included as a obvious fact.
The point is that this reporter or his editor deliberately contorted himself in ten different ways to avoid mention of these women's sexual deviancy, as if it were not the least bit relevant. It's like the 10,000 lb. gorilla in the room. Tell us why they are prima facie such weird people (especially "Dad") and let US decide if it's relevant to the fact that they are evil, cruel sadists who get a kick out of kicking 10-year old boys in the balls and making them eat feces.