Talk:Non-binary gender/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

What is the relationship of WP:NOUN to the current title?

Some comments in the above RM disfavored "non-binary" because WP:NOUN says nouns are "normally preferred" to other parts of speech. In light of that, isn't the current adjectival title "genderqueer" also (equally) problematic? If not, why not? None of the people who invoked NOUN against "non-binary" proposed to move the page to a nounal title like "genderqueer gender", and I'd like to understand the logic: is that just an omission, should a future RM consider "genderqueer gender" or "genderqueer genders" as an option?
(Procedural note: I didn't put this as a subsection of the RM because I don't think anything else should be added as an option to that RM at this late date, and I also don't think this question should be denied the possibility of being answered if the RM gets closed; instead, I am asking with an eye towards the options any eventual future RM, next year or later, might consider.) -sche (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't use the repetitive phrase "Genderqueer gender". "Genderqueer identity", maybe, or "Genderqueer people". But I don't think I'd advocate for either of those, either. WP:NOUN might be a good rule to follow generally, but I don't see why we should treat it as absolute. If an adjective can be changed to a noun easily, like Youth instead of Young, sure, that's great. But in a case like Genderqueer (or Transgender), turning the title into a noun would feel like an awkward contortion. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a non-issue afaic. There are many articles which have adjectives for titles. Here are some just in this topic area: cisgender, bigender, agender, pangender, transfeminine, transgender. Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the noun rule is not an absolute, but for me, the topic name "non-binary" would immediately make my mind jump to the question of "Non-binary what?". In mathematics and computing, it is natural to discuss whether something is binary or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

My opinion here is that nonbinary is a noun (sometimes). The reason I think that is that it's fairly common in trans circles to talk about "men, women, and NBs", or to say "X is an enby", where enby = NB = nonbinary. (Now, because I never hear "I am a nonbinary" spelled out, I suspect this might only be a property of the acronym "NB" and its derivative "enby", and not the full word. But it's still important to note for this discussion that while nobody seriously says "I am a transgender", people do seriously say "I am an NB".) LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As WP is written for a general audience, we have to predict confusion. BarrelProof's point is valid - it needs a modifier in a title: Nonbinary gender or Nonbinary gender identity. Nonbinary would probably be best as a disambig. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Above, when I said it was "a non-issue", I was limiting my response strictly to the WP:NOUN aspect raised at the top. BarrelProof raises a different issue, i.e., "non-binary what"? and that is of course exactly the point. There is zero chance that this article will end up named "Nonbinary" since it fails WP:PRECISION in very spectacular fashion: fully 98% of occurrences of this term refer to something other than gender identity. See the collapse box at #Using search engine result counts, above. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Re BarrelProof/CorbieVreccan/Mathglot: I quite disagree that "it is natural" to use non-binary in math or computer science; see my comment here. So precision is not an issue here. At absolute best - and just to be clear this is very much a contrived example - I could see some property of a number where what is known about it in base 2 is different than other bases, so you might end up with a sentence like "Number X was proven to be a normal number in base 2 in 2008, but whether it is normal in non-binary is currently unknown." Almost any other situation, you'd just specify the actual base you're talking about; "this memory dump is presented in hexadecimal format" or the like. SnowFire (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION is precisely the issue here. SnowFire is correct that non-binary doesn't turn up at all or hardly at all in math or CS. That just happened to be Barrelproof's offhand remark about it, and they got that example wrong. So what? That doesn't change the underlying data about "non-binary", and it is still the case that 98% of sources using the term are not about anything related to gender. Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Does non-binary ever occur on its own meaning anything other than non-binary gender? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ever? Surely. 98% of the time? I'm less sure; poking around Google Books for phrases like "is non-binary" and "was non-binary", most first several pages of results are for the gender, though one is referring to a matroid instead; I have to actively add non-gender-related search terms to get any sizeable number of non-gender-related hits. It's also worth asking how many of the uses referring to other things are "notable", in either the WP:N or the lay sense: Wikipedia situates many a biography at a person's name even if lots of other random people mentioned in books have the same name, if that one person is the only one who's really notable in their own right. But the issue is perhaps moot now, in the American sense, since the article has been moved to a title that includes "gender"... -sche (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

--

Non-binary certainly can be used for things other than gender. Here's an example sentence (that I made up): "in the United States, voters are generally faced with a binary choice between Republicans and Democrats, but in some other countries, there are several viable political parties, and voters' options are non-binary."

