Talk:Non-binary gender/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Stub

This doesn't seem to be a stub. Is it OK to remove the stub notice?

I removed the stub notice, as I agree that it's no longer a stub. --Mairi 04:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources needed

I added the "unreferenced" tag because there's a lot of interesting material in this article, but no discernable reliable source for any of it. It has an additional urgency for Wikipedia in that some editors are identifying themselves as genderqueer, making a properly-sourced article even more useful. (Indeed, that's how I find my way here — attempting to determine an acceptable third-person pronoun for one so identified.)

I found the following when I checked on the two current external links:

• Androgyne Online responded with a "HTTP Server Error 503: No available server to handle this request". Its current Alexa rank is 16,402, making it a promising source if it can be made to work.
• GenderQueer Revolution, on the other hand, is a working site, but seems to be only a year old and doesn't even have an Alexa rank — not promising as a reliable source (by WP definitions).

Once solid sources are obtained, it might be a good idea to add some specific links to pages that provide source material, perhaps using footnotes in a References section. This is true of (and needed by) articles in general, not just this one. Thanks for any assistance on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Androgyne Online is working now, as far as I can tell. Also, it may be easier to use a Gender-neutral pronoun when talking about any Genderqueer editors.

--Malise 01:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the unreferenced and uncited tags back. I also believe in the potential of this article (like all articles it can be stronger). However, there are certain points I'd be interested to see explored and backed-up. I know from my own searching that it's hard to find much scholarly information on queer identities, so this article may be a long work in progress. At the very least though, can't we work on reducing the amount of "some people" in the entry. Rugadh 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I've been looking through the category structure under LGBT and have been really confused by the organization. I suppose this has to do broadly with editors adding whichever category makes the most sense to them. My question though is what are the most helpful categories to list genderqueer under? Keeping in mind that wikipedia (usually) prefers adding the most specific categories possible [1]. I have the same question about most of the trans related entries but that's a discussion for another talk page. - Rugadh 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So Americans make up most of the genderqueers?

"utilized mainly by white, middle and upper-class Americans who were born female or are otherwise on the FtM"

If anyone could find a source for this, that would be great. But I believe "Americans" should be taken out. 142.161.119.119 06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

yo

please dont delete my edits based on how i wrote them, cus i wrote them in the same style: some people believe BLAH. if you disagree, provide a counterpoint in the spirit of wikipedia.

Yo, I'm deleting your edits because they're not cited, and they're bordering on injecting a pov. Just throwing "Some people" this is not a way to legitimize personal opinions. (I) Most newspapers, and most tv news networks (with the exception of FOX-NEWS) do not accept just saying "Some people" as a citation. "Some people" believe the sky isn't blue, doesn't mean it goes into the wikipedia entry about the sky. "Some people" think Hillary Clinton is a feminazi, but you wouldn't put that is her entry. "Some people" think Bush is a "facist", but you wouldn't put that in his profile It's way too loose of a citation. If you want to say "most traditional religious groups subscribe to a ridgid male/female system", thats fine, becuase thats a specific, identifiable group.SiberioS 06:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

fine, ill say anti-feminists.

I'm reverting your changes. Why? Because anti-feminists have nothing to do with anything mentioned in the article. How is genderqueer, a transgender term, or the abscence of gender, have anything to do with feminism? Some feminists are rabidly anti-transgendered, and are decidedly in the camp of you're only a woman if you are born one. As such I'm reverting.SiberioS 06:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I may add, that I see no reason for adding the bit about the unabomber. MANY people have problems with so called political correctness, and its not limited to the unabomber. It includes various right wing conservatives, libertarians, and some left leaning people.SiberioS 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• i think the problem here is that you think its just the status quo/societies that are against this. i have a lot of free-thinking friends who reject some aspects of society and religion but also reject this.Urthogie 12:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So? Your friends don't form a coherent category. Like I mentioned before, alot of people think alot of things, you can't just start throwing in opinions left and right just because one person said it. Otherwise we would have commentary from everyone on every different wikipedia subject (every time a celebrity spoke about the Iraq war we would have to add their name, everytime a politician spoke about ANY subject we would have to add it to the wikipedia topic of the same name etc). Theres a reasonable cutoff for this. For instance, if the Pope talks about contraception, its probably a valid thing to mention in the topic of the same name as the perspective of a religious leader who represents (theoretically) some 1 billion people is pretty relevent. Same with someone like Pat Robertson, or some other person in an influential position in society.SiberioS 02:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed back your line change because 1)natural is a loaded term and mildly POV 2) there are some species which are naturally transgendered (certain frog species can mutate sexes etc etc) and 3) the idea of natural doesn't apply to all the people mentioned (for instance communism opposed homosexuality and transgenderedism based mostly on an idea of it being bougeroise, not necessarly against nature).SiberioS 04:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1)POV is allowed as long as its cited reasonably and its not the article itself 2)uh humans are not physically transgendered, so its up to opinion whether they can be psychologically. and i you wanna add that stuff about the frog go ahead, just dont delete what i put in because of your own POV.

3)sure, i never said it was the only opposition to it. its just the main one. Urthogie 06:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"humans are not physically transgendered". Have you ever heard of intersexuality? Just a thought. -Hapsiainen 16:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gender is an intangible concept, that may be based on physical traits. Physical traits however, like biological sex does not neccesarily determine gender. Logically humans can not be physically gendered, because physical traits are not the only element to determining gender. For example if a human is born into intersexuality, but their culture used something like eye color to determine gender, that would not make their biological sex relevent to their transgendered identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.106.108 (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• • ive heard of it..but most of these genderqueers are actually physically gendered at birth and psychologically dont identify. intersexuality is the exception, not the rule.Urthogie 20:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, so? Intersexexist, even if they are "the exception". You can't go around saying, for instance, in an article about humans that everyone always pops out male or female. That would be factually incorrect. There ARE more, and its COMPLETELY natural, if by natural you mean the definition that no tampering with genes or other such modifications by another human occured. And whats with this barb about my POV, when you keep rewriting things to include your friends POV (like THATS a citable source), insisting that because "some people" disagree that you can inject stuff about how unnatural it is. Like I told you from the get go you can't do vague citings to justify injecting your own point of view. It's not that hard to find some recognizable figure (a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell) with a quote decrying transgendered people or attempts at attacking gender constructs. A cite from one of them would have satisfied me, but you insisted on injecting your own and unverifiable sources.User:SiberioS

I've changed it to "disapprove of such mixing or consider it unnatural" as an attempt to cover both views. There are definitely some groups that consider it unnatural, but there are also groups that disapprove, without commenting on it's naturalness. It'd be good to cite actual statements by people/organizations, tho. --Mairi 05:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Susan's Place Androgyne Talk

This location has proven to be increasingly genderqueer unfriendly. Androgynes are considered, by the site definition, to be people who act or dress androgynously and discussion of androgyne/genderqueer as an identity is treated with hostility by the members and the administrators. An alternative site, developed specifically for genderqueer issues (called "non-binary" on the alternative) is http://www.whatisgender.net/forum/index.php Taineyah (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to what wikipedia is not, neither of the links belong. When reverting the insertion of one, I inadvertantly re-added the other. That has been fixed now, and neither is in the article anymore. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One can make any specific claims but (in my experience) I have been treated quite well for being "genderqueer". but then again there my be other factors at work. It's not fair to say one country is more "excepting" as a whole, as a country is not just the level of nationalism, it does not define the standard set for the communities and cultures within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.210.207 (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually occurring terms?!

