Wikipedia

Talk:Non-binary gender/Archive 6

< Talk:Non-binary gender
Latest comment: 5 years ago by MJL in topic If you thought this RM was tough...
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Requested move 1 May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago254 comments36 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Non-binary gender. This is, obviously, a difficult close, but there appears to be both a stronger showing of support for a move, and a stronger case for a shift in the applicable primary usage, with Non-binary gender being a well-discussed alternative to the proposed move target, and one drawing somewhat less opposition specifically due to to the adjectival and potentially ambiguous nature of "Non-binary". There was also some consideration to further extending this discussion, but there does not seem to be a great appetite for another relisting after nearly a full month. In time, all disputes must be settled, so that the next ones can be addressed. bd2412 T 01:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Genderqueer → Non-binary – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Usage of the term non-binary has overtaken genderqueer. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous move discussions took place in:

Nomination statement

Personally, I have a slight aesthetic preference for the term genderqueer, but we should follow common usage:

Additional statement

(Added on May 17, 2019) When the first RM discussion for this article was held, back in 2016, genderqueer may have been the more common term. It isn't any more. The word non-binary is now used more often: in media, academia, books, and society in general. The turning point? 2017, the year California started issuing non-binary birth certificates and TV star Asia Kate Dillon went on Ellen to explain their non-binary identity to Middle America.

You can see this dramatic shift in usage in the following chart. It compares the results in Google Scholar for "genderqueer people" vs. "non-binary people", year-over-year, from 2010 to present:

Date Genderqueer Non-binary
2010 25 0
2011 30 2
2012 45 5
2013 62 5
2014 88 30
2015 81 71
2016 147 135
  • First RM discussion
2017 141 268
  • Billions casts non-binary actor Asia Kate Dillon ref
  • California adds nonbinary option to birth certificates ref ref 2
  • Oregon and Washington D.C. add Gender: X option to licenses ref 1 ref 2
  • Second RM discussion
2018 203 471
2019 60 176
  • Musician Sam Smith comes out as non-binary ref
  • Nevada adds Gender: X option to licenses ref
  • Fourth RM discussion

I've done a variety of searches with different phrasings and the same pattern holds. For example, in 2010 on Google Scholar, "genderqueer identity" gets 10 results and "non-binary idenity" gets 2. Fast forward to 2019, and "genderqueer identity" now gets 21, and "non-binary identity" gets 39.

Meanwhile, searching The Washington Post: in 2014, Genderqueer gets 5 results and "non-binary" gets 3. In 2018, "genderqueer" gets 8 and "non-binary" is mentioned, in the context of gender, in over 30 different articles.

I also searched books on Amazon, and, as you can see, in the past couple of years there were significantly more books released with non-binary in the title than genderqueer:

Book titles on Amazon.com (2017-2019)

NON-BINARY in the title

  1. Trans Love: An Anthology of Transgender and Non-Binary Voices
  2. Supporting Transgender and Non-Binary People with Disabilities or Illnesses: A Good Practice Guide for Health and Care Provision
  3. Supporting Transgender and Non-Binary Students and Staff in Further and Higher Education
  4. non-binary: a moody book of complicated feelings.
  5. My Heart Is Non-Binary
  6. Challenging Genders: Non-Binary Experiences of Those Assigned Female at Birth
  7. Blowing up Rachel: A Non-Binary Trans Woman's Dialogue With Each Other
  8. Written on the Body: Letters from Trans and Non-Binary Survivors of Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence
  9. A Practical Guide to Understanding Gender Variance: including Intersex, Trans, Non-Binary & Gender Fluid Individuals
  10. Bi-Gender: A Candid Nonbinary Memoir
  11. Gender Diversity and Non-Binary Inclusion in the Workplace: The Essential Guide for Employers
  12. 100 Questions and Answers About Gender Identity: The Transgender, Nonbinary, Gender-Fluid and Queer Spectrum (Bias Busters)
  13. Casting A Queer Circle: Non-Binary Witchcraft
  14. Counseling Transgender and Non-Binary Youth: The Essential Guide

BOTH in the title

  1. Genderqueer and Non-Binary Genders (Critical and Applied Approaches in Sexuality, Gender and Identity)
  2. Courage is a gift: and other stories by, and about transgender, non binary, and genderqueer people (My Voice, My Story Book 2)
  3. They/Them/Their: A Guide to Nonbinary and Genderqueer Identities
  4. Burn the Binary!: Selected Writings on the Politics of Trans, Genderqueer and Nonbinary

GENDERQUEER in the title

  1. The Rise of Genderqueer: Poems (Mineral Point Poetry)
  2. Transfigured: A 40-day journey through scripture for gender-queer and transgender people (Where True Love Is) (Volume 2)
  3. Transgenders in the U.S. Military: Policies, Problems, and Prospects - Report on Transvestites, Drag Queens, Transsexual, Genderqueer, Comparative Perspectives, Medical Standards, and History

Try doing some searches yourself! Think I'm wrong? Think my analysis is incorrect? Think I'm low-down yankee liar? Prove it!

One final note: below, you'll find a lot of good arguments on both sides. However, be aware of the age of what you're reading. For example, one big message below is mostly copy-pasted from last year's discussion. The sentence the repeated move proposals based on supposed offensiveness and faulty Google statistics is bordering on WP:Disruptive is not a response to my nomination. I have not claimed that genderqueer is offensive and, unlike the possibly-sloppy work done by others in another discussion at another time, I've been very careful with my searches and very mindful of false positives. Note also the age of sources that are cited. A source from back in 2009, for example, can't tell you what is the WP:COMMONNAME in 2019.

In the end, WP:TITLE says Wikipedia describes current usage. In current usage, non-binary dominates, and so it should be the title of the article.

Thanks for your consideration.

P.S. Although I would not mind the article being named Non-binary gender, you can read my argument for why Non-binary, on its own, best fulfills the five main criteria for article titles here. WanderingWanda (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: WanderingWanda's data has been thoroughly criticized and rebutted below. The above is more of the same. And, in the Survey section below, this "Additional statement" section has been criticized as an attempt to taint this move request. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify my own view: I think it had, or might have had, the effect of tainting the RM but not that it was an intentional attempt to do so. But I agree that these arguments have largely been made over and over and nothing is to be gained by repeating them again dressed in new clothes. Either these same arguments were persuasive before and that was sufficient to make the case (not so according to my analysis presented elsewhere) or they were not persuasive before in which case presenting them in a nice table doesn’t change anything. (Kudos to WW nevertheless for having a keen eye for data presentation, which could be very useful in other venues when they are not beating their argument to death  .) Mathglot (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Although I don't see anything wrong with the Additional Statement (and certainly don't think it's been "thoroughly...rebutted"), Mathglot, I respect how level-headed you've been throughout the process and won't revert if you think it would be appropriate to collapse or move the statement. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Strongly SUPPORT move to "Non-binary gender" per nom, OR "Non-binary gender", OR "Non-binary gender identity/-ies" per previous discussions. See the previous few requests for some good explanations. "Non-binary" has clearly eclipsed "genderqueer" in common and and journalistic sources. Additionally, "non-binary" is a much better "catch-all" term for the many varieties of non-binary gender identities. "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) 23:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the links to past discussions. I think "Non-binary" is precise enough without any additional words. Technically speaking, non-binary can refer to other things, but in practice, the term has become strongly synonymous with gender. If you Google the term you'll get a bunch of results about gender and not much else. Note also that Wikipedia doesn't even have a disambiguation page for "Non-binary": there isn't a single other topic that is a candidate for the title. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 00:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I understand the emotional significance of your arguments, but they don't seem to be policy-based, except for one that argues against your position:
      • "Non-binary" has clearly eclipsed "genderqueer" in common and and journalistic sources. Evidence please, or it ain't so. (Spoiler: it ain't so.)
      • "Genderqueer" is a somewhat controversial term – Wikipedia is not censored.
      • many non-binary folks don't identify as "genderqueer"... Very true. That has a bearing on the content of Wikipedia articles about those folks, per MOS:GENDERID, but it has no impact on the title of this article, per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:COMMONNAME.
      • "non-binary" may not be supported by a larger number of reliable references... This is (still) true, and is the only policy-based argument you raised. Unfortunately, it argues against your vote, and for keeping the current title.
    • Afaict, your !vote amounts to WP:IJDLI, while your arguments actually support a "keep" vote. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    • What about "Non-binary and genderqueer" or "Genderqueer and non-binary gender"? Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
      I would have some WP:PRECISION issues with that, but if the consensus seems intractably divided right down the middle, something along those lines might be better than endless argument about it. Wasn't presented here at the outset, but why not see how this Rfc comes out, and that maybe propose that at some point if appropriate? Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
      So you're suggesting the choice of a title doesn't have to be binary? ohohohoho WanderingWanda (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
       Oh ho ho ho ho Mathglot (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
      WP does not title articles this way; we do not use alternative names in "A or B" constructions nor as pseudo-disambiguators, as in "A (B)" constructions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to Non-binary or, preferably, Non-binary gender. --Equivamp - talk 00:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Ugh, I forgot we just had this conversation pretty recently. While I think that "non-binary" and variations of it are actually more common, Flyer 22 Reborn's arguments below, and the contents of previous discussions show that Wikipedia guidelines dictate that "Genderqueer" be the name used, so I'm changing my vote to oppose the move. --Equivamp - talk 23:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Non-binary gender per the research above. Oppose Non-binary as an unnecessary violation of WP:NOUN. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Non-binary would be in line with the current title (Genderqueer, not Genderqueer identity or Genderqueer people) as well as Transgender and Transsexual. I think in this case the "Use nouns" guideline conflicts with "Conciseness" as well as "Naturalness" (Someone would be unlikely to say "so-and-so is of the non-binary gender" in real life, but instead just "so-and-so is non-binary". WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Non-binary can also be a little ambiguous, e.g. you can talk about non-binary number systems. I think the ambiguity is at an intermediate level where no other topic can seriously challenge this one for primary topic, but nonetheless having the extra disambiguator is preferred over conciseness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
        WanderingWanda: Renaming it to Non-binary would fail WP:PRECISION. Whether non-binary is "in line with" Genderqueer, or with Transgender or Transexual, is irrelevant. Article title policy is not dependent on some arbitrary consistency across different articles. Rather, as King of Hearts points out, Non-binary [is] ambiguous. In fact, Non-binary by itself almost never refers to gender (see the collapse box below) while Genderqueer always refers to gender. KoH is correct; if the article is moved, it cannot be to Non-binary and must be to Non-binary gender, or similar. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:Common name/reliable sources thus far/what Legitimus and I argued in the previous discussion, now seen at Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 5#Requested move 4 June 2018. Don't be fooled by WanderingWanda's argument. Nothing has changed since that June 2018 move request. This is just more "move the article" reasoning based on nothing concrete. There's a reason that the article has repeatedly failed to be moved away from "Genderqueer," and that is because "genderqueer" is still the common name. I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted last time. If the article is moved even considering this, I'll just consider that activism has finally won out. But this is what I stated last time: 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. [An editor talked 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 this, 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 [in 2017], 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. Legitimus argued similarly. See Legitimus's research below:
Click on this for Legitimus's research
  • 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)
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 a personalized trends graph was mentioned], and an editor believes this 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. [An editor] 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 [that the editor] 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. [The editor] 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. Below, are the sources I pointed to in the 2017 and 2018 discussions. But for this 2019 discussion, I've added more sources:
Sources using the term genderqueer over the years (from 2009 to 2019), which make it clear that genderqueer is the most common term/main umbrella term.

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.

13. This 2018 "A Guide to Genderqueer, Non-binary, and Genderfluid Identity" source, from Psychology Today, states, "Defining Genderqueer (GQ): A GQ or nonbinary person is someone who feels that their felt gender doesn't fit with socially constructed norms for their biological sex. This may be in terms of their thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and, most importantly, their gender identity. [...] GQ Umbrella Identities: Brace yourself, because the variety inherent among GQs has resulted in numerous additional labels within the framework of genderqueer. Here are a few of the common ones according to Giddins: Genderfluid: Identify as male, female, or nonbinary at different times or circumstances. Third-gender: "Hirja" in India or "Two-spirit" in Native American cultures. Amalgagender: Intersex people born with a mixed male/female anatomy. Demigender: A weak or partial connection to a certain gender (demigirl or demiboy). Bigender: Having two gender identities either simultaneously or switching between the two. 6. Pangender: Identifying with a vast range of different genders. 7. Agender: Lacking gender, genderless, or not caring about gender identity.

14. This 2018 "Everything you never knew about being genderqueer" source, from The Daily Dot, states, "Trans Student Educational Resources (TSER) defines 'genderqueer' as 'an identity commonly used by people who do not identify or express their gender within the gender binary.' Genderqueer people 'may identify as neither male nor female,' TSER explains, and 'may see themselves as outside of or in between the binary gender boxes,' if not dismissing gender altogether. In short, genderqueer describes gender identities that go against traditional expectations of what it means to have a gender. Genderqueer is an umbrella term, so when someone identifies as genderqueer, that could mean a variety of things. Some people consider themselves genderqueer and identify as cisgender, or with their gender assigned at birth. Others see themselves as genderqueer and prefer not to assign themselves to a specific gender identity. Because genderqueer carries a wide range of terms and phrases, there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to being genderqueer. [...] Some people may consider themselves genderqueer and identify with various other terms within the genderqueer umbrella. Here are just a few examples. Agender: Agender individuals are people who "do not experience having a gender," Hell Yeah, Agender! explains. Agender people may use a wide range of pronouns and experience no particular relationship with a gender identity. Bigender: Bigender people have two gender identities. Some bigender people experience their gender identities simultaneously, while others regularly transition from gender to gender. Some genderfluid people may identify as bigender too. Genderfluid: Term for individuals who 'have different gender identities at different times,' Nonbinary Wiki states. Genderfluid is an umbrella term and is used by people who identify both inside and outside the gender binary. Multigender: An umbrella term for people who 'have more than one gender identity,' be it at once or from time to time, as Nonbinary Wiki explains. Multigender identities include genderfluid and bigender. Nonbinary: Nonbinary is an umbrella definition for people who fall outside the gender binary and do not explicitly identify as 'male' or 'female.' For more information, read our guide to being nonbinary."

15. This 2019 "Transgressive: A Trans Woman on Gender, Feminism, and Politics" source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, page 87, states, "Genderqueer, also known as genderqueer—nonnormative gender identity or expression. While genderqueer originated as an inclusive umbrella term, it is also considered by many to be an individual identity."

16. This 2019 "Predictive validity of the genderqueer identity scale (GQI): differences between genderqueer, transgender and cisgender sexual minority individuals" source, published in the International Journal of Transgenderism weighs the difference between three groups based on a genderqueer identity scale. There are a number of other new academic sources that also use the term "genderqueer" or "genderqueer and non-binary," all while prioritizing the term "genderqueer." Some new academic sources, when focusing on the gender meaning of non-binary, also use the terms "non-binary," "non-binary people" or "non-binary gender identities," but most use "genderqueer" or prioritize "genderqueer"...or make it clear that "genderqueer" is the main umbrella term.

Where are [the many] 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. [...] 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. [Most of the] academic material [...] 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" [or "Non-binary gender identities"]. 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.
As seen by their vote above, Equivamp has changed their mind about this matter, but I'm willing to bet that, just like me, SmokeyJoe, Legitimus, and Mathglot are still wondering where the solid evidence is for going with "non-binary" or "non-binary gender." How are we going to declare either of those terms the common name, given the evidence that Legitimus, Mathglot and myself have presented? I'll go ahead and alert Wikipedia talk:Article titles to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: To anyone responding to my above comment, do not break up my comment; this is per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments. Respond after this comment. I want all of my comment together, in its original, long format. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, I've added subsection #Discussion below, if you feel like moving any of this there. If you do, feel free to move it above my discussion comment to retain chrono order with the original timestampe. Mathglot (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you referring to the evidence gathered by Legitimus and Flyer22? Legitimus' evidence is unverifiable to most of us, and Flyer22's research appears to be one sided. Can you expand on your opinion? Your analyses have been helpful. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support While genderqueer was definitely the commonname in the past Non Binary has now replaced it in most recent usage. Furthermore genderqueer was primarily used in North America but as recognition of genderqueer/non binary has grown outside of NA the preferred term in other countries has become non binary with it being given official usage in some countries (Australia for instance). This can be demonstrated by a google search with either term and adding a country on news sorted by date. I feel the tipping point to change the article title here on wiki has now been reached. Lyndaship (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Support move to "non-binary" (or less preferably "non-binary gender") because "non-binary" has become the COMMONNAME, and also is a clearer name descriptively denoting the concept whereas "genderqueer" is an identifier only some non-binary people opt in to, which is why e.g. our top-level category (which would normally match the wording of its main article) cannot use "genderqueer" but uses "non-binary".
Doing e.g. a Scholar search (where hit counts are much more reliable and checkable unlike raw web searches) of journal articles for "non-binary" gender, which weeds out non-gender-related uses of "non-binary mentioned above, returns 15,000 results (10,800 since 2015). "genderqueer" gender returns only 11,300 (7,040 since 2015). Google Books results, and my own perusals of books (since a user in a previous RM felt their personal perusal of books was more reliable than an aggregation of a much larger number of books like Google Books), finds a similar skew.
The news coverage I've seen, and see when searching Google News (which unfortunately doesn't seem to give a way to count hits when restricting a search by date), also mostly uses "non-binary", as do most of the court decisions and proposed laws I've seen (probably since, as mentioned above, "non-binary" is the descriptor of such people while "genderqueer" is an identifier only some opt in to).
I said in a previous RM that nonetheless "perhaps we should wait for the trendline to grow longer" before a move, and it has. (However, even last year a user responded to where I laid out such evidence with a comment that they saw no evidence, so I worry we may be reaching an "each side has their own facts" stage.)
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 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 [if it were real, would] already exist (and, apparently, has not caused us any actual problems). -sche (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing what you see, and no one is offering reliable sources that support their alternative terms in the way that the reliable sources I have offered support "genderqueer." Where are the reliable sources for "non-binary gender"? I mean, ones using that exact phrase and ones not just using that wording in passing? As for third gender, I think that the Genderqueer title has helped keep out third gender and gender variance material that have their own Wikipedia articles. The WP:Student editors I've had to clean up after have shown how these topics can be smashed together. And going by reliable sources, there is indeed overlap. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
-sche, I'm afraid your analysis is flawed, and does not support your conclusion.
repeating your search, showing statistical bias towards non-binary

If I'm not mistaken, these were your two searches:

is that correct? The problem here, is that while the second one always returns results about "genderqueer" as an identity, the first one has many false positives and therefore only sometimes returns results about "non-binary" as a gender identity. This skews your counters in favor of nonbinary, and taints your analysis.