But in practice, from what I've seen, writing for laypeople very rarely uses the word non-binary, except in reference to gender.

In any case, I'm fine with the current title (Non-binary gender).

Regarding the suggestion that we should make a non-binary disambiguation page: I disagree. There aren't any other articles competing for the title "Non-binary" so a DAB page wouldn't be helpful for readers. For people who search for non-binary but aren't looking for information on non-binary gender, two accommodations have been added: 1. a hatnote link to the Binary page and 2. A link to the Wiktionary definition of non-binary. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"pride pride flag"

Oh buddy y'all been through a lot on this talk page. Thanks for all the effort.

Small thing -- the caption for the non-binary flag calls it a "Non-binary pride pride flag." Why is "pride" repeated? Is it a typo or is it intentional?

The Genderqueer flag caption is "Genderqueer pride flag" without the repeated "pride" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3001:11E:2000:F990:C947:D562:4817 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! Funcrunch (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You realize that now someone has to design the Pride Pride Flag. Pride in Pride. To display at Pride. Which Pride? All the Prides. In Pride, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, one idea is a flag with all the stripes of the rainbow flag plus all the stripes of the trans flag, but what could be a canton? If one were thinking in "LGBTI" terms, the canton could be the intersex flag... :) -sche (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Completely disagree with Corbie's proposal. It's clearly about having Pride over the magnificent design of the Pride flag; and that topic, by WP:COMMONNAME is obviously "Pride flag pride" and the parades can have a redirect (or splitoff article) at "Pride flag Pride" (acceptable as a WP:NDESC). We need someone to design a new flag for it; care to step up? The new emblem, soon to be carrieed in Pride Flag Pride parades by cheering queer artists and designers and allies worldwide, will, no doubt, be called the Pride Flag Pride flag. I'll be starting a stub for it, soon. Mathglot (talk)

Grammar in lead sentence

"Non-binary gender, also known as genderqueer..." A noun phrase cannot also be known as an adjective. Kaldari (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, seems to have been a result of mechanistically copy-pasting the new title into the slot where the old title used to be. For now I have simply changed it to "non-binary". This is fine—the first sentence does not have to list all the words of a title contiguously in bold, e.g. Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy only bolds Rapid onset gender dysphoria and has the word "controversial" a little later in the sentence, like this article has "gender" a little later in its first sentence—although someone may want to come up with some even better wording. -sche (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari and -sche: Don't really agree. That is to say I agree with your logic about NP ≠ Adj., but not with your assessment of the sentence fragment, which I think is fine. The tricky part comes once again from the fact that the adjectival part, non-binary, means a lot of things outside of gender, whereas genderqueer never means anything outside of gender. Putting it another way, to resolve the part of speech mismatch, one might be tempted to say, "Non-binary gender, also known as genderqueer gender...", only we all know that's wrong. At least, it feels wrong, but why should it: genderqueer is adj., gender is noun, so what's wrong? Well, it's the fact that everybody knows it's gender-related, so genderqueer gender is a pleonasm, and nobody uses that expression. (Which was also at the root of some of the invalid data analyses in the RM.) Bottom line: there is nothing really wrong in my book with saying "Non-binary gender, also known as genderqueer..." in running text, at least not in most cases. However, I'm not insensitive to the fact that this is the defining sentence of the article, and also that many readers may not have English as their native language, and thus be confused by the part of speech issue; so it's kind of a more formal setting perhaps requiring the strictest attendance to "rules". So okay: what to do?

I do think it's better to include the article title in the first sentence per MOS:BOLDTITLE where possible when it's not awkward. I think the awkwardness here comes from trying to force it to the beginning of the sentence, but it is not necessary to do that. So, I would simply say it this way: "In the context of gender identity, non-binary, also known as genderqueer, is...". Note: I would not wikilink gender identity here, to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue; there will be plenty of opportunity to link that term further down. (Or, is a single comma enough to preclude that?) Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Another solution I was pondering was to remove genderqueer from the first sentence and give it it's own sentence. Like "Genderqueer is often used as a synonym for non-binary, although it has more political connotations due to its roots in the queer activist movement." Although sadly I can't seem to find any sources for such a statement other than blogs and nonbinary.wiki. Kaldari (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hm, OK, what about something like "Gender identities that are non-binary or genderqueer are those in a spectrum of identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌those that are outside the gender binary and cisnormativity." ? IMO this is less awkward than starting "In the context of...", which other articles in this general topic area, e.g. gay or queer despite both of those terms' longstanding polysemy, do not. Relatedly, should this article introduce "non-binary" and genderqueer" as words, the way the gay and queer articles introduce those words? (I'm not saying it should, I am literally just asking, I don't have an opinion one way or the other yet.) -sche (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