Several of the words under "Related gender terminology" are things I have NEVER heard of before, and the internet agrees: Word: #Google hits Supragender: 199 Megagender: 45 Incrediqueer: 7 Inqueerable: 5

Moreover, aren't "polygender" and "multigender" the same thing?? I feel like there's a lot of BS in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.242.171 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Androgyne != non-binary gender variant

Note: Some people see "genderqueer" as a more consciously politicized version of the term androgyne, popularized by Androgyne Online, which is linked below. Androgynes are also people who identify as both man and woman, or as neither. "Androgyne" is synonymous to the more cumbersome "non-binary gender variant" or to "intergendered".[citation needed]

Since when is "androgyne" a synonym for NBGV? It's a special case of NBGV. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex subject:

• non-binary gender variant: any gender variant other than "male" and "female", including but not limited to "androgyne", "bi-gender", "neutrois", "genderless", etc.
• genderqueer: approximately, a policiticized term for NBGV, but intended to be inclusive of hangers-on (no offense intended -- you're quite welcome to hang on) even if they identify as male or female
• androgyne: intermediate between male and female (as a gender identity)
• bi-gender (or bigender): having two gender identities (this is not necessarily exclusive with the other categories). Can be generalized to tri-gender, multi-gender, etc.
• two-spirit: in modern usage, an approximate synonym for bi-gender, but with Native American historical context.

Hope this helps. I'll try to fix the original paragraph. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with these, but in the native American context, despite what it sounds like, "two-spirit" just means "transsexual" rather than identifying as both genders, in my experience. i.e. a male-boded two-spirit person will say they identify as a woman Orlando098 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material

This article has been tagged WP:OR for 2 years, and WP:FACT for 1 year. I have removed all the unsourced material from the text. I will be looking at the lead on three points: there are no sources, it no longer reflects the content, it is original research. Please do not restore material without WP:RS. If the material is restored, I will be adding another tag to the article WP:ESSAY. Mish (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Opposite Sex"

Third sentence: "They may wish to have none, some, or all features of the opposite sex."

Isn't the phrase "opposite sex" a bit meaningless in the context this article? Especially with regard to intersex genderqueer people.

Maybe replace it with something like "They may wish to have none, some, or all features of femininity, masculinity, or both", or simply deleting? My version may still be too gender binary, so perhaps someone can improve it. sorsoup (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that 98.222.56.231 has now changed this sentance, taking away the phrase "opposite sex". The new version looks to me like it makes more sense. sorsoup (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's been changed already, but "opposite sex" doesn't lose any meaning in the context of this article. An individual's sex is determined by their physical characteristics. Gender, on the other hand, is a psychological concept. Whether or not somebody is "genderqueer" or "intergender" doesn't have any impact on their sex. 98.242.242.207 (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposite sex is meaningless for an intersex person, and in fact is meaningless except as a very sloppy figure of speech, period. Snapdragonfly (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gender Identity

The article used the terms "man" and "woman" in reference to gender identities. This is incorrect (man and woman are sexes), and inconsistent with the article on Gender Identity. I have replaced the terms with "male" and "female", respectively. Burbble (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the opposite is true - for example a male-bodied person who is transsexual identifies as a woman (whether or not they have had surgery and hormones yet). Male and female seem to be the more uncontroversial, biological, terms, man and woman more complicated. Orlando098 (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Orlando098. "Male" and "female" have always been words which describe sex, "man" and "woman" describe gender. I have reverted the article to "man" and "woman". - Go check the sociological definitions before you revert my edit please. (Dragonhelmuk (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Perplexed by this. I (and other trans* people I have had this discussion with) are comfortable that "male" and "female" are primarily adjectives, and "man" and "woman" are primarily nouns. I've not been able to find any sociological definitions contradicting this. Pointers, please? Kaberett (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Genderqueer people

User:Kaberett changed all references to genderqueers to genderqueer people or person or something similar. The edit summary was: "Replaced "genderqueers" with "genderqueer people" throughout, to remove the linguistic tension between "genderqueers" and "cisgender people" and to bring the article into line with suggested usage for e.g. "homosexuals" vs "homosexual people"." I'm not an expert on this issue, but I don't see any support for calling homosexuals homosexual people or for calling cissexuals cissexual people, or, more pointedly here, for calling genderqueers genderqueer people. On a commonsense level, which, of course, isn't always the yardstick, a homosexual is a person unless we are referring to homosexual animals. Does Kaberett's edit make sense to anyone?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the intent, in that it's considered by some that "Jews" is a little more casual or less-encyclopaedic than "Jewish people". Still, we have an entire article dedicated to Jews, so obviously it's not a big concern. I think perhaps it was the same idea here...sort of along the lines of people-first language, except "people of genderqueerness" would sound really dumb. ;) Personally, I'm ambivalent about the change...I don't think it really added anything to the article, but it does harmonize it with the "transgender and cisgender people" used (albeit only once) early in the article, so I didn't see any need to revert it. – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it jarring. I'd rather change "transgender and cisgender people" to "transgenders and cisgenders" and lose the "people". Actually, for Jews, I think it's not so much less encyclopedic (which, in my view, is a euphemism for pompous), as "Jew" has often been used as an epithet, and to some it sounds harsh. I'm still in favor of using the word "Jew", but I understand the issue better. I don't think that sort of thing applies here. Usually, when someone wants to use an epithet for homosexual, they don't use the word "homosexual". There are plenty of other offensive words to use.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No opinion on "genderqueer", but the usage note in The American Heritage Dictionary's entry for "homosexual" has some relevance to the broader topic. Rivertorch (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, and it says that a homosexual is a "homosexual person". So, if one says "homosexual person", one would really be saying a "homosexual person person". Heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Clever! And pine trees are really pine tree trees and poker games are really poker game games. Heh. Rivertorch (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In the source you cited, the adjectival definition was given precedence, and the noun form is *explicitly flagged as offensive*. I really, really don't think that it's appropriate to joke about offensive language when it says _right there_ that "homosexual person" is preferable to "homosexual". Kaberett (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The source defines the noun homosexual as a "homosexual person". It flags a "usage problem" for the use of the word homosexual, but only in the sense of using the word instead of alternatives like gay and lesbian. It does not say it's preferable to use the phrase "homosexual person".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun [...] It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally..." in my view implies pretty clearly that "a homosexual person" is preferable to "a homosexual", if only as the lesser of two evils. I do not understand why you think this is ambiguous. Kaberett (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm running off to lectures now, but note that a) those of the references and external sources I've been able to check all refer to genderqueer *people* (i.e. use "genderqueer" as an adjective), and b) (anecdata ahoy!) none of the people in the (international) genderqueer and trans* communities I'm in call themselves "a genderqueer" (and in fact we tend to think it's offensive). "Transgenders" is also something that we "find jarring", on a personal rather than a theoretical level. I understand that you are probably (collectively) engaging in good faith, but I'd like to point out that the way you are choosing to approach this conversation - including flippant remarks about pine trees and so on - is actually pretty hurtful. Kaberett (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(I have replied to this here.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended, but, from my perspective, there was nothing offensive in my comment or Rivertorch's comments. Just had to do with English, not with the subject itself. I was saying only that "homosexual person" is redundant.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I stated that I believe you to be engaging in good faith, i.e. to be unaware that aspects of your comment were hurtful. To clarify: "homosexual person" is redundant only if you are using "homosexual" in a way that is flagged as objectionable (please note that there is some evidence that using "homosexuals" has a measurable impact on opinions about queer people). I assumed - clearly erroneously - that style guides and usage studies would be familiar to people paying close attention to articles in this subject area. I further assumed an understanding that flippant comparisons between marginalised groups and inanimate objects, (and indeed shifting the focus from marginalised groups to an unrelated subject) are at best in poor taste - the more so when you appear to be using the comparison to argue in favour of language usage that is widely regarded as derogatory or objectionable. I made the second assumption because this approach is the general consensus in most other spaces where I engage in this kind of discussion - mea culpa. I do however feel that you are not assuming good faith on my part (e.g. reiterating that you do not feel earlier comments were offensive, rather than asking me to clarify my views) and would appreciate reassurance on that front if we are to continue this conversation. Kaberett (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about all of the double-posting, but, well, have a list of style guides etc:

1. GLAAD explicitly states that "transgender" is an adjective, not a noun, and use as a noun is flagged as problematic; it discourages any usage of "homosexual"
2. NLGJA discourages any usage of "homosexual", lists "gay" as an adjective, and flags "transgender" as an adjective
3. Guardian & Observer Style Guide makes no use of "homosexual" except as part of a phrase, where it is disparaged, and explicitly states that "gay" should be used as an adjective, not a noun
4. TransMediaWatch flags "transgender" as an adjective
5. Homosexuality refers pretty consistently to "homosexual people", "gay, lesbian and bisexual women" etc
6. Avert routinely refers to "gay people"

I have been unable to find any style guides that assert that "homosexuals" is an acceptable form, let alone a preferred one, in professional or otherwise encyclopaedic writing. Given all of the above, I think it is reasonable to apply the same principle to "genderqueer". Kaberett (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Different communities have varying sensitivities to issues like this (e.g., the aforementioned Jews, who often use the word themselves), and even people within those communities have differing opinions (e.g., I, as a gay man, see no difference at all between "homosexuals" and "homosexual people", though I find either usage to be overly clinical and bordering on obsolete), but in the end, I think it's appropriate to respect the most common usage within any given community. The question is, what's the most common usage in the genderqueer community? If I Google "genderqueers", I get about 20,100 hits. If I Google "genderqueer people", I get about 23,000 hits. So that's not terribly conclusive. If I Google both together, I get 1,610 hits, including topic-sensitive sites such as T-Vox. This suggests that both are in common usage, sometimes even together.

Perhaps, then, the appropriate usage would be to start with the more formal "genderqueer people", but where that wording bogs the article down, switch to "genderqueers"? That's how I would approach it, but I'm not really part of the GQ community. I'll ask in a GQ forum I contribute to occasionally and see what the reaction is like there and if anyone there can provide some good resources that would support either as preferable or not. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking a community. Obviously I don't - and can't - speak for all trans people, but I have received explicit support for them [eta: my views] as stated here from two independent groups I participate in, and implicit support from the UK-based non-binary-gender advocacy group I help to organise (not gonna name it because I don't want to link my online handle to my meatspace name).

In response to your other points, I feel it is worth bearing in mind that (1) in-group language usage might be different to that which is appropriate in an encyclopaedic setting, particularly in the context of language that has a history of being used in a derogatory fashion. (2) Google results are indeed inconclusive, not least because without knowing the context of the usage patterns of each phrase the numbers aren't very helpful. (My feeling after skimming the first two pages of results in each case is that "genderqueers" tends to be used in a more objectifying sense, or by people just starting to question their assigned gender, whereas "genderqueer people" seems to be used in more respectful or academic discussions.) (3) the T-vox article is a near-direct port from the article here, and I have good reason to believe that it has not necessarily been closely checked by the T-vox admins.

And finally, while I am throwing links at people: page 78 of this document produced by GIRES uses people-first language when discussing gender variance; this document from The Gender Trust refers to "intersex people" as well as "transgender people"; ditto the EHRC. What I seek to demonstrate with all this is that it is absolutely inappropriate to alter the language of the article to read "cisgenders and transgenders", as was suggested upthread, and as such - all else aside - the linguistic tension I identified in my initial edit summary would remain in place if the article were reverted to read "genderqueers". Kaberett (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The links to GLAAD, etc., were helpful, thanks. I think there are two issues here. One is that gay people prefer not to be called homosexuals, but gays or lesbians. That doesn't mean that "homosexual persons" is okay with gays. On the other hand, for reasons I won't probe, transgender persons don't like the term transgender as a noun and prefer transgender persons. I'm satisfied with Kaberett's explanations and sources. I withdraw my objections to the changes. What I might do also is add a couple of those sources to the article at the first use of the phrase "genderqueer persons" so anyone later will be less likely to question it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Of four responses so far in the thread I created (which it would do no good to link to as the site is membership-only), one has said it's really not worth worrying about, the other three have all said that "genderqueers" is either preferable or at least appropriate (along the lines of using "caucasians", for example). To this point, however, all have been personal opinions with no reference to anything resembling authoritative sources of any kind.

On a personal note, I find the repetition of the word "person" or "people" in the article to be distracting, but as I said above, I have no particular feelings about it either way apart from that. If anything notable develops in the off-wiki thread, I'll post back here, but otherwise, I'm calling it as "no clear evidence for or against, so leave it however the greatest number of editors are happy with", which, unless I've missed something, means leaving it as it is. – RobinHood70 ^talk 01:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow you, but, as I've already said, I'm withdrawing my objection to the use of the phrase "genderqueer people", and I've added two of Kaberett's sources to the article that help a little to justify the addition of the word "people". As far as the repetition goes, if one starts with the premise that the use of genderqueer as a noun is offensive, which I'm accepting at this point, then the word person or people must be repeated to avoid the offensive use.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it...I think we're all pretty much on the same page at this point. – RobinHood70 ^talk 02:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reversion - October 2011

In this reversion, I removed the material because it's unclear if it's sourced to the books already mentioned. I didn't want to just add a {{Citation needed}} tag, since it would be ambiguous as to which part of the information the citation was needed for, so I reverted it for now. I suspect the information is accurate, so if it can be confirmed by someone other than the IP that statements to that effect are in the relevant books, or if another source can be found, it makes sense to put the information back in. – RobinHood70 ^talk 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pride Flag

Is the genderqueer pride flag (described here) [2] well known enough to be worth inclusion? I have seen it used multiple places on the internet.