To visualize the problem, go to page 100 of the results for non-binary. This page of results, has a 60% false-positive rate, in these three categories:

  • doesn't contain "non-binary" at all: #2, #6, #10
  • contains "non-binary", article is related to gender, but it's not about non-binary gender: #1 (non-binary construct), and #3 (non-binary discourse).
  • contains "non-binary", but in some other context than gender: #8 (Non-binary trees)

That leaves four of ten results (#4, 5, 7, and 9) as valid entries on page 100 for this search.

You'd have to spot check other pages in the first 100, maybe every 10, as it's likely that the false positive rate is lower towards the beginning of the results. However, it's also likely that it's worse, further out (pages 101- 1,570 of results) but we'll never know, because 100 pages is the maximum number of results that Scholar will return. A better way, would be to find narrower searches that are still valid for comparing the two expressions. For example, try these two searches:

return results that are much closer to each other, but note that the nonbinary search inevitably still contains some false positives, although only one on page 100 (still, a 10% rate, but maybe not typical).

Mathglot (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Good catch; I didn't weed out enough chaff there; however, I find the same spread when comparing e.g. "non-binary genders" (513) to "genderqueer genders" (226) (the results incidentally prominently include some works that treat the terms on equal footing, like C Richards, WP Bouman et al's "Non-binary or genderqueer genders" and their "Genderqueer and non-binary genders"), or "non-binary people" (1170; 1130 if "gender" is added as another searchword), "non-binary persons" (154) to "genderqueer people" (982; 975 if adding "gender" as another searchword), "genderqueer persons" (121). (In both of "_ people" searches, not all results on the last page — page 100 for "non-binary" and page 98 for the less common term "genderqueer" — use the term in the viewable snippet, though all those that did were using the relevant sense. This is, incidentally, why listing the individual articles, although daunting, may ultimately prove necessary.) -sche (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid that once again, this fails careful analysis. Comparing the query "genderqueer genders" vs. "nonbinary genders" is apples and oranges; they are incomparable. As was made clear from the collapse box above, "non-binary" is rarely about gender; it can mean many things, and 98% of the time, it is about something else. That's why, unless previous context has already clarified the point, when you are talking about "non-binary" in connection with "gender", you must add the word gender to it to say what you are talking about. That makes the expression non-binary gender very common in the literature about gender. However, as was explained below, when you use the word genderqueer it is always about gender, without exception. Therefore, the expression genderqueer genders almost never occurs solely in connection with genderqueer, because it's redundant and you never need to say it. "So," you might ask, "then why does it occur at all?" The answer is, because it occurs as part of a noun phrase with dual adjectives connected by conjunction: non-binary or genderqueer genders. The correct parsing of this is, "(non-binary or genderqueer) genders", whereas by searching for "genderqueer genders" you are implicitly parsing it as "(non-binary) or (genderqueer genders)" as if the second token ever existed in the wild on its own, but it doesn't. If you go back and look at your search results for "genderqueer genders", you will see that this is the case: they are almost all "non-binary and genderqueer genders", or similar. This is all fodder for a forthcoming essay on how to use search efficiently for meaningful results, because, as I tried to point out below, "comparing the results of two different search engine queries is a tricky business." I'm not going to go through all the other searches one by one, but if you have one that you're persuaded is decisive, let me know, and I'll have a look at it. Mathglot (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Keep were it is Reviews like this show both are used.[1]. Evidence that one is more common than the other is not strong. We have one review from the last 5 years that uses "non-binary" in the title well we have 2 that use "genderqueer". Stretching it out to 10 years makes no difference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: More on Google hits and similar is in the #Discussion section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "non-binary" as over-abbreviated and non-introductory. Looking at its uses in sources, it requires explanation. It fails WP:PRECISE. "Non-binary" is precise enough without any additional words. The current is superior in recognisability. This proposal is significantly worse than the Talk:Genderqueer/Archive_3#Requested_move_4_June_2016 proposal for Non-binary gender. The nominator has not made a case for the need to change from the status quo; the proposal fails WP:TITLECHANGES. They have made a number of unsubstantiated claims, enough to reject the proposal wholesale, with advice to write a better nomination next time. The claims may or may not be true, I see they have already been challenged, and as the onus is on the nominator to make a sound nomination, this should be closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. (I've voted in the previous RMs and think that "non-binary" would have been a respectable move even in 2017 or the like, mind, and the case has only strengthened since.) SnowFire (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I've given my views in the previous RM, and I believe the argument still stands. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 17:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    Mooeena, do you mean your post about Google Trends data from 01:10, 4 June 2018? That argument has been thoroughly debunked both at that discussion (post of 02:42, 12 June) as well as below, in this discussion. The data in that post is worthless here. Do you have something else? Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, I mainly meant the legal and LGBT glossary setions of that post. I am well aware that Google Trends data is complicated. Thanks for clarifying. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    By legal and LGBT part, did you mean the part starting with "California, October 2017: "The bill would authorize...", and ending with: "So does The Trevor Project."? If so, in that section you listed 7 judicial decisions (CA OR WA DC NJ ON Aus) and 6 Human Rights orgs (GLAAD, HRC, Stonewall, PFLAG, TSER, Trevor). That's a total of 13 sources. But there are hundreds or thousands of sources, on both sides of this. WP:AT recommends a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Listing a dozen sources that support your view doesn't demonstrate a majority; after all, someone else could come along and pick two dozen that support the opposite view. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per data below showing nonbinary is a more common term now. (It's actually my opinion that the two terms refer to slightly different things in a similar manner to bisexual and pansexual and could potentially be different pages like those are. For example, there are separate nonbinary and genderqueer flags, which certainly seems to imply that the people in the communities in question do not think they are the same thing. But for the narrow question at issue, I agree that nonbinary is the more common term.) LokiTheLiar (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Although bisexuality and pansexuality are often considered the same thing and pansexuality is sometimes subsumed under bisexuality, they are two different subjects. And there is debate about whether or not they should be seen as two different things or as distinct. As seen by various reliable sources on this talk page, genderqueer and non-binary (when it refers to gender) are the same subject. And I'm not seeing reliable sources stating that genderqueer and non-binary are two different things or are distinct. So having both a Genderqueer article and a Non-binary article would be a WP:Content fork violation. There is no way to validly distinguish the terms so that we won't have a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and a WP:POVFORK. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per the concepts having some different nuances. There may or may not be a debate about whether there should be two articles that distinguish the differences, but I think the WP:COMMONNAME issue is a red herring. Montanabw(talk) 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a perennial proposal that has been rejected time and again. I fail to see any evidence that the term "genderqueer" is facing declining use. The term "genderqueer" is explicitly about gender, while the term "non-binary" can refer to topics other than gender; thus a direct comparison between the amount of usage for both terms fail to paint an accurate picture for their use in the context of gender. If anything we should have two articles because it is unfair to force any particular person to identify as either genderqueer or non-binary. feminist (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't forcing anyone to identify as genderqueer. Also see what I stated above to LokiTheLiar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Relisting note: so far it's seven in favour of "Non-binary", two in favour of "Non-binary gender", and eight in favour of "Genderqueer". While it of course is not mandatory, please could users who have given a "per nom" !vote elaborate on their position as the strength of arguments is taken into account just as much as their numerical quantity? Furthermore, I'd like to echo Mathglot's comment and note that it is encouraging to see everybody being so civil at such a well-attended and potentially controversial move. SITH (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Move to Non-binary gender, as "Non-binary" (by itself) is too confusing with mathematical numbering systems and is not a NOUN, and "Genderqueer" seems unnecessarily sensationalistic and inflamatory. To my ear, "non-binary gender" captures the concept rather nicely while maintaining a neutral tone. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
BarrelProof, it seems you are arguing a WP:NPOVTITLE case. But as noted before, I haven't come across any reliable sources that call "genderqueer" offensive. Same goes for calling it inflammatory. Plus, WP:NPOVTITLE is clear that we generally go with the common name even when people may view it as non-neutral. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say the proposal is a POV title. I said it seems inflammatory and sensationalistic, which is a bit different, because I'm not saying that it expresses any particular specific POV. It just seems like a word that many people wouldn't feel completely comfortable with. Anyhow, I will acknowledge that I'm speaking only from my narrow personal experience – not describing a well-studied position. What I'm more confident about saying is that "non-binary" (without "gender") doesn't seem like a noun and has other confusing meanings. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a hard time imagining what a non-gender-related article (or disambig page) about "non-binary" would even look like. "Here's a list of things that don't come in pairs"? That is...a lot of things. As for redirecting to "binary": that's an option, I guess, but is the person typing "non-binary" into their search bar really looking for any of the articles listed under "Binary"? Are they looking for "Binary number" or "binary code"? I'm not so sure about that. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll add: regardless of what this article's title winds up being, I think "Non-binary" should continue to bring people to this article. The reason: process of elimination. What might a reader be looking for when they search for "non-binary"? 1. An encyclopedia article on the broad concept of things-that-are-not-binary? Sorry, we can't really accommodate that request. Some concepts lend themselves to encyclopedia articles and some don't, and that one doesn't. 2. A definition of the word non-binary? Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a usage or jargon guide. (WP:NOT#DICDEF). However, for people looking for that kind of definition, we can add a Wikitionary link to the top of the page. 3. Information about the concept of "binary"? Well, sorry, but that's the opposite of what you searched for! If you searched for ugliness you wouldn't expect to be redirected to beauty, would you? However, we can add a hatnote that links to binary (and I went ahead and did this.) ... When we eliminate those other possibilities, what we're left with is one thing: the article about non-binary/genderqueer identity. That's why Non-binary has redirected to Genderqueer since 2012. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support In a 2019 survey of over 11,000 nonbinary individuals, [[2]] 'nonbinary' was the term the majority of participants identified with (the participants were able to select multiple options.) 'Genderqueer' was not even in the top 5 responses. This gives some indication of what terms are most commonly being used currently. Moreover from personal experience genderqueer is often used as a more specific term within the nonbinary community to mean someone who is between or is both male and female, which excludes the experiences of many other types of non-binary people. 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐲 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