No, because unlike Gay or Queer, this article is not about a term, it’s about a gender identity. See use–mention distinction. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I like -sche's first version. I like that Non-binary is alone without the word gender, which is how it often occurs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bigender

I removed Bigender from the second paragraph of the lead in this edit, because bigender is a binary gender. This was reverted by Pfhorrest (talk · contribs) with the summary: "bigender is no more a binary gender than bisexual is a binary orientation". That seems like a pretty confused rationale to me.

First of all, bigender is in fact a binary gender; the very word itself, made up of bi- (two, binary, dual) plus -gender shows it. Bigender is not genderfluid; it's bi-gender. Agender is non-binary; it's no genders, thus agender is on the non-binary spectrum. Tri-gender is non-binary (it's three); pangender is non-binary (it's many). Bigender, though, is two genders; it's binary.

The bigender article does not say that "bigender is a non-binary gender", it says that it's exactly two genders, boldfacing it three different ways in the first sentence to make sure you get it. It says that it is "typically understood" to mean M and F, but doesn't have to, but it is always two, and contrasts it with genderfluid. But the lead of this article currently includes "bigender" as a "non-binary gender". This should be changed. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any RS that make this argument. Googling bigender and nonbinary I see several sources that state bigender falls under the non-binary umbrella, such as this link and this. Personally I think the gender binary refers to men or women with the assumption these are stable, immutable categories, and since bigender people frequently switch between the two they would be non-binary. Rab V (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, basically what Rab V said. To my understanding, the binary genders are exactly "man" and "woman", and everything else is a non-binary gender. "Both, one or the other from time to time" is not just "man" or "woman", so it's a kind of non-binary. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Man/male and woman/female are binary genders. People who identify as more than one of these, or neither, or switch between them, are not binary. Simply having the prefix "bi" in a word does not automatically make it binary! Funcrunch (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree; as far as I have seen, RS treat "bigender" as a non-binary gender because it's not one of the (two) binary genders, "man"/"male" and "woman"/"female". That "bigender" involves duality / being both of these, is not the same as it being (only) one of the two binary genders. Compare how some intersex conditions involve "merely" having both male and female traits (rather than having some third trait, like a Z chromosome), and yet, are still considered a distinct category (namely "intersex") outside the binary of "male" and "female". If there are (sufficiently many) other RSes which say "bigender" is a binary gender, I would think that should be mentioned in the article body, though. -sche (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There are enough comments here by editors who I trust, that I won't be pursuing this approach in the article further. I do want to make two points, though: first, about (some) bigender people, and secondly, a response to Rab's sources (thanks for finding those) in case it helps formulate any additions/changes regarding bigender in the article going forward (just "if" we do; I'm not necessarily pushing for any changes at this point).

I see why you (collectively) argue for bigender as non-binary; if I'm reading you correctly, it's that they've not accepted the gender binary, and therefore are somewhere else on the spectrum of identity other than binary, ergo, non-binary. (There may be other reasons in there, too; but that's the main thrust I'm seeing.) I can accept that, which is why I won't push further. Here is my new point, however:

• There are definitely some bigender people who fully accept the gender binary with respect to their own identity, and like the first sentence of the body at Bigender, occupy both of the traditional places (M/F) on the spectrum. Other bigender people just as clearly occupy positions other than M/F, and by the logic you have all brought to bear, I can see why those individuals are more allied with agender, trigender, or others, which clearly do fit the bill as non-binary. But, what about the first group? Are some bigender people non-binary, and others not? This isn't clear to me now. If we're defining non-binary as non-acceptance of the gender binary then some (most?) bigender individuals are not non-binary. To the extent that we want to say anything at all about this in the article, I don't think it belongs in the lead—it's too fine a point; but we might want to address it in the body. Then again, if I'm still not seeing this clearly, and you all think that *all* bigender people are non-binary, then I'd like to hear more about why you think so.
• About Rab's sources: I appreciate your taking the time to look for them, and if we decide to go into further detail in this article (or at Bigender) then I wanted to comment about the two that you found. I think we should try to find better sources to support what you have said, as I think these two are weak:
  • NCTE – A reliable source. A close reading of the NCTE source, however, doesn't actually show that they say that bigender is non-binary. They start with a "People who..." and then list several identities that fit the bill, non-binary being one of them, and bigender being another. (The term bigender is not repeated again in the article.) Nowhere do they actually say that a bigender person is necessarily non-binary. Further, under the bold heading Why "Non-Binary"? they talk about the traditional group of people who "recognize just two genders, male and female". They don't address bigender here specifically, but some bigender people are squarely in that group. My point here being, if we want to make a strong claim about bigender belonging to, or being on the non-binary spectrum, this source isn't very strong as it never really asserts that.
  • NY Books – Also a reliable source, but the source they quoted about bigender is not. The New York Review of Books article mentions bigender just once. It occurs in the context of a "such as"-list of gender identities stated as examples of "Nonbinary [as] an umbrella term", and is a quotation from California bill SB-179 Gender identity. I'm not sure who drafted the bill, but it's either politicians, or more likely, politicians' staff or paid or unpaid interns, and with all the best intentions of a deep blue legislature in California, I don't consider politicians of any stripe as my go-to source for definitions or reliable information about gender issues.

If we decide to add sources about bigender to the article, I would request that we find better ones than these two. As far as reliability, I certainly trust NCTE; so if they make a clear statement about it somewhere, that's good enough for me. Wording in legislative actions could be added as supporting info, especially to verify article content that talked about laws that were passed, but I would not like to see the wording of any bills used for statements about what bigender (or any gender identity) actually means. I realize they have experts (maybe even the NCTE) advising them, but in the end, there are political pressures behind the scene that we don't know about (and money), and I just don't trust politicians to write dispassionately and accurately about such topics.

Thanks to all who responded. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The way I see it, and the way I've invariably seen it framed, is that if a person is both a man and a woman at the same time then they are rejecting the gender binary. A bigender person might "fully accept" that the vast majority of people identify as one of those two genders, but a person identifying as both of them simultaneously is non-binary by definition. (I'm speaking as an agender person, for the record.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Funcrunch:, Can you state the definition you are thinking of here? It sounds like you're implying a "not both" somewhere in the definition, but I don't want to mind-read you as to how you view the full definition of non-binary. Also, some bigender people might not view themselves as man and woman simultaneously, but at different times. Would that be an exception, then, to the at-the-same-time case? Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: The current lead of Gender binary sums this up well: "Gender binary (also known as gender binarism, binarism, or genderism) is the classification of gender into two distinct, opposite, and disconnected forms of masculine and feminine, whether by social system or cultural belief." A bigender person does not have a disconnected identity, whether they are identifying as a man and a woman at the same or different times. (Unless we're speaking of certain cases involving multiples, which is another subject entirely...) Funcrunch (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: You're right, that definition does support what you're saying, with the key word there being disconnected. A cursory glance at the Gender binary article does not reveal what part of the body of the article this may be reasonably taken to be a summary of, however, and I can't access the lead references (yet). On the one hand, the sourcing of the lead of that article should be discussed at Talk:Gender binary, but on the other, to the extent that what we do in this article about supporting certain content is based on this discussion and that definition, then we should also try to source that statement for our own purposes, as it seems like the key one for resolving this. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I can see the argument being made that the concept of bigender implies gender binarism, inasmuch as "both genders" implies there are only two of them, rather than a continuous or multidimensional spectrum. But being both of those binary genders at the same time or alternately is still different from being just one of those binary genders. (And I can also see a counterargument about how the very concept of "being both of the two and only two genders" constituting a third, non-binary gender is an obvious confusion of concepts and so couldn't coherently be what bigender actually means). --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Genderqueer

Category:Genderqueer has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 4a goals

We would like to add a new section on challenges individuals come across in healthcare and the need for affirmative practices. New information will include availability and access to primary care and highlights from current APA guidelines Aoka222 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

