Talk:Non-binary gender/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Nonbinary vs Genderqueer

Hi! I'll bet this has been discussed over and over, so I want to ask before I propose a change - what exactly would be required for the page to be moved to Nonbinary? Would http://nonbinarystats.tumblr.com be considered a reliable source of information about how prevalent each term is in the nonbinary/genderqueer community over the last 4 years? --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 14:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The most recent discussion of this issue was a move proposal in June 2016, which closed as no consensus. Then and now, I support changing the page title to the more inclusive "Non-binary gender", and I hope one day we reach consensus for this move. Funcrunch (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh and on your specific question, Tumblr blogs are generally not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Funcrunch (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search (where hit counts are much more reliable and checkable than raw web searches) restricted to articles published since 2016 finds more articles using "non-binary" gender than "genderqueer" gender (the same is true for a search restricted to articles published since the start of 2017), which I seem to recall may not have been the case several years ago. All the news coverage I've seen has used "non-binary", as do the court decisions and California's proposed law recognizing non-binary people, although Google News (which unfortunately doesn't seem to give a way to count hits when restricting a search by date) shows that some articles still use "genderqueer". (A fraction of Scholar and News articles use both terms.) Since COMMONNAME is no longer an unequivocal argument for the current title (and indeed seems to support a move), perhaps a new RM is in order, or perhaps we should wait for the trendline to grow longer. (Whatever the article is titled, both names obviously merit mention in the lead, like at present.) -sche (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I proposed the page move last time, and it failed to obtain consensus. Despite suggestions that the page move was due to activism, this request will keep happening because of the increasing legal recognition of non-binary gender and increasing institutional support for "non-binary". Genderqueer is never going to be recognized in the same way because of concerns about the label queer. A new page, Legal recognition of non-binary gender exists, and it would make sense to harmonize the titles of different articles for consistency, per WP:CRITERIA. However, the distinction between genderqueer/non-binary and third gender is also unclear and will need to be resolved at some point. Trankuility (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of harmonizing pages, I note that the article List of people with non-binary gender identities was moved from List of people who identify as being genderqueer in June 2015 due to concerns about the self-identification of the individuals listed. Funcrunch (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that list also divides content into non-binary and third gender in a way that seems to distinguish effectively only between anglo and indigenous or non-western categories. The content of Legal recognition of non-binary gender focuses on recognition of all such identities. These distinctions make less and less sense to me. In other words, regarding non-binary as distinct from third gender increasingly seems like a form of U.S. or anglo exceptionalism, to me. Trankuility (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis, but my point was that it was decided "genderqueer" was an inappropriate or inadequate word to cover all of the people who one might expect to add to or find on a list of this type, because not all such people identify with that word explicitly. Though I must point out that this page move was not the result of an RfC; I proposed the move after some discussion, and Bluerasberry enacted it. Funcrunch (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that move, within in its context, and your analysis of non-binary and genderqueer. It is just that the later creation of a page on legal recognition helped me to understand that non-binary and third gender cannot be usefully distinguished. Trankuility (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That was one of my concerns last year, as shown by the italicized quote I cited below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe it would be better to send the non-binary redirect to Gender variance or Third gender. Or anyway review all of the redirects and pages for gender nonconformity. Trankuility (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Start an official WP:Requested moves discussion again. Last year, I argued that "genderqueer" is the common name. When Trankuility pointed to Google Scholar, I stated the following: Looking at that search, I question your "increasing number of articles for nonbinary gender" argument. In the case of those sources, non-binary gender is used side by side with the terms genderqueer, genderfluid, or gender-nonconforming, or it's used in passing, or it's used in a third gender context. What I'm seeing on Google Books and on Google Scholar is not enough to state that nonbinary or non-binary gender is as common, or close to as common, as genderqueer. One of those sources on Google Scholar is this 2015 "Sex and gender diversity among transgender persons in Ontario, Canada: results from a respondent-driven sampling survey" source, which states, "Genderqueer people (variously referred to as gender fluid, gender nonconforming, or nonbinary)." It uses genderqueer as the common name. Indeed, the literature shows that the terms genderqueer, genderfluid and transgender are the top three terms when it comes to a term that covers all non-binary gender identities. And since genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary genders, I do not see how this article is limited with regard to the non-binary aspect, except for keeping out detail that is better left to the Transgender, Third gender and Gender variance articles. So as for globalizing, this is not the Third gender article, and I fear that it will become as bloated as that article if it is retitled "Non-binary gender."

I feel the same about the matter as I did then. And that means that I don't trust Google Scholar as proof that "non-binary" is the common name in this case. Besides my arguments, EvergreenFir provided evidence that "genderqueer" is the common name.

I don't think much has changed since then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I also want to make clear that WP:COMMONNAME is not about what is most recent. It's about what is most prevalent. And we commonly avoid relying on what is most recent, per what the WP:Recentism essay/infopage notes. All that stated, I did note last year that I was on the fence about the move because I know that some people dislike the term genderqueer and/or object to being called genderqueer. I won't support any move of the article that is not the result of an official requested moves discussion, though. So Bluerasberry needs to follow protocol in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This UK/Scottish study of over 1400 people showed that, when asked "How would you describe your gender identity in English?", "non-binary" is favored by 62.9% of survey respondents, followed by "genderqueer" with 44.7% and "trans/transgender" on 37.3% - people were able to give more than one response, but, on "non-binary", "considering this was the term used to promote the survey, it is also possible that those who identify directly with it were more likely to participate". This lack of consensus is partly why naming this page is contentious.