— Dave the enby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    • Thanks for the survey link, 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐲. I'm not 100% sure how much weight to give it – the site's FAQ notes that it's not run by a professional researcher – but their findings are consistent with all the evidence I've gathered showing that nonbinary has overtaken genderqueer in use over the past several years. This graph from their site shows genderqueer on top back in 2013, and then shows its sharp decline and nonbinary's rapid rise. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
A quick look at Dave the enby's contributions shows that this editor is highly suspicious. Significantly experienced editors will know what I mean. If I see any more of that, I will contact a WP:CheckUser. Even the editor's user page has tried to offset suspicion. Dave the enby's rationale is also weak. And WanderingWanda's arguments, including data, have been rebutted below. Editors have also made it clear why, per WP:NOUN and WP:PRECISE, we should not go wiith "Non-binary." And "Non-binary gender" is nowhere close to the common name in reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22 Reborn, I am still relatively new to Wikipedia. Could you please help me to understand why I am 'highly suspicious'? This is an alt account I use for privacy reasons. I don't mean to cause trouble and would like to get better with the quality of my contributions. I agree that the evidence I have provided is not strong, as the survey was not conducted by a professional researcher. If I find more compelling evidence on this matter then I will be sure to include it. 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐲 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Dave the enby, I think you know why the account is highly suspicious. Your edits clearly indicate that you have experience editing Wikipedia. And you just stated that your account is a WP:LEGITSOCK. After "non-binary gender" editing, you made your way to this article. I'm not going to state any more than that. And I advise that no one give me some WP:Assume good faith commentary or similar. As many know, I have significant experience with regard to identifying non-new editors (and by "non-new," I'm also including ones not entirely new even though they still have a lot to learn) and when WP:Meatpuppetry is or may be going on. WP:Assume good faith does not mean abandoning common sense or never questioning suspicious behavior. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry to cause trouble for you. I don't think you're likely to believe me but I really am new to Wikipedia proper; before now I have only contributed to non-wikipedia wikis e.g. Fandom wikis. I've just read your user pages and seen your take on sockpuppetry and I can't blame you for thinking I am a sockpuppet. I'll try my best to avoid causing issues for people from now on. Thank you for the tip on pinging people. 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐲 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
If you really are using the Dave the enby account legitimately, there is no reason to apologize. I just felt that it was important that I point out the suspicious nature of your account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
As for pinging people, that is just my preference. Others don't mind being pinged to a talk page that they are watching. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Just an FYI: Dave's user page now says This is an alt account, while claiming it's for a legitimate reason and that they've notified Arbcom. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The assertion that "nothing has changed" since June 2018 is hugely wrong. The most salient change related to this discussion is that California, Colorado, Nevada, Indiana, Minnesota, and Arkansas all started recognizing "non-binary" as a legal gender. Non-binary gender is no longer just a cultural issue; it is now a widespread legal issue. "Genderqueer" doesn't do a good job of encompassing the full scope of the article (i.e. encompassing the legal aspect). "Non-binary" works better. In my mind, this is more a scope issue than a COMMONNAME issue. But even on the COMMONNAME issue, I think "non-binary" now has roughly equal (and rising) current usage compared to "genderqueer" (who's usage is declining). See, for example, [3]. And yes, I KNOW that Google Trends does not determine article title naming, so please don't beat me over the head with that. My point is that saying "nothing has changed" is wrong. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing "hugely wrong" that I can see, going by the rebuttals below. Like I stated in the #Legal context section below, with regard to the legal aspect, usually " '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. This is seen even when looking at the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"X" is not an appropriate title for the article. My point is that "genderqueer" is never used in discussion of the legal context, thus if someone is looking for information on the legal concept and they end up at "Genderqueer" are they going to think they're at the right article or not? I think that many people would not expect to find discussion of the legal concept under that title (which is used almost exclusively within an LGBT cultural context). Kaldari (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"Non-binary" is hardly used when it comes to actual legal documents. It's "X" or similar that is. It seems you accept that. News sources using the term to report on legal matters is not the same thing as actual legal documents. As for "legal context" in the broad sense of media sources reporting on the matter, a number of them, like this Out magazine source, state "legal recognition for the non-binary and gender-queer community." In other words, a number of sources state "non-binary and genderqueer" or "nonbinary or genderqueer." The general public reading about these legal strides often see "genderqueer" in the sources as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Out magazine is an LGBT source. Do you have any examples of non-LGBT sources using "genderqueer" to discuss non-binary gender in a legal context? Kaldari (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
For the past year, there are eleven pages of Google results for "nonbinary" at Out.com and four pages for "genderqueer". See my !vote for examples of non-LGBT sources using "non-binary" in legal contexts. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to Non-binary gender. I took a quick look back in June of 2016 and even at that time it seemed as though non-binary was eclipsing genderqueer as the umbrella term for gender identities that are not male or female. I think that we can rely on our judgment as editors to keep this article about the modern Western identity and Third gender about indigenous and historical third genders, contra editors arguing that maintaining the "Genderqueer" title 1) will be effective at separating the topics and 2) is the only way to keep the topics separate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to Non-binary gender. It's both the more common term as well as being a more descriptive term. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment As of now, this RFC may be tainted, and may need to be discarded. In this edit of 09:41, May 17, User:WanderingWanda renamed the Survey section, added 7.7kb of text in a new section called #Additional statement which is positioned above the Survey votes that took place earlier between 1 May and 16 May, changed their vote text without use of strike or underscore contrary to WP:REDACT, and created a new section, also called "Survey", that was not there before. The Rfc statement for the original rfc was Genderqueer → Non-binary – Per WP:COMMONNAME but the new Rfc statement is "'PLEASE RANK THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS" (followed by a list of some options). This interpolation out of chronological order, unmarked redactions, and change to the Rfc statement above prior !votes, could prejudice new !votes, as well as closure evaluation, as there is no way to compare !votes from the original survey from votes taken after this point. I see several possible ways forward:
    • If WanderingWanda catches this rapidly enough and reverts their change to the previous version before anyone else has a chance to respond, then possibly no harm done. (But, that would have to leave this notice in place; not so simple an edit to perform.)
    • We can call upon SITH or some other closer to draw a line in the sand now, i.e., to close the discussion now, pending evaluation, before any tainted votes appear subsequently.
    • WanderingWanda can withdraw the RM.
    • We can leave everything as is, let the RM go on, and leave the whole mess for a closer to figure out. Given how large and complex this RM is already, that seems an unfair burden to me. Mathglot (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
      • ...changed their vote text without use of strike or underscore... Well, there was nothing to strike out. I wasn't really changing my vote, just adding a clarifying addendum. But I went ahead and moved my ranked preference down out of the survey section per your objection. I'll go ahead and remove the note about ranked preference from the top of the page as well. I've also added, for clarity, a bold note to the Additional Statement to make it clear that it's an addition-after-the-fact. (In other discussions I've seen additions to the nomination statement so I didn't think it would be controversial. The statement was, in part, a response to one voter who complained that my initial nomination was not adequate: The nominator has not made a case for the need to change from the status quo...the onus is on the nominator to make a sound nomination, this should be closed. WanderingWanda (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
        • WanderingWanda, Mathglot: if you're both happy for me to close pending evaluation, I can certainly do that, but the ranked choice survey won't factor in as much as the strength of the arguments. As Flyer22 Reborn alluded to below, a slight numerical majority is rarely enough to gain consensus and the strength of the arguments must also be addressed. Either way, give me a ping.   SITH (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Mathglot: I hope my edits have adequately addressed your concerns, or at least the bulk of them. I know this RM has been exhausting and I understand the desire to just end it, but, to me, the thought of doing this all over again in a year is also exhausting, so I'm still holding out hope that a consensus to move is going to be reached. Regarding the ranked choice survey: SITH: Mathglot has asked me to withdraw it, but I'd prefer to leave the question of what to do with it to you. It seems like you're not concerned about it, but if you agree with Mathglot's concerns I invite you to close the ranked choice discussion. WanderingWanda (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
          • WW, just to be clear: I wasn't requesting that your withdraw the ranked choice survey but the entire RM. Per SITH's comment just before yours, we seem to be okay, so it can go on, so let's just step back and let it. Thanks to SITH for offering to jump in, but if he's okay with it then so am I. Mathglot (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
            • I moved the "Additional statement" section below where it belongs. That section and the #Ranked choice survey section are just more of the typical "WanderingWanda doing anything to get their way" editing. It's disruptive. Knowing WanderingWanda, the editor will likely move the the "Additional statement" section back up despite the objections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
              • I don't see the additional statement as disruptive, so I will move it back. However, I'd value additional feedback about it, especially from anyone uninvolved in voting, like SITH (if you're comfortable weighing in.) I'll note that I did not modify my original statement in any way: the additional statement is essentially just a reply to my own post, and I don't see why that wouldn't be allowed.
(I felt the additional statement was necessary in part as a counterbalance to Flyer22's long copy-pasted post in the survey section, which was disruptive, and misleading, and has muddied the waters of this vote. To the casual reader of this survey, Flyer22's post appears to be a direct response to my nomination, but it is actually a response to another nomination, and it creates a very false impression of my evidence and my arguments.) WanderingWanda (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Per what Mathglot stated above, it's clearly disruptive. It's presented high up, out of logical thread order, as though editors who originally voted had considered it. It is meant to influence this move request before anyone votes (before other editors vote anyway). It is not the same thing as me presenting data in this section with my vote. At Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 8#Does the article lend undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence?, you don't see me presenting the sources above the Survey section. I presented them in the Discussion section. And in this Genderqueer discussion, all of the data material except for the material with my vote and Mathglot's response to -sche, has been presented below the Survey section. And yet you feel that your crappy analysis belongs right up there above the Survey section. Typical behavior from you. It is all about your desire to win. You know, since you already lost when the move request was first closed. There is nothing disruptive and misleading about the data I presented. My post is a direct response to your nomination. Your original rationale was you doing the same thing that others have done, pointing to media uses and such. It showed nothing about what is the common name. The only muddying the waters my initial post has done is open some editors' eyes to the poor "support" votes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
This RM now appears irretrievably compromised to me. It appears that after Flyer moved the new section to chrono order at the bottom, WW moved it back. Currently, the Survey section contains votes from two different RM statements, most from before the new section was present, and some after it was added. In addition, there is now a second survey part of this RM which is occuring simultaneously with an (independent?) set of votes being accumulated here. How a closer is supposed to deal with all this variability, I have no idea. I'm just glad I'm not the one closing it. Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The per the data laid out in the Additional Statement section dated 09:41, 17 May 2019. The data presented is compelling and well presented and arguments against seem less strong in comparison, as they seem to make assertions without similarly strong evidence. I'm agnostic on the difference between "Non-binary" and "Non-binary gender", that seems a small point in comparison to the main crux of the question, and we can probably work that out later if it needs to be worked out. --Jayron32 13:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per much of the above; the common-name analysis doesn't really seem to support the premise. Not yet. This could change in a few years, and seems headed that way, probably because the -queer in genderqueer is still fairly often considered offensive when used by those who don't qualify for the label, despite efforts to "reclaim" it and repurpose it as a non-offensive umbrella term; that too is another bit of usage shift in progress but not yet complete. But that's a WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, WP:NODEADLINE, WP:NOT#ADVOCACY, and WP:NOR matter. Sources will tell us, with less ambiguity, if and when "genderqueer" isn't the dominant term. This should probably have something like a two-year moratorium on moves, since this is getting tiresome. If we were to move it, use Non-binary gender, probably; "non-binary" is too ambiguous, and "non-binary gender identity" isn't WP:CONCISE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Support move to either Non-binary gender or Non-binary gender identity. Lately I've helped with updating the articles of some of the trans people who are now publicly identifying as non-binary. Some have just come out as nonbinary, others formerly identified as she/her and are now they/them. We type in the link to non-binary, and it redirects to Genderqueer - a term none of these people have ever used to describe themselves, and that some may really not want to call themselves, either. While younger people are usually comfortable with the term "queer" and its related terms that have been reclaimed, older LGBT people haven't all been able to reclaim it. For many of our elders, it's a word that was screamed in their faces by people who tried to kill them. FWIW, I'm one of those people. I've been able to reclaim it, but I respect my peers who can't. For some of my peers and elders', it's our "N-word". I'd like people here to consider the perspective that only those who have been oppressed by a slur really can say if that slur has been "reclaimed" enough to be in casual use. This is in no way about censorship. I'm not advocating removal of any of these terms - only giving some context as to why some people have never identified as "genderqueer", but as "non-binary" or other third gender terms. For whatever reasons, the trend has moved from "genderqueer" to "Non-binary"/"Nonbinary", so we're not playing crystal ball. Non-binary is already the more common term. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
"Genderqueer" is not a slur, though. And there are no WP:Reliable sources that call it such or that call it offensive. I also noted above that WP:NPOVTITLE is clear that we generally go with the common name even when people may view it as non-neutral. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Point of history: I think you might be confusing the once highly pejorative, and now mostly reappropriated word queer which was indeed hurled as an epithet as early as the 1940s, with the much more recent term genderqueer (etym.) from the 1990s which nobody ever screamed at anyone. Mathglot (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
[edit conflict]I am struggling to AGF here. I am not "confused". You actually think I don't know the difference between a slur, a reclaimed slur, and a neologism that is a compound word that includes the slur? Oh honey... I was in the founding wave of Queer Nation, and I grew up on the vicious playgrounds when "Queer" was still a killing word. It was still used as an epithet in the sixties, seventies, eighties, and in some areas is still an epithet. And people still hear it in the compound forms and neologisms, if they're old enough, or from areas of the world that aren't so trendy. The people who use "genderqueer" are only those comfortable with the reclamation of "queer", or those too young to have ever been attacked with the word "queer". (Or those who are not in any way Queer, or LGBT, and this is all theoretical.) If you actually read what I said, I've personally reclaimed it, and was among the first who did. But I've sat with plenty of people who haven't and never will. Please don't condescend to those of us who've actually lived through this. That may not have been your intention, but that was the effect. Try to AGF that some of us here actually have lived this history, and that's how we know it. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot: Hmm, in spite of my arguments below that genderqueer is not offensive, I think CorbieVreccan makes interesting points, and don't agree that they are confusing the two terms. Genderqueer is a compound word and I don't think you think can completely separate it from its constituent parts gender and queer. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Granted, this is a topic I know very little about, but it looks like changing the title of this article is unnecessary. It's unclear that non-binary has taken over in the literature, so I think we should just go with the more traditional and historical term. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The "Additional statement" research convinces me; the secondary academic sources don't. My own spot checks (e.g., Google News search for "comes out as genderqueer" v. "comes out as nonbinary") also leads to me to believe non-binary is more common now. Either "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" are acceptable to me, though I think adding "gender" is a helpful natural disambiguator. Leviv ich 05:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "Non-binary gender" or its variations. Nonbinary is being adopted as the official term by the departments of motor vehicles in Oregon, Maine, and Washington DC, among others. News sources use non-binary more than genderqueer. Books in the past several years more often use the term non-binary (gender). In the past four years non-binary (gender) has overtaken genderqueer in Google scholar results when searching for "genderqueer" and "transgender" vs ("non-binary" -"nonbinary" and "transgender") plus (-"non-binary" and "nonbinary" and "transgender"). If the majority of the research on the concept was done in the past using the term "genderqueer" that is irrelevant to what the common name is now. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (not sure to put this with the massive walls o' text). I'd just like to +1 endorse WanderingWanda's section below on Non-binary vs. Non-binary gender. To be clear, I'm fine with "non-binary gender", but "gender" is not really needed; I'm familiar with both mathematics & computer-science, where you might expect to see non-binary used, and there's not a risk of confusion. "Non-binary" would only be used in a strange and rare context, like a paleontologist calling a fossil a "non-triceratops"; you would 98% of the time just specify the base you're talking about, e.g. decimal, ternary, hexadecimal, etc. SnowFire (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

SUPPORT As an individual who identifies as non-binary, I reject 'genderqueer' as a description of my gender identity. No statistical evidence supporting adoption of either term will change that! E3Nomad (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Using search engine result counts

Some !votes in the #Survey section above are based on the assertion that nonbinary is more common than genderqueer. The truth is the opposite is the case. That some people think nonbinary is more common is not surprising to me, because comparing the results of two different search-engine queries is a tricky business, and has many pitfalls. Comparing nonbinary with genderqueer is a great example, because simply comparing the count of results, is like comparing apples and oranges. The reason is that with extremely rare excpeptions, the term "genderqueer" always refers to a gender identity or gender-related issue. Whereas, the term nonbinary sometimes refers to gender issues, and sometimes refers to other things. So, if you simply compare search engine counts for the two terms, the search count for "nonbinary" will be inflated by other, non-gender meanings. But by how much?

Well, let's look at the usage of the term nonbinary on Google scholar, which returns pretty much nothing but reliable sources. Of the top 50 results in academic journals for the query "nonbinary", how many of these are about gender issues? As of today, here is the list:

Top 50 results on Google Scholar for nonbinary
  1. Nonbinary quantum stabilizer codes
  2. Decoding algorithms for nonbinary LDPC codes over GF (q)
  3. Nonbinary quantum codes
  4. Nonbinary stabilizer codes over finite fields
  5. Min-Max decoding for non binary LDPC codes
  6. Some properties of nonbinary error-correcting codes
  7. Non-binary BCH decoding
  8. The advantages of non-binary turbo codes
  9. Reconciliation with non-binary species trees
  10. Nonbinary LDPC coding for multicarrier underwater acoustic communication
  11. Sample-size calculations for the Cox proportional hazards regression model with nonbinary covariates
  12. Design and analysis of nonbinary LDPC codes for arbitrary discrete-memoryless channels
  13. A 1.2 V 10b 20MSample/s non-binary successive approximation ADC in 0.13/spl mu/m CMOS
  14. Non-binary or genderqueer genders
  15. Low-complexity decoding for non-binary LDPC codes in high order fields
  16. Efficient computation of EXIT functions for nonbinary iterative decoding
  17. Turbo-decoding of nonbinary codes
  18. Inferring duplications, losses, transfers and incomplete lineage sorting with nonbinary species trees
  19. Nonbinary codes, correcting single deletion or insertion (Corresp.)
  20. Non-binary convolutional codes for turbo coding
  21. Non‐Binary Error Correction Codes
  22. New nonbinary sequences with ideal two-level autocorrelation
  23. Nonbinary Kasami sequences over GF (p)
  24. Encodings of Non-Binary Constraint Satisfaction Problems
  25. Transactions papers-constructions of nonbinary quasi-cyclic ldpc codes: A finite field approach
  26. Nonbinary social choice: An impossibility theorem
  27. Convergence of non-binary iterative decoding
  28. On the conversion between non-binary and binary constraint satisfaction problems
  29. On SOVA for nonbinary codes
  30. Reduced-complexity decoder architecture for non-binary LDPC codes
  31. Density evolution, thresholds and the stability condition for non-binary LDPC codes
  32. Low-complexity, low-memory EMS algorithm for non-binary LDPC codes
  33. Fast CMOS nonbinary divider and counter
  34. Construction of non-binary quasi-cyclic LDPC codes by arrays and array dispersions-[transactions papers]
  35. Constructions of new families of nonbinary quantum codes
  36. Efficient decoder design for nonbinary quasicyclic LDPC codes
  37. On nonbinary 3-connected matroids
  38. Binary vs. non-binary constraints
  39. Graphical nonbinary quantum error-correcting codes
  40. Nonbinary LDPC codes for optical communication systems
  41. Non-binary unitary error bases and quantum codes
  42. Nonbinary quantum reed-muller codes
  43. Non-binary protograph-based LDPC codes: enumerators, analysis, and designs
  44. Multiplicatively repeated nonbinary LDPC codes
  45. On combining Chase-2 and GMD decoding algorithms for nonbinary block codes
  46. On forward checking for non-binary constraint satisfaction
  47. A generalized marching cubes algorithm based on non-binary classifications
  48. A unified approach to the construction of binary and nonbinary quasi-cyclic LDPC codes based on finite fields
  49. Construction of nonbinary cyclic, quasi-cyclic and regular LDPC codes: A finite geometry approach
  50. Partition Coefficients, Static Deception and Deceptive Problems for Non-Binary Alphabets.

Answer: only one (#14) is about gender. The other forty-nine are about things like algorithms, computer code, sequences, and other things. If this trend holds, it means that only 2% of results for the search "nonbinary" have anything to do with gender. So, in comparing the search counts for "genderqueer" and for "nonbinary", you have to reduce the latter count by 98%, before comparing the tally with "genderqueer". This invalidates most of the (good faith) !votes in the survey that were based on statements like "nonbinary is now more common than genderqueer", because their analysis of the data was incorrect. Mathglot (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

To avoid an apples-and-oranges search, I searched for the terms "nonbinary identity" and "genderqueer identity" to get a rough idea how they compare. The search counts in the millions on the first page of results are meaningless and can be ignored; the only way to find reasonably accurate figures for comparison, is by going forward to the last page of results, for each search. Doing so, we find that there are 157 "nonbinary identity" and 179 "genderqueer identity". These are raw counts: they do not exclude the count of pages on which both terms appear, and they are not filtered for non-reliable sources. If these figues remain proportionate after further filtering and analysis, that would mean that "nonbinary" has gained ground since last time there was an Rfc, but that "genderqueer" is still in the lead. If current trends continue, "nonbinary" will probably surpass "genderqueer" in popularity some time in the next few years. Mathglot (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This looks like you're comparing all-time figures. Maybe for all time there might be more references to genderqueer, but my argument is that non-binary is currently the preferred term.
Google, "past year":
  • "genderqueer identity": 14 pages, 136 results
  • Winner: "non-binary identity": 15 pages, 143 results
Non-binary wins, tho admittedly it's closer than I was expecting. Another search:
  • identity gender "genderqueer": 12 pages, 119 results
  • Winner: identity gender "non-binary": 17 pages, 170 results
I bit of a wider gap. Let's switch to News...
Google, News tab, "past year":
  • "genderqueer identity": 4 pages, 3 results on the last page.
  • Winner: "non-binary identity": 17 pages, 10 results on last page
  • identity gender "genderqueer": 16 pages, 5 results on the last page
  • Winner: identity gender "non-binary": 18 pages, 9 results on the last page
But the best, simplest comparison is probably this (again, Google's News tab, past year):
  • genderqueer: 19 pages, 3 results on the last page
  • Winner: non-binary: 22 pages, 1 result on the last page
And yes, I looked through all the non-binary results for that last search, to make sure all the articles were on-topic. I did find one article that mentioned a band named Non-binary and another that was, err, about a gender non-binary bird.
Here's an argument that those oppose the move could make: yes, non-binary has probably become the more commonly used of the two terms, but this is a recent enough societal shift, and genderqueer is still "acceptable" enough and used enough, that we should wait a bit to make sure this change sticks. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but I feel like at least that argument is more grounded in the evidence than trying to argue that the shift hasn't happened. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda, you said,

but my argument is that non-binary is currently the preferred term.

