Talk:Non-binary gender/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Requested move 4 June 2018

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 to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Genderqueer → Non-binary gender identities – I want to preface this with this discussion has been had previously, and a number of those contributions have good points. I believe that trends have shifted towards the usage of non-binary/nonbinary vs. genderqueer in the last few years, and it's time to update the terminology that Wikipedia uses. I will attempt to prove that "Non-binary/nonbinary" is the WP:COMMONNAME using not only applicable Google trends, but also with legal precedent and major LGBT organizations' glossaries. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 01:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that Google Ngrams is not entirely useful in this case. Its data collection only goes up to 2008, a year when most states didn't even recognize same-sex marriage. In fact, a comparison to Google Trends shows that the terms "non-binary/nonbinary" only began to gain popularity in 2014, after the scope of Ngrams. Thus, I will look at patterns in Google Trends and Scholar instead.

The Google Trends graph for Genderqueer vs. Non-binary vs. Nonbinary shows that the terms "non-binary" and "nonbinary" combined have been more popular than the term "genderqueer" since approx. January 2016, and the term "nonbinary" alone has been more popular than "genderqueer" since February 2017. This graph also shows a preference towards "nonbinary" vs. "non-binary."

Now, I am aware that the term "non-binary" is used in other contexts, so I created a Trends graph of some of the most common non-gender related terms that appear alongside nonbinary. Note that the top 24/25 related queries for the search term "non-binary" are related to gender, and the one that isn't doesn't even show on the graph. I believe that this shows that the vast majority of uses of the term "non-binary" are in relation to the gender identity, but just to be cautious, I included the term "gender" alongside my search terms for the rest of my trend research.

Google Scholar stats:

Search term	Any Time	Since 2016	Since 2017
Gender Genderqueer	14600	5720	3450
Gender nonbinary OR non-binary	12500	6500	4430

These stats show a relatively even number of books/articles that use either term published in any time, but a notable trend towards "non-binary/nonbinary" in the past few years, with almost 50% more results in the last year.

A search for the terms in a NewsBank news database search (apologies as the link may be behind a paywall; I'm trying to take advantage of my library's research capabilities) produces 2382 results for "Genderqueer AND gender" and 8060 results for "Non-binary OR nonbinary AND gender." I'm unsure how to find the number of results for a Google News search or I'd include that as well.

Within the past year, with a few exceptions, US states and other regions have passed laws and regulations related to the legal documentation of non-binary people. These government bodies use either exclusively "non-binary/nonbinary" or mention "genderqueer" as an identity that an applicant might or might not identify as:

California, October 2017: "The bill would authorize a change of gender in the court judgment to female, male, or nonbinary." ... "An option ... would allow intersex people, like transgender and nonbinary people" ... "Nonbinary is an umbrella term for people with gender identities that fall somewhere outside of the traditional conceptions of strictly either female or male. People with nonbinary gender identities may or may not identify as ... genderqueer."

Oregon, April 2017: "An Oregon circuit court issued an order stating that a particular individual's sex is non-binary"

Washington D.C., June 2017: "To permit applicants for a District driver's license, learner's permit, or identification card to designate their gender as 'nonbinary.'

Washington State, January 2018: "[X is] A gender that is not exclusively male or female, including, but not limited to, intersex, agender, amalgagender, androgynous, bigender, demigender, female-to-male, genderfluid, genderqueer, male-to-female, neutrois, nonbinary, pangender, third sex, transgender, transsexual, Two Spirit, and unspecified."

New Jersey, proposed: "request for a change in gender to (female, male, or undesignated/nonbinary)"

Australia, 2015? :"The X category refers to any person who does not exclusively identify as either male or female, i.e. a person of a non-binary gender."

Ontario, May 2018: "You may request a change to your sex designation to F (female), M(male), or X (non-binary)"

A number of LGBT organizations have either glossaries or handouts that define LGBT-related terms. These definitions have a lot of variance, but they tend to either use terms like "gender-expansive," identify "non-binary/nonbinary" as an umbrella term, or note that "genderqueer" is a specific term that infividual people may identify as:Trans media watch uses "non-binary" GLAAD uses "non-binary and/or genderqueer" HRC uses "gender-expansive" as an umbrella term and "genderqueer" as a more niche definition. Stonewall considers "non-binary" an umbrella term. PFLAG identifies "gender expansive" as the umbrella term and notes that while "genderqueer" may be used as an umbrella term, it "should only be used when self-identifying or quoting someone who self-identifies as genderqueer." TSER identifies "non-binary/nonbinary" as the preferred umbrella term among the community. So does The Trevor Project.

I've also taken the time to cite some examples of the discussion of "queer" as a contentious term. Not everybody rejects this term, but those who do do so vehemently, as it has been and is still used as a slur by some people.