Scottish Transgender Alliance (2016), Non-binary people’s experiences in the UK (PDF)

Trankuility (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's somewhat contentious (and I state "somewhat" because so many reliable sources and non-binary people use and support the term genderqueer), but Wikipedia is still supposed to use the most prevalent term for a title unless there is a very good reason not to. It's still the case that when I look at genderqueer on Google Books, I get a lot of sources for it, with a number of them using genderfluid or similar as a synonym or as a subset of the term genderqueer. When I look at non-binary on Google Books, I get far less uses of the term with regard to gender. The term non-binary gender is more useful than non-binary when it comes to researching gender in the literature, but that term is so often used with regard to third gender identities. And as for Google Scholar, I stand by what I quoted above. The way I am seeing things, genderqueer is still the common name, and (per my and your commentary above) there will be issues with naming this article "Non-binary" or "Non-binary gender." I don't see my opinion on this naming topic changing any time soon. Yes, the title of this article will keep coming up, but so do the titles of other articles (lately the Rachel Dolezal article), but we usually note past consensus on the matter and let the matter drop unless there is good evidence that the title should be reanalyzed with regard to WP:COMMONNAME or similar. We don't start a move discussion each time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A belated response / point of information about Google Books: other Wiktionarians and I who often track down 'proof' of words for wikt:WT:RFV have noticed that Google Books' 'predictions' of how many books it has found are, like its web result 'hit counts', often wrong: a search for some term or other that Google predicts will have N hits may only have half as many once you page through each page of results, and sometimes only half of those may actually use the word (for others, Google gives no snippet, and many of those are so far off-topic it strains credulity that they contain the word). We also notice that Google seems like it may be making fewer books (especially of the sort these particular words would be in) searchable; and it has even gone back and made some previously-visible books unsearchable.

When I searched for "genderqueer" a month ago, and then for "non-binary", restricting my search to 2015–to–now, I found barely 18 Google Books that used "genderqueer" and even fewer that used "non-binary"+gender, if I paged through the results to get the real count — which was and is two orders of magnitude less than the number of Scholar hits I saw for those terms over the same time period, suggesting that Google Books is indeed making a tinier section of the relevant recent literature searchable than Scholar is. Today, I find even fewer Books than I did last month, but roughly as many Scholar articles.

Hence, Google Books needs to be taken with salt when trying to judge the commonness of terms that seem (based on other data) to have changed absolute or relative commonness right during the period when Google Books' coverage is not as good. (Scholar, in turn, sometimes includes the same article several times if it appeared in several journals or sites.)

-sche (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Similar to the Scottish study, the National Center for Transgender Equality did a survey in 2015 of 27,715 trans and non-binary people in the US and found that 31% of respondents identified with the label "non-binary" and 29% identified with "genderqueer", with a lot of them identifying with both labels (a total of 35% of respondents identified with at least one of the two labels, the remaining 65% being the binary trans folk who were also surveyed). That survey was titularly "Transgender", so presumably both people who preferred "non-binary" and those who preferred "genderqueer" were equally likely to participate based on the name, as contrasted with the Scottish survey. -sche (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@-sche: I propose starting a new RfC on this page move. Increasing news coverage of legal recognition initiatives in the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere predominantly refer to "non-binary" and not "genderqueer". I know that Flyer22 Reborn has dismissed that as "recentism" but I disagree, and would like others to formally weigh in on this subject again as nearly a year has passed since the last formal page move request. Funcrunch (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to know when to start a new RM. As you allude to, some places have laws in the works to recognize non-binary people. The longer we've waited, the clearer it's become that non-binary is the more common and neutral term, and if the aforementioned laws pass in the coming months, news reports will likely use the same term "non-binary" as the laws, making things even clearer. OTOH, tensions might be higher then, too (news stories often attract not-as-dispassionate people). Still, my suggestion would be to wait a few months. It might be useful if we gathered a record of which reference works, courts/laws, and reliable news sources (and from when) use "non-binary", which use "genderqueer", and which use both (and which, if either, they use more)... and especially which use one term more broadly than the other, e.g. seeing "genderqueer" as a subset of "non-binary"... and also which [works mention that] people consider one term or the other offensive or problematic, since COMMONNNAME says that "when there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." -sche (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Non-binary" is not the more common term in the literature. It just isn't. And, as I've stated before, I have issues with over-reliance on new sources for a scholarly topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your insistence that this article is on a "scholarly" topic. This article does not cover medical issues or terminology, and doesn't go in-depth into the history of gender or anything else that I would consider "scholarly". Funcrunch (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Since when does "scholarly" equate to "medical"? The topic of genderqueer, just like the topic of third gender, is scholarly, as a number of academic sources show. The current state of the article is not a solid argument against the topic being scholarly. I don't understand the insistence that we should be giving most of our weight to media/news sources. We do not build Wikipedia articles on such sources, unless the topic is specifically or mainly a media topic, such as a television show or fictional character, or except for the occasional media source (especially in a section that is specifically about the media). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As for terminology, the article does, in fact, cover that. Expansion of that aspect is another matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not that one is used in the media and the other is predominantly academic, it is that nonbinary is the term currently before the Californian legislature. Trankuility (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand that this is one of the arguments, but WP:Due weight should still be a factor and it's mainly what I'm arguing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Re "We do not build Wikipedia articles on such sources" - Since the fall of 2016 I have been reading and editing a large number of articles related to the U.S. presidential election, and the majority of them are primarily built on media/news sources. And that's just one non-fictional, non-pop-culture example of a category of articles that is not primarily built from scholarly/academic sources. I argue that this - here referring to this specific article, not all articles regarding gender or transgender issues - is another. Funcrunch (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that this article be sourced entirely from news articles, just arguing against the idea that this particular article should be considered a scholarly topic. Funcrunch (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

And the U.S. presidential election mainly concerns media material. There is a lot about the most recent one that is not yet covered in scholarly sources. It is expected that presidential election articles and similar will mostly be made up of news sources. The same goes for a lot of material regarding the Barack Obama article, especially when one considers that these articles were built up before the material became available in scholarly sources and have not traded out the media/news sources for scholarly sources since. In the case of the Genderqueer article, the topic is covered in numerous academic sources and these sources are defining the term and topic, whereas the media/news sources are mainly focused on new laws, proposed laws, debates and similar. As I've already explained, "non-binary" is mostly a vague term in the literature. "Non-binary gender" is clearer and comes up with more material, but it is often meant to refer to third gender people. We should not rely so heavily on media/news source for this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