You might be right about that, and nobody is arguing that there isn't a shift going on. But Wikipedia's policy on WP:COMMONNAME doesn't say anything about what is happening currently, it says: "[Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". There's nothing there about current usage. (How long is "currently", anyway? A few months? A year? Five?) So while your point about current usage is interesting and possibly even true, it's not policy-based, and therefore not relevant for the purposes of this RM discussion. Mathglot (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot, I really appreciate you engaging with me, and the evidence I've presented, in a sincere and collegial way. How to interpret the guideline here is tricky because, while it covers "announced" title changes, it doesn't say anything directly about societal shifts in word usage. However, I think your interpretation may go against the spirit of the guidelines. Look at the first two criteria in WP:CRITERIA:

•Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
•Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.

We're supposed to consider what readers – presumably current readers – would find most natural and recognizable. In a case where there's a been a change in usage, more recent sources are going to be better at guiding us towards that goal. The guideline also does use the word current. It's in the context of discouraging editors from inventing new names for titles, but it still may be relevant: Wikipedia describes current usage. Then there's the section on name changes. It's focused more on official/"announced" changes, but perhaps its guidance could be thought to cover a situation like this, too:

Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However, common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change in reliable, English language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.

As to your question: How long is "currently", anyway? A few months? A year? Five? Well, I don't know where the line is, exactly. I do think we have to be somewhat cautious. We don't want to change a title because of a temporary blip in usage. But at the same time, Wikipedia should be dynamic, not inert, and editors should be BOLD. After all, any change we make can be undone.
Thanks for your consideration, WanderingWanda (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda, Being bold with article content is fine. As you say, it can be undone (per WP:BRD). However, we should not be bold changing the title of an article: there's a whole article policy about that, and it's also why the Requested move process exists, to be conservative about title changes, and to keep an article title from thrashing back and forth at the whim of bold editors.
The portions of article title policy you quote in the second batch don't really apply here, and for the reasons you appear to be aware of already, as applying to article topics applying to named organizations or other named institutions which have recently undergone an official name change and announced it. Your quoted sections apply to that situation, not this one. For an example of where it could apply, see NARTH. Not relevant here, though. Mathglot (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Response to Flyer22 Reborn

Don't be fooled by WanderingWanda's argument. Nothing has changed since that June 2018 move request. This is just more "move the article" reasoning based on nothing concrete.

I presented reasoned arguments and evidence, I'm not "fooling" anyone. Language can shift dramatically in a year and so can consensus.

It isn't true that "nothing concrete" was presented. I'd like to note how careful I was when I searched The Washington Post. Knowing that non-binary is sometimes used outside the context of gender, I looked at each individual search result to see whether the article was about gender identity. (The result, as noted, is that, for that particular paper and timeframe, non-binary gender was mentioned much more often than genderqueer.)

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.

Comparing genderqueer to the phrase non-binary gender is hugely flawed. The term non-binary is often (in fact usually) used to refer to gender without appending the word gender. That extra word is dramatically skewing the results. Let's try some apples-to-apples comparisons. For the past 12 months:

genderqueer people vs. non-binary people vs. nonbinary people winner: nonbinary people

am i genderqueer vs. am i non-binary vs. am i nonbinary winner: am i nonbinary

genderqueer actors vs. non-binary actors vs. nonbinary actors winner: non-binary actors

genderqueer trans vs. non-binary trans vs. nonbinary trans winner: nonbinary trans

Let's look at another mainstream source: http://www.bbc.co.uk. For 2018-2019, 12 articles used genderqueer. Meanwhile, dear lord a lot of articles talked about non-binary gender. By my count eighty-eight. (And yes, it was exausting going through all those articles.) A small sampling of quotes from the articles:

Sam Smith comes out as non-binary, Caitlin Benedict came out as non-binary last year, First non-binary person legally recognised in the US, The non-binary artist battling transphobia with burgers, Non-binary is a gender identity that doesn’t fit into the neat boxes, 'My passport gender should be non-binary', we've actually created a non-binary category in mass participation road races and other events as well.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 11:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

All of your Google trends data here are completely useless, and have no bearing on anything in this Rfc. Google trends measures user queries, and not reliable sources. They should be ignored. Please confine your data to what policy requires: independent, secondary, reliable sources.
Here's why: Google Trends data show the results of the terms people use in their online searches, and have no connection to the proportion of reliable sources on a subject. User searches are not reliable sources, and don't provide useful information on how to decide an issue like this. To see why this is so, consider the results of these two Google Trends data analyses, to try and determine whether Elvis is alive or dead, and whether the moon landing was real or faked. It is of course, absurd; but that is the point: what people are searching for, has no relation to what sources say. When thousands of people search for "Elvis is alive", that doesn't mean it's true (or false), it doesn't mean there are many (or any) reliable sources that make that claim, and it doesn't even mean that the person searching believes that Elvis is alive. It only means that they are searching for that expression and nothing more. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You are not fooling anyone, you say? Just look at your Google Trends comparisons, where you have selected certain phrases to compare. None of it trumps the sources I've provided that go into the history of the term "genderqueer," explicitly note it as an umbrella term, and/or as the main umbrella term with "non-binary" used as an alternative or subsumed under it. It doesn't come close to trumping what Legitimus, Mathglot and I have argued. You stated, "Comparing genderqueer to the phrase non-binary gender is hugely flawed." Not when editors (including yourself) are arguing to move the article to "Non-binary" or to "Non-binary gender." And not when considering how broad and vague "non-binary" is and that (per the evidence above) it usually does not refer to people. "Genderqueer vs. non-binary" has also obviously been been compared. The way that we weigh the literature is by what quality sources that have reviewed it state, and I've done my part in that regard. And even going by "most recent," even the recent academic sources prefer "genderqueer"...per what Legitimus argued. And for anyone wondering, Legitimus has access to numerous academic sources for different academic topics...which is why he states the following on his user page: "Have a copyrighted journal article you can't access but would like investigated? If it's medical or psychological, leave me a message on my talk and I will see what I can do." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You are not fooling anyone, you say? The implication of the word is that I am being deceptive, even though I have done nothing but argue in good faith.
Regarding Google Trends being completely useless, alright, but you're the one that brought up Google Trends in the first place!
I will continue to dig into things but please note I have pointed to usage by two reliable mainstream sources (the BBC and The Washington Post), and spent quite a bit of time digging through those two sources to make sure I was interpreting my findings correctly. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 11:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
When you are claiming that something is the WP:Common name while offering no concrete evidence (yes, no concrete evidence), I see no reason that I shouldn't state that editors should not be fooled by your argument. I (not Mathglot) brought up Google Trends because I copied and pasted a lot of my previous argument. Besides that, it was brought up by others in past discussion, and editors often bring it up in move discussions for whatever topic. I also obviously did not use it the way you used it.
Your media sources are not academic sources, which, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, are the type of sources we should mainly be relying on for this topic. And that those sources have used the term "non-binary" or similar is not the same thing as those sources commenting on the topic specifically or reviewing the literature. It's not the same as sources going into the history of the term, explicitly noting it as an umbrella term, and/or as the main umbrella term with "genderqueer" used as an alternative or subsumed under it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I (not Mathglot) brought up Google Trends

I, uh, did miss that the two posts were separate. My bad!

Your media sources are not academic sources

WP:COMMONNAME specifically says that major English-language media outlets are useful in determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used. I'll also note that our goal is to chose a name that's commonly recognizable and not necessarily the most 'academically correct' name.
But since you wanted academic sources, here you go. I don't have Legitimus's fancy database but I'll do a quick search on Google Scholar. I set it to 2017-2020:
"non-binary" "gender identity" gets 4,240 results
"nonbinary" "gender identity" gets 2,100
4240+2100=6,340
"genderqueer" "gender identity" gets 3,340. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 12:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Given that "non-binary" usually does not refer to people, and Mathglot's above arguments with links with regard to Google searches, I fail to see why you are making that latest argument. And again, mentions are not the same thing as sources going into the history of the term, explicitly noting it as an umbrella term, and/or as the main umbrella term with "genderqueer" used as an alternative or subsumed under it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, two quick comments: counting "nonbinary" and "non-binary" separately risks double-counting papers that include both. I get
(across all time, 2017–, semanticscholar, PMC, Springer):
  • "non-binary" "gender identity" -"nonbinary" 5720, 3570, 642, 148, 395
  • "nonbinary" "gender identity" 2970, 2100, 476, 129, 122
    • total: 8690, 5670, 1118, 267, 517
Also, "gender-queer"/"gender queer" is another possibility:
  • "gender-queer" "gender identity" -genderqueer": 3240, 996, 300, 59, 186
  • "genderqueer" "gender identity": 7950, 3340, 828, 252, 476
    • total: 11190, 4336, 1128, 311, 662
Cheers, gnu57 16:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, gnu. So you're comparing Google Scholar (all-time) to Google Scholar (2017-present) to the other three databases (all-time), right?

Let's just look at recent stuff next. (Just going to keep it simple and look at non-binary vs genderqueer right now):

Google Scholar 2017-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 3,340
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 4,240

Semantic Scholar 2017-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 190
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 414

PubMed Central 2017-present
Winner: "genderqueer" "gender identity": 142
"non-binary" "gender identity": 114

Springer Link 2017-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 245
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 334

3 out of 4 of the databases showed non-binary ahead of genderqueer, and when I narrow the PubMed results to the past year, non-binary squeaks ahead there, too:

PubMed Central May 2, 2018-present
"genderqueer" "gender identity": 60
Winner: "non-binary" "gender identity": 68

The results from these academic databases is consistent with what I've seen at mainstream media sources BBC and The Washington Post, what LGBT expert Jacob Tobia has noted, and what I've seen with my own anecdotal experience.

There may be other legitimate reasons to oppose the move, but I don't see much room to doubt the idea that usage of the term non-binary has, in the past few years, overtaken usage of genderqueer. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 07:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

--

Here's another test:

Google Scholar, 2018-present, articles that mention genderqueer but NOT not-binary vs. the reverse:

"genderqueer" "gender" -"non-binary" -"nonbinary": 1,170
Winner: "non-binary" "gender" -"genderqueer" -"gender-queer": 4,260

Genderqueer gets trounced almost 4-to-1.

But now let's go back a few years...same test but date range 2009-2015:

Winner: "genderqueer" "gender" -"non-binary" -"nonbinary": 3,330
"non-binary" "gender" -"genderqueer" -"gender-queer": 2,710

Just a few years ago, genderqueer was beating non-binary. This is a dramatic recent societal shift. This is why I don't think it's constructive to argue against this move with cut-and-pasted old posts. Things are shifting too quickly to do that. Yeah, I get that Flyer and probably others think there have been too many RMs, and to be honest, if I noticed the last one was so recent I probably would've waited a bit longer before starting a new one. But we're here now, and we have to engage with the current evidence, rather than just assuming that what-once-was still is. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot and I, and others, are not just going by what's been shown in the past. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Note to others: The reliable sources below are mainly about the term "non-binary." Reliable sources for "genderqueer" are presnted in the #Survey section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

What do current academic sources say?

Note to others: The reliable sources below are mainly about the term "non-binary." Reliable sources for "genderqueer" are presnted in the #Survey section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Based on the numbers I've cited, it's clear that academic sources now use the term non-binary more than genderqueer. But perhaps there's something we're missing by just looking at the raw numbers? Let's see. Here's a sampling of sources that use non-binary as the primary term to refer to non-binary/genderqueer individuals:

Academic sources
  • Jan 21, 2019: Non-binary and genderqueer: An overview of the field, published in the International Journal of Transgenderism: "Non-binary" is an umbrella term that includes those whose identity falls outside of or between male and female identities...Estimates of the numbers of non-binary people vary...a higher proportion of young people identify as non-binary..."Non-binary" is now an increasingly recognized social identity in the UK...the civil service adopting a non-binary identity option...76% of non-binary people in the 2018 UK survey avoided expressing their gender identity due to fear of negative reactions. (This article discusses both non-binary and genderqueer but seems to mostly uses the term non-binary to refer to people.)
  • Feb 15, 2018: Non-binary Identity, published in Trans Britain: Our Long Journey from the Shadows Perhaps the most notable trans development in recent history has been the emergence of a clear and vocal non-binary movement.
  • Jan 9, 2018: Non-binary youth: Access to gender-affirming primary health care, published in the International Journal of Transgenderism: Transgender (trans) youth who identify outside the gender binary are a growing subpopulation. In this article, we document differences in access to gender-affirming health care between binary and non-binary identified trans youth

Of course there are also still some academic sources that use genderqueer primarily. The point here is that non-binary has become the more common term, not that usage of genderqueer is completely dead:

Here are some interesting older articles. Even though they were published several years ago, back when the term genderqueer was the more common term, they treat genderqueer and non-binary as interchangeable, and do not indicate that one is more correct than the other (in fact, note that they list non-binary first, even though, if they were arranging the terms alphabeticaly, genderqueer would come first):

  • June, 29, 2015: Non-binary or genderqueer genders, Published in the International Review of Psychiatry. Some people have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders. The umbrella terms for such genders are 'genderqueer' or 'non-binary' genders.
  • March 9, 2015: None of the Above, published in Psychology Today Nonbinary; Genderqueer: Umbrella terms for people who identify as not exclusively a man or a woman, or as something outside of these two concepts.

Digging into recent academic sources, there is nothing that contradicts my clear sense that: 1. Usage of non-binary has overtaken genderqueer in society and in reliable sources. 2. Non-binary is roughly synonymous with the term genderqueer 3. There is nothing incorrect about using non-binary in place of genderqueer. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 08:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Books

Let's do some searches on Google Books. 2017-present.

Books with non-binary (and not genderqueer) in the title: around 5

  • Counseling Transgender and Non-Binary Youth: The Essential Guide by Irwin Krieger
  • Gender Diversity and Non-Binary Inclusion in the Workplace by Sarah Gibson and J. Fernandez
  • Supporting Transgender and Non-Binary Students and Staff in Further and Higher Education by Matson Lawrence, Stephanie Mckendry
  • Nonbinary: Memoirs of Gender and Identity edited by Micah Rajunov et al.
  • The Voice Book for Trans and Non-Binary People: A Practical Guide to Creating and Sustaining Authentic Voice and Communication by Matthew Mills, Gillie Stoneham

Books with genderqueer (and not non-binary) in the title: 0

Other: around 7

  • Identity Flexibility During Adulthood: Perspectives in Adult Development edited by Jan D. Sinnott (the book uses nonbinary in its own voice but quotes people who call themselves genderqueer)
  • Genderqueer and Non-Binary Genders edited by Christina Richards et al. (genderqueer and non-binary both appear throughout the book)
  • Where the Millennials Will Take Us: A New Generation Wrestles with the Gender Structure by Barbara J. Risman (non-binary appears a couple times, but author does primarily use genderqueer).
  • Affirmative Counseling with LGBTQI+ People edited by Misty M. Ginicola et. al. (Both terms appear throughout book but it does give more weight to genderqueer)
  • Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment 2018, 57th Edition, edited by Michael W. Rabow et al. (Has this quote: Non-binary, gender non-conforming, or genderqueer describes a person whose gender identity differs from that assigned at birth but may...)
  • The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender edited by Kevin L. Nadal (both terms appear throughout book)
    • NOTE: There's some discussion about which term is the "umbrella term". This book places genderqueer beneath a non-binary umbrella. As of 2016, nonbinary gender identity labels include, but are not limited to, agender, androgynous, ambigender, bi-gender, gender fluid, genderless, genderqueer, intergender, neutral, mixed gender, multigender, and pangender.