I would like to briefly state that I suggested the title "Nonbinary gender identities" partially in order to clear up confusion about WP:Content forking with the Third Gender article. However, a name change would not inherently create a content fork, as their contents currently and will still address two separate things: one is a modern western gender identity, and the other is a historical term and a way to describe non-western cultures' gender expansive practices. I would advise creating start-level articles for "genderqueer" and "agender" after the move, as one was the most common term for many years and the other has recently gained legal recognition in Oregon. I volunteer to write them, but their existence is not particularly relevant to the current discussion. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 01:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This Rfc may be tainted. User Hologramvin (talk · contribs) who opened section #Separate Article For Nonbinary above, appears to have canvassed user Mooeena (talk · contribs) off-wiki, and is actively seeking other supporters there. Please contact me via e-mail for details. Mooeena, you have the option of a graceful exit here by withdrawing your Rfc, and requesting an uninvolved editor to open one in your stead. If you choose to keep it open, be aware that it might get shut down for procedural reasons, but I am not an admin and have no ability to do that. Afaict, there's nothing wrong with the statement of the Rfc per se (other than its being a trifle long, but okay). However, it would be better to have an open discussion about this that follows the Rfc guideline, and starting off by rounding up a posse off-wiki, is not the way to go. Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • For full transparency, I did see a post on Hologramvin (talk · contribs)'s Twitter about this page, but I assure you that I was not asked to participate in this discussion by them in any way. I decided that I wanted to pursue this subject independently and then I contacted them to let them know that I would be opening up a discussion for the Wikipedia page that they had mentioned. If any canvassing did happen, it was after we had that conversation. I would be happy to show receipts of our conversation to an admin if they would like to see them, but I hope it won't become an issue. I have a documented interest in improving articles about underrepresented minorities, and this is just another one of those articles. I intend to stay mostly out of this discussion save for if somebody asks for clarification on my proposal, but I hope that my research stands for itself regardless.Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 05:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  I hope it won't become an issue either, but now I can't help but wonder. I accepted your representation above, including your bona fides, and I wasn't planning coming back here to comment, other than possibly on the interpretation of statistical data. However, in light of more recent events, now I feel I must. Following Hologramvin's tweet requesting assistance at this discussion, you replied on 2 June, requesting a link. At some point after my post above appeared, you secured your account to make your tweets inaccessible except to followers, including the ones previously visible to all, where you interact with Hologramvin. If this was a coincidental move having nothing to do with this Rfc, then the timing of it was unfortunate.

  On the flip side, when I referred to a "taint" in my earlier post, I was talking about the Rfc itself, and not about you or your actions. As far as I can see from reading the canvassing guideline, if there was any inappropriate actions relating to canvassing, it was on the part of Holomgramvin (i.e., campaigning, stealth canvassing, possibly votestacking), but none of those apply to you. Additionally, there's nothing in the guideline about the responsibilities of someone who's the target of canvassing, probably intentionally so; and afaict you're in the clear as far as editor behavior. The worst I can see happening, is that your vote might not count, and even that is at the discretion of the closer. Let's see how it goes, and if we need the opinion of some NPOV gurus re canvassing technicalities, we know where to find them. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  I feel uncomfortable with people on the internet being able to read all of my personal Twitter, as it has my real name and identifiable details about myself. I will gladly show the relevant tweets to any admin that requests it, but I hope you can respect my privacy and protection of details about myself irellevent to this discussion.Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 13:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  Doxxing is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you have concerns about your privacy, check out WP:Changing username and WP:Clean start. There may be other solutions, but these are two that I know about. Mathglot (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you!Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A WP:Clean start is not to be used lightly. It is very clear that one taking on a clean start should not edit the topics they did before. Their account should reflect behavior that does not tie them to their previous account (at least not in an obvuous way). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's WP:Canvassing and WP:Meatpuppetry because you were brought here by a post on Twitter. It's not like Hologramvin's post on Twitter is neutral. If I express concern to my Twitter followers about something on Wikipedia, and they all flock here to address it, that is WP:Canvassing and WP:Meatpuppetry. It's WP:Meatpuppetry in the sense of "promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute." I meant to warn Hologramvin about WP:Meatpuppetry. So I also support closing this move discussion as tainted and as not abiding by Wikipedia's rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to "Non-binary gender identiies" per nom OR "Non-binary gender" per previous discussions. See the previous attempts for some good explanations. "Non-binary" is a much better "catch-all" term for the many varieties of non-binary genders. "Genderqueer" is a somewhat controversial term, both for including the word "queer", and in that it sorta only kinda refers to a few of the many non-binary gender identities - many non-binary folks don't identify as "genderqueer", per se, but a larger majority of "genderqueer" folks identify as non-binary. "Non-binary gender" might be the better choice, WP:POVNAMING-wise. Also, "non-binary" is probably the most common term for this stuff to be used, and has really 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) 04:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OR, alternatively, support move to "Genderqueer and non-binary gender" or something of the like. Maybe this would be the best course of action, given the arguments presented by the Oppose/Support people. We've done moves like this before, and we might want to do it here. (Otherwise, this chain of requested moves would presumably never end, in either direction.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Proposal - how about Queer gender identities if we're looking for umbrella terms. Or, based off of MOGAI, Minority genders. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• This article's name also depends on all readers of all alignments including "straight", knowing fully what the word "queer" means. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As a genderqueer person I absolutely have heard the argument about non-binary and genderqueer but I think it is much like the argument about gay and homosexual. My biggest question I would ask to someone who actually thought they were different would be to tell me what genderqueer is. Other than objecting to a word can someone take the time to fully explain what they think the difference is?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Rainbowofpeace, there is no difference. See below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:Common name/reliable sources thus far. At this point, the repeated move proposals based on supposed offensiveness and faulty Google statistics is bordering on WP:Disruptive. It's similar to WP:Forum shopping in the sense that a few editors are trying time after time until they get the answer they want. Although "non-binary" has gained traction in the last few years in the trans community, there is absolutely no proof that "a larger majority of 'genderqueer' folks identify as non-binary" rather than as genderqueer. Further, we don't give in to appease the side that has less support in the literature. We follow the literature with WP:Due weight. There also are few or no sources to support the alternative name suggestions. Mooeena is a newish user who has been WP:Canvassed here. Mooeena talks about Google Trends showing "trends have shifted towards the usage of non-binary/nonbinary vs. genderqueer in the last few years." I challenge this as being truthful. This is because the vast majority of the "non-binary"/"nonbinary" sources are not about gender or humans at all. It's also the case that the term "genderqueer" received the most attention in the last few years, with its entry into dictionaries and the like. Google Ngram still shows "genderqueer" as the leader. So does this Google Trends link pointed to in the 2017 previous move discussion. Notice that it compares "non-binary gender" to "genderqueer." It doesn't go on "non-binary" without the gender aspect attached to the term. And here's why: See above, where Mathglot stated, "Another complicating factor is in the data gathering. Interpreting search counts, trends, ngrams, and other data can be tricky. [The analysis that nonbinary is more common than genderqueer] 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." And I stated pretty much the same thing just last year, by noting 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." And this is the case even when using quotation marks around the terms per WP:SET#Notability. I know that Mooeena mentioned a personalized trends graph, which Mooeena believes shows that "the vast majority of uses of the term 'non-binary' are in relation to the gender identity," but actually looking at the sources shows this to not be true, at least in the case of Google Books sources. Mooeena brought up legal sources, but look at the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article. Often, "X" or a similar designation is used, not the term "non-binary." It's mainly the news sources using the term "non-binary" for ease when explaining legal aspects. Even sources Mooeena cited show the X designation. And we already have the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article specifically for legal cases. It should not influence this article. Mooeena brought up LGBT sources, but, as we can see in the 2016 previous move discussion, a number of LGBT sources support "genderqueer."