-sche, I disagree with the way you are comparing the Google Books results in this case. I just don't see how they should be taken with a grain of salt. I've noted why, and why also has to do with me visiting libraries for the topics at hand. Included in the research I've done is also the very valid point that "non-binary and third gender cannot be usefully distinguished"; look at the sources on this, as Trankuility and I have. This article would pretty much be a second Third gender article and there would be no strong rationale for keeping certain content out of this article and instead having it at the Third gender article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel that it should be enough when it's understood that GQ is not an umbrella term to begin with. I don't know a single non-binary person to call themselves that, and most people I know agree that that's not a term to use for someone without their explicit permission (similar to Q, or transsexual). Emeryradio (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, for its articles, it's not enough to claim that something is or isn't true based on personal experiences. WP:Reliable sources, WP:Due weight and other matters must be considered. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I really want to see this moved to non-binary gender personally, but as long as the sources don't match well enough, it's just no use. I'll wait another year. Thanks for frequently doing this kind of research, though. ~Mable (chat) 09:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Reading the introduction of Third gender, it becomes clear that third gender is mainly an anthropological term associated with non-Western cultures and not strictly the same as non-binary gender. Many third gender people see themselves, or are seen, as effectively binary, but gender non-conforming (e. g. feminine men or masculine women, or androgynous women and men, or what we would call trans women or men) or same-gender-loving (or both). Typically, third gender categories are not neatly congruent with Western gender and sexuality concepts at all. As for genderqueer, it is an older term than nonbinary, AFAIK, but is now increasingly understood to be but one non-binary gender identity label of many, less so an umbrella term, in my experience with actual nonbinary people (and the numerous Tumblr activist blogs and other resources written by actual nonbinary people). Julia Serano writes about genderqueer people in her books and she mentions that there's a specific subculture associated with them and most are TM spectrum (i. e., assigned female at birth), see here and here; that's the best source I can think of. But I guess we'll have to wait until the academic literature catches up. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, maybe I am overlooking this somewhere else on the talk page, although I see some discussion of it in the closed section below. However, are we considering one term overwrites another based on the outdated or trending term being used by mass media? Folks can choose to identify as one or several variations and combinations at any given time. It seems like these identities should be separate. Thanks. RadRemi (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, RadRemi. Yes, whether or not "one term overwrites another based on the outdated or trending term being used by mass media" was part of the discussion. I agree with you that "[f]olks can choose to identify as one or several variations and combinations at any given time." The article is titled what it is based on what I argued in the #Requested move 1 August 2017 discussion below. And do take note that I argued with WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia can't simply decide to keep the identities ("non-binary" and "genderqueer") separate when (putting the third gender aspect aside) they are so often used as synonyms and genderqueer is the more commonly used term for gender aspects that are considered non-binary. If you mean all of the additional terms, they fall under the "genderqueer" umbrella. Currently, some of them have Wikipedia articles and others don't. Per WP:No page, WP:No split and WP:Spinout, topics don't always need their own article. And there is also WP:Neologism to consider when it comes to terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2017