Since this flag was put up several months ago (look at edit history as entry is unsigned), an editor has decided that it deserves a prominent place in the article and created an entire section to the flag. The only source for all of this information - even assuming it warrants inclusion in the article - is an unreliable source (a website that appears to be published by a single person). See here. Of course, the article isn't well-sourced as it is, but at least keeping new information sourced should be a priority.

I'd like to hear from others about the content, not just about the source issue, but also about whether it merits inclusion in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote for inclusion. The flag is quite new, but so are genderqueer symbols and terminology generally. I've seen the flag used by several sites and some craftspeople are starting to make genderqueer pride items using the three colors. There should be a caveat that the flag is new and use is growing but not yet established. The source is the site mentioned, which is run by a single individual, Marilyn Roxie, but widely used as a reference within the genderqueer community. Judithavory (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The flag above has since been updated with the white stripe moved to the middle. [3] I have seen it used on various blogs and queer sites, as well as in craft items. 99.122.227.46 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal to merge Genderqueer article into Queer article

Since there's been no discussion regarding the "merge" tag that was added here yesterday by User:Dbachmann, I'm not really sure what motivates the proposal; however, Dbachmann's note when adding the tag - "same topic" - is not really correct in my view, since "queer" with respect to gender identity (or presentation) is a substantially different issue than "queer" with respect to sexual orientation (or practices). Personally, I think a separate article on the topic is probably justified. -- thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, 'queer' and 'genderqueer' are two different topics and the articles shouldn't be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.151.156 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't merge. These two terms are used very differently, queer being all-encompassing and often referring to sexual orientation and genderqueer referring specifically to gender. Avory (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Genderqueer is NOT the same as queer! I am both queer and genderqueer. One is a sexual orientation, the other is a gender identity. 99.122.227.38 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't merge, it would be an absolutely stupid idea to do so. 109.76.237.228 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Transgender

Since I assume any attempt by me to change this sentence that's been here for quite some time will be quickly reverted, I'll post here first instead.

I find the sentence "Some genderqueer people[6][7] also identify as transgender, and may or may not wish for physical modification or hormones to suit their preferred expression" to be quite odd, since by all definitions of Transgender I've ever seen (including wikipedias), Genderqueer is always already included. It's not really something you choose to identify as, it's a descriptive term of one's identity (sort of like Genderqueer really). It's not that I doubt that it's true that some people like to exclude themselves from the Transgender-umbrella (I believe all groups under it actually do), but it just seems somewhat irrelevant to an encyclopedia. I doubt we have "Some homosexual people identify as LGBT..." written on the page on Homosexuality for example.

I'm not quite sure what was really intended by that part of the sentence either, the sources don't really mention it, and it could probably be removed without any loss to the article. --83.227.65.49 (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Genderqueer and Gender fluid

Should these two terms be in two separate articles? Emma dusepo (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say so. In my opinion, they are not the same thing. Gender fluid is definitely a specific phenomenon. 209.134.115.5 (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. While I don't identify as either, my understanding is that "Genderqueer" implies a relatively fixed, non-binary identity; whereas "Gender fluid" implies...well...a fluid identity which may or may not include gender binary identities. I should add, though, that at the moment, this article is on the small side, and there are various problems already identified with what's there. Splitting it may only compound those problems and end up getting both articles stubbed or deleted. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Gender fluid is one form of genderqueer or a sub-category. However they are different concepts in that one definately covers the other and they are not synonymous.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

There's no information on the following topic. What is attraction to genderqueer called? And are there subvarieties? I ask because the following applies to me.

- I'm attracted to biological females, both cisgender and genderqueer/non-binary gender, but more to the latter. - Personality-wise, I'm far more attracted to genderqueer of female birth.

So basically, I'm primarily attracted to genderqueer females. Is there a name for having a technical heterosexual attraction but preferring a more queer type of the opposite sex? If so, is there any information about this topic? MVillani1985 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is sometimes called ambiphilia or skoliosexuality. Kila Onasi^(talk) 18:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Gender pronouns

The third paragraph in the section Gender pronouns has little or nothing to do with pronouns:

In July 2012, Gopi Shankar, a gender activist and a student at The American College in Madurai coined the regional terms for genderqueer people in Tamil during Asia's first Genderqueer Pride Parade, Gopi said apart from male and female, there are more than 20 types of genders, such as transwoman, transmen, androgynous, pangender and trigender etc. and ancient India refer it as Trithiya prakirthi.

In that paragraph

1. The last "sentence" – and ancient India refer it as Trithiya prakirthi –
   • isn't a sentence
   • doesn't make sense
   • misspells the Sanskrit term "Tritiya-Prakriti" (तृतीय प्रकृति tṛtīya prakṛti), most of whose top Google hits seem to be to the same book:
     Tritiya-Prakriti : people of the third sex : understanding homosexuality, transgender identity, and intersex conditions through Hinduism, Amara Das Wilhelm, 2005 (Worldcat).
2. Terms ("transwoman, transmen, androgynous, pangender, trigender", as well as "man, woman, female, male", etc.) are not pronouns ("he, she, her(s), his, it(s), our(s), ze", etc.).
3. The paragraph is lifted in its entirety from Third gender#India (last para. of the section).

I've

1. deleted that last sentence fragment
2. retitled the section "Gender terms", inserting a <span id=... tag so any existing links to the section will still work
3. added a reference to the section Third gender#India

--Thnidu (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Has there been any scientific studies of the biology behind genderqueer people (assuming it's more than just a cultural phenomenon)? I would like to add them to the article if so, I haven't been able to find any yet. As human biology is not black and white, I would like to state here I believe genderqueer is a legitimate biological human condition. --Alexedits (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Genderqueer is an umbrella term for various nonbinary gender identities, or a standalone term for a nonbinary gender; both uses are completely legitimate. Being genderqueer is not a biological condition. You are correct that human biology is not black and white, but the term you may be looking for is intersex, which refers to biological sex and physical characteristics. To answer your first question, I highly doubt that there are any studies on the subject. Genderqueerness is usually if not always dismissed as a case of "gender identity disorder." Still, worth looking into. -- Quamobrem (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Endorsement of gender-neutral pronouns

I just chopped out a paragraph declaring that gender-neutral pronouns are "very appropriate" for general use. While I would use them for someone who asked, they are a relatively new invention as far as modern English goes and not really part of the language. If I saw or heard one of those pronouns without the label "gender-neutral pronoun," I would be confused. --Brilliand 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful here, though, to find some research or perhaps an article about anyone trying to assimilate gender-neutral pronouns into the vernacular, or the percentage of people who are aware the pronouns exist. From personal experience I know that a rapidly growing number of people are not only aware but using pronouns and educating others about them. Thendbegins 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncommon =/= inappropriate. Unfortunately there is very little research about nonbinary gender, at least as far as I'm aware, and most if not all knowledge of neutral pronouns is spread by word of mouth through queer communities and networks. Quamobrem (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Gopi Shankar