After looking through books published in the last couple of years, it's even more clear that while genderqueer is still in use and still preferred by some sources, non-binary has become the dominant term. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 08:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

No, the sources you cited don't show that "non-binary has become the dominant term." Nowhere has anyone disputed that "non-binary" is used with regard to gender. What we have argued is, well, what is seen above. Sources using the term "non-binary" with regard to gender (including passing mentions) is not the same thing as those sources going in depth about the term or concept. We already knew that a number of media sources use term "non-binary" with regard to gender. We already knew that a number of sources mention "non-binary" alongside "genderqueer." In fact, I argued above (a repeat of my past 2018 argument) "that 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'." Enough of the sources I listed indicate or essentially present "genderqueer" as the primary term....with all of the other non-binary identities subsumed under it. Except for one source so far -- "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" -- your sources don't do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Enough of the sources I listed indicate or essentially present "genderqueer" as the primary term....with all of the other non-binary identities subsumed under it. Except for one source so far A source doesn't have to say non-binary is the primary term to use it as the primary term. I listed five recently published books that put non-binary on the cover, not genderqueer. Each of those books made a choice to treat non-binary as the primary term. Most of the academic papers I cited used non-binary as the primary term, too. They didn't just use the word once or twice but made a choice to primarily refer to their subjects as non-binary.
there is scant academic usage for non-binary or non-binary gender when compared to the wealth that the term genderqueer has. Look at the numbers I came up with. I searched four different academic databases. Each one showed that non-binary is now used more often in academic papers.
A number of those Google Scholar sources are using 'genderqueer' interchangeably or alongside 'non-binary,' 'non-binary gender' and/or 'gender nonconforming'." Look at the search I did where I compared sources that used non-binary but NOT genderqueer vs. sources that used genderqueer but NOT non-binary. There are way more that used just non-binary than the reverse. Genderqueer used to be the primary term but it's not anymore. Things have changed since you first started looking at this issue. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
No, they haven't, and you haven't demonstrated that. Otherwise, you'd be able to sufficiently challenge what Legitimus and Mathglot stated. Your arguments don't even challange what Doc James stated. Cobbling together sources that use "non-binary" from the Google hits aspect that Legitimus, Mathglot and myself have already been over demonstrates nothing with respect to WP:Common name. You stated that I should "look at the numbers [you] came up with" and that you "searched four different academic databases. Each one showed that non-binary is now used more often in academic papers." I did. The way you are coming to your conclusion is odd.
You argued, "A source doesn't have to say non-binary is the primary term to use it as the primary term." If you want to argue that it's the primary term, ideally, yes, there should be reliable sources stating or essentially presenting it as the primary term. That is the way we mainly assess weight and other matters on Wikipedia -- by what the literature has reviewed and reports. It stops WP:OR and articles being moved based on personal opinion or belief rather than solid evidence or articles being moved based on faulty evidence. For example, you are going by "five recently published books that put non-binary on the cover, not genderqueer." That is faulty reasoning when it comes to arguing for WP:Common name. You stated, "Each of those books made a choice to treat non-binary as the primary term." That is your analysis. Not a fact. So, given different interpretations, even the "essentially presenting" aspect is flawed. But seeing "genderqueer" or "non-binary" named and a bunch of other identites presented under one of them is very clear. I've listed more than one source in that respect for "genderqueer." The sources I have listed, and a number of others, show that "genderqueer" has the richer history, the more in-depth material, and is more encyclopedic. If we are to have a History section and certain other material in the article, "genderqueer" will mainly be used because the sources are specifically speaking of that term and identity, which will make the article look or feel disjointed when it has so much material that uses the term "genderqueer," but the title is "Non-binary." Sure, there would be cases where we could change "genderqueer" to "non-binary," but not for all. And "genderqueer" should never be treated as a subset. It should always be treated as the alternative title if "Non-binary" is the title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you concede that the word non-binary is now used more in reliable secondary sources – including mainstream media, academic journals, books, and legal contexts – than genderqueer? Don't you think that's relevant for determining the most "commonly recognizable name" per WP:COMMON NAME? What the guideline specifically says is that Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources).
Your argument seems to hinge on two things:
1. genderqueer has the richer history. That's another of way of saying, that even though genderqueer is no longer the common term, it was the common term for longer. But, per WP:TITLECHANGES, an article title describes current usage. WP:NAMECHANGES also says Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. Now, obviously we're not talking about some "official name change" per se, but there was a change – society has shifted from preferring one term to the other – and I think the basic principle still applies. The word negro probably has a longer history than African American, but no one suggests African Americans should be moved to American negroes. (Note that the AA article mentions the word negro 27 times. It's no big deal for an article to go back and forth between two different terms!)
2. Your other main argument seems to be that you've found a couple sources that present a hierarchy and place genderqueer higher on this hierarchy than non-binary. These sources might say something like "The word Genderqueer is an umbrella term that includes non-binary, agender..." etc. Therefore, genderqueer is a "better" and "more correct" term. Am I summarizing your argument accurately? However, in general, sources don't seem to put the two terms in this sort of hierarchy. Instead, they're more likely to place them side-by-side and treat them as more-or-less synonymous. This is what our own article currently does! It says Genderqueer, also known as non-binary. It doesn't say Non-binary falls under the gender-queer umbrella or anything similar. Look at some of the sources I posted earlier. I quoted Psychology Today giving the following definition: Nonbinary; Genderqueer: Umbrella terms for people who identify as not exclusively a man or a woman, or... etc. (link). It presents the terms side-by-side, as completely synonymous and equal. (Actually, as noted earlier, you could argue that it's giving mild precedence to nonbinary, since it lists it first even though genderqueer would be first alphabetically.) Look at the International Review of Psychiatry quote (link). The umbrella terms for such genders are 'genderqueer' or 'non-binary' genders. Side-by-side. Synonymous. No hierarchy. Look at this paper from the International Journal of Transgenderism. It talks about the history of the term genderqueer, then it talks about the history of the term non-binary. The term "genderqueer" emerged in the 1990s...The earliest use of terms referring directly to non-binary seems to be around 2000. Again, it presents the terms side-by-side, and doesn't say one falls under the umbrella of the other. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You asked, "Do [I] concede that the word non-binary is now used more in reliable secondary sources – including mainstream media, academic journals, books, and legal contexts – than genderqueer?" I don't. Because you have not shown that to be the case. The one legal case is not a "more" matter.
You stated, "[My] argument seems to hinge on two things." Incorrect. This talk page shows a number of views from me. Most recently, I even noted page views. You stated that me stating "genderqueer has the richer history" is "another of way of saying, that even though genderqueer is no longer the common term, it was the common term for longer." Nope. I'm not stating that at all. And I fail to see how you came to that conclusion. You stated, "[My] other main argument seems to be that [I've] found a couple sources that present a hierarchy and place 'genderqueer' higher on this hierarchy than 'non-binary'." More than a couple of sources. You stated, "However, in general, sources don't seem to put the two terms in this sort of hierarchy. Instead, they're more likely to place them side-by-side and treat them as more-or-less synonymous." Since you have compared titles and such, let me clear: Sources more often do the "hierarchy" thing when it comes to "genderqueer" than they do it when it comes "non-binary." There just are not as many sources that do it when it comes to "non-binary," and this is regardless of "genderqueer" being the older term.
The article shouldn't state that "non-binary falls under the gender-queer umbrella." It shouldn't because "non-binary" is the alternative title. When it comes to the "hierarchy" argument, my point is not that "non-binary" is listed as a subset. It is that there are significantly more sources that note that "genderqueer" covers a number of gender identities, specifially naming those gender identities, and that "non-binary" is more often used as an alternative term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

In the context of governments granting legal recognition of non-binary gender, I see the word non-binary being used much more often than genderqueer:

  • The word nonbinary is written into California law: The bill would authorize the change of gender on a new birth certificate to be female, male, or nonbinary.

See also:

  • Maine BMV to offer non-binary gender designation on driver’s licenses, ID cards...Upon receipt of a completed Gender Designation Form, the BMV will issue a sticker for the license or ID that will read: “Gender has been changed to X – Non-binary.” Main.gov
  • According to Alexandra Walden, public information officer at the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles....“The Nevada DMV staff have been working diligently for quite some time in order to offer the nonbinary or ‘gender X’ option to Nevadans,” NBC
  • A judge in Oregon has granted a petition allowing a person to legally choose neither sex and be classified as nonbinary The New York Times
  • Nonbinary gender identity is not recognized by most states. Last June, Oregon became the first to recognize a nonbinary gender option on driver’s licenses. Since the bill passed, Washington, DC, and three more states followed suit: Washington, New York, and California, which became the first state to allow nonbinary residents to change their gender on all relevant legal documents, including birth certificates, to a gender-neutral option. VOX WanderingWanda (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I brought up the legal aspect before as well, stating that 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. This is seen even when looking at the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In one specific case, nonbinary is written into a law. In another, a government official specifically uses the term non-binary in an interview. Where's the law that says genderqueer? Where are the government officials saying there's new genderqueer guidelines? Where are the news media sources with headlines talking about genderqueer legal protections?
You've repeatedly dismissed news sources during this discussion. Why? As I've noted, WP:Titles says In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of...major English-language media outlets. It also says that looking at Google's News Archive is one way to help determine the best title. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
One case? You think that is enough? My point is that those laws are not even using the term "non-binary." And except for that one case you mention, they still are not. So it is faulty to point to those sources for use of "non-binary." A government official? And?
I've repeatedly dismissed news sources for the same reason I usually repeatedly dismiss them -- too many WP:RSBREAKING cases and we should be going by WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This is an academic topic. It is not a media topic that requires a lot of news or media sources. The article should mainly be built on academic sources. When a topic is an academic topic, media sources are best for an "In the media" or "Society and culture" section. In the case of this article, legal sources are better for the "Legal recognition" section than any other section in the article. The article obviously is not going to be made up of mostly legal material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, even if you go exclusively by academic sources, the numbers seem to indicate that academic sources use the term non-binary more often. But I don't think we should put all or even most of the weight on academic sources because those sources are for specialists. WP:CRITERIA says The choice of article titles should put the interests of... a general audience before those of specialists. Mainstream media is a better barometer of the best term for a general audience. And while academia now seems to prefer non-binary, the media seems to really, really prefer it. As noted, by my count (and doing my best to weed out false positives and duplicate articles etc), since 2018 the BBC has preferred non-binary to genderqueer by a whopping 8-to-1 ratio. (Note that WP:NEWSORG specifically lists the BBC as a good reliable source.)
One case? You think that is enough? It's one more case than genderqueer has! And sure, the fact that California lawmakers chose that specific word is significant, given how carefully researched and worded laws in general are. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You stated, "even if [I] go exclusively by academic sources, the numbers seem to indicate that academic sources use the term non-binary more often." No, they don't. Editors have been over the numbers above.
You stated, "But [you] don't think we should put all or even most of the weight on academic sources because those sources are for specialists." Nope. That rationale is not how Wikipedia works for academic topics. Never would I build an academic article mainly based on news sources; doing so is exactly why articles that do so have so many problems, accuracy-wise, NPOV-wise (with opinion pieces and such), and quality-wise.
I don't know why you are citing WP:CRITERIA. That is about article titles, not about what sources are better-quality sources. And there is no proof whatsoever that "non-binary," which is vague and violates WP:NOUN (as pointed out to you above, where you were dismissive of it), is more so for the general public than "genderqueer" is. And your "mainstream media is a better barometer of the best term for a general audience" argument is not based on any policy or guideline. If we went by that logic, we would have articles titled by slang or colloquial usages more than we have them titled by their accurate names. More people are familiar with the term "heart attack," and the media definitely uses that term more, but it redirects to Myocardial infarction. Your "mainstream media is a better barometer of the best term for a general audience" argument is also where you and I differ when it comes to writing quality articles.
Regarding the BBC, I've already been over usages with you in the # Response to Flyer22 Reborn section above. A news source using a term is not the same thing as a source commenting on the topic specifically or reviewing the literature. It's not the same as a source going into the history of the term, explicitly noting it as an umbrella term, and/or as the main umbrella term with another term used as an alternative or subsumed under it.
Like the rest, we'll have to disagree on the "one case" and "government official" matter.
I know how you can go and on; so I'd rather not keep debating you. You won't be changing my mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I know how you can go and on; so I'd rather not keep debating you. *glances at giant wall-of-text you copy-pasted into the survey section* Ahem. Anyway, I'm presenting my arguments not just for you, but for the benefit of everyone who is participating in this discussion.
The Myocardial infarction example is interesting and worth considering, but one thing that was noted in the move discussions is that colloquial term heart attack can potentially refer to more than one medical condition. Meanwhile, non-binary doesn't refer to more than one gender-related-concept. (You could say it refers to more than one concept in general, but as they aren't closely related subjects, that's much less of a concern. And, in any case, several participants have proposed the alternative, more precise title Non-binary gender.) Another thing that was noted in the heart attack discussions is that heart attack is very rarely used in academic/medical literature. Here, that isn't a concern. Non-binary is used frequently in both academic and mainstream contexts.
A news source using a term is not the same thing as a source commenting on the topic specifically Sure, but WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we should strongly consider the name that is most commonly used. The usage discrepancy between non-binary and genderqueer in reliable sources matters, and to argue it doesn't goes directly against the title guidelines. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Copying and pasting content with new material into a new discussion is different than going on and on in one discussion. I've never gone on and on the way you have. You are not going to exhaust me with all of your WP:Wikilawyering and the like.
There are so many more examples than the Myocardial infarction article. Don't ask me to list more. I obviously would rather not keep our discussions alive.
You are not arguing for "non-binary gender." And I'm sure you know that there certainly are not as many sources that use "non-binary gender" as there are that use "genderqueer." There is no way that "non-binary gender" can be validly argued as the common name. Your "frequently" assertion for "non-binary" with regard to gender in academic sources is a stretch. I again refer you to Legitimus's research, which is not outdated by any means.
We generally follow WP:COMMONNAME, sure. But we do not do the "mainstream media is a better barometer of the best term for a general audience" thing you stated. We follow WP:COMMONNAME, and yet we generally don't see our articles going by a slang term for a topic in place of its accurate term. Yes, the usage discrepancy between non-binary and genderqueer in reliable sources matters, and nowhere have I argued that it does not; I have argued against your flawed logic that "non-binary" is the common name. And so have others.
I disagree with you on this matter, and I've already noted why. No need to repeat. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's stay focused on the current discussion. I've looked at Legitimus's numbers. The most recent year cited is 2017, and the results were pretty close. 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. (I don't know how accurate this is, but in the interview I cited with LGBT-focued author and journalist Jacob Tobia, the shift from genderqueer to non-binary is specifically tied to 2017.) Would be interested to see more up-to-date data from Legitimus if they pop in. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Page views

At Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 3#Requested move 4 June 2016, it was noted that "Genderqueer" is the WP:COMMONNAME when looking at page view statistics. We see that this is still the case. I notice that WanderingWanda brought up page view statistics at Talk:Trans, but not here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:Trans I was comparing page views between articles that actually exist. It doesn't make sense to compare a Wikipedia article that exists to one that doesn't.WanderingWanda (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
You stated, "It doesn't make sense to compare a Wikipedia article that exists to one that doesn't." And yet many Wikipedia discussions have. We do judge people clicking on redirects. If "non-binary" is so much more popular, why aren't more people using it as a search term/clicking on it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to collect sources on a subpage Manning/Macedonia-style

In the run-up to the discussion that resulted in the Chelsea Manning article being moved to its current title, editors comprehensively gathered and listed on Talk:Chelsea Manning/October 2013 move request#Evidence as many sources as possible that used the old vs new name, so COMMONNNAME could be judged. Something similar was done before the recent (Northern) Macedonian RfC. Given that each "side" above thinks COMMONNNAME is on their side, I suggest we attempt such a thing at Talk:Genderqueer/Sources (feel free to suggest a better subpage name). We could sort the sources by type (e.g., as called for by WT:AT, other encyclopedias, academic books or textbooks, academic journals and articles, major organizations, and media outlets) and by decade (or year), split them by which name they predominantly use, and include short blurbs explaining whether they use one term exclusively or only predominantly, and whether they regard them as synonyms or one as a subset of the other. (I am suggesting this as something to work on over the coming months as a run-up to any future RfC/RM(s), because this one seems likely to reach no consensus due to disagreements over what the facts are. -sche (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily a bad idea though the thought of a fifth RM may literally drive a few editors insane. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Have to agree with WanderingWanda on the "driving editors insane" part, although I'm not sure I agree that it's a good idea to take this on. Are you seriously suggesting a subpage to exhaustively list all sources involved here? Because we are talking about something in the range, "many thousands" to "a few tens of thousands" of sources, right? You can count me out on this one; this sounds like a job for Neelix. And the source list has to be exhaustive, too, if you start listing them; because if you don't list them all, and after a year or two of adding to the subpage, you reach, say, 32,138 sources trending 58-42 towards non-binary, and your page is 1.7Mb long, someone will come along and say, "You've got 92% of the nonbinary sources, but only 84% of the genderqueer sources", and what are you going to do then? Just a little Gedankenexperiment to consider. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Amending my position in response to Mathglot's concerns: 1. In the end, I agree we should not start a new RM a couple months after this one. We'll have to wait a bit longer. (I know that Chelsea Manning had two-in-a-row but that was kind of an emergency situation.) 2. I agree that, considering the amount of sources, the idea that we might build some kind of comprehensive source database is probably unrealistic. However, I do still agree that there should probably be some sort of extended evidence-gathering phase before the next RM (if there is a next one). WanderingWanda (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda, if it's any consolation, I think your analysis of the shift going on now towards non-binary is correct, and if the current pattern continues to hold into the future, and I have no reason to think it won't, then at some point it will become a clear majority and the move will happen.
I just hope we wait till it is a clear majority, and don't spin our wheels too much until then. Personally, I have no stake in which side "wins"; for me, it's more about respecting Wikipedia processes that I believe are battle-tested and are there for good reason, and especially, it's about respecting the data, knowing how to get at it, and how to fairly and accurately analyze what the data is telling us. Given that, I think an extended evidence-gathering phase could be a good thing, especially if it means that by the time the next RM happens, we already have the right data in place, perhaps nicely organized on a subpage as suggested, if it helps us avoid some of the dead ends that have happened in this and in previous RMs. I certainly don't want to lead that effort, but if you want my assistance now and then I'm happy to give it, as long as it's more along the lines of what you've suggested here, and not an attempt at a comprehensive list. Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Usage timeline