I've stated before that the term genderqueer specifically covers non-binary history, issues, and explicitly all of the other identities mentioned in the article. It is the term most often noted as the umbrella term for all of these gender identities. Here are the sources I pointed to in the 2017 discussion.

Sources using the term genderqueer over the years

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.

Where are all of the academic sources using the term non-binary or non-binary gender to cover all of the history, language, etc. for western gender identities that fall outside of the gender binary? I'm not seeing many. All this talk about Google Trends, and yet, except for the Google Scholar sources that happen to use the term "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" to address genderqueer and nonconformity issues, especially childhood gender nonconformity, there is scant academic usage for non-binary or non-binary gender when compared to the wealth that the term genderqueer has. A number of those Google Scholar sources are using "genderqueer" interchangeably or alongside "non-binary," "non-binary gender" and/or "gender nonconforming." Also note the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the term genderqueer and its history. That encyclopedia does not have a "Non-binary" or "Non-binary gender" entry. For dictionary sources, "genderqueer" also prevails with regard to gender. The most academic material there is for "non-binary" material that actually is about gender, and is not about gender nonconformity as a whole, mixes in third gender material, which obviously already has a Wikipedia article. If we want to cover the supposed non-neutral-ness of the term genderqueer, we do that by locating reliable sources stating as much and covering it in the article, not by overriding our WP:Common name policy. The most that I would support is renaming the article "Genderfluid" or "Genderqueer and non-binary." But "genderfluid" isn't used as an umbrella term as much as "genderqueer" is, and it's sometimes used as subset of "genderqueer." And "Genderqueer or non-binary" and "Genderqueer and non-binary" are long-winded and suggest a difference, when sources overwhelming treat the two as synonyms or list "non-binary" under "genderqueer," for western gender identities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

When using both Google Scholar and searching Google Books with merely the term "nonbinary" (no hyphen) only one result on the first page of Google Books was not about trans-ness or gender. I looked through the next several pages of results and it seemed only one or two of the other results were about coding. I feel your implied claim that when searching "nonbinary" that most of the searches involve programming and not gender is disingenuous.