Please add the origin of the word 'genderqueer' which was coined by transgender activist Riki Wilchins. (I can be reached at wilchins@gmail.com / I also have a Wikipedia account but this page is locked so I cannot make the change myself.) -- RW Rikiwilchins (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Flyer22 reborn provided sourcing arguing from WP:COMMONNAME against a move, and pointed out that the arguments in favour of the move have not provided evidence based on sourcing that would demonstrate that non-binary would be the common name. Other users opposing also cited empirical data such as Google ngram in opposition. There were policy based supports as well (also citing COMMONNAME), but without providing sourcing to establish this as is typical in RM discussions. There was an alternative suggestion to keep this title at the current name, and move other pages and cut out part of this article: that is beyond the scope of the question at this RM, but also clouds the consensus on the issue. Numerically it is either a slight advantage to moving or tied depending on how you count the alternative suggestion. Discussions about moving other articles and/or trimming this one can take place in other venues. Given the lack of additional discussion after the last relist, I feel it would be unlikely to achieve more by relisting an additional time. Because of all these reasons, I am closing this RM as no consensus, with the page defaulting to staying at the current title. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Genderqueer → Non-binary gender – See the previous attempt for a really great explanation. "Non-binary" is a much better "catch-all" term for the many varieties of non-binary genders. "Genderqueer" is a pretty controversial term, both for including the word "queer", and for only really applying to, like, one of the many. Also, "non-binary" is probably the most common term for this stuff to be used, and has reeeally overtaken "genderqueer" in terms of popularity (and neutrality). Like, other pages (like Legal recognition or Discrimination) literally use "non-binary" to refer to this exact page in their own titles. In the words of Trankuility, "Genderqueer is a controversial title for this page, possibly because of inclusion of the word queer, or because it is only one of a number of possible non-binary gender identities. Using a neutral descriptor such as "non-binary" may not be supported by a larger number of reliable references (per previous talk page discussions), however it may reduce that controversy and provide for the better selection of appropriate page content. Non-binary gender is currently one of a number of redirect pages pointing to Genderqueer. Alternative page names may be better than Non-binary gender." That just about sums it up. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 17:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support. After the exhausting discussion at WT:LGBT which is still not resolved (though it is a merge discussion, debating the target page name became part of that), I'm not sure I have the energy to rehash all the reasons I support this move. But to summarize, I feel that non-binary is a better word than genderqueer to encompass all genders that are not exclusively male or female. Though both words have been used as umbrella terms, non-binary is a more neutral term that does not have the word "queer" in it, which some people (still) find stigmatizing. Funcrunch (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Also noting for relevance to this discussion: My recent post at Categories for Discussion resulted in consensus to create a new Category:People with non-binary gender identities as a parent of Category:Genderqueer people. I moved articles about people who did not explicitly identify as genderqueer into the parent non-binary category. Funcrunch (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion: I was also part of the discussion at WP:LGBT that Funcrunch mentioned, and I'm also tired of the continual debate. However, as a result of that discussion, I favor instead renaming and expanding the article Legal recognition of non-binary gender to Non-binary gender, or pointing Non-binary gender to that page, or, while there is no agreement on either of those, pointing Non-binary gender instead to Gender variance. Unlike genderqueer, which contains connotations of fluidity and resistance to gender norms, non-binary gender is a neutral term that has gained prominence through use in legal contexts. The legal recognition aspects on the page Genderqueer should be removed (that material is only present because "non-binary" points here), and Genderqueer should be a simple description of what is clearly a distinct and WP:Notable gender identity. Trankuility (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I would support this alternative of keeping Genderqueer as a standalone article about a distinct gender identity, assuming changes were made to the lead (and elsewhere) to reflect this framing, and also to acknowledge that it has been used by some as an umbrella term equivalent to non-binary. Funcrunch (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Support with the additional suggestion that the title be "Non-binary genders" (plural) as someone suggested in the aforementioned merge discussion, to be clear that it is an umbrella page for all genders outside the two binary ones, and not one gender called "non-binary". I am also okay with Trankuility's alternative suggestion above. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pfhorrest Pluralizing it would seem to limit the scope of the article so as to exclude people "having no gender", despite that being a category mentioned in the lede. (Granted, that seems to conflict with the first sentence, which defines genderqueer as a "catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍", which also doesn't include people with no gender (unless they consider "having no gender" to be a gender identity, which I would expect to be specified if that were the intended meaning, although that assumption may be affected by that I personally have neither a gender nor a gender identity).) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 03:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. On Google Trends, genderqueer has an edge over non-binary by a 41 to 24 margin -- not that there's anything wrong with that.[1] Whiff of greatness (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Google Trends clearly shows much higher usage for "genderqueer" than "non-binary", so WP:COMMONNAME would mandate that "Genderqueer" be used. The fact that a term is controversial is no reason for it to not be used, per WP:NOTCENSORED. Not adding "(PBUH)" after Muhammad offends many people, as does the lack of "Christ" after Jesus, yet we don't actively try to sate adherents of Islam and Christianity by modifying the terms we use. I hate to say this, but Wikipedia serves the needs of the general public, not the needs of people who find the word "queer" offensive. feminist 15:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  I find this to be a straw man argument, based not only on an assumption that genderqueer and non-binary are synonyms (an assumption in the requested move, and one that I have previously held), but also because offence does lead to changes to word usages. The terms Transsexualism and Transgenderism have been disappearing from page titles on lesser grounds. Example: Legal aspects of transsexualism in the United States. Trankuility (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  My point is, assuming "genderqueer" and "non-binary gender" refer to the same topic, the topic should be located at "genderqueer" not "non-binary gender" because of higher usage for the term "genderqueer". If "genderqueer" and "non-binary gender" are different topics perhaps we should have separate articles under each title, an approach I am fine with. feminist 13:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME, When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. Over the course of time, we've seen been good-faith objections to "Genderqueer" as not all-encompassing, not neutral, and potentially offending; I wouldn't enter into debate whether they are justified, but as the searches show, usage is roughly split, so I don't see that we have favor slightly more often used Genderqueer, when a neutral alternative, favored by scientific and legal literature on the subject. No such user (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Striking my vote per evidence brought forward by Flyer22 Reborn. I won't oppose either, but their analysis made me reconsider, and I wouldn't like to contribute reaching an uninformed decision. No such user (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:Common name. First, editors have offered no proof other than their own belief or experience that the term genderqueer is offensive and/or non-neutral. They (a few of them) state that it's offensive or non-neutral over and over again with no evidence. Second, Google Ngram and Google Trends show that "genderqueer" is the common name; see here and here. Also see this this statement by another editor for why genderqueer is the common name. As I stated in the recent merge discussion, this is why there is a lot more to work with from sources using genderqueer as the umbrella term. Media/news sources that use the term non-binary gender are focusing on legal aspects regarding non-binary people, or a personal story, or some celebrity, or a fictional character; they usually are not focused on discussing the different non-binary terms and the non-binary issues. This is in stark contrast to scholarly sources addressing the non-binary topic by using the term genderqueer. It's even in stark contrast to media sources using the term genderqueer. For example, this 2015 "What the Heck Is Genderqueer?" source from Slate magazine, which addresses the non-binary topic as a whole. It also calls non-binary "the somewhat newer and less politicized term." Sure, it states "less politicized," but this doesn't mean that the term is offensive or that it's very controversial. Another example is this 2015 "There’s Transgender and Then There’s Genderqueer" source from Newsweek. So I repeat: If non-binary or non-binary gender is to eclipse genderqueer in usage, with regard to western gender identities, it is our job to wait until it does. Wikipedia follows; it does not lead.