As just a regular 'ol editor, I'd love to know why folks from this WikiEd course had to edit this talk page over a hundred times. Otherwise, excited to have more folks working on the article! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I too am very curious about that. The edit history almost looks like an edit war over who the project is assigned to, but that explanation doesn't quite make sense as there seem to be lots of self-reverts. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thanks for raising this; you may wish to lurk at the next section. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm the course instructor; we're having issues with the dashboard. When students try to assign themselves to the article as part of the course, they've been getting bounced out. It looks to me like almost half the class was somehow assigned to this page even when they chose a different article, then immediately unassigned. Wiki Ed is investigating; until it's resolved I've asked students to not make any edits on this page. Any similar weirdness from this point forward would definitely be unintentional. Sorry for the confusion--I've been running variations of this assignment for 5+ years and this is the first time anything like this has happened. We're completely nonplussed. Health policy (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Rapid-fire edits by Health policy class

Instructor Dorie Apollonio, can you explain why students from your Health policy class have collectively made over 100 edits to this page within a 90-minute period, including numerous back-and-forth self-reverts by multiple students? User:Helaine (Wiki Ed), can you please monitor and/or respond if the instructor doesn't? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Shalor, can you please watch as well in case Helaine isn't available? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems like an issue might have occurred with the dashboard? Hmmm... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Mathglot. There appears to be a glitch with the Wiki Ed dashboard since yesterday that left students unable to assign themselves to the article in the course (after signing up their names should appear in the box above reading "This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment...") The Wiki Ed folks have been investigating but no updates so far. I asked the class yesterday afternoon to avoid editing pages where there had been assignment issues until hearing back from Wiki Ed--it looks like maybe students' efforts to sign up earlier in the afternoon may have hit the page hours later, all at once? I will follow up with the students whose accounts posted here individually as well, just in case. Health policy (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for the update! Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Eeek! Sorry about that noise. The Dashboard glitched because this article was listed as one of the available topics, and the deletion action on May 28 resulted in the Dashboard tracking the old deleted page ID as well as the new page ID it got after the deletion. This meant that the first student who signed up to work on the article ended up linked to the deleted page ID and the others were linked to the new one... and each time the Dashboard went through to update the talk pages of assigned articles (which happens when a new assignment gets added), it would try to treat this as two separate articles... hence the switching back and forth. I've fixed the bad data, and will get a fix soon to prevent it from being possible.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that detailed explanation, Sage. Health policy (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 4a edits

Hello! We would also like to add a short section on media representation of non-binary individuals/celebrities. I've worked on it in my sandbox, would it be okay for me to add this to the article? Aoka222 (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aoka222: Thank you for asking in advance!
I think your potential addition is a wonderful idea! However, it is recommended you provide one additional source before adding it to the article. Additionally, and this is super important, please be sure to provide a citation for every individual you list that identifies as nonbinary. This is to ensure the article complies with WP:BLP.
It also may be relevant to point out that Ruby Rose does not identify as nonbinary, but instead as Genderfluid. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to list them as an example of a person who identifies as nonbinary. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

References

@MJL thank you so much for your detailed feedback and corrections! I appreciate your time and support. I've applied the changes to my sandbox, and I will move the edits to the article. I plan to add more information to the healthcare section, but will do so over the course of the next few days in my sandbox. Aoka222 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Genderfluid is normally considered to be outside of the gender binary, and thus under the umbrella of nonbinary identities. Indeed, Ruby Rose is currently categorized under Category:Non-binary models. Funcrunch (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aoka222: I would support that addition as it currently stands. @Funcrunch: while this true, I tend to be more cautious in this regard. My experience is that genderfluid folks (like myself) tend to be a bit... touchy with how you describe their identity. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I respect that - being agender myself, I know this is a sensitive issue. But given her statements about her gender, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assert that Rose does not identify as non-binary, unless she's specifically disavowed or distanced herself from that descriptor. Non-binary isn't a specific gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

To my mind the descriptor "non-binary" is saying the subject does not define themselves as belonging in one of a maximum of two categories. Unless the opposite is true (i.e. the subject self-defines as male or female and believes there are no other possibilities) how can scope be found for offence? Captainllama (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Is the anthropologist paragraph relevant?