Hologramvin (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This link shows the search of "nonbinary" (no hyphen) on Google Books. Once we get past page 2, we see that there are hardly any more uses of the term with regard to gender. And stuff like "Genderqueer: Androgyny, Atypical Gender Role, Audre Lorde Project, Bigender, Discrimination Towards Non-Binary Gender Persons, Fantasia Fair, Femme Co" quite clearly says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." Whether or not most of those other sources past page 3 are about coding, which is just me repeating what Mathglot indicated, they are not about gender. As seen with this link, it's even worse for "nonbinary" when we do what WP:SET#Notability suggests and add the quotation marks around the term. If we look on Google Scholar at "nonbinary" (no hyphen), it shows a bunch of code results. Same goes for using quotation marks around the term. So tell me again how the implication is disingenuous. There is no implication. It just is what it is. Like I stated before (both in the 2017 move discussion and above), one gets better results when searching "non-binary gender" or "nonbinary gender," but those sources are not as rich as the genderqueer ones (taking the time to cover all of the history, language, etc. for western gender identities that fall outside of the gender binary), and enough of them use "genderqueer" interchangeably or alongside "non-binary," "non-binary gender" and/or "gender nonconforming," and are also about third gender identities, which has its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:Precision. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I think "nonbinary gender" sees wider colloquial use but "genderqueer" is the more used term in reliable sources at this time. --Equivamp - talk 01:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as the article is about a catch-all/umbrella term for gender identities outside of the gender binary, Non-binary is a term that seems to be only used as a catch-all term, while Genderqueer is a term most commonly used as a gender identity itself.(like Agender, etc) Thespündragon 14:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thespündragon, the way you are distinguishing makes no sense and is not supported by sources. And where are the reliable sources showing that "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" covers all of the terms noted in this article? And I mean specifically noting that each of these terms are covered by it? I've done my part times over with sources. Why isn't your opinion based on any of our rules? I advise the closer to rightfully ignore WP:ILIKEIT votes like yours. Since you are a new editor, I do cut you some slack on that, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that Genderqueer is a specific gender identity that is a sub-branch of Non-Binary does not appear to be supported by sources. Can you please tell me what Genderqueer is and what exactly makes it different from non-binary?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Tainted RfC. I would say I oppose, primarily because I think Flyer's argument about sources is a sound one, but I cannot in good conscience !vote in an RfC that has been advertised on social media. I will say this much more: in looking over the history of this talk page, there appears not to be consensus in favor of moving the page. If, in the wake of the off-wiki canvassing, this RfC is allowed to run its course, I trust that whoever closes it will look carefully for SPAs and new users and discount whatever they bring to the table. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• As others said, this Request seems to be tainted by procedural irregularity (from the opposite direction as another tainted RFC on a trans-related topic I see on my watchlist—and, like there, the best idea is probably to procedurally close this, wait a few weeks, and open a clean RFC/RM). I do think the article should be moved, partly because "non-binary" is the more COMMONNAME, as I said last year: "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) [...]. 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", which it has over the last year. As an aside, some users in the past suggested that if this article were renamed it would be unclear how to distinguish it from "Third gender", but that is a red herring, because this article correctly notes that "genderqueer", in the broad umbrella sense this article explicitly introduces itself as using, is synonymous with "non-binary", so any overlap or confusion should already exist (and, apparently, has not caused us any actual problems so far). -sche (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Per what I've argued before and above, there is no proof whatsoever that "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" is the more common term. All of the logical Google avenues -- whether we are looking past the sources talking about codes instead of people, or looking at Google Ngram or Google Trends -- indicate that "genderqueer" is the common name. The vast majority of academic sources certainly do. The argument regarding Google Scholar is flawed because (besides the code aspect) the Google Scholar sources that happen to use the term "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" are often using those terms to address gender variance as a whole, and especially childhood gender nonconformity, not the specific topic that the Genderqueer article is addressing. We obviously already have a Gender variance article. Some of those sources are also using "genderqueer" interchangeably or alongside "non-binary," "non-binary gender" and/or "gender nonconforming." People can see all of this by actually examining/reading the sources. The argument about laws is flawed per the fact that many or most of those laws don't actually use the term "non-binary." They use the term "X" or similar. It's more so the news sources using the term "non-binary" to explain "X" and similar, and those news sources are mainly focused on laws only. They are not focused on the history of the term, the different terms that fall under it, or the behaviors. And we already have a Wikipedia article for those laws. This article is not it. And I stand by my third gender argument. Anyone is free to see what I argued about that and why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Support My experience is in the UK and I accept things might be different elsewhere. I frequently hear people referring to themselves as non-binary but very rarely Genderqueer and if they do invariably they see it as a subset of non-binary. Non-binary is the overarching and common term in use - that should make it COMMONNAME. I'm not much impressed by claims about whats used in WP:RS in this case, generally I feel they are written by self appointed experts looking in with no real understanding of the importance of terms or media organisations using the more attention grabbing term. I am impressed by the list of examples where authorities have used non-binary, these show current and likely future dominance of this term. I would like to state that I was unaware of this move discussion until I stumbled on it earlier today and that I have not been canvassed. Furthermore you will see from my editing history LGBT issues are not my normal area. Lyndaship (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Lyndaship, whether you came here by way of canvassing or not, you are arguing based on personal experience...for which no proof exists. Above, in the move request template, we can see that the template states, in part, "Please base arguments on article title policy." So you discounting that policy, which WP:Common name is a part of, is why your vote should be discounted. The WP:Common name policy is based on what the preponderance of reliable sources state, not on personal experiences. And move requests are not based on "likely future dominance of [a] term." I'm disappointed not only by this move request having been tainted due to canvassing, but also due to the poor arguments for a move. So if this article is moved based on a head count, which goes against the WP:Consensus policy, or based on the personal experience reasons, I will take it to WP:Move review. The closer (TonyBallioni) who actually took the time to look at the evidence I provided in the 2017 move request had it right. And I don't see that much of anything has changed since then. So I'm not even up for a new move request, which would result in me (and others) arguing the same thing as before yet again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll let the closer form their own opinion about which votes are valid. Lyndaship (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lyndaship I ask you what exactly is genderqueer if it is a specific form of non-binary? Many people say it's a specific gender identity and not a catch all but no one can tell me what it specifically is and what makes it different that Non-binary gender identities in general.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Two comments about some flawed analysis above concerning various Google search queries, and interpretation of the results:

1. All Google Trends searches are completely irrelevant to this Rfc. WP:COMMONNAME requires article titles to be based on independent, reliable English-language sources. Google trends is unrelated to published sources; it highlights the latest changes in user searches; i.e., it is based on data that anyone can enter—namely, your search query, and it privileges recent changes in search and leaves out most of recorded history. Trends says nothing about what sources are available, how many, or in what proportion; it only tracks search queries. This is entirely unrelated to the requirements of WP:COMMONNAME.
2. There's a lot of misinformation above about what Google Scholar is or isn't saying. So rather than explain it, let's just list the top results for "nonbinary" and you can figure out the ratio of results having to do with nonbinary gender, compared to other nonbinary subjects:

Top 50 results on Google Scholar for nonbinary

Decoding Algorithms for Nonbinary LDPC Codes Over GF(q) A 1.2 V 10b 20MSample/s non-binary successive approximation ADC in 0.13/spl mu/m CMOS Nonbinary quantum stabilizer codes Nonbinary quantum codes Sample-size calculations for the Cox proportional hazards regression model with nonbinary covariates Nonbinary stabilizer codes over finite fields Min-Max decoding for non binary LDPC codes Design and analysis of nonbinary LDPC codes for arbitrary discrete-memoryless channels The advantages of non-binary turbo codes Some properties of nonbinary error-correcting codes Low-complexity decoding for non-binary LDPC codes in high order fields Nonbinary LDPC coding for multicarrier underwater acoustic communication Transactions papers-constructions of nonbinary quasi-cyclic ldpc codes: A finite field approach Inferring duplications, losses, transfers and incomplete lineage sorting with nonbinary species trees Reconciliation with non-binary species trees [PDF] Non-binary BCH decoding New nonbinary sequences with ideal two-level autocorrelation Density evolution, thresholds and the stability condition for non-binary LDPC codes Construction of non-binary quasi-cyclic LDPC codes by arrays and array dispersions-[transactions papers] Nonbinary codes, correcting single deletion or insertion (Corresp.) Low-complexity, low-memory EMS algorithm for non-binary LDPC codes Efficient computation of EXIT functions for nonbinary iterative decoding A unified approach to the construction of binary and nonbinary quasi-cyclic LDPC codes based on finite fields Partition Coefficients, Static Deception and Deceptive Problems for Non-Binary Alphabets. Reduced-complexity decoder architecture for non-binary LDPC codes On combining Chase-2 and GMD decoding algorithms for nonbinary block codes On turbo decoding of nonbinary codes Architecture of a low-complexity non-binary LDPC decoder for high order fields Bubble check: a simplified algorithm for elementary check node processing in extended min-sum non-binary LDPC decoders Nonbinary Kasami sequences over GF (p) Construction of nonbinary cyclic, quasi-cyclic and regular LDPC codes: A finite geometry approach Polarization-multiplexed rate-adaptive non-binary-quasi-cyclic-LDPC-coded multilevel modulation with coherent detection for optical transport networks On SOVA for nonbinary codes Error control coding for multilevel cell flash memories using nonbinary low-density parity-check codes Efficient decoder design for nonbinary quasicyclic LDPC codes Data compression of correlated non-binary sources using punctured turbo codes Nonbinary social choice: An impossibility theorem Fast CMOS nonbinary divider and counter Non‐Binary Error Correction Codes Non-binary convolutional codes for turbo coding Two low-complexity reliability-based message-passing algorithms for decoding non-binary LDPC codes Nonbinary LDPC codes for optical communication systems Disk drive margining read channel by biasing log-likelihood ratios of a nonbinary iterative decoder Low complexity X-EMS algorithms for nonbinary LDPC codes Convergence of non-binary iterative decoding High-throughput efficient non-binary LDPC decoder based on the simplified min-sum algorithm Joint estimation and compression of correlated nonbinary sources using punctured turbo codes Non-binary polar codes using Reed-Solomon codes and algebraic geometry codes Trellis-based extended min-sum algorithm for non-binary LDPC codes and its hardware structure New upper bounds for nonbinary codes based on the Terwilliger algebra and semidefinite programming