I am wondering if the several mentions of Gopi Shankar should be removed. Gopi Shankar is a founder of Srishti, an organization in Madurai, a city of about 1 million people in Tamil Nadu. This organization has a website and has been mentioned in a couple of articles in Indian newspapers (including on the newspaper websites). But it seems that the thing for which the organization is most notable is getting itself and Gopi Shankar mentioned in various Wikipedia articles, such as this one. 98.229.131.247 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering about this myself. Numerous editors (mostly IPs?) have been repeatedly adding more references and external links to Gopi Shankar on this page, as if this person is a major authority on genderqueer identities. It seems unbalancing... Funcrunch (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think Pangender and Genderqueer cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. I'm neutral as to which term is the better for a merged article, though it seems that Genderqueer is the more developed article and may also be the more common term. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Don't Merge At most being Pangender is only one form of Genderqueer and they ARE NOT synonynms. I vote against merging.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The article pangender says that they are virtually synonymous. Having slightly different meanings doesn't necessarily warrant a separate article, either, especially when the pangender article is so undeveloped. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the pangender article to be closer to its actual meaning.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, don't merge. Genderqueer and pangender are not synonymous. If anything, the definition of pangender should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.224.242 (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Insomesia (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge As it stands Pangender has practically no content. Bigender and Trigender would also be good merge candidates. --April Arcus (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The opposers would do better to actually explain how pangender actually differs from genderqueer, and preferably expand that article with references to that effect, than to assert "they are not synonymous" and then walk away. The one-sentence article at Pangender does not do any service to the reader. Actually, none of the articles (Bigender and Trigender) quoted by April Arcus does not do any job in explaining the concept and how it differs from related ones. Furthermore, we're dealing with subtle issues of human feelings and senses, which cannot be simply put into boxes: 'J. is a genderqueer' -- 'No, she's rather a bigender' -- 'you mean xe? Nah, xe's pangenderous' . The readers would be better served with one more comprehensive article dealing with terminology, than with scattered stubs. That is to say, I support the merge. No such user (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

They are not synonymous in that "genderqueer" is its own identity as well as an umbrella term covering all non-binary genders. It is not the same as actually being all genders. Equivamp - talk 12:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge and expand Pangender. Equivamp - talk 12:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And who claims they're synonymous? Wikipedia articles are about topics, not about words (Wiktionary is over there); This article (genderqueer) covers the topic about multi- and trans-gender persons reasonably well (albeit stubby), but pangender and bigender articles are two sentences each and serve little or no purpose. The natural way how the encyclopedia is supposed to grow is described in Wikipedia:Summary style: " The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split.". Wikipedia is a work in progress, indeed, but nobody claims that those articles should be merged forever. But so far, nobody has been bothered to expand them beyond WP:DICDEF, so I see their separateness as a disservice to the reader (and in this case, being rather ignorant but curious about the topic, I see myself as a reader rather as an editor). No such user (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that I implied pretty strongly in my initial proposal that the two were synonymous. While that was mistaken, NSU has provided an important way to look at the issue: the two concepts cover the same ground to such an extent that there should be a single, well-developed article that covers pangender, bigender, trigender, etc. It seems that this article would be the place for that. Only when the content covering the concept of pangender is well developed enough to be its own article would it make sense to split. Until then, we'd only be spreading the knowledge too thin. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Pangender is only one form of Genderqueer along with bigender, agender, genderfluid and various other forms. It does not mean the same thing.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, but as you say, it's a kind of genderqueer, so it wouldn't be out of place to talk about it here. What would an expanded "pangender" article look like? Considering how short the existing stub is, why wouldn't it be inappropriate to incubate such an article here and spin it back out as its own article once it acquires enough substance to stand on its own? --April Arcus (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Genderqueer and Pangender have significant differences in meaning and usage. Genderqueer has more political connotations (in the same way that 'queer' does, besides being a gender identification). It's also much more commonly used than pangender. Both are terms used in connection with non-binary gender, so if there were any kind of merger, it should be to an article that covers discusses non-binary gender overall, without being tied to a particular identification. Although it may seem as though genderqueer is that article, the problem is that many non-binary people simply do not identify as genderqueer, and would object to that conflation. (I have no particular axe to grind here; I do identify as genderqueer, but I object strongly to oversimplifying other people's identities.) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that analysis is that this article already says in the intro that genderqueer is the non-binary gender catchall term. The conflation that you say others would object to has been a stable part of this article for several years now. I think we'd be putting beans in our ears if we anticipated an objection from non-present readers/editors who may or may not actually object to comprehensive coverage in a single article, particularly if the nuance you've described is addressed in article space. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the claim that genderqueer is a catch-all term for non-binary gender is plainly wrong. So that's not a problem with my analysis; it's a problem with the genderqueer article (which I may have a look at fixing). But the relevant point is, a merger with pangender would be making it worse. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

After looking at this cluster of articles a bit more, I'd be inclined to make Gender_variance the "article that covers discusses non-binary gender overall". --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you define as genderqueer? I was always taught that it is a coverall for gender not on the binary. Also just because a word has political connotations does not mean it is not the proper word. Gay had political connotations compared to homosexual and Lesbian was created with feminist connotations.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Rainbowofpeace -- I meant that I personally identify (reflexive verb) as genderqueer. Sorry if that was unclear. On the issue of political connotations, your examples don't seem to support your point; for example, if there were a proposal to merge articles about specific sexualities into the Queer article, I'd oppose it for similar reasons (and I doubt that would even be proposed) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As it's already been said, genderqueer is a poor umbrella term (I don't use it and I know very few non-binary people who do unless they ID specifically s genderqueer). Perhaps a better way to have all the pages as one would to be to have merge them into Non-binary or Non-binary gender (at this time, both pages redirect here). Equivamp - talk 12:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender_variance seems like it would be a bad merge destination since it is not narrowly focused on non-binary identities in the way that Genderqueer is. --April Arcus (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