• Many sources that use the term genderqueer are focused on discussing the different non-binary terms and the non-binary issues issues. Retitling the article "Non-binary gender" is problematic because of the "third gender" and "non-binary gender" overlap; there literally is no solid way to distinguish the term third gender from the term non-binary gender, which would mean that would be arbitrarily keeping third gender content out of this article or end up with an article that is wholly redundant to the Third gender article. Genderqueer is the far more prevalent term in the literature covering western gender identities. If we want to expand on the topic from a terminology standpoint and with regard to other issues, genderqueer is the term to look under. If we look at genderqueer on Google Books, we get a lot of sources for it, with a number of them using genderfluid or similar as a synonym or as a subset of the term genderqueer. When we look at non-binary on Google Books, we get far less uses of the term with regard to gender. The term non-binary gender is more useful than non-binary when it comes to researching gender in the literature, but that term is so often used with regard to third gender identities. And, again, per WP:Alternative title, the genderqueer term would still be in the lead. So it seems to me that the only argument to move "Genderqueer" to "Non-binary gender" is because some people would rather not be called "genderqueer," but this is not a guideline or policy-based reason. I don't see any proof that non-binary is more common than genderqueer in common parlance. I don't see that the title "Genderqueer" is an obstacle, other than people who object to being called genderqueer. But we are not supposed to judge the title of our articles based on what some people may object to, except for some WP:NPOVTITLE cases. I do not think that "Genderqueer" can be validly argued as a WP:NPOVTITLE violation. All these other terms are already mentioned in the Genderqueer article as genderqueer identities anyway. Also compare "genderqueer umbrella term" to "non-binary umbrella term" and "non-binary gender umbrella term." On a side note, I will be alerting the WP:Common name talk page, the WP:Neutral talk page, and a number of WikiProjects to this discussion for wider input. and WP:Village pump (miscellaneous). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not convinced these are identical concepts; indeed I think the redirect may serve as a better target elsewhere or as a DAB page or even as a different article in its own right. --Jayron32 01:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32, having "non-binary gender" be its own article has been considered, but I don't see any way that the topic is distinct from the genderqueer or third gender topic. Sure, the term non-binary has been used to refer to legal cases, but the concept of "non-binary gender" is not distinct from genderqueer or third gender. The term non-binary gender is either used as a synonym/alternative term for genderqueer or third gender, but more so the latter. See the Slate source I linked to above for one mention of the interchangeability. A Non-binary gender article would end up being a WP:Content fork violation. And on top of that, we also have the Transgender article (which notes that transgender is an umbrella term for non-binary gender identities) and we have the Gender variance article. Since the term transgender is used strictly in addition to being used as an umbrella term, it's best that non-binary and non-binary gender don't redirect there. I noted before that I support non-binary and non-binary gender redirecting to the Gender variance article, and this is also suggested above; gender variance is a broader topic while the Genderqueer article is mainly a term article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: In my (obviously WP:OR) experience, I have met dozens or at least tens of people who identify as non-binary, and zero who identify as genderqueer. I don't believe the two terms to be identical at all, but this may be a regional or generational variation. Judging by the sources Flyer22 Reborn has collected below (thank you), genderqueer seems to be used as an umbrella term containing the subsets non-binary and genderfluid, inter alia. This is also how I interpret the term, but I recuse from opining on this RM. Snuge purveyor (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand the different experiences, and I thank you for not letting your experience bias this move request. In comparison to your experience, it's either been opposite or middle ground for me. Yes, genderqueer is an umbrella term for non-binary gender identities, but the sources that actually take the time to define the term non-binary or non-binary gender also make it clear that non-binary or non-binary gender is an umbrella term for non-binary gender identities. When not taking third gender information into account, the terms are completely defining the same topic. But my issues with using non-binary or non-binary gender as the title of this article are what I stated above and below. We can validly redirect non-binary and non-binary gender to the Gender variance article (which is a broader topic) and remove it as the WP:Alternative name for this article. Gender variance is just another term for "gender non-conforming," and sources note that "gender non-conforming" is a very broad topic. This 2013 "Gender Identity" source, from The Rosen Publishing Group, page 16, which I included below, for example, states, "'Gender nonconforming' is a very broad term, as strictly speaking it encompasses any behavior and interest that is not in line with the traditional notion of a given gender. Nearly every person will be gender nonconforming at one point or another, be it a husband who cooks a meal for his wife or a woman who likes to watch sports." The "a husband who cooks a meal for his wife or a woman who likes to watch sports" piece is a very outdated view, though. But then again, the notion of a tomboy is based on such things when it comes to girls. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I'm not sold that "genderqueer" is such an overwhelming common-name to outweigh the usage of "non-binary" in the likes of law. "Non-binary" appears to have plenty of common use anyway. SnowFire (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: For a better understanding of what I mean when it comes to the genderqueer term and how it specifically covers non-binary history, issues, and explicitly all of the other identities mentioned in the article, I'm going to list some sources here:

Sources using the term genderqueer, from 2009 to 2017

1. This 2009 "Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volumes 1-2", from Sage Publications, page 402, states, "First widely used in the late 1990s, genderqueer is an identity adopted by individuals who characterize themselves as neither female nor male, as both, or as somewhere in between. [...] Genderqueer is an identity more frequently embraced by younger gender nonconforming people, ensuring that the crossing and blurring of gender lines will continue to become more visible and likely more accepted." The source goes on to cover the topic in depth, including taking note of expression, appearance and pronouns. 2. This 2012 "Transgender 101: A Simple Guide to a Complex Issue" source, from Columbia University Press, page 115, states, "We are going to start out with genderqueer because the term is growing in popularity to describe, for the most part, people who feel that they are in between male and female or are neither male nor female." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 3. This 2013 "Gender Identity" source, from The Rosen Publishing Group, page 16, states, "'Genderqueer' is a term growing in popularity. It refers to people who feel that they are neither completely male nor female but in between." 4. This 2014 "German Feminist Queer Crime Fiction: Politics, Justice and Desire" source, from McFarland, page 179, states, "The term genderqueer references practices and embodiments that do not exclusively inhabit the territory conventionally described as male or female or that fall outside of gender norms altogether." 5. This 2015 "What the Heck Is Genderqueer?" source from Slate states, "Genderqueer, along with the somewhat newer and less politicized term nonbinary, are umbrella terms intended to encompass individuals who feel that terms like man and woman or male and female are insufficient to describe the way they feel about their gender and/or the way they outwardly present it. The term genderqueer was originally coined in the 1990s to describe those who 'queered' gender by defying oppressive gender norms in the course of their binary-defying activism. Members of the genderqueer community differentiate themselves from people who are transgender (itself originally intended as an umbrella term), because that word has come to refer primarily to people who identify with the binary gender different from the one they were assigned in infancy." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 6. This 2015 "There's Transgender and Then There's Genderqueer" source from Newsweek states, "People who describe themselves as genderqueer often feel that the gender binary (boy OR girl, woman OR man) is too limiting to describe their experience of gender. [...] For many people, the concept of genderqueer remains something of an enigma. This is, in part, because 'genderqueer' means different things to different people. Some genderqueer people think of themselves as living between the binary genders; some as living outside the binary genders; and others reject the idea of binary gender altogether, seeing it as something to be challenged, stretched or played with. Genderqueer can enable individuals to flexibly explore their gender over time, experimenting and changing as they go, but it can also describe a steady sense of sitting somewhere in between the traditional binary boxes." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 7. This 2016 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies" source, from Sage Publications, page 460, states, "The concept of being genderqueer is not currently well understood within most Western cultures. Genderqueer is a term that typically describes one of three gender identity categories: (1) an individual who feels their identity falls in between male and female, (2) an individual who may feel male or female at distinct times, or (3) an individual who rejects gender completely. The following terms may be used by individuals who feel that their gender identity falls somewhere in between male and female: gender variant, intergender, androgene, genderfluid and pangender (this list is constantly growing and changing, so these are several examples of a longer list). [...] Because there is a lack of popular culture understanding of genderqueer identity, most individuals who feel genderqueer do not have the terminology or the understanding of what is going on internally to communicate with others about how they are feeling regarding their gender identity." 8. This 2016 "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Healthcare: A Clinical Guide to Preventive, Primary, and Specialist Care" source, from Springer, page 8, states, "'Genderqueer'—an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of genders. This term can include those who feel like they fit outside of a gender binary of male vs. female, as well as individuals who consider themselves to have multiple genders or no gender at all." 9. This 2016 "Sex, Sexuality, Law, and (In)justice" source, from Routledge, page 27, gives a glossary listing; it states, "Gender queer: Used by individuals who reject categories of gender altogether and wish to claim a space outside the traditional gender binary." 10. This 2017 "Affirmative Counseling with LGBTQI+ People" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 217, states, "An individual who identifies as genderqueer is 'a person whose gender identity is neither man nor woman, is between or beyond genders, or is a combination of typical prescribed gender roles and/or expressions' (UCB, 2015, 'genderqueer'). [...] Genderqueer persons may also identify with terms such as bigender, androgynous, gender fluid, gender nonconforming, gender diverse, pangender, and/or nonbinary." The source goes on to talk about genderqueer issues. 11. This 2017 "LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons for Policy, Practice, and Research" source, from University of California Press, page 22, states, "[G]enderqueer [is] an umbrella term for gender identities other than male or female." 12. This 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 1934 states, "Genderqueer is a term that began to circulate within sexual and gender minority communities in the late 1990s and encompasses nonbinary gender expressions and identities. While gender is commonly conceptualized as feminine or masculine, with binary identities of women and men, genderqueer individuals defy and reconstruct these notions of gender and generate nonbinary gender identities and gender expressions. Being an umbrella term, genderqueer can take on different meanings for different individuals." The source goes on to address appearance/surgery issues and pronoun issues.

• So except for the Slate source, which focuses on the word genderqueer, there are no sources using the term non-binary or non-binary gender to cover the history, and there are not as many sources using the term non-binary or non-binary gender to cover the other aspects either. There are a few, but they are usually brief, with most of them in a glossary or presented glossary-style. Otherwise, they are like this 2016 "The Conscious Parent's Guide to Gender Identity: A Mindful Approach to Embracing Your Child's Authentic Self" source, from Simon and Schuster, page 34, which lists both "genderqueer" and "non-binary" under "non-binary identities," or they are covering the third gender topic, which is mainly about non-western gender identities. So it's clear that genderqueer is the more clearly defined term, and if this article is to be encyclopedic, and also not an article that mixes in a lot of third gender content, most of the sources will be using the term genderqueer instead of non-binary or non-binary gender anyway. With regard to law, the term non-binary or non-binary gender also is not being defined; these laws are mainly using terms such as "X" (while news sources are using the "non-binary" descriptor); see the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article for what I mean about the "X" or similar designation. Either way, we have the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article specifically for legal cases. The sources I've listed and Google Trends do not indicate that genderqueer is an outdated term or is declining in popularity; they indicate just the opposite. If I saw that the term was outdated or often considered offensive, I would be interested in addressing that, just like I did with the term transvestite. So I ask editors, including No such user and SnowFire, to keep all of this in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

History Section

I am wondering what would be thought about moving the paragraph starting with "Some genderqueer people are medically treated for gender . . . " to the History section? Jenmom1973 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it is somewhat awkward to have the medical treatment sentence where it is. I think that it could definitely do better in history, but also might be more relevant in the section on discrimination as that part discusses other elements of nonbinary folks and their interaction with the medical system. Ballinm (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Creating a Public Perception/Usage Section?

Hello. I edited the "Definitions and Identity" section today to help increase clarity, but couldn't help but notice that much of the content was focused less on personal identity and more on external labeling or use of the word "genderqueer." I wonder if it wouldn't be more appropriate for there to be a section in which that could be discussed separately so that it is more clear to the reader how folks who identify as nonbinary or genderqueer self identify and how people use the term to label others. This new section would include the information on how the word trans is used to include genderqueer people as well as the section about androgyny and the use of the term to refer to those who do not appear to be male or female to others. Ballinm (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Ballinm, given that we have a "Definitions and identity" section, I don't see the need for yet another usage section. A "Public perception" section would be fine so long as it does not focus heavily on terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Hi, all. The first line of this article has pretty clearly been vandalized with that "attention-seeking" business. I can't change it, but somebody should. So much for "semi-protected," eh? 174.24.123.130 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted --Versageek

Genderless

I got an opinion that everyone born genderless, so it is not exactly a type of genderqueer. 31.154.8.98 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to discuss your opinions at your talk page, but not here, because this page is not used for general discussion about the topic, but exclusively for discussing how to improve the article. See WP:TALK. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Scientific Support ?

I just wanted to recommend that this article include a science section that details the psychological case studies, or other evidence that has been found to support the existence of gender non-binary people. I think this is relevant since it has recently become a fairly contentious issue (see Jordan Peterson) as to whether or not there being more than 2 genders is even possible. And generally its useful for anyone interested in the subject. I don't know where those would be found, but hopefully some editor here might.