Finally, your tabular Scholar data is flawed because you executed the wrong search, including in your "nonbinary" column, results which had both genderqueer as well as nonbinary in them. The correct search shows 7,580 results for nonbinary alone, not 14,600.

So can we dispense with the irrelevant Trends data, and the data-free analyses about Scholar data? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just realizing and crediting Flyer22 Reborn for covering most of this ground already, in her 19:35, 6 June comment above. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• My !vote: I'm loathe to cast a vote at all in what I view as a Tainted Rfc in order not to encourage anything but a procedural close due to canvassing. Otoh, I do have an opinion about the merits. So let me finesse that situation this way: I hope the close is procedural, in which case, I cast no vote. But if it isn't, then my choice is to be registered as an Oppose because there is no data whatever showing that genderqueer nonbinary has met the WP:COMMONNAME criterion of a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. In fact, the reverse is demonstrably the case, as been amply demonstrated above. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, by "no data whatever showing that genderqueer has met the WP:COMMONNAME," don't you mean "no data whatesoever showing that 'non-binary' or 'non-binary gender' has met the WP:COMMONNAME"? I've demonstrated that "genderqueer" is the common name for the topic in reliable sources. As for Google analyses, yes, they can be faulty; this is why WP:Google hits uses caution on the matter. But that faultiness aspect doesn't stop Google analyses from being used in move requests (and in deletion discussions). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, lol; yes, of course I meant that! Thanks for pointing out my error! Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Two main reasons. First, this request does appear tainted per WP:CANVAS. I am seeing personal opinions and other WP:OR touted as equally valid to strong sourcing, evidence of inexperienced users drawn by the canvasing. Second, I performed an analysis of my own using an powerful academic database associated with a major national library that produces cleaner, more carefully organized results than google scholar in an attempt to determine frequency of terminology. The search is specifically limited to strong, peer reviewed sources and academically accredited books. My results are as follows:

• There is no indication from the academic sources I found indicating "genderqueer" is offensive. Several sources clearly show individuals using it self-referentially and it is also used in recent scientific papers.
• A search of the term "genderqueer" finds 131 results, dated no earlier than 2004 and used as recently as 2018. The term is specific to social sciences and psychology, unlike "nonbinary" which is a broadly used term well outside the subject matter (see below).

• Any searching for "non-binary" or "nonbinary" alone is problematic because it is too vague. The terms are used extensively in science to refer to almost any situation where there are more than two results, especially when there may have been an initial impression of only two results. It's predominately used in journals about Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Physics and Astronomy based on my initial search. To combat this I added the search term "gender identity" to both.

• A search for (nonbinary OR non-binary + "gender identity") yields just 69 results, with the earliest paper dated 2014.

• The number of results per year for both terms has increased each year, with 22 for "genderqueer" and 19 for "nonbinary" in 2017. The "genderqueer" was consistently more frequent each year.
  Legitimus (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far from persuaded that the current concise well recognised simple title is worse than the longer more complicated proposed title. Queer is very well understood, non-binary less so. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

References

---

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.

Medical Term

What is the medical formal term for this condition? If gender dysphoria refers to those individuals who do not feel at home with their biological sex, what is the medical term for this form of condition? TorontonianOnlines (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Being genderqueer is not a medical condition but a social one, so there isn't a medical term for it. (Gender dysphoria isn't the exact same thing as being transgender, similarly; the former is medical, the latter is social). At least AFAIK. But this talk page isn't the place for general discussion like this. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

adding a discourse/conflict section , adding more information

I propose adding a section about some of the common disagreements in the community. Just to acknowledge the differing opinions from all sides. I also want to add some information to the politics section about the recent things Trump has said about how gender will legally be defined. I plan to add some more sources to different parts of the article, especially the history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophieburke99 (talk • contribs)

I would not support additions to this article concerning things Trump has said on this topic recently, as it’s just his words and nothing real has happened. It would suffer from WP:CRYSTAL or WP:RECENTISM, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. Even with some remove in time, this would be the wrong article for that content.

As far as the “common disagreements”, can you add a bullet list of disagreement issues you see as possible candidates for inclusion? Mathglot (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonbinary

Times have changed. Genderqueer is in the past, along with "colored" and other terms for groups of people that have fallen into disuse. Just because you may be seeing a lot of past references to genderqueer, anyone who is nonbinary or otherwise active in nonbinary circles will tell you how rarely the term is actually applied. Genderqueer is also meant to be much more of a political term than nonbinary when it IS used by some as an identity.