How someone identifies does not determine what something is. And by the way the non-politically charged versions of gay and lesbian were homosexual. Queer just happened to be more politically charged. Genderqueer however is not Queer in that sense. Genderqueer was originally constructed to refer to those in the transgender community who didn't identify as transmen or transwomen.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Which would include pangender and bigender people, right? We have a small proliferation of stub articles on various non-binary identities. Why would it not be a good idea to consolidate them into a comprehensive article here, with redirects? —April Arcus (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Since, as far as I can make out, Pangender is just a single gender identity, and Genderqueer is an umbrella term for those outside the binary. It comes to either following the official precedent or wiki policy. Do we make a separate article for every single gender identity, or lump them all into the article covering the umbrella term. While I support the latter, there must be a similar situation in which this was approached and resolved. --Sgtlion (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I spend a lot of time online having discussions with non-binary people and am non-binary myself. That is the most neutral and broad term for people who are under the wider transgender banner, but do not identify as just, or entirely, men or women. Some people do use genderqueer as an equivalent, but some people dislike it and think it sounds too political, or don't like the "reclaiming an insult" aspect to it. So, I'd say that all people who use the label genderqueer about themselves would agree they are also non-binary, but the opposite doesn't necessarily apply. The term "pangender" is much less common and, I would say, would be one label under the broader one of being non-binary (or genderqueer)that a small minority of people would apply to themselves. Orlando098 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per other oppose comments, they are not the same and genderqueer is the more common term anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• support per No such user. A huge number of dicdef stubs does disservice to the topic and our readers. (and per Daira Hopwood the rename seems like a good idea as well.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. April Arcus contacted me about this merge proposal back in August, but, after seeing two more recent comments pop on my WP:Watchlist regarding this matter, I decided to go ahead and weigh in. I meant to weigh in earlier, but kept putting the matter aside. The editor No such user has summed up this matter well: Merging these two articles isn't about these two terms being the same thing; it's about the fact that one of them (Genderqueer) is an umbrella term article and the other (Pangender) is a tiny stub article about an aspect of the former and that should therefore be (and already is) covered in that former article. For that same reason, the Bigender article should be merged with the umbrella article as well. Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that while they are not the same thing, Pangender does not warrant its own article, and should be included in its own sub-section within Genderqueer, along with Bigender, as it falls under that topic. - MishMich - Talk - 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Other Create new article for all...... Other. I think the best option is not to merge them but Create a new article. This new article should be named "Gender diaspora" ect. and should contain a starting point for all the other forms of gender outside the binary. Then each section should have the full article link. 11:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Iamiyouareyou (talk) 11:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Male woman'/'Female man' do not belong in this article

While there may be one or two genderqueer people (who are actually dysphoric, mind you) out there who identify as a male woman or female man, this language implies that an individual is of a binary gender with a non-traditional gender expression and does not belong in an article about non-binary transgendered people. If someone is a man who dresses and acts in a traditionally female manner, that does not make him a woman or a genderqueer person. It makes him a man who dresses and acts in a traditionally female manner. If whoever wrote this intended to say 'a person of the male sex who is female-gendered', the term you're looking for is trans woman, which once again does not belong in an article about nonbinary people because it is a binary gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.172 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're mixing your sex terms (male/female) with your gender terms (man/woman). A male woman could easily identify as genderqueer. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination

The study cited in this section reports discrimination as perceived. It is a survey of subjects, not a set of findings. Avocats (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Avocats: If you're referring to the first few sentences in Genderqueer#Discrimination_and_legal_status, it's fairly clear that the findings apply to perceived discrimination and past self-reported experiences. I don't see a problem there. If that's not what you're referring to, can you point to exactly where you see an issue? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you made those edits. Looks good! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Tamil term

An IP address user insists on adding the Tamil language term for genderqueer to the lead sentence. They reverted my removal of it, stating "The Specific Tamil Term is a only regional term available for the Genderqueer people in Tamil Nadu, The queer culture here is more than 6000 years old". I still don't think it's appropriate to include it so early in the article. There surely are lots of countries with longstanding queer culture but it's rather jarring to the reader to randomly include foreign language terms in the first sentence, especially when the rest of the article hardly mentions Tamil Nadu at all! Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the Tamil term from the lead. Given that the editor boldly added it only yesterday, and the addition has now been reverted twice, the onus per WP:BRD would seem to be on them to discuss why it needs to be in the lead... -sche (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I am guessing this edit was in relation to the numerous Gopi Shankar references that keep getting added to this page, usually by IP users. And IP users have (at least) twice removed the section on this Talk page questioning those numerous references. Funcrunch (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the concept?

Closing discussion initiated by sockpuppet of banned user. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The term 'gender fluidity' redirects here. I don't see a criticism section, in fact even no critical views at all. Certainly the concept itself is controversial. --Freisinniger Demokrat (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Got any cites for any controversy? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Denying obvious biological facts would arise at least some controversy I'd expect. Of course there are hardly any scientific treatises written to oppose the notion just like scientist don't take the Young Earth Creationism very seriously. [http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/305557/ 'Gender nonsense in the classroom'], [4], [5]. It's also a fact that most of the google hits I get for 'gender fluidity' are activist websites, i.e. it's all esoteric business even more ridiculous than (the closely related) ″Gender Studies″. The article suggests that a theory of some esoteric groups (comparable to Anima and animus of the Jungian quackery) is an accepted fact which it is not. Freisinniger Demokrat (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC) You linked 3 opinion pieces and dismiss an entire field of social science. You equate it to creationism? Try reading gender. Sigh... EvergreenFir (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Gender studies is as pseudoscientific as it can get, so the comparison with Young Earth Creationism is totally apt. Have you seen Hjernevask (Brainwash)? I suggest that you do. It's available with English subtitles online: [6]. The series was tremendously popular and led to public funding being deprived of the Nordic Pseudoscience Institute. Freisinniger Demokrat (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Merge There's no other spot on here for discussion on merge or don't merge, so here will have to do. Oppose. It seems everyone and their 10th illegitimate cousin has to have their own definition of what they are or what they feel sexuality-wise. This topic has crept well away from actual sexual preference and into one's physiological sex, identity or non-identity therewith, personal preference, desire, and mixes thereof. It thus makes no sense to combine anything in this topic, as someone surely will protest. If you mix genderqueer and pansexual, as here, someone will come along with a reason to bifurcate them again. It might be a good reason, or pure sophistry, but they will, and in keeping with the Zeitgeist of today, they'll be accommodated. Thus, pragmatism requires we keep this topic wholly uncombined. Cesium 133 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Cesium 133, the merge discussion was already had; see Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal. Because of that discussion, the 2012 merge proposal tag you are responding to should be removed. Also, the merger tag is not about pansexual; it's about pangender, a stub article that I still feel should be merged into this article (since it is a stub, cannot be expanded beyond a stub and is an aspect of genderqueer, as noted in the Genderqueer article).

On a side note, I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Gopi Shankar, again

Some editors are continually adding references to the mention of Gopi Shankar in the "Gender Terms" and "Out Genderqueer People" sections, and are continually erasing any discussion on the talk page questioning why this is being done. I don't think it's appropriate to add so many references for this one particular person, and it's definitely not appropriate to erase discussion from the talk page. But I'm not sure what the solution is since these edits are usually made by IP users with few other edits. Funcrunch (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This over-referencing and erasing of talk page discussion is continuing. Reviewing the page history, it appears most of these edits are coming from an IP range beginning with 117. Is there some way to put a block on that range, or is that overkill for resolving this issue? Funcrunch (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

An Agender article

Opinions are needed regarding a person who wants to take their draft of an Agender article to WP:Mainspace; see Talk:Agender#Development of definition. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. I would contact WP:LGBT about this, and I might still do so, but I think that alerting the WP:Watchers of the Genderqueer article/talk page to this matter is sufficient enough for now...and that the matter is perhaps likelier to get responses by being acknowledged here at this talk page. Besides commenting on this Agender matter there in that Agender discussion, I've also commented that some of these articles should be merged; see Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal if you have not already seen it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A different person created the article, and it now has a WP:AfD concerning it; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff/638934641: Lead image