192.0.162.183 (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent move

❃Adelaide❃, regarding this move that you were reverted on by No such user, it's not simply "an old discussion." It was just last year. Do read Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 4#Requested move 1 August 2017, and see the sources I provided that support not moving the article. With regard to the literature, nothing has changed since that 2017 discussion. And repeatedly having the same discussion with no proof of a change among sources can be disruptive. In the future, do not make article moves that are likely to be contested unless there is consensus for the move. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

And do keep in mind that, as noted in that move discussion, Google Ngram and Google Trends also support not moving the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

Under symbols, there is a description of the nonbinary flag that is labeled "Non-binary pride flag". There shouldn't be a hyphen in the word nonbinary. Theradicalace (talk) 07:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

"Non-binary" is hyphenated in the article and throughout Wikipedia. The hyphenated version sees wide use and is equally correct. --Equivamp - talk 08:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - in En.Wikipedia there are 648 articles with the hyphen and 114 without - Arjayay (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-binary needs to be better explained in order to be understood.

There are so many articles written about non-binary genders popping up around the Internet, but they don't really help elucidate the matter. Wikipedia is no different. What does the "History" section even mean? I thought sexuality and gender identity were separate. Many non-binary folks are what most would assume to be "straight" and have partners who are cisgender and straight. So what does this even mean? And doesn't this section refer mostly to gender roles, as if being non-binary merely reinforces gender roles? So what is non-binary then? This is an encyclopedia and yet it doesn't even give encyclopedic knowledge. And isn't Genderqueer more of a political term? Not everybody likes being referred to as "queer" or has a connection to "queerness" if they're non-binary. 2601:98A:400:82F8:3445:208F:28DA:C3A1 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Not all, or most, non-binary folks identify as trans, either. Some non-binary folks are transgender, but not all or even most. Just throwing that out there. 2601:98A:400:82F8:3445:208F:28DA:C3A1 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

We go by what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. The article needs work, but we still go by what the sources state. What WP:Reliable sources state that "many non-binary folks are what most would assume to be 'straight' and have partners who are cisgender and straight"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Separate Article For Nonbinary

I am a nonbinary trans person. Within that subsection of the trans community we are currently trying to discourage the use of "genderqueer" as the umbrella term. I know I personally am not "genderqueer"; I'm nonbinary. The history of usage with the two terms also has a difference. My work on these articles is both personally motivated, and motivated by the fact that when I try to educate people in real life about what I mean when I call myself nonbinary, there is no official wikipedia page for that. A redirect is insufficient and also, erases the very real difference between the two! If anything, nonbinary should be the major article and genderqueer should be what gets redirected. It is not the primarily used term. Nor is it accurate. I promise you, as an actual nonbinary trans person, this is a change I'd really like to make. I would love to head this project myself if possible, and would love for both articles to co-exist. Thank you for your consideration.

Hologramvin (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hologramvin, read Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 4#Requested move 1 August 2017, and see the sources I provided that support not moving the article or having two separate articles per WP:POVFORK. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC) If you're basing this off of google trends "nonbinary" is currently more popular than "genderqueer". And when you combine both the hyphenated and non hyphenated usage, they double above "genderqueer". I also just went and added "nonbinary gender" as well as the hyphenated version of that phrase which only adds to my point. I am also running a poll that has been going for four days on twitter where I have a large primarily trans following and more people voted to see the results than voted "I use genderqueer".Hologramvin (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hologramvin, per the sources I listed in that move discussion, I am not simply going by Google Trends or the like. The literature treats these terms as synonyms. And per WP:Content fork, especially WP:POV FORK, we should not have two articles on the same thing. There is also a lot more history with the term genderqueer (with regard to western gender identities) than there is with the term non-binary or non-binary gender. Like I stated in the aforementioned move discussion, "Many sources that use the term genderqueer are focused on discussing the different non-binary terms and the non-binary issues. Retitling the article 'Non-binary gender' is problematic because of the third gender and non-binary gender overlap; there literally is no solid way to distinguish the term 'third gender' from the term 'non-binary gender', which would mean that [we] would be arbitrarily keeping third gender content out of this article or end up with an article that is wholly redundant to the Third gender article. 'Genderqueer' is the far more prevalent term in the literature covering western gender identities. If we want to expand on the topic from a terminology standpoint and with regard to other issues, 'genderqueer' is the term to look under." But, yes, I did note Google Books, adding that "if we look at genderqueer on Google Books, we get a lot of sources for it, with a number of them using genderfluid or similar as a synonym or as a subset of the term genderqueer. When we look at non-binary on Google Books, we get far less uses of the term with regard to gender. The term non-binary gender is more useful than non-binary when it comes to researching gender in the literature, but that term is so often used with regard to third gender identities." Look at what I argued, and especially my last comment in that move discussion, where I listed sources and how they define these terms. The results have not changed, although there are a few more "non-binary gender" books on Google Books since the last big discussion about this. Take the time to look at those "non-binary" and "non-binary gender" sources on Google Books, and you will see what I mean with regard to their limitation and how few of them there are, and some (the ones without "gender" in their title) not even being about gender. I additionally made it clear that, "With regard to law, the term non-binary or non-binary gender also is not being defined; these laws are mainly using terms such as 'X' (while news sources are using the 'non-binary' descriptor); see the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article for what I mean about the 'X' or similar designation." So, no, having a separate "Non-binary" or "Non-binary gender" article would not be helpful and moving the article to "Non-binary" or "Non-binary gender" would not be helpful, except to those who personally take offense to being called "genderqueer." You need to take the time read up on and understand our rules. Twitter polls, for example, are not WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

In any case, I see that I need to begin expanding this article with the genderqueer material I cited in the aforementioned move discussion to make it even clearer to readers and editors that "genderqueer" and "non-binary gender" will be treated under one article, and why that article's title is Genderqueer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why people who aren't nonbinary refuse to listen to what actual nonbinary people are telling them but okay. No one can be legally genderqueer but several states and countries are expanding to legally recognize people who are nonbinary like me. Kind of feels like thats more solid than "genderqueer" but I digress. And yes, I'm well aware that it's not a reliable source, but it's very difficult to document this stuff. I'm currently collecting better sources than that for my argument, but I'm telling you right now "genderqueer" is not the term used by the community and it's not the umbrella term. It's just not!