Timeline 1

Google Scholar results, using the search "______" gender identity

  • 2010: genderqueer: 288 non-binary: 152
  • 2011: genderqueer: 316 non-binary: 186
  • 2012: genderqueer: 479 non-binary: 256
  • 2013: genderqueer: 597 non-binary: 301
  • 2014: genderqueer: 857 non-binary: 519
  • 2015: genderqueer: 1,030 non-binary: 747
  • 2016: genderqueer: 1,550 non-binary: 1,420
    • First RM discussion
  • 2017: genderqueer: 1,740 non-binary: 2,380
    • Billions casts non-binary actor Asia Kate Dillon ref
    • California adds nonbinary option to birth certificates ref ref 2
    • Oregon and Washington D.C. add Gender: X option to licenses ref 1 ref 2
    • Second RM discussion
  • 2019 (so far): genderqueer: 605 non-binary: 1,180
    • Musician Sam Smith comes out as non-binary ref
    • Nevada adds Gender: X option to licenses ref
    • Fourth RM discussion

Well, doesn't get much clearer than that. Looks like 2017 was indeed the tipping point. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, Thanks for your data gathering on this. Unfortunately, there are two problems here:
  1. the search comparisons are flawed (statistically biased towards non-binary), due to a false-positives issue identified here.
  2. your analysis of trends is interesting and may be true, but is not policy-based, and is irrelevant for this RM discussion, as explained here.
Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot I think the addition of both "gender" and "identity" cut down on a lot of false positives in the search above, but I won't say it was completely free of them. Anyway here's a new search that I believe is better on that front. See what you think:
Timeline 2
Google Scholar – "genderqueer people" vs. "non-binary people":
  • 2010: genderqueer: 25 non-binary: 0
  • 2011: genderqueer: 30 non-binary: 2
  • 2012: genderqueer: 45 non-binary: 5
  • 2013: genderqueer: 62 non-binary: 5
  • 2014: genderqueer: 88 non-binary: 30
  • 2015: genderqueer: 81 non-binary: 71
  • 2016: genderqueer: 147 non-binary: 135
  • 2017: genderqueer: 141 non-binary: 268
  • 2018: genderqueer: 203 non-binary: 471
  • 2019: genderqueer: 60 non-binary: 176
WanderingWanda (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
WWanda, without having checked your searches (I'll assume you've done them all correctly, and the numbes you list are correct) you could be right, and a shift of that nature wouldn't surprise me at all. The thing is, I thought we already established that it isn't only what's happening lately that counts (WP:NOTLEAD), and also, when you do web searches as opposed to book or journal searches, you're going to hit every self-published blog, opinion piece, even twitter comment in the world, so, your "reliability index" goes into the toilet. (That's partly why I didn't recheck your searches.) Afaic, we can just stipulate that, yes, lots of people posting their thoughts about this over the years, have been using n-b a lot more lately than gq. But SPS opinion pieces and other unreliable sources are not how Wikipedia bases its wording. We are a trailing indicator, and we rely on reliable, published, independent, secondary sources. After some years of trending like the one you demonstrated above, likely such opinions will make it into serious academic journals, and books. And when they do, and when they are the clear majority over genderqueer, then I will vote with you. We're not there yet. HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, note that I was searching Google Scholar, not doing a broad web search. If you want to look at books we can do that too. Google Books wasn't returning a lot of results so I searched on Amazon instead.
I searched for non-binary and genderqueer on Amazon and sorted by date. Here's every (released and upcoming) 2019 non-fiction gender-related book that came up in each search.
Books where I can confirm the word non-binary appears in the book, title, or summary:
Non-binary books (confirmed) (subtotal: 21)
  1. Trans Power: Own Your Gender Leading figures from the trans and non-binary community discuss...
  2. Gender: Your Guide: A Gender-Friendly Primer on What to Know, What to Say, and What to Do in the New Gender Culture my own story of coming to be non binary.
  3. Queer Intentions: A (Personal) Journey Through LGBTQ + Culture ...website aimed at young LGBTQ+ and non-binary models.
  4. Me, Myself, They: Life Beyond the Binary the celebrated non-binary filmmaker, writer, and advocate
  5. Men and Masculinities gender-queer, male-to-female, nonbinary
  6. The A-Z of Gender and Sexuality might identify themselves as trans, non-binary, genderqueer
  7. A Reflective Guide to Gender Identity Counselling all forms of of non-binary gender.
  8. Working with Trans Survivors of Sexual Violence This book provides practical advice for professionals working with transgender (including non-binary)
  9. Courage is a gift: and other stories by, and about transgender, non binary, and genderqueer people
  10. Improving Services for Transgender and Gender Variant Youth Theo (non-binary, 14 years) said,
  11. Life Isn't Binary: On Being Both, Beyond, and In-Between I've been living an openly non-binary life
  12. Hugged: A Queer Autobiographical Romance her journey through her 20s as a bisexual nonbinary trans person
  13. Sissy: A Coming-of-Gender Story Genderqueer and nonbinary voices
  14. Male-to-Female Crossdressing in Early Modern English Literature "singular they" pronouns by genderqueer, nonbinary, and agender
  15. Nonbinary: Memoirs of Gender and Identity
  16. Supporting Transgender and Non-Binary People with Disabilities or Illnesses: A Good Practice Guide for Health and Care Provision
  17. Trans Love: An Anthology of Transgender and Non-Binary Voices
  18. Your Pelvic Health Book but some are men or nonbinary
  19. This Heart Holds Many: My Life as the Nonbinary Millennial Child of a Polyamorous Family
  20. The Cunnilinguist: How To Give And Receive Great Oral Sex recognizes trans, nonbinary, and intersex...
  21. Gender Queer: A Memoir Maia Kobabe is a nonbinary, queer author and illustrator
Books that showed up in a search for non-binary but I can't confirm that the word appears:
Non-binary books (unconfirmed) (subtotal: 13)
  1. Sorted: Growing Up, Coming Out, and Finding My Place (A Transgender Memoir)
  2. Trans+: Love, Sex, Romance, and Being You
  3. You Be You!: The Kid’s Guide to Gender, Sexuality, and Family
  4. American Boys
  5. Today's Transgender Youth: Health, Well-being, and Opportunities for Resilience
  6. Every True Pleasure: LGBTQ Tales of North Carolina
  7. Queer, 2nd Edition: The Ultimate LGBTQ Guide for Teens
  8. The Best Gender-Neutral Baby Name Book: The Ultimate Collection of Unique Unisex Names
  9. A Guide to Transgender Health: State-of-the-Art Information for Gender-Affirming People and Their Supporters
  10. Amateur: A Reckoning with Gender, Identity, and Masculinity
  11. Trans Youth in Education
  12. The ABC's of Transphobia: $#!* trans people are tired of hearing
  13. I am Jake
Books where I can confirm the word genderqueer appears in the book, title, or summary:
Genderqueer books (confirmed) (subtotal: 15)
  1. Gender Queer: A Memoir
  2. Gender: Your Guide: A Gender-Friendly Primer on What to Know, What to Say, and What to Do in the New Gender Culture about a third of respondents were genderqueer, agender.
  3. Queer Youth, Suicide and Self-Harm: Troubled Subjects, Troubling Norms Trans* and Genderqueer Youth Online
  4. They/Them/Their: A Guide to Nonbinary and Genderqueer Identities
  5. Life Isn't Binary: On Being Both, Beyond, and In-Between genderqueer 61, 63-4
  6. The A-Z of Gender and Sexuality might identify themselves as trans, non-binary, genderqueer
  7. A Reflective Guide to Gender Identity Counseling but is also done by androgynous, genderqueer and
  8. Courage is a gift: and other stories by, and about transgender, non binary, and genderqueer people
  9. Sissy: A Coming-of-Gender Story Genderqueer and nonbinary voices
  10. Male-to-Female Crossdressing in Early Modern English Literature real and negative impact in queer and genderqueer communities
  11. Nonbinary: Memoirs of Gender and Identity From Genderqueer to Nonbinary
  12. Queer Intentions: A (Personal) Journey Through LGBTQ + Culture started to identify as genderqueer in 2015
  13. Working with Trans Survivors of Sexual Violence Many genderqueer or non-binary
  14. Improving Services for Transgender and Gender Variant Youth Genderqueer: People who do not comply
  15. Men and Masculinities gender-queer, male-to-female, nonbinary
Books that showed up in a search for genderqueer but I can't confirm that the word appears:
Genderqueer books (unconfirmed) (subtotal: 7)
  1. Sorted: Growing Up, Coming Out, and Finding My Place (A Transgender Memoir)
  2. The Best Gender-Neutral Baby Name Book: The Ultimate Collection of Unique Unisex Names
  3. Pros and (Comic) Cons
  4. Time Is the Thing a Body Moves Through
  5. Trans Youth in Education
  6. Hugged: A Queer Autobiographical Romance
  7. A Stone's Throw: Inside the Stonefemme and Stonebutch Life
Assuming I didn't make any stupid mistakes, the totals come to: '
Non-binary total: 34
Genderqueer total: 22
Will respond to your point about WP:NOTLEAD in a bit. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Genderqueer is not offensive

I want to make it absolutely, 100% clear that I do not agree that genderqueer is an offensive word and I am not motivated by a personal dislike of the word. I like the word. It's by queer people, for queer people. It is not a slur and it has not become dated-to-the-point-of-offensiveness. For a fun overview of the word genderqueer I recommend this Youtube video. (Note that I don't know if the video counts as a super reliable source or whatever – I'm just posting it for editors' personal enrichment and enjoyment.)

My argument is just that non-binary has become more-used and more-well-known, and therefore I think it fits the spirit of WP:TITLE better. Non-binary was recently written into California's legal code, not genderqueer. Actor Asia Kate Dillon went on Ellen to explain their non-binary identity to a Middle American audience, not their genderqueer identity. Year over year, English language reliable sources, across all fields, are talking about non-binary people more and more and, meanwhile, discussion of genderqueer keeps falling farther and farther behind (and the shift, at this point, seems unlikely to be a temporary blip.) That's the beginning and ending of my argument. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

WW, I've always seen your arguments as based on a desire to improve the article, and your best effort to access the right data, and see what it is telling you. I see no inkling of a personal agenda in anything you've written. I always welcome your contributions and am interested in your analyses and links. Patience; WP:NOTLEAD and all that; it will (probably) happen. Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I listened to the YT clip about genderqueer, and thought it was really well done. Thanks for linking that. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to add, CorbieV's perspective in their vote above has made me rethink my statement here. I now think it was a little cocksure and thoughtless. Although genderqueer is not a slur, I was not accounting for the fact that some people do still find the word queer uncomfortable or hurtful. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The issue is scope not COMMONNAME

Despite Flyer22 Reborn's assertion to the contrary, a lot has changed in the past year. In particular, millions of Americans now live in states where "non-binary" is recognized as a legal gender. The term "genderqueer" is almost never used in legal contexts, thus IMO it isn't an appropriate title for an article that has a substantial (and expanding) legal scope. "Non-binary" works much better for covering the cultural, sociological, and legal aspects of this article's scope. Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

My view is that it is about COMMONNAME, and so I don't really understand your point. Can you elaborate on your claim that this is more about scope?
As far as legal issues, I don't see what that has to do with this discussion, which is a move request. WP:RM links to Wikipedia:Article titles and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and there is no discussion of "legal" names in either of those. The former does have some discussion of "official names", and says: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. (Examples of some official names: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity. And speaking of legal name, thank goodness someone had the common sense not to use this legal name for our article about the topic: James Obergefell, et al., Petitioners v. Richard Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al..)
While I think there's a clear trend in recent usage towards use of non-binary, we don't know for sure that that trend will continue, and also Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, so we shouldn't report the usage based on trends, or on a snapshot of latest usage at the bleeding edge. If that trend holds and non-binary becomes the most prevalen[t] in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources, then I would vote for the move. But I don't think it's quite a majority yet (though it's close), much less a "significant majority" (as the policy calls for) sufficient to clearly necessitate a change in the long-standing, stable title of the article. I think it will happen; my guess is that "significant majority" will be reached around 2023, but terminology in this whole area is such a fast-moving thing, that some term could come out of nowhere and overtake or dilute the effect of non-binary, so you just never really know. (My other guess, is that there will be yearly RMs on this topic until everyone is worn out and fed up, and it will get moved before it really ought to be, but I have other fish to fry. Too many words have been spent on this already.) Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Addressed above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Flyer, I think you meant, this diff. (I.e., here.) Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No, I usually link to my updated post; with that edit, I was fixing a typo, but the post I'm referring to is clearly seen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I'm not saying Wikipedia has to use legal names, I'm saying article titles have to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article" (as stated at Wikipedia:Article titles). I doubt it is clear to most people that "genderqueer" is the same thing as the legal concept of "non-binary". This is the same reason we have an article titled myocardial infarction rather than "heart attack". "Heart attack" clearly wins by COMMONNAME (by an order of magnitude), but "myocardial infarction" defines the scope more clearly and thus is preferred. Kaldari (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Mathglot: regarding whether we should look at all-time usage in sources or recent usage...
You've pointed to this passage: it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) and you've noted that it doesn't say anything about "current" sources. BUT I'll note that the passage goes on to say: as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. I take that to mean that looking at sources is just a means to an end, and that the most important thing is to find a name that adheres to the five criteria. The first two are "Recognizability" (the title someone is more likely to recognize) and "Naturalness" (the title somebody is more likely to search for), and I'd argue that more recent sources will give us a better idea of what's more recognizable/natural.
Here's a thought experiment: we're trying to decide between term A and term B. We've determined that, for the past 10 years, reliable sources have used term A literally and irrefutably one hundred times more than term B. BUT term B has a very long history so technically its used in more reliable sources overall. In a case like that, I'd say there's no question that we should go with term A. Of course this case is less clear cut, but the point is I can't agree that we should always automatically go with whichever term is used in the most sources overall. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda, that is an interesting thought experiment, but this is the wrong venue for discussing it. I'd encourage you to raise it at WT:AT, though (after checking the Archives, to make sure it hasn't already been covered). Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Meta discussion

On reflection, this discussion between Flyer22 and myself should've happened on Flyer22's talk page rather than here. Collapsing. -WanderingWanda