@Flyer22: And there is a representative image? No. The flag might be representative, if not, please see WP:LEADIMAGE: Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.    FDMS  4    18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

FDMS4, I'm aware of WP:LEADIMAGE. I'm aware of all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and a good number of Wikipedia essays. And I stand by what I stated to you in that aforementioned WP:Edit summary. As the diff link shows, you stated, "[P]icture (just three smiling people, noone would associate this with genderqueer)." when removing the image. I stated, "And there is a representative image? No. This image is labeled as a genderqueer pride parade. And images improve the liveliness of articles." There are various articles I can point you to, such as the Adolescence article (which currently has two lead images), where there's always going to be someone who is unhappy with the lead image, whether because they feel that it is not representative, not representative enough, or because they simply prefer a different image. The "not representative" argument is usually an invalid one, especially in the case of images of people or their body parts, since there is always a variety of physical aspects to a topic. The easiest cases are cases such as the Apple article. But with cases such as the Woman article, as you can see, we currently have a collage as the lead image because everyone wants a certain type of woman represented. But with the Genderqueer article, we don't have a variety of WP:Commons images to choose from. And the fact that it is impossible to know who is genderqueer without that person publicly identifying as genderqueer is a good point when it comes to the genderqueer topic; by that, I mean that genderqueer people look just like everyday people. There is nothing wrong with showing that. And showing that helps. But the lead image does not have to be about what the people look like. And in this case, I don't think that it's about that. It's about showing a group of people who identify with and celebrate the genderqueer community. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I also altered the heading of this section with ": Lead image" so that it is clear as to what it is about. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a "there's always going to be someone who is unhappy with the lead image" case, the adolescence lead images clearly show the visual and social aspects of adolescence – the stereotype of an adolescent is a young person caring about his/her appearance who likes to interact with other adolescents. While the adolescence lead images are representative of their article topic, one can't even tell whether Anjali gopalan.jpg shows genderqueer people having read its caption, they could just as well be male/female heterosexual LGBT protesters. Therefore, they don't even show that "genderqueer people look just like everyday people", which isn't the purpose of an encyclopaedic article anyway.

If the ""not representative" argument is usually an invalid one", why is there WP:LEADIMAGE? And if you're aware of it, why don't we follow its advice?    FDMS  4    19:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a "there's always going to be someone who is unhappy with the lead image" case, because, while I am fine with the image, and others seemingly are as well, you are not happy or fine with it. It's highly likely that other people wouldn't be happy or fine with it either. That's how it usually goes with lead images on Wikipedia. The caption on the upload of the lead image states, "Anjali Gopalan, Gopi Shankar of Srishti Madurai during Asia's first gender queer pride parade in Madurai." That does not tell us if the people in the image are genderqueer, but it's highly likely that one or more people in the image (whether the ones in the foreground or the background) are genderqueer. And the image is about genderqueer culture nonetheless. My point of stating "genderqueer people look just like everyday people" was to counter the notion that there must be one image that represents all or most genderqueer people. One image that represents all or most of everything about a topic is usually impossible, and there is commonly a person who objects on the "that's not representative" or "that's not representative enough" basis. I noted above, "[T]he fact that it is impossible to know who is genderqueer without that person publicly identifying as genderqueer is a good point when it comes to the genderqueer topic." In other words, making a big deal about the image not being representative of genderqueer people because of the people it shows is invalid to me. Unless, of course, the people in the image are not genderqueer. But I already made a point of noting that the image does not have to be about what the people look like, but can rather be about the culture/celebration of the culture. Either (what the people look like or the culture) addresses the topic.

You ponder the following: If stating "not representative" is usually an invalid argument, why does WP:LEADIMAGE exist? I ponder how that is a valid question. WP:LEADIMAGE speaks of "if there is no easy representation of the topic." Clearly, there are often easy representations of a topic. I pointed to one: The Apple article. When I stated that "[t]he 'not representative' argument is usually an invalid one," I was specifically referring to people popping up at articles and claiming that the lead image of the article in question is not representative, or not representative enough, because the image does not represent the topic in its entirety -- meaning that it does not show the variety of aspects that go with it. This is whether it's different types of people, or different types of a thing. For example, the Car article. The Car article currently uses an early automobile as the lead image. Is that representative of today's cars? Heck no. But it's currently up there as the lead image. One example of the topic is usually all that it should take for the lead image. But it's common that people are not happy with the one example, as is the case with the Woman and Man articles. Even if it's a stereotypical image of the subject in question. A stereotypical image can make people even more annoyed. I have seen all of this in my several years of editing Wikipedia, and the Adolescence article is also one such case, which is why I pointed to it. Assuming that I don't adhere to a guideline's advice simply because I stated that the image you want removed improves the article is silly. Furthermore, advice is the keyword for any guideline. Adhering to a guideline is not mandatory, and there are cases when a guideline should not be adhered to. Either way, I'm not convinced that we should do without the aforementioned genderqueer image. I suggest you wait and see if anyone else watching this talk page agrees with you and/or that you start a WP:RfC on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I just now saw that No such user moved the image out of the lead. So, whatever, you got your way. Unless, of course, you want the image out of the article completely. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Folks, may I say you're making a mountain out of a molehill? No such user (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I stated to FDMS above, "In other words, making a big deal about the image not being representative of genderqueer people because of the people it shows is invalid to me." Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Also take note that Gopi Shankar is mentioned in the Out genderqueer people section, and in the caption on the image's upload. So if Gopi Shankar is in that image, that is an image of a genderqueer person. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive response, a lot of it makes sense (but parts of it don't, in my opinion). In response to your last comment (hierarchically): I don't.    FDMS  4    22:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits relating to sex and gender distinction

Trankuility, why did you make these changes, which moved the text away from distinguishing between sex and gender? You removed "Sex can be summarized as male, female, or intersex," and you changed "Neutrois people may be assigned either male or female at birth, and can also be intersex." to "Neutrois people may be assigned any classification at birth."

Regarding the "male, female, or intersex" part, if one goes by the sex and gender distinction, and sees being intersex as a separate category, then that statement is true. Perhaps your changes relate to something I stated at the Transsexualism article? Like I stated in this discussion there near the bottom of that talk page, "Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter, though the sex and gender distinction exists and third gender/genderqueer matters are usually formulated in gender terms (boy/man; girl/woman)... ...I'll grant you that I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article)." As you can see, Alison also weighed in on the matter, and agreed with my comment.

