This study investigates the gendered poetics of Ottoman Divan poetry, which has for long been acknowledged as a tradition of poetry written in a masculine language, and questions the validity of this prolonged belief. Focusing on Leylâ Hanım, a 19th century female poet, this study examines whether it is true, in agreement with the popular belief, that female poets reproduced the so-called masculine language of Divan poetry and did not produce a poetics of their own, or it is possible to argue the opposite. Based on observations of the female voice/discourse/language in Divan poetry, the study explores Leylâ Hanım’s Divan and asks if there are peculiarities that distinguish Leylâ Hanım from her male contemporaries. The female discourse, in this study, is not an equivalent of the common feminist idea of a female language that aims to conquer the male language to develop a language peculiar to women, but it is identical to passivity. Dualistic pairs with gendered meanings in Divan poetry are examined in this study, in terms of the female hegemony over the male. Using these pairs as a starting point, the traditional masculinity of Divan poetry is then questioned and it is concluded that, contrary to the established belief, we can talk about a female discourse in Divan poetry. Taking into account the hierarchical pair lover-beloved, and considering the hegemony of the beloved over the lover, the passivity in the discourse of the lover is examined. Following these observations, this study delves into the depths of Leylâ Hanım’s Divan and questions if she utilized the traditional mazmuns of Divan poetry so as to produce a female discourse. Leylâ Hanım’s poetry has a female discourse in core, because she uses the established female discourse of male poets which is made ready to her. In some poems, Leylâ Hanım identifies herself with Leila, of the famous couple Leila and Mejnun, trespassing on the domain of the beloved and therefore violating the passive female discourse of the male poets of the Divan poetry, who identified themselves with the position of the lover, but this identification can also be interpreted as an attempt to put an emphasis on the female subject, and to make femininity more salient. Identifying oneself with Mejnun in a framework where female hegemony over the male persists, implies accepting the discourse of passivity (which in this study corresponds to the female language) and identifying with Leila in the same framework, implies an attempt to form “a new female discourse.”