Hologramvin (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not what reliable sources state, and enough of them have been in direct contact with the genderqueer/non-binary community. Some are genderqueer/non-binary or otherwise part of the LBGT community. As for the legal argument, I already addressed that above and pointed to the legal article for it. So if you plan to gather a bunch of legal sources, that will not help your cause. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And besides seeing and hearing enough people identify as genderqueer outside of Wikipedia, some of our editors identify as genderqueer by using the User:UBX/genderqueer userbox. But here at Wikipedia, we go by what WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight, not personal experiences. Read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Alright, what documents, sources, and arguments would you like that might change your mind? I've got a team of people (academics and not) who would really like to resolve this issue.

Hologramvin (talk) 04:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Look again to what I stated above. You need to read WP:Due weight. The vast majority of reliable sources do not distinguish between genderqueer and non-binary (or non-binary gender), and most of the academic sources are with the term genderqueer. The legal sources are not even defining "non-binary" or "non-binary gender." They are mainly going with "X" or similar designations, and we already have a legal article for that topic. As for your own personal team of academics, unless they meet WP:Reliable sources, they don't count. Also read WP:Conflict of interest in that regard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, we'll try to meet those standards best we can. I want you to know though, using the hyphen in nonbinary (you write it as non-binary) is primarily a UK or European thing. Most US nonbinary people like me don't use the hyphen. That may be affecting some of your research. Hologramvin (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You have no reliable sources for that claim either. The reliable sources don't back it up. The sources often use the hyphen. And, no, the hyphen is not affecting my research. It's the same without it. In fact, if I don't have quotation marks around the term "non-binary" or "non-binary gender," not using the hyphen has Google trying to correct me. Also, I'm from the United States. Still there now. I don't know what else to state to you on this matter. But maybe Mathglot is willing to give it a shot if needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hologramvin:, I've read the discussion thus far, and I hear the passion behind what you are saying, and suspect there may be some frustration that goes along with it. I know about the lack of recognition and visibility that non-binary people are faced with, and I imagine this issue must trigger feelings of invisibility or identity erasure that mirror those in society, perhaps painfully so. And with this knowledge, and with all the good will in the world for your feelings, as well as respect for your argumentative position, I must say that I am not persuaded that this article should be renamed or split at this time, since I don't think the written evidence supports it.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia's policy is clear: in naming an article we are to use a commonly recognizable name, as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. This must be verifiable by reliable, third-party, published sources. Examples include [u]niversity-level textbooks, [b]ooks published by respected publishing houses, [j]ournals, and [m]ainstream newspapers. This last bit is important, because notice that these are all published, written, sources.

If you have followed the terminology evolution going on in all things gender as it seems clear you have, then you are no doubt aware of how rapidly things are changing in this arena, and that is a complicating factor right from the start, because this question might be resolved differently a year or two from now than it would be today. Another complicating factor is that change in written language generally follows change in speech, and Wikipedia's content is a trailing indicator and follows change in published, written language, and often trails spoken language by years. This means that some expressions may be entirely commonplace at, say, universities and even more so in queer circles within the university, for years before the written word catches up, if it ever does. This causes a natural tension between the language people use every day, and the terms Wikipedia uses, and accounts for the fact that this may even seem like a generational divide to some, especially those who have their finger on the pulse of the bleeding edge of change, and are not particularly concerned or impressed about what sober journals and academic tomes may be saying about some subject they hear about from their peers on a daily basis. However it is precisely that published body of work that governs wikipedia's usage, not the innumerable individual discussions and group meetings that use the more up-to-date expressions every day.

Another complicating factor is in the data gathering. Interpreting search counts, trends, ngrams, and other data can be tricky. Where we agree, is that nonbinary (in all its flavors) by itself is more common than genderqueer; perhaps by a larger margin than you suspected. But that analysis is flawed, because you have plenty of "non-binary algorithms" but no "genderqueer algorithms". (Well, there is one example of the latter on the internet!) And if you look at what's happening to the curves in that graph, genderqueer shot up from nowhere starting around 1992, whereas non-binary has lost ground in that same period. In fact, if you look at the top ten words following the term non-binary in Google books, they are: (codes, BCH, and, data, code, block, variables, symbols, case, numbers) none of which are about people. This is just to point out that comparing these counts and data can be trickier than one would imagine at first blush. I'll leave you with this one to interpret as you see fit.

Where I disagree with you, is in the appeal to personal motivation, as in, this is a change I'd really like to make, or unscientific polling online, or in this comment: I don't understand why people who aren't nonbinary refuse to listen to what actual nonbinary people are telling them, or unsupported claims about data: I'm telling you right now genderqueer is not the term used by the community and it's not the umbrella term. None of this is helpful, and in my view, hurts your case a bit, because it makes it seems like you are more concerned with righting great wrongs in society, than upholding Wikipedia's policies. And your comment, I've got a team of people (academics and not) who would really like to resolve this issue, sounds--I don't know, what are you trying to say there? It seems like you're stating the goal of an activist group, and you're trying to figure out how to influence Wikipedia to toe that line; but as Flyer pointed out, that doesn't count for anything here.

Personally, I find having to choose between genderqueer and non-binary a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Where genderqueer seems to belong more to the spoken realm to me, non-binary can be spoken and also be used in academia, and thus straddles the spoken-written boundary; so to that extent, I would agree that non-binary is a more "logical" choice, if we were choosing based on logic. But, we don't; we simply assess what the reliable sources say, and do that. That said, I'm perfectly willing to believe that non-binary may prevail at some point, but since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and since Wikipedia doesn't lead, it follows, we should wait until the data incontrovertibly demonstrate that, before changing the title.

Paging Funcrunch who may understand your point of view even better than I do, and have something to add here. Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thanks for the ping but I no longer have the energy to participate in these discussions. Funcrunch (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hologramvin:, fam, as an actual nonbinary and genderqueer person, please listen to me when I ask that you not represent your view as that of all GQ and/or NB people and related "subsection[s] of the trans communit[ies]". EvergreenFir (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)