Regarding the "any classification at birth" part, that's not too accurate. Sex assignment, as is also clear by the Sex assignment article, is almost always about labeling a child male or female, and attributing the gender categories of "boy" or "girl" to go along with that. In rare cases, the child is identified as intersex; but even when identified as intersex...the child is usually raised as a boy or as a girl. Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, User:Flyer22. The glib, summarized framing of intersex as a third sex in "Sex can be summarized as male, female, or intersex," is indeed the reason why I made those changes. There is no evidence on the intersex page to support such a claim, and nor is there evidence on this page or the Third sex page to support such a claim. It's my view that arguments about intersex as a third sex are best not made glibly to justify a different concept, but are probably best left for those pages about the specific issue. Trankuility (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I commented on that thread on the Talk:Transsexualism page. To be clear here, just because some intersex people (and some other people) have a sex defined differently to male or female does not, ipso facto make all intersex people members of a third sex classification. That is even opposed by an international community consensus statement. It is more true to say that an intersex variation complicates initial sex assignment. I don't see my comments as at odds with those made by User:Alison - the points we're addressing are just somewhat orthogonal. Trankuility (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. And, yes, I saw that you commented in the aforementioned transsexualism discussion. I still feel that the "any classification at birth" wording is not too accurate and is too vague, per what I stated above. I also know that you have heavily expanded content regarding intersex people in Australia, but considering that Australia is one country, WP:Undue weight needs to be kept in mind when adding material on that matter or editing from that viewpoint. My concern is that we stick to what the sources state, are not too vague, and don't violate WP:Undue weight. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Flyer22. I certainly agree with you on Australian content not being given undue weight, but I would not agree with reverting the edited content: the previous content was not well cited, and is clearly in conflict with the well referenced material on the page intersex if it simplistically argues that intersex is a third sex.Trankuility (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted a change to the text around sex assignment of neutrois people. I don't find it vague myself: in almost every country, sex assignment is to male or female. To add intersex is itself a matter of WP:Undue weight. Trankuility (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Another point, if it were agreed to add "Intersex" to the sex classification, then we should really also add "Transgender", as transgender people are frequently regarded as a third sex in South Asia and some Pacific countries. Trankuility (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What's vague is stating "any classification at birth"; I already made clear above the problem with that; I stated, "Sex assignment, as is also clear by the Sex assignment article, is almost always about labeling a child male or female, and attributing the gender categories of 'boy' or 'girl' to go along with that. In rare cases, the child is identified as intersex; but even when identified as intersex...the child is usually raised as a boy or as a girl." In other words, that text needs to be clear, or not mentioned there at all. Of course, you know what you meant by wording the text the way that you did; the point is that the text should be clear for the general reader. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And when we are talking about biological sex, as opposed to gender identity, we should be clear on that. Transgender is not a biological sex (unless speaking of the makeup of the transgender person's brain partially resembling the sex that the transgender person identifies as), no matter what source categorizes transgender as a third sex. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I just now saw your edits here and here; yes, that latter one is better. I'm okay with that. I was about to tweak the text to that after looking at the first of those two edits. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm glad that we're broadly in agreement. A core issue for me is whether or not this article, which is about non binary gender identities, is the best place for a discussion on what makes particular biologies "sexes". I feel that the current text makes the key point: that identification as neutrois is unrelated to birth assignment. We have a point of difference regarding your assertion about transgender people necessarily not being a third sex (I'm excluding that "brain sex" theory which is a local maximum phenomenon, failing to account of research on brain plasticity, and research identifying similar brain differences in lesbians and gay men). The Norrie case in the Australian High Court, for example, found that a post-surgical, non-binary trans person has non-specific sex. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any legal jurisdiction that actually distinguishes between sex and gender, and most general readers will similarly not grasp the difference between sex and gender. I don't think that general reader expectation is a good reason for inserting a simplistic and fallacious summary of sex as male/female/intersex. Trankuility (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

By stating that "[t]ransgender is not a biological sex (unless speaking of the makeup of the transgender person's brain partially resembling the sex that the transgender person identifies as)," I'm going by what science states/the vast majority of literature on these topics states. When sex, as in biological sex (or genetic sex), is discussed in sources, transgender is not usually listed as a sex. The category of transgender is usually distinguished from biological sex, including by the vast majority of transgender people; transgender people usually make it a point to educate society on the fact that their biological sex and gender identity do not align. They usually make it clear that their biological sex is not the same thing as the gender they identify as. The fact that so many people do not distinguish biological sex from gender/gender identity is commonly a problem for transgender people, since so many people think that, for example, "Oh, a person being genetically male means that the person should identify as a boy or as a man." Furthermore, as shown in the Transgender article, the term transgender is an umbrella term for non-binary gender identities; these are all social categories, and have little to do with biological aspects (other than people's brains naturally being different from one another, or in the case of sex reassignment therapy, including sex reassignment surgery). The intersex category, on the other hand, is a biological category, no matter whether or not a person sees it as being distinct from male or female. So it's odd to me that you would have a problem with including intersex as a third sex, but not transgender as a third sex. I was not suggesting that "general reader expectation is a good reason for inserting a simplistic and fallacious summary of sex as male/female/intersex." In fact, I was clear that science has not identified an actual third sex. I was suggesting that, as I made clear above, we stick to what the sources state, not be vague, and don't give WP:Undue weight to anything.

And as for brain difference in lesbians and gay men, are you speaking of any of the differences noted at the Biology and sexual orientation article, or controversial assertions made at the Causes of transsexualism and Blanchard's transsexualism typology articles? Flyer22 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. There's a good discussion on brain plasticity at Neuroplasticity. You're right to point to all of those assertions on biology and sexual orientation. I'm not aware of any research on the brain sex of LGBT people that yet that manages to distinguish correlation from causation. I'm not sure that it would be fruitful to have this discussion here on this page. On the other issue, about adding "transgender" to sex classifications, trans is an umbrella for transgender and transsexual, and really I should have suggested "trans" or "transsexual" rather than "transgender" for the sake of precision and clarity. It was a slightly off-the-cuff remark, but the intent is serious. The Norrie case is clearly a case of a post surgical non-binary person recognised as having non-specific sex. While often regarded as a precedent for recognition of intersex people (despite Norrie not being born with an intersex condition) it seems to be more likely a precedent for Western trans people. Trankuility (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

X-gender

@Flyer22: Do you have a source for that X-gender stuff? Japanese sources work too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, EvergreenFir. You've likely already seen my posts at CDjanegirl (talk · contribs)'s talk page about this. I don't care if the X-gender content I added goes or stays; what I care about is that there is not an unnecessary Wikipedia article about this topic; I feel about this topic pretty much the same way I felt about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender. The topic of X-sex/gender can be adequately covered in the Genderqueer article without needing a WP:Spinout article, and it is already covered in the X sex/gender markers in Australia section. While X-sex/gender mostly concerns Australia, a Google search shows that it addresses other areas as well, and non-legal content. It did not seem correct for me to merge CDjanegirl's content with the "X sex/gender markers in Australia section" since that section is a subsection of the Legal status section. Therefore, I created an X-gender subsection in the Gender terms section for the aspect in general, with the expectation that it will be significantly expanded. Otherwise, per MOS:Paragraphs, I would not have added that subheading. Subheadings for single-sentence paragraphs, or other small material, is not how I usually edit. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

-sche, regarding this edit, I don't think that the X-gender section should be in the Legal status section if it's not a legal matter; that's partly what I stated above. Perhaps we should remove the section since CDjanegirl (talk · contribs) has not yet showed up to expand it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)