Also, gender identity and sexual orientation are different. "Queer" has mostly been used as a sexuality label. I, for example, am a nonbinary individual attracted most exclusively to cishets and therefore I don't feel as though queer would be the right label to describe me. Just like not all NBs are trans, not all NBs are queer, either. 2601:98A:400:82F8:E99A:2EFC:1631:FC2E (talk) 06:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

We've been over this extensively, including recently. It's right there above for you to see, at #Requested move 4 June 2018. And when it's archived, I suggest you and others check the archive on it. I will add a FAQ on this at the top of the talk page. And it's time that I go ahead and add the history of the term material to this article and other stuff using the term genderqueer. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I and many nonbinary individuals will never accept genderqueer, yet there's no problem with referring to us as nonbinary. Is there some sort of agenda to use the word "queer"? I'm not queer! For me and many others, genderqueer and nonbinary will never be interchangeable. However, I don't see a problem of including genderqueer as a subset of nonbinary and I have no issue with anyone who identifies as genderqueer or is otherwise queer-identified.

Growing up, the term I was familiar with was androgyne or androgynous and I very often referred to myself as such. For myself, it served the same function as nonbinary, wherein a person could identify as a mix of both binary genders or neither or other. Genderqueer AND nonbinary both seem rather new to me, though nonbinary makes more sense as an umbrella term than genderqueer. Nonbinary may be newer than genderqueer, and genderqueer may have been used more extensively -- I'm not disputing that and it really doesn't make a difference to me. You just have to wonder why the term nonbinary was created if genderqueer was considered unanimously acceptable. I'm thinking it's because the genderqueer term is outdated and even offensive to many NBs. 2601:98A:400:82F8:2C02:8F1B:E5F3:3B8B (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal accounts are not WP:Reliable sources. And many terms have more than one word to describe them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal accounts are absolutely reliable in cases where folks need to clarify something, as not to be misrepresented. Are you saying that all nonbinary folks are queer? That would be wrong. Nonbinary folks have already been subject to erasure, and now it's ok to misrepresent us as well? Many terms have more than one word, sure. Some of those terms though are objectionable and shouldn't be used except for historical purposes. However, my main objection is that genderqueer doesn't even make sense to be used as an umbrella term for all NBs. 2601:98A:400:82F8:2061:FA38:D029:BC02 (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm stating that Wikipedia goes by its WP:Verifiability policy, WP:Reliable sources guideline, and WP:Due weight policy, among other things. I'm also stating, again, that "non-binary" has been discussed extensively on this talk page. I argued with the sources and rationale you see in the discussion I pointed you to. I will not be replying to you in this section again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe the essay WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS may also be relevant here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-binary Flag?

Searching Non-Binary redirects to this page, so could someone maybe add that there’s also a separate flag for Non-binary individuals since not all nonbinary individuals identify as Genderqueer? (Such as myself) Championmoon (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh wait never mind I found the non-binary flag Championmoon (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nonbinary and Gender Queer

GenderQueer and Nonbinary aren't the same thing. Nonbinary means that you don't identify by any gender. GenderQueer means that you don't know what you are yet and are in the process of figuring it out.

Citation: http://www.transstudent.org/definitions/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairieserum (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

They are generally synonymous according to other sources. Non-binary and genderqueer usually means anyone who does not fit into the "man"/"woman" binary. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

You're even misrepresenting the content of the page you add as citation. It says:

Nonbinary (Also Non-Binary): Preferred umbrella term for all genders other than female/male or woman/man, used as an adjective (e.g. Jesse is a nonbinary person). Not all nonbinary people identify as trans and not all trans people identify as nonbinary. Sometimes (and increasingly), nonbinary can be used to describe the aesthetic/presentation/expression of a cisgender or transgender person.

This says very clearly that nonbinary people can have a gender, except female/woman or male/man.

Nowadays, the term genderqueer has become largely synonymous with nonbinary; however, it can also refer to a specific nonbinary gender, to a type of gender presentation (in my experience, nonbinary is mainly used for genders, not presentations), or (as coined in the 1990s) be an umbrella term for all gender-nonconforming or gender variant people (like the transgender umbrella, although transgender is now rarely used in the "umbrella" sense and usually limited to people with a mismatch between their experienced gender and their birth assignment, so for example crossdressers, drag artists and butch lesbians without such a mismatch aren't included). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Using transgender as an umbrella term, meaning so that it also covers genderqueer/non-binary identities, is more recent than the strict use of transgender (which refers to a mismatch with regard to assigned sex and a male or female gender identity). It is only in recent years that the genderqueer/non-binary identities have taken off, which is why this 2005 source in the Transgender article states, "Yet Jordan and Nick represent a segment of transgender communities that have largely been overlooked in transgender and student development research – individuals who express a non-binary construction of gender." If using transgender to refer to cross-dressers, yes, that is an older application of the term, but it's non-standard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, "transgender umbrella" usually refers to the inclusive sense current in the 1990s and 2000s (illustrations for the "transgender umbrella" found on the web make this clear). In the past, puristic transsexuals often objected to the term "transgender", or rejected it outright, because it would lump them together with crossdressers and drag queens – including cis-male-identified ones.