A note that Flyer22 Reborn pinged SmokeyJoe, Legitimus, and Mathglot, three editors who all voted oppose in the last RM discussion. Wikipedia:Canvassing says that selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion is prohibited, and it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 10:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There was no WP:Canvassing violation by pinging those three editors. Not only does WP:Canvassing not address WP:Pinging, for reasons discussed in the past at that talk page, its Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification section is clear. The editors I pinged, although they agree with me, were either involved in the previous discussions and/or asked to be kept informed. I'm not going to note who asked to be kept informed. And two of the editors -- Legitimus and Mathglot -- were central to research on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, Mathglot watches this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Your other arguments aside, the idea that pinging, an action that generates a notification, is not covered under WP:CANVASSING's restrictions on notifying other editors seems like a stretch to me. (I looked at the WP:CANVASSING talk page, as you suggested, and while I see some instances where you argued with other editors who complained about your pinging in the past, I don't see a consensus that the guideline doesn't cover pings.)
Your decision to copy-paste a gigantic uncollapsed wall of text from a previous discussion also feels dubious to me given this WP:TPYES guideline: Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts: Readers can read your prior posts, and repeating them, especially lengthy posts, is strongly discouraged. In some cases, it may be interpreted as an unwillingness to let discussion progress in an orderly manner. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 12:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Per what I argued above, there was no WP:Canvassing violation by pinging those three editors. You can go on about it as much as you want to. As for me arguing with other editors about pinging? As seen here, one was an IP that no one agreed with. Pinging editors who have been involved with the article, past discussions at the article's talk page and who watch the article's talk page is not a canvassing violation. As seen here, an editor asked if pinging is canvassing. A different editor asserted that I canvassed, but no editor agreed with that editor. In fact, one (one of the editors I pinged) was explicitly clear that I hadn't canvassed. And as seen here, it (my conversation with that editor) was not really an argument between us. The Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dane page that the editor pointed to shows further debate on whether or not pinging counts as canvassing. Whether or not pinging should count as canvassing and under what circumstances has been discussed across Wikipedia a number of times, including at WP:ANI. You "don't see a consensus that the guideline doesn't cover pings"? There is no consensus that it does cover pings. I can deduce that you will propose adding pinging to that guideline. Well, get on with it.
As for WP:TPYES, my previous lengthy comment was augmented...by including Legitimus's comment and newer sources. The guideline does not state that I should not re-post a lengthy comment. And I'm sure the guideline was meant to address people repeating their lengthy comments in the same discussion. This discussion is not the 2018 one, obviously. It's clear to me that you wanted to collapse it because of how it clearly demonstrates your flawed move request. Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, you should not have touched my comment. I reverted you. Move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The guidelines say: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. When you objected, I didn't edit it again, even though I think copy-pasting like that is disruptive. (If, in future discussions about gender identity, I copy-pasted huge walls of text from the old Wachowski RfC, for example, I can't imagine other people would take it well.)
It's clear to me that you wanted to collapse it because of how it clearly demonstrates your flawed move request.
In fact all I want is for the title to accurately reflect common usage. I was being sincere when I said I have a personal preference for genderqueer. If that's genuinely the common name I'd be happy for it to remain the title of the page.
You can go on about it as much as you want to...Move on.
Getting mixed signals here! Love and peace, WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Um, I don't know what you expected of this "Flyer did wrong" section (other than a distraction), but there was no way, in any case, that I was going to get reprimanded for pinging editors who were involved in a previous discussion, who watch the talk page where a new discussion is being had, and who asked to be kept informed. Notice the use of "and" instead of "or." I was not going to mention Legitimus or Mathglot and not ping them. If one or two editors asked to be kept informed, I do not need to then notify every editor who participated in the discussion but argued in the opposite direction. And regarding this and this, you should not be touching the guideline to suit your argument or future faulty arguments about canvassing. As the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dane discussion shows, what counts as canvassing when pinging and whether or not pinging should count as canvassing is debated among editors. And yet you made the careless edit you made -- that offers no context. As seen at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing#Proposal: social media, even what constitutes canvassing when alerting a Wikipedia editor off Wikipedia has recently been debated. And yet you went and made your careless edit to the guideline. You can take the matter to the guideline talk page, as I predicted you would. Everything you do, with your activism and such, is predictable to me.
You should not have touched my comment, period. Yes, you copy-pasted huge walls of text in the old Wachowski RfC; no one can forget that -- all of your preaching and speaking for all transgender people. Of course you shouldn't copy and paste huge walls of text in future discussions about gender identity. But this topic is not about gender identity. And the Wachowski RfC was not a general discussion on gender identity either. This topic is about moving the Genderqueer article. If you were to copy the original comment you made in this move discussion in every future Genderqueer move discussion, I wouldn't care. This discussion has been had multiple times, and people get tired of repeating themselves or having to type up something new. If you paid attention, you would see that I'm not the only one who has copied and pasted a comment across these discussions. When looking at Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 5#Requested move 4 June 2018, it's clear that Paintspot (Paintspot Infez) copied and pasted their comment as well. Mine is longer? So what? Furthermore, like I noted, mine is augmented with new material. It being as long as it is helps editors thoroughly assess the matter. I'm sure it helps editors by being out in the open like that more than it does collapsed, and this change in vote is an indication of that. My arguments have helped keep this article at its correct destination for years. If the article is moved this time... Well, sometimes the other side arguing their piece over and over again finally gets them their way...even when wrong. If you really cared about the title accurately reflecting common usage, you would not have argued what you argued. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
If you really cared about the title accurately reflecting common usage... I do. Please stop casting aspersions against me and my motives. At this point, I'd appreciate an apology from you. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Stop arguing nonsense. If anyone should get an apology, it's me. You start this canvassing nonsense to taint this move discussion and then you dare expect an apology from me? Not a chance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Although I was right to bring up my legitimate concerns with your pings, on reflection my first step should've been talking about it on your talk page. In the interests of trying to rise about this tit-for-tat dynamic, will happily apologize for making my concerns public before talking with you one-on-one first. Sorry. Will collapse this section. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 19:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Post-RM stillness

WITHDRAWN
This clearly isn't going anywhere, so we can default to no specified time period as it was before.

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.

Proposal for a one-year moratorium on further RMs on this topic after the conclusion of this one.

First, I'd like to say that I'm pretty impressed at the civility and level of discourse in the discussion here, on all sides. I think everyone is taking their best shot, with the intent to improve the article in a pretty friendly manner. So, kudos all around.

One look at the size of this discussion, though, is enough to show how much editor time is being eaten up by this. In the interest of improving the encyclopedia as a whole, and not only this one article, can we all agree that whatever happens at the end of this RM, other attempts to initiate a move before a year has passed would be against community consensus? That way, we can all get back to what we were doing before this, and go improve other articles, without this Talk page sizzling at the top of all our Watchlists. Mathglot (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Survey
  • Support as nom. Mathglot (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as well. I hope we can reach a consensus to move this time, but if we can't, a one year cool-off period sounds reasonable. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support; seems reasonable; indeed, it's what people have already been doing unofficially (taking about a one year break between RMs), heh. -sche (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes! See Discussion. Mathglot (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The amount of discussion here proves to me that there is something here that many editors feel is very important to discuss. Arbitrarily shutting down that discussion for a year isn't helpful. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Rreagan007: I wouldn't have proposed it, if I didn't think it were helpful. Obviously you're right that many editors feel it's very important to discuss; that's why they are all discussing it, me included. Where I see a risk, is too frequent discussion of this length and energy risks burn-out from contributors who are discussing here now in good faith on a contentious issue. I wonder which contributors might just abdicate, in favor of contributing elswehere if it were reraised too soon. So, it's hardly an arbitrary shutting down, rather, it's in order to allow things to calm down and have enough space where something might change. But I'm curious to your motivation, so let me turn the question around to you: do you feel it would be helpful to raise a new move discussion in, say, three months, if it doesn't go the way you want? How about six months? If yes to either, what do you expect will be different then, than now? Some editors here will maybe change their mind? The reliable references will look so different then, than now, that a different result will be clear? Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question/comment: What criteria can we agree we would need to see before moving to "non-binary gender"? It looks to me like "non-binary" has been the more popular name for four years or so, and continues to become more popular than genderqueer. Is there a particular number of years we would want to see, or a particular percentage of scholarly or other sources? I feel like we shouldn't have a time-based moratorium unless the criteria for the common name is time-based. If the criteria is based on popularity of the term, the moratorium should be until there is new evidence of the term's popularity. Hopefully if we do not come to a consensus on the move we can come to a consensus on which evidence from this discussion we find reliable so that we don't need to relitigate every Google search, etc., next time. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on what Kolya Butternut said: I don't think that what we need is time. I think that if we were to wait a year, we would have the exact same unproductive argument next year. I think that instead of doing the thing we were already doing which doesn't appear to be working, we ought to set out some evidence-based criteria for moving the article instead. LokiTheLiar (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn - it's clear this is contentious; I withdraw it. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Discussion

In a post at the observation of trends section below, -sche said,

[The] proposal that we not have another RM for ~1 year is probably what is going to happen anyway.

I agree with -sche's comment, and wanted to add what motivated my bothering to add a proposal about this in the first place:

I think the regular editors have a pretty good handle on this, and there's no need for a "quiet time" proposal for that group. What concerns me, is well-meaning new editors, or those who have not edited here before, possibly with some WP:RGW motivation and unaware of previous history, storming in here with the brand, new, exciting, never-heard-of-before idea to change the name of this article. Once an RM is started, policy takes over, and you can't easily just shut it down.

The idea of having a proposal, would be to see if we can come up with a consensus ahead of time. If we can do that, then there is a policy-based way to support procedural closure of premature RMs, which otherwise would just be an endless time- and energy-suck from regulars and others who would prefer to be productive elsewhere, and not just link or rehash the same arguments again so soon. Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2019 (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.

Wikipedia is not counting is not votes are not a democracy, etc. &c., but for anyone curious, the results of past RMs (by my quick count, counting nominators as supporters of moves) is:

  • June 2016 "Genderqueer → Non-binary gender" : 8 support, 4 oppose, 2 "on the fence" or "neutral"
  • August 2017 "Genderqueer → Non-binary gender" : 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral (and 1 alt. suggestion)
  • June 2018 "Genderqueer → Non-binary gender identities" (or "Non-binary gender" as proposed by !voters) : 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 entirely different suggestion ("Queer gender identities" or "Minority genders")

A number of things are apparent, including that people like to propose moves when it's summer* and Mathglot's proposal that we not have another RM for ~1 year is probably what is going to happen anyway, haha. Also, because there's consistently more support for "non-binary" (even though it does not rise to the level of consensus), and no consensus for "genderqueer", we can probably expect someone to file another RM next summer. (*Or is all this the work of the Australian-New Zealand Winter Cabal, ANZ∀∀C? ;) lol.) -sche (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@-sche:, regarding observation of trends, and some of WW's previous posts above, I thought about that, and added a new section below, on #Terminology and trends. Please have a look, as I think it may address some of these issues. Regarding the "happening anyway" in a year or whatever, I'll respond to that point at the moratorium thread. Mathglot (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What about "Genderqueer and non-binary gender"?

I said this up above, but what about the title being "Non-binary and genderqueer" or "Genderqueer and non-binary gender"? Mathglot said up above: "I would have some WP:PRECISION issues with that, but if the consensus seems intractably divided right down the middle, something along those lines might be better than endless argument about it. Wasn't presented here at the outset, but why not see how this Rfc comes out, and that maybe propose that at some point if appropriate?" Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

But be aware of WP:AND. Mathglot (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

We should separate Non-binary and genderqueer

Genderqueer is a subset of non-binary.

“I would have preferred more options”: accounting for non‐binary youth in health research uses "we explicitly included non‐binary identities (eg, genderqueer)"

Genderfluid or attack helicopter: Responsible HCI research practice with non-binary gender variation in online communities uses "we are not sure whether queer in response to a gender question refers to non-binary gender (eg, genderqueer)" --Sharouser (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)   updated in order to fix broken link; by Mathglot (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The numerous sources above clearly show that, per WP:Content fork, we should not be splitting "Genderqueer" and "Non-binary." I addressed this in the #Survey section above. Furthermore, enough of the sources I listed consider "non-binary" as just an alternative term. What WP:Reliable sources do you have stating that "genderqueer is a subset of non-binary"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It's easy to make a blanket statement like "genderqueer is a subset of non-binary" without backup. But in a field in which terminology is evolving rapidly and in which different sources define the same term differently at the same time, never mind how they defined it five years ago, or two years ago, it's not such a simple task to back up a statement like that. Even if it's true, which isn't at all clear. As Flyer says, that would be a WP:CFORK, imho. Mathglot (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
There are significant overlap between Sexual minority, LGBT and Queer. But we did not merged them. --Sharouser (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Not the same thing at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the scope of "genderqueer" and "non-binary" are similar enough that they should live at the same article, and I think switching to "non-binary" (which is slightly broader in scope) will solve the scope issue. Kaldari (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Non-binary vs. Non-binary gender

I'd like to make the case in favor of just Non-binary. Some have argued its not precise enough; I disagree.

  • There is no other topic that is a serious candidate for the title Non-binary. In all the time since Wikipedia was first created, no one has ever made a Non-binary article or even a disambiguation page, and Non-binary has been redirecting to Genderqueer since 2012. Furthermore, no reader could reasonably expect a Non-binary article to be about anything other than gender identity. I mean, what else would it be? A near-infinite list of everything in the Universe that doesn't come in pairs?
  • Although specialist scientific writing might use the word non-binary for non-gender-related things, writing aimed at general audiences seems to use the word almost exclusively to refer to gender. (I know because I've done a lot of searching and digging through sources over the course of this RM.) Wikipedia is aimed at a general readership, not specialists.
  • The requirement for precision does not mean we need absolute, perfect, 100% precision. If it did we wouldn't have a single disambiguation page, because every title would be completely unambiguous. Note that when someone searches for sex they'll get the article for biological sex even though they might've wanted the article on sexual intercourse. And when someone searches for Einstein they'll get Albert Einstein even though they might've wanted that great bagel place they went to last month. (Actually, I think both of those cases are far less clear cut than this one.)
  • The precision criteria can't be considered on its own. There are five primary criteria for titles (WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) and all five need to weighed against each other. Non-binary gender is more "precise" than Non-binary BUT it's less "concise", less "natural" AND less "recognizable". Not a good trade off.

There is one name that fits all five criteria in WP:NAMINGCRITERIA best, and it's not Genderqueer or Non-binary gender or Non-binary gender identities...

...It's Non-binary.

  • Recognizability (a title that someone is likely to recognize)
    • ✅ My research indicates that reliable sources and people in general now use the word non-binary more than the word genderqueer, making it the most recognizable title.
  • Naturalness (a title that readers are naturally likely to search for and editors are more likely to link to)
    • ✅ Non-binary does not have any clumsy disambiguation words and is the most natural/searchable of any of the potential titles.
  • Precision
    • ✅ As I've argued above, Non-binary is precise enough for our purposes.
  • Conciseness
    • ✅ It's very concise.

WanderingWanda (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wasting your words. You can't have an article title, where 98% of the attestations apply to something else other than the topic of the article. All your other sections might be true, or not true, barely read them, they don't matter; the failure to meet WP:PRECISION blows it completely out of the water. Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
What is 98% based on? WanderingWanda (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The "98%" is based on 98% of the attestations of this term on Google Scholar having nothing to do with gender. See #Using search engine result counts. Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There's one area where I'd expect use of non-binary for non-gender-related-matters to dominate, and that's in scientific papers/academia. And yet, just now I did a search on Google Scholar for "non-binary" and then sorted by date: on the first three pages I'm seeing about 17 results that are related to gender identity and 13 results that aren't. And the ones that aren't are basically incomprehensible gobbledygook to the layperson ("matrix based on maximum asymmetric inner product of two different non-binary embeddings", "New Non-binary Quantum Codes Over Fq+ uFq+ vFq+ uvFq", "Combining non-binary LDPC (Low-Density Parity-Check) codes", etc.) This backs up my point that use of the term non-binary for non-gender-ID-related stuff is the domain of specialist academic work, and not work aimed at general readers.
  • I also tried searching Google proper. I looked at the last three and first three pages. Literally every single result was about gender identity.
  • Over the course of this RM, I've searched for non-binary on The Washington Post, the BBC, and Google News: it's clear to me that in the news media over the last few years, non-binary has been used almost exclusively to refer to gender. I've also searched Amazon books and Google books and the vast majority of the results I got back related to gender identity as well. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ranked choice survey

Hi all, we've got a vote splitting issue on our hands. I'd like to kindly ask everyone to list your ranked preference for: Non-binary, Non-binary gender, and Genderqueer (and any other potential title you'd like to include.) Thank you in advance! Pings: Paintspot Infez, Mathglot, Equivamp, King of Hearts, Flyer22 Reborn, Johnuniq, Lyndaship, -sche, Doc James, SmokeyJoe, Unreal7, SnowFire, Mooeena, LokiTheLiar, Montanabw, feminist, BarrelProof, Netoholic, Ivanvector, Dave the enby, Kaldari, Sharouser, Rreagan007 WanderingWanda (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE RANK THE FOLLOWING THREE OPTIONS (plus any other options you want to add):
Genderqueer, Non-binary, Non-binary gender. WanderingWanda (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This RM has been going on too long already. I move we not engage in any vote changes based on this, as it is an unnecessary complication at this late date. If only some people respond to your invitation and not others, it will taint the voting and make closure a nightmare. I beg you to withdraw this request. Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
And like the original closer of this move requested noted, "the ranked choice survey won't factor in as much as the strength of the arguments." And that is how it should be for anyone else who closes this move request. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 1: Non-binary gender, 2: Non-binary gender identity 3: Non-binary. Genderqueer is already covered in the article, which is fine, and can be a redirect to the article itself. My reasons for all of the above in my last edit, here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • My vote remains as above, and I don't see a need to rank alternative options. --Equivamp - talk 23:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 1. Genderqueer 2. Split the two articles 3. Non-binary 4. Non-binary gender --Sharouser (talk)
  • No move; the length and rancor of this discussion proves no consensus to move. Collapse section since this is just an excuse to "vote" again. If the closer took this poll seriously, then: 1 Genderqueer (status quo), 2 Non-binary gender (precise, recognizable), 3 Non-binary (fails precise/DAB). Dead-last would be things like Non-binary gender identities (fails the concise test). What we have here is people just WP:ILIKEIT voting based on personal preferences and Google searches that are not limited to reliable sources. There's also some suggestion that more "clinical" material is shifting to "non-binary gender" and related phrases, but no indication in the source research so far that it's actually taken over. Within the LGBT community, the dominant term seems to remain genderqueer. So we also have an exonym/endonym squabble, which is essentially a WP:NPOV] dispute. Matters like this need to be hashed out with more detailed sourcing and covered in the article itself; this may give us a better indication over time whether the article should move, and when (it clearly isn't now).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Agree with SMcC that this should be covered in the article itself; see separate discussion topic #Terminology and trends below. Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Non-binary gender, non-binary, genderqueer, split. See my !vote above for rationale. The difference between NB and GQ can be handled in one article. Leviv ich 05:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline – per Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and per an inbred sort of Intra-forum shopping. Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Move close