In the History section, the first paragraph currently starts out like this: "Anthropologists such as April Scarlett Callis believe that the traditional binary system of sexual identity can be traced to the 19th century when sexuality was first medicalized." I'm not clear on why that paragraph is relevant to this article. The article as a whole is about people who have nonbinary genders; that paragraph seems to me to be about the history of how sexual orientation has been categorized, which seems to me to be a very different topic. I was tempted to just delete that first paragraph under History, but it looks like this page has been pretty contentious in various ways, so I figured I should ask before attempting to make any changes here. Elysdir (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You say the article is about people who have nonbinary genders, but it isn't. It is about non-binary gender itself, per the title. You also say the text which you object to, and quote, is "about the history of how sexual orientation has been categorized", but again, it isn't. It's about how the notion of binary gender came about in the first place. That's hardly "a very different topic" and is entirely relevant. Captainllama (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. A paragraph about the history of non-binary gender is clearly relevant to the article on non-binary gender. Loki (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't read this talk page before making a couple edits. I hope they will be received as they were made, as a good faith attempt to make this page more encyclopedic. Previously, that paragraph relied too much on one academic study as a primary source, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source that uses mostly secondary sources as the basis of information. I would be happy if others expand that paragraph to summarize more secondary sources, if that would be appropriate. I tried to at least add Foucault and some of his prominent essentialist critics.

I also happen to agree with Elysdir that it is a little confusing why the history of sexuality (not gender) is relevant to an article about gender...Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for additional sourcing. Any confusion about the history of sexuality vs history of gender is due to the two only relatively recently being disentangled and examined separately from one another, to a large degree their history is the same history. I have corrected "sexuality" to "gender" in the first sentence of the section. Captainllama (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, changing that word is helpful, I think it makes the whole paragraph flow better!Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I see you reinserted that sentence about heterosexuality only becoming common in the mid 20th century. I see what you're saying, and I don't object to that at all, but I think I will try to add a little bit expanding on the idea. I see in the source that you cited she is actually summarizing another source, Halperin's 1990 book. This subject is controversial among historians of sexuality, so I think it would be good to at least allude to the controversy -- it's covered pretty extensively in other WP entries, such as One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, where they write that "In The Mismeasure of Desire (1999), Stein wrote that Halperin's views about the development of contemporary categories of sexual orientation are not universally shared: while Halperin maintains that the word "homosexual" was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1869 and attaches significance to this event, others, such as John Boswell, argue that the concept the word refers to has existed for centuries.[33]" Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

There was no sentence about "heterosexuality only becoming common in the mid 20th century". The sentence refers to the start of labeling individuals as either heterosexual or homosexual. The sentence was not mine, I re-inserted it because the puzzling grounds given for its removal were that heterosexual could not have been used as a label in the mid 20th c because it first came into use in 1868. The one does not preclude the other. No-one is saying homo- or hetero- sexualty started in the 1950s, nor that the words were invented in the 1950s. The claim is that the words began to be used as either/or labels to apply to individuals in the mid 20th century. It's appropriate to cite that here, just as it is appropriate to cite other reliable sources with different views.

The issue with this sentence:

"Historians like David Halperin argue that by the mid-20th century it became normative for laypeople in the U.S. to label individuals as either heterosexual or homosexual, though other historians like John Boswell argue that the concepts the words refer to have existed for centuries."

is that the word "though" suggests the two viewpoints are mutually exclusive when they are not. There is nothing at all problematic about a named concept existing for centuries and later being used to label individuals. Captainllama (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The most important thing is that we do not accidentally conduct original research on WP by only emphasizing certain primary sources. But I'm happy to change the word "though" to "while," which is more neutral. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• I was just coming here to comment that the sentence Historians like David Halperin argue that by the mid-20th century it became normative for laypeople in the U.S. to label individuals as either heterosexual or homosexual,[34][40] while other historians like John Boswell argue that the concepts the words refer to have existed for centuries.[41] does not connect itself to the topic of this article. From the sentences which are right before it, it seems like it would be possible to expand or reword it so as to connect it to the topic, but someone should do that. (Perhaps I'll try to wp:sofixit or remove it later...) -sche (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Treatment of Genderqueer in Lead

I am concerned about the second sentence in the lead: "Genderqueer is an earlier term with the same meaning, originating from queer zines of the 1980s." It elides the nuanced differences between genderqueer and nonbinary. A number of sources contradict the claim that genderqueer is merely an outdated synonym for nonbinary. I provide some examples below.

• "Genderqueer adj. and n. (a) adj. designating a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions, but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders; (also occasionally) of or relating to such a person; (b) n. a genderqueer person."
  • Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "Genderqueer," accessed November 30, 2019, https://oed.com/view/Entry/77468?rskey=oXiT89&result=1#eid237081402.

• "Nowadays, 'genderqueer' has solidified itself as part of a larger gender expansive movement that include similar terms, like 'nonbinary' and pronouns like 'they.'"
  • "InQueery: The History of the Word 'Genderqueer' as We Know It," Them, November 7, 2018, https://www.them.us/story/inqueery-genderqueer.

• "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)."
  • Stephanie Budge, "Genderqueer," in The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies, ed. Abbie E. Goldberg (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2016), 460–63, http://doi.org/10.4135/9781483371283.

• "'To me, "genderqueer" represents a queering of gender, so to speak,' said Laura A. Jacobs, a psychotherapist who specializes in trans and gender non-binary issues, LGBTQ issues, and other forms of gender and sexual diversity. 'It’s a deliberate playing with gender in a very political sense, and being provocative around gender norms to highlight the gender stereotypes of our culture. It is also how I identify.'"
  • Mary Retta, "What's the Difference Between Non-Binary, Genderqueer, and Gender-Nonconforming?," Vice, September 13, 2019, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjwx8m/whats-the-difference-between-non-binary-genderqueer-and-gender-nonconforming.

• "Findings of the present study highlight both the diversity of genderqueer identities and the resilience of genderqueer people in navigating and challenging master narratives. Genderqueer identities may be a rich source of pride and positivity, but genderqueer individuals may experience social tensions resulting from the lack of understanding and acceptance surrounding their identities."
  • Nova J. Bradford et al., "Creating Gender: A Thematic Analysis of Genderqueer Narratives," in "Non-binary and Genderqueer Genders," ed. Joz Motmans, Timo O. Nieder, and Walter Pierre Bouman, special issue International Journal of Transgenderism 20, nos. 2–3 (2019): 155–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1474516.

• Please also see Joan Nestle, Clare Howell, and Riki Wilchins, eds., GenderQueer: Voices from Beyond the Sexual Binary (Los Angeles: Alyson, 2002).

Considering that genderqueer people often consult sources on the internet to establish their identity (Budge 2016, 462), it is especially important that the information in this Wikipedia entry be accurate. MtCicero (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I suspect "earlier" was intended to convey "older", not necessarily "outdated, no longer encountered" (and "no longer encountered" would be incorrect, as your sources from this year show); if sources support the statement that it's "older", we should just change to that word. In turn, the body and various references go into some detail about ways "genderqueer" is sometimes synonymous with "non-binary" and sometimes not, so per WP:LEAD the lead's mention of it should indeed summarize that, not mis-summarize it (though sources specifically spelling out that "genderqueer [sometimes or always] means something different from non-binary" would be most helpful); I see someone has changed "the same meaning" to "a similar meaning", which looks OK. (Another possible rewording would be Genderqueer is an older term (originating from queer zines of the 1980s) sometimes used with the same meaning.) -sche (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The current source for this content is a self-published (via Kickstarter) anthology; I don't have access to this, so don't know whether the author of whichever specific essay this information is drawn from is an expert on the topic. (Pinging user:Kaldari, who I believe added it originally.) Susan Stryker has written about using the term in San Francisco in the early 1990s to distinguish between transgender and gay members of the queer political movement:[1]

Extended content

In a contradictory environment simultaneously welcoming and hostile, transgender activists staked their own claims to queer politics. We argued that sexual orientation was not the only significant way to differ from heteronormativity—that homo, hetero, and bi in fact all depended on similar understandings of "man" and "woman," which trans problematized. People with trans identities could describe themselves as men and women, too—or resist binary categorization altogether—but in doing either they queered the dominant relationship of sexed body and gendered subject. We drew a distinction between "orientation queers" and "gender queers." Tellingly, gender queer, necessary for naming the minoritized/marginalized position of difference within queer cultural formations more generally, has stuck around as a useful term; orientation queer, naming queer's unstated norm, has seemed redundant in most contexts and has not survived to the same extent.

Cheers, gnu57 00:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@MtCicero and Genericusername57: My original suggestion for that sentence emphasized the political difference, but I wasn't able to find any sources to back it up: "Genderqueer is often used as a synonym for non-binary, although it has more political connotations due to its roots in the queer activist movement." The self-published source mentioned above is the only source I was able to find that mentioned any difference between the terms. Thanks to both of you for finding some useful new sources! What would y'all think about something like this for the lead: "Genderqueer is often used as a synonym for non-binary but with more political connotations." (Citing the VICE source)? We could then create a new section for genderqueer in the "Definitions and identity" section and use some of the other sources that you've provided. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a change, except maybe to replace "earlier" with "older" if people think "earlier" implies "outdated". The sources listed above do not support there being a difference between the two terms - quite the opposite actually. -sche mentions that sources specifically spelling out that "genderqueer [sometimes or always] means something different from non-binary" would be most helpful - which implies there aren't any yet, and the large majority of sources do treat the two terms as the same, so we are bound to do so as well per WP:DUE. And I note that Equivamp changed it back to "the same". Here are some sources illustrating this: These two books treat them as equivalent in their titles, [2][3] and this article in Slate does as well, stating, Genderqueer, along with the somewhat newer and less politicized term nonbinary, are umbrella terms intended... This academic review article states, The umbrella terms for such genders are ‘genderqueer’ or ‘non-binary’ genders. Here is another such review article that treats the two terms as exactly equivalent. Here is another academic article that does the same. And another. You get the idea. There are essentially no reliable sources that treat genderqueer as a subset of non-binary, or as only partially overlapping.

As for stating that "non-binary" is the less politicized term, we only have this being mentioned in two media sources, so it would be undue to say in the lead, as most sources don't make one out to be more "political" than the other. Mathglot, any thoughts on this matter? -Crossroads- (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any of the examples you've linked suggest that genderqueer and nonbinary are *the same*, merely that they are related. For example "A guide to genderqueer and non-binary identities" no more implies that genderqueer and non-binary identities are the same thing than "A guide to the plants and animals of North America" implies that plants and animals are the same thing. Similarly "genderqueer/non-binary" doesn't necessarily treat the two identities as identical, just as interchangable for the purpose at hand. If the standard for the two identities are being different is an explicit statement that they're different (and I agree it should be), surely the standard for them being the same should be an explicit statement that they're the same instead of trying to WP:SYNTH an inference out of ambiguous language.

Also, I can find sources that explicitly say they're different. For example: "There are many people who identify with all of these terms and use them interchangeably. Still, many people primarily or solely identify with only one of these terms.", "There are nuanced differences between the terms genderqueer and nonbinary — although they’re fairly similar and often used interchangeably." Loki (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources don't just say that "genderqueer" and "nonbinary" are "related"; they define them in the same way, and there are far more sources defining them the same way than ones that don't. This includes sometimes using the two terms beside each other as equivalent (such as using a slash or stating "or"). Here is a Psychology Today source doing all of this: "A GQ or nonbinary person is someone who feels that their felt gender doesn't fit with socially constructed norms for their biological sex. A GQ or nonbinary person is someone who feels that their felt gender doesn't fit with socially constructed norms for their biological sex." [4] At any rate, at this point I don't see a need to debate this any more. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of jumping in completely unawares, would it not be easier to treat the terms as ones considered analogous by some people and yet hold important differences for others? I'd say it's something similar to the differences between someone identifying as pansexual, bisexual, omnisexual and the like - though the terms are roughly similar, their similarities and their differences are defined at different boundaries for different people. To some, the difference is important, and one identity label fits whereas another doesn't; to others, the labels are personally interchangeable. It would be remiss not to put this forward in the article's lead.

There's no "right" way to consider genderqueer and nonbinary. This isn't a case of stacking up sources for and against, and I'd put the argument forwards that this constitutes little more than a really clumsy approach to people's identities. There's no one consensus. The whole point of being nonbinary is that there isn't a consensus. A whack-hammer approach to an article like this is a blunt tool that will not provide any closure.

Now, as someone who is non-binary but also not logged in right now, I can't edit