Now, gender non-conforming people without a mismatch are not usually termed transgender anymore (except by outsiders who confuse, for example, drag and transgender). Only those with such a mismatch are, whether their gender is binary or non-binary (although some non-binary people do not think of themselves as transgender). It is true that non-binary gender was an obscure concept in the past, so transgender people were not usually thought of as, in some cases, outside the binary. Instead, some people who were once thought of as "merely gender non-conforming" have recently started to think of themselves as non-binary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What "inclusive sense" are you referring to? If you mean genderqueer/non-binary identities, including them was not the common use of transgender back in the 1990s and 2000s, considering that the genderqueer identity, as noted by this 2009 "Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volumes 1-2" source, from Sage Publications, page 402, was "first widely used in the late 1990s" (emphasis on "late") and "genderqueer is an identity more frequently embraced by younger gender nonconforming people." Such identities were not nearly as common in the past as they are today. Again, these people (disregarding the third gender topic) usually not having been recognized in the literature is why the aforementioned 2005 source states that "[this] segment of transgender communities" had "largely been overlooked in transgender and student development research." It was far more common to see transgender refer to cross-dressers than to anyone who identified as non-binary. These days, transgender is used more broadly in the literature than it used to be, which is why the first three sources in the Transgender article are relatively recent. That stated, it's still the case that transgender is usually taken to mean a mismatch with regard to assigned sex and a male or female gender identity, especially in the medical literature. When sources speak of transgender people, they usually are not speaking of genderqueer/non-binary people; that is not new. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant the "inclusive sense" that included all crossdressers, drag artists, masculine women, feminine men, etc., regardless of mismatch or not. Enter "transgender umbrella" into the Google image search, for example, to see what I mean.

Basically, "transgender" started out in 1965 as a synonym for "transsexual" (some "transsexuals" may well have been non-binary in the past, too, just not usually talked about it, especially since gatekeepers would not have understood or appreciated it), then it became, by and by, extremely inclusive (becoming effectively synonymous with what is now "gender variant", and what was the initial sense of "genderqueer"), leading to rejection of the term by some transsexuals; now (since the early 2010s or so?) it has been restricted again to people with an actual mismatch, though there is no necessity for a binary identification anymore. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You stated that "transgender is now rarely used in the 'umbrella' sense." The "rarely" assertion is incorrect in terms of genderqueer/non-binary people, which is why the first three aforementioned sources in the Transgender article are relatively recent. If using transgender as an umbrella term was rare these days, reliable sources would note it and we would note it in the Transgender article. If you mean that transgender is rarely used to refer to cross-dressers, feminine men, and masculine women, that is another matter, and I'll get to that in a moment. The Transgender article (in its lead) does currently state that "infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers." Your initial comment made it seem like using transgender as an umbrella term for genderqueer/non-binary people was a phase that quickly died out and that the strict use of transgender that doesn't include non-binary people is the recent development. Again, by "strict use, I mean a mismatch with regard to assigned sex and a male or female gender identity. I also mean the use more so associated with men who cross-dressed or trans women. More on the latter further in this paragraph. This is why I responded and began by stating that using transgender as an umbrella term so that it also covers genderqueer/non-binary identities is more recent than the strict use of transgender. That there has been debate regarding transgender vs. transsexual, with some transsexual people objecting to being called transgender, is a matter we cover in both the Transgender and Transsexual articles. You stated that transgender included all "crossdressers, drag artists, masculine women, feminine men, etc., regardless of mismatch or not." But, really, all those people were considered homosexual, which is why we have a note in the lead of the Stonewall riots article stating that "At the time, the term 'gay' was commonly used to refer to all LGBT people." History was not good about differentiating between homosexual people and transgender people. The term transgender went through an evolution, and trans terms now considered derogatory, such as transvestite and tranny, were generally not used to refer to gay people who did not present as the opposite sex. Rather, they needed to appear like they were presenting as the opposite sex to be called those terms. A woman simply looking masculine facial-wise or acting masculine was not enough to call her trans. If she "dressed like a man," then should was likelier to be considered homosexual than trans. Furthermore, transgender (and similar terms) were commonly applied to men rather than to women. See this 2013 "The Transgender Phenomenon" source, from Sage Publications, pages 13-23, for extensive history on the term transgender and similar and their evolution.

Also, this 2010 The Guardian source addresses the history of the terms, stating, " 'Transvestite' originated in 1910 from the German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, who would later develop the Berlin Institute where the very first 'sex change' operations took place. 'Transsexual' was not coined until 1949, 'transgender' not until 1971, and 'trans' (a very British term) not until 1996." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC) The Transgender article does give a different date for the coining of the term transgender, but, similar to the "The Transgender Phenomenon" source, it also states, "The term transgender was then popularized with varying definitions by various transgender, transsexual, and transvestite people, including Virginia Prince [...]." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we actually disagree. It is true that for a long time, transgender was largely confined to what we would now call "binary transgender" for clarity – the experience of one's gender as strictly female or male, yet in contradiction to external or legal attribution –, although I'd wager that's only because the concept of non-binary gender was so obscure at the time (throughout the 20th century, especially in modern Western civilisation), and some people (such as Sylvia Rivera) were (or are still) widely considered binary even though they may not have been. Then, for a time, the radically inclusive sense of transgender, depicted here, saw at least some currency, leading to conflict (especially with transsexual women who were very adamant that they are really women and not merely men dressing up in feminine attire, which misconception they found the radically inclusive umbrella promoted). Now, with the rise of the concept of non-binary gender, which I think largely coincided with the falling into obscurity of the most inclusive sense of transgender, but also the HBS movement, and the work of Julia Serano and Cristan Williams as well as other trans activists and bloggers may have played a role in this, as well as the rise and (partial) fall of the trans* term which looks very much like a compromise (between transgender and transsexual); and now we have this model, the more limited transgender umbrella you mention, though I think it is very much in spirit with the meaning of the term as originally coined, in view of the fact that there is no sharp line between "transsexuals" and the rest (specifically, some non-binary people have all the surgeries, and some binary people have little desire for any kind of medical transition). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Florian Blaschke, per WP:Not a forum (and that's not an attack on you, though I have cited it to you at times), and therefore this talk page not being the place to debate what we are debating unless it's actually helping to improve the article, I'm not going to discuss the topic further in this section. I also prefer not to debate a topic for weeks or months, or longer, whether on-and-off or not, and I know that we could keep going and going for a week or more. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Gender neutral honorific "Zer" (gender neutral version of Ma'am/Sir)

Gender neutral honorific "Zer" (gender neutral version of Ma'am/Sir) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat MM (talk • contribs) 20:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Similarity between agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois?

I guess these are mostly the same thing — should they all appear as separate terms in the lead? Is the lead the best place to raise them all? I'm thinking they could be removed from parentheses in the lead and referred to elsewhere in the article. All thoughts welcome. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cleopatran Apocalypse, per WP:Lead, the lead is meant to summarize the article. The "Definitions and identity" section covers these terms and is for detail on them. The lead is mentioning them because they are covered lower. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

this section.</div>— Preceding unsigned comment added by MJL (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Terminology and trends

I wanted to propose a new [sub-]section in the article to include how the terminology associated with non-binary or genderqueer identities is shifting. I sense a lot of frustration in the Requested move discussion above, and I think I understand why. There's clearly a shift going on towards non-binary for this concept, as supported by some of the arguments in the RM, but which is not reflected in the article at all. It probably deserves to be there.

The fact is, terminology in the whole LGBT+ space moves and develops rapidly, sometimes all over the place with dead ends: (QUILTBAG, LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM), sometimes generally in one direction but with incomplete overlap: (transvestite → cross-dresser; transsexual → transgender), sometimes with multiple terms for essentially the same thing which coexist with no trend, or as yet unclear trend: (cisgender ↔ cissexual ↔ non-trans).

The usage of terminology itself is a valid subject for Wikipedia, as long as sufficient reliable sources can be brought to bear on the topic. The whole LGBT article is about the term, ditto Cisgender; and various other articles in the space have terminology sections specifically to discuss evolution of terminology: (Transgender § Evolution of transgender terminology, Sex reassignment surgery § Terminology, Intersex § Language).

This article already has the section #Definitions and identity, but it's mostly about related terms like agender, genderfluid, and so on and it doesn't have much to say about non-binary per se, and nothing about shifts or trends in usage.

So, I think it's fair to add something about the shift from genderqueer to non-binary as long as it's done properly. That means, reliable, secondary sources; i.e., news articles or books actually talking about the shift itself, and being careful to avoid WP:SYNTH.

As far as how to organize that: I think at the top level, we don't need more than one top-level, H2 section about language and terminology. So, I think we should have a new top-level H2 called Terminology, or Terminology and usage, and the current #Definitions and identity section can be demoted to an H3 subsection under it, and then we should create a new H3 subsection called Shifts and trends or Usage trends or some such under it, to discuss the move towards non-binary.

Again, all of this falls apart if we can't find secondary RSes for it; so it's crucial to start there. I'll have a look around, and see what's out there. If you find other potential sources that could be helpful in such a subsection, please list them below. Pinging @-sche and WanderingWanda: Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The article by Reyes (2016) regarding the development of the term Latinx, is an example of the kind of article I am looking for. Although this one is about an intersectional term related to gender and ethnicity and not specifically about genderqueer/non-binary issues, it does talk about terminology, and how it is changing. A similar type of article referencing genderqueer and non-binary and how the terms are changing, would be ideal for this new section. Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Very much agree with the idea — and also I'd add that this sort of exegesis is often very illuminating. Would have to be handled carefully of course. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's a Google Trends graph that might be useful for such a section:

Graph of worldwide usage of "non-binary" (blue) vs. "genderqueer" (red) in Google searches in the past year

Kaldari (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A note regarding Google Trends: non-binary might be the most common spelling in professionally published stuff, but someone's less likely to bother with the dash when doing a Google search. So you'll want to include non-binary, nonbinary, genderqueer and, why not, gender-queer. Link. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Such a section (whether on its own or as an expansion and modification of the existing "definitions" section) would be a great addition to the article if we could find sources for it; as you say, finding the sources (and avoiding synth) may be nontrivial. I'm trying to mock something up, though what I'm finding atm is more about the scope of the terms in isolation than their relationship to one another (but, that's still useful). -sche (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@-sche:, that sounds great. Also, this may be one of the relatively rare cases where Google Trends data could legitimately be used, though it would have to be very carefully labeled for what it is, i.e., a record of what users were searching for during a given time interval, without implying a connection to the proportion of reliable sources containing those terms, and without attempting to ascribe a conclusion about what the search frequencies mean. (I.e., do people search more for term 'XYZ' now than they used to do because it's coming up more? because it's being assigned on homework more? Do more people search for 'XYZ' than 'ABC' because it's out there in the literature a lot more, or because everybody already knows what 'ABC' means, and so there's no reason to search for that one? We don't know the answer to any of these questions, so we mustn't imply anything about them when indicating Trends results.) Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Other things have pulled me away from working on this, so I'm just going to dump what I did have time to put together, which is on the use of genderqueer not comparison to non-binary, but may still be useful.

• The term genderqueer began to circulate in the late 1990s.
• It "has its genesis in" the reclamation of development of queer into a term that confronted heteronormativity; genderqueer challenges the idea of gender as binary.
• It is more colloquial than some more transparently descriptive terms.
• It is an umbrella term.
• It has a variety of definitions.
• It can refer to people who have a shifting gender (such as genderfluid people), those who experience gender as a combination of [things associated with] man and woman (e.g. bigender people), or those who exist outside the spectrum of binary genders.
• Some people use the term genderqueer to describe their gender expression together with another term that indicates a gender (as in a genderqueer woman), others use it as a gender identity itself (as in I am a genderqueer person). (Non-binary also functions this way, btw.)
• Genderqueer people may use hormones, have surgeries, or alter their bodies in other ways such as electrolysis or bodybuilding; others may not change their bodies but dress in clothing considered appropriate only for another gender, or in a mixed of differently gendered clothes. They may use binary pronouns (he/she), the singular they, or neopronouns.

(Note: this information is all about genderqueer and not non-binary because the former is what I was looking for at the time, and not for any other reason such as a difference in commonness between the two terms.) -sche (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)