@StraussInTheHouse: Can you clarify your close reasoning? I would not consider supporters of a move to Non-binary and supporters of a move to Non-binary gender to be in disagreement. Is the reasoning that 13 users for and 9 against does not represent a clear enough consensus? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese, it wasn't just their numerical near-equivalence, but the fact that both sides used sources to support the assertion that either way was the common name. Per the above section, it appears there may be some more discussion to be had. Mathglot, I wouldn't be averse to undoing (collapsing) the closure and giving it a second relist if you think those sources may generate consensus, can you confirm whether this is the case? Many thanks, SITH (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Personally I was disappointed to see it closed so soon. Votes were still coming in and discussion was still happening, and I feel like a clear consensus could emerge if the discussion's given more time and advertised to a few more places. (But I worry that makes me sounds like a sore loser, so I also want to say I'm fine just waiting a year!) WanderingWanda (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda, not at all, I've relisted it instead. I'm not generally a fan of no consensus closures because it means the discussion will have to happen again anyway. I've preserved the previous closure below:
Previous closure

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Ten users support moving Genderqueer to Non-binary, three users support moving Genderqueer to Non-binary gender or a similar natural disambiguator or noun-formed title, nine users support the retention of the current title, one user is neutral with regards to the aforementioned alternative proposal, and one user suggests a split. Both sides have cited statistics and case studies using reliable sources to make the argue using the same policy: that either non-binary or genderqueer is the common name. However, there does not appear to be consensus on that matter. This closure is without prejudice against renomination to assess whether consensus has been formed, nor does it preclude Non-binary being taken to Redirects for Discussion for a retargeting discussion per Netoholic's comment. I would, however, advise any future nominator to either list the discussion as a centralised discussion in order to gain input from users who may not ordinarily see it. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, SITH (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with StraussInTheHouse's close. It was not "closed so soon." This move request has been open for longer than most. I do not agree with it being re-opened at the objection of the "support" side. There is clearly no consensus. Why should we leave it open? For more poor "support" votes from people at WP:LGBT? WP:Consensus is not a vote; it is not a headcount. And StraussInTheHouse understands that. Thankfully! That is why even when the numerical aspect may be "13 users for and 9 against," there may be no consensus. Some of those "support" votes are clearly lacking a rationale based in any policy, which is why closers like StraussInTheHouse are supposed to discount those votes. I ask that StraussInTheHous re-close this. I can only see the move request being left open to gather more "support" votes that just favor data that has already been roundly rebutted. And, yes, I believe there has been WP:Canvassing on the "support" side. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And StraussInTheHouse moving this article "Non-binary" (the title that some editors clearly wanted) would have violated WP:NOUN. StraussInTheHouse did the right thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
For more poor "support" votes from people at WP:LGBT?
There's no need to denigrate the LGBT studies project. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Sighs. I've been a part of that WikiProject for years! I know that when it comes to LGBT topics, some of them have a tendency to act more like activists than Wikipedians. And I have witnessed editors there canvassing one another on their talk pages or following each other just to vote or otherwise weigh in on something without any solid rationale. Others of that WikiProject have stated similarly. It's also why some LGBT editors stopped being involved with that project. "Non-binary gender" is not the common name, and yet we have LGBT editors claiming that it is...with some basing it on personal opinion. At times like this, I really wish that Rivertorch was here. Oh, and don't worry about the ping. He hasn't been on Wikipedia in months and is not yet ready to come back. Since I'm mentioning him, I might as well ping him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
And although Rivertorch notes on his user page that "on multiple occasions [he's] noticed unsubstantiated allegations of biased or agenda-driven editing being made against individuals or groups of editors who identify as LGBT or are active in WikiProject LGBT studies or watch certain articles on LGBT-related topics," he's also seen legit allegations. That project partly got its activist reputation because of some of its editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, much respect to Mathglot and others like Mathglot who work on LGBT articles and don't let their personal feelings interfere with how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: I don't understand your reason for saying that the "support" side was based in "personal opinion" when a heap of sources and statistics showing a change in the COMMONNAME were clearly referenced. At times it seems like even you recognized that this shift had occurred, eg. "It's mainly the news sources using the term "non-binary" for ease when explaining legal aspects." I believe you're misinterpreting the phrase "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" in the SAGE source as saying that nonbinary is a subset of genderqueer, when it is saying that genderqueer is a jargon term which refers to what in non-jargon would be called nonbinary genders. I think if a statistical argument for "genderqueer" is to be made, it's Mathglot's - that the shift towards "nonbinary" hasn't been going on for long enough or formed a large enough part of the corpus as a whole yet for us to know that it's going to stick. But I think it's been very conclusively demonstrated that "nonbinary" has eclipsed "genderqueer" as the COMMONNAME of the subject, at least now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I stated that some of have based the matter on personal opinion because they, as is clear by the #Survey section, have. A "heap of sources and statistics showing a change in the COMMONNAME" have not been provided for "non-binary gender." And the ones that have been provided for "non-binary" have been thoroughly rebutted by me and Mathglot. I haven't misinterpreted anything, but you are misinterpreting what I stated in the #Response to Flyer22 Reborn section and the #Legal context. Like I stated in the "Response to Flyer22 Reborn" section, "the sources [WanderingWanda] cited don't show that 'non-binary has become the dominant term.' Nowhere has anyone disputed that 'non-binary' is used with regard to gender. What we have argued is, well, what is seen above. Sources using the term 'non-binary' with regard to gender (including passing mentions) is not the same thing as those sources going in depth about the term or concept. We already knew that a number of media sources use term 'non-binary' with regard to gender. We already knew that a number of sources mention 'non-binary' alongside 'genderqueer.' [...] A number of those Google Scholar sources are using 'genderqueer' interchangeably or alongside 'non-binary,' 'non-binary gender' and/or 'gender nonconforming'.' Enough of the sources I listed indicate or essentially present 'genderqueer' as the primary term....with all of the other non-binary identities subsumed under it. Except for one source so far -- "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" -- [WanderingWanda's] sources don't do that." I was not stating that the SAGE source is saying that nonbinary is a subset of genderqueer. That is why I stated "except [for that source]." I was responding to WanderingWanda stating, "NOTE: There's some discussion about which term is the 'umbrella term'. This book places genderqueer beneath a non-binary umbrella." I was stating that it's the only source that WanderingWanda provided that indicates or essentially present "non-binary" as the main term and puts the other terms under it. There are significantly more reliable source that call genderqueer the umbrella term or present it as such. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@StraussInTheHouse: Sorry I was late for your question, now moot. In any case, no, I don't think sources on either side will prove much at this point. I don't object to keeping it open a bit, in case anyone would stil like to weigh in, just so they can have their say. What I'd really like to see, is more attention at #Post-RM stillness so that whatever happens, we don't all get dragged through the wringer again anytime soon, regardless of outcome. WW, you and I have both had plenty of column inches here; what do you say we both agree to swear off this RM until it's over? Or, you go ahead and have the last word, and then we're done? It's been interesting, but I think we both have energies better spent elsewhere at this point. (Just an idea; you don't have to agree.) Mathglot (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Well I probably should shut up, but that can be a tall order for me, haha. I have a few more things I want to post in here tonight but then I'll see if I can make myself take a step back. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Alerting Talk:Transgender

And just a note that in addition to the #Additional statement section that WanderingWanda created, I also consider this notification by WanderingWanda at Talk:Transgender to have been made in bad-faith. Of course, WanderingWanda will point to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification where it states "the talk page of one or more directly related articles," as support for that notification. But WP:LGBT, which has already pulled in LGBT people, was already notified. And "the talk page of one or more directly related articles" obviously does not mean that many or all related pages should be notified. This topic has a lot of related pages, and each one will just bring in more and more LGBT editors of those pages. Yes, it makes sense to have LGBT editors involved in this move discussion, but they are not the only ones an editor should be seeking to get involved. Discussions like this are not supposed to be about whether or not an editor is LGBT. They are supposed to be based on our rules at WP:Article titles. And if WanderingWanda wants to state that they weren't looking to pull in LGBT editors with the Talk:Transgender notification, I find that claim highly dubious. And before WanderingWanda points to this notification by me regarding another issue, I state that it is not the same. I alerted two talk pages, and noted that I would be doing so, because one (the Man article) is directly related to that matter and the other is about the topic (feminism). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It was appropriate notification and this is beneath you. (I also, incidentally, made a WP:CENT posting.) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
It was an attempt to further influence the outcome of this move discussion. And I would state that it was beneath you, but I know otherwise. This nonsense that I reverted you on at my talk page, for example, speaks volumes about your behavior. My reputation at this site, including on LGBT issues, trumps whatever views you have of me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a certain irony to you saying that, since WP:APPNOTE explicitly allows placing a message on "the talk page of one or more directly related articles", whereas it discourages selectively notifying individual editors on the basis on their opinions as you did earlier in this RM. -sche (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:APPNOTE explicitly allows what I did, as also explained in the #Meta discussion section above. As noted at Wikipedia talk:Canvassing, there was no selective notification in the way that you clearly mean. No one there agreed with WanderingWanda's canvassing accusation against me. If any of them did, they should have explicitly stated so. There's time for them, including you, to go ahead and state so there. If you disagree with Swarm's assessment there, then do go elaborate there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:Transgender seems like the most closely related article, other than articles with less traffic such as WP:Gender identity and WP:Gender variance. I don't see how we can avoid bringing in LGBT editors if we want to bring in editors with interest in queer genders. I do find Flyer22's focus on the identity of the editors to be offensive. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Given our issues at Talk:Woman, you would. I expected you to pop up at this move request sooner or later. No one stated anything about avoiding bringing in LGBT editors. It is about specifically targeting LGBT editors because one thinks they are likelier to vote a certain way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why it matters what anyone may have hoped for by bringing in more LGBT editors when it is appropriate to notify the two closely related articles Talk:LGBT and Talk:Transgender (although I do not see that Talk:LGBT has been notified). Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Since Flyer22 linked to my message on their talk page, I guess I'll talk about it here. I tried to be even-handed and fair with that message. I didn't say "you clearly hate queer people, you bigot!!" or anything like that. I am aware that Flyer seems to have a certain amount of interest in and knowledge of LGBT topics, and in any case I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But I thought their post above was both ill-considered and hurtful. The idea that I shouldn't have posted a notification to a closely related talk page because it "will just bring in more and more LGBT editors" made me very uncomfortable. As I said in my message, imagine someone saying "don't do that, it will just bring in more and more woman editors" or "don't post a message there, it will just bring in more black editors", etc. Just asking for a little more thoughtfulness. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Why in the world are you trying to force me into discussing this? First, you repeat your message and my edit summary replies on your talk page. And now you repeat some of your thoughts here. I found nothing "even-handed and fair" about your response. I would feel the same if an editor was going around targeting only women editors for feminism issues. It matters not that feminism mainly concerns women. I would feel the same if editors were going around targeting only women for the RfC you now see at Talk:Slut-shaming/Archive 1#RfC: Is it WP:Synthesis to use sources that do not identify the topic as slut-shaming to make claims about slut-shaming?. And now I've received word from my talk page watchers that you are planning to WP:Hound me, like others I've gotten into significant disputes with have done in the past. You say that you aren't looking to WP:Hound me. Our issues with each other will no doubt wind up at WP:ANI. In any case, no need to hatch out our problems with each other on this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
In any case, no need to [hash] out our problems with each other on this talk page.
I was just writing a comment that said this. Actually, it said it in big bold letters: Please stop bringing up unrelated disputes in talk pages. It is not constructive. I'm glad we now seem to be in agreement on this point. WanderingWanda (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I would also say that Flyer22's focus on the identities (and assumed resulting opinions) of editors to be offensive, and counterproductive. --Equivamp - talk 22:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

non-binary and genderqueer are not synonyms

Genderqueer and Non-binary are different terms. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8](remove xxx in the adress) --Sharouser (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Various WP:Reliable sources, including a number on this talk page, are clear that they are synonyms. They are umbrella terms that cover the same exact topic. There is no way to validly split them into two different articles. Again, WP:Content forking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about closure

Have to say I'm encouraged by the attempt on the part of several respondents to back their conclusions in this RM with data (sometimes, tons of it). However a glance at this long RM, makes it obvious that there's a lot of data here, sometimes telling apparently contradictory stories. Primarily for this reason, but also due to the sheer length of this RM, and the fact that it was already closed once and then reopened after an objection, I would like to request that this be closed either by an admin, or if not an admin, then an experienced closer who has some background in statistics, preferably with knowledge of search engines as well. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I oppose closure until we attempt to come to a consensus on the criteria for a move, per Talk:Genderqueer#Survey 2. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I also oppose closure under the same reasoning. LokiTheLiar (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to be completely clear, I'm neither supporting, nor opposing closure, but merely talking about who should do it when the time comes. Mathglot (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree the closer should probably be an admin or other especially experienced editor. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thank you

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just want to thank everyone who's participated in these discussions. I know it's been a bit frustrating and stressful for some of us, and even painful at times (when there have been differences or gaps in generation, communication styles, experience, etc). I want to acknowledge those who've put the most work into this, as they have most likely had to neglect other articles, projects, and even things like sleep. Thank you for sticking with it and seeing this through with a minimum of carnage. Cookies and rainbow barnstars all around. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If you thought this RM was tough...

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Just wait, something tells me in a couple years we'll have to do this all over again with non-binary vs. nonbinary. :) This NYTimes article just popped onto my phone:

Which Box Do You Check? Some States Are Offering a Nonbinary Option

Non-binary still seems to be more popular overall, but eventually, as with email, I suspect the hyphen will fall by the wayside. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

:screams: - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, my guess is someone will propose a few "move it back to genderqueer" RMs before that happens... ;) -sche (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ha. In five years, everyone will be moved back to homosexual. Just wait and see. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope; I'm gonna invent enbytransqueer, google bomb it with my closest 337 friends, and move the article there in a year or so. Stay tuned. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Everyone, WP:NOTFORUM, pls. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Close details elaboration

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:BD2412, I am requesting additional details from you about the close of the Requested move here. What was your procedure for weighing arguments and !votes, how much time did you devote to it, were you following the discussion from the beginning? I have some additional questions about the summary itself, below.

Background

The RM was closed at 01:02, 28 May 2019 in rev 899123728 (diff, permalink). Looking at your contributions around that time, (50 contribs, 500 contribs) it looks to me like you devoted eleven minutes exclusively to the close, from 00:51 to 01:02. Prior to that, there was a mix of AWB and manual edits ending at 00:51, then nothing till the close at 1:02, followed by some archive and other cleanup. I'm not that familiar with Autowiki Browser, but as I understand it, it automates most of the work, dropping you on a screen where you give a yea-or-nay indication, before moving to the next one. That is, it's not completely automated, and you have to give a manual response at some point. The point being, while you're busy with AWB, I assume you can't be evaluating an RM at the same time, right? Or have I missed something? (A point of confusion: in your original close, you tagged the archive bottom about 2/3 of the way through the discussion, just above § 3.4.12; I'm presuming that was just an oversight of some sort. Explained by -sche below and elsewhere.)

Analysis

This Requested Move was one of the longest ones I have seen, and definitely the longest one I have participated in. There is a great deal of data there, and I found myself taking quite some time just to evaluate the arguments and especially the search results data of other users to determine if they were valid or not, and whether I needed to reply or not. In addition, I spent additional time developing my own experiments and results data, and adding them to the discussion, and so did other users. The Hemingway App rates the RM as "Good" (Grade 9) with 1600 sentences and 27,560 words, and estimates a reading time of 1:50:14. Given the sheer legnth of the RM and the amount of data, I don't understand how you were able to evaluate it in eleven minutes.

Summary

Your close summary is 113 words, and talks in vague words about being a difficult close, and this or that side having "a stronger showing of support". The middle part of the close summary dwelled on the choice of target (non-binary, vs non-binary gender). And the last third of it (two sentences) was basically, "we're all tired, time to move on". What struck me most about the summary was two things: the vagueness and generality of it, and the failure to address any of the data issues raised by various editors including results from a large number of search experiments of all kinds.

I was surprised that in your close summary, you made no comment about the previous close on this same RM by another closer on 11:24, May 16, 2019 (diff, permalink). The previous closer, User:StraussInTheHouse, had followed the evolving discussion while it was going on. Following their original close, a reopen request was made a few hours later; after some discussion about it, SITH reopened it at 16:44. Their close summary was half again as long, provided some tally numbers, and some rationale for their close evaluation as no-consensus. Your close twelve days later had a different final result than theirs. It would seem like a good idea to have acknowledged a prior close, and to have spent a few words on what you saw differently from them, or what new information in the interim you found persuasive; but there was nothing like that in your summary.

I don't wish to relitigate or challenge the close, but I do want to understand how you went about it. (For those not familiar with User:BD2412, they are one of Wikipedia's top editors, with over a million edits to their credit.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Re "tagged the archive bottom about 2/3 of the way through the discussion": as the diff you provided shows, BD put the archive bottom in the correct place, at the end of the RM's L2 section and directly prior to the next L2, "Terminology and trends". The issue, as I noted here, was that other archive/collapse/box-bottoms added by a user at mismatched levels of indentation, though they seemed to be working and were forming collapsed boxes and would not have appeared malfunctional to someone reading the RM, were not parsed correctly as pairs once another level of box was added around them. -sche (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-binary_gender/Archive_6&oldid=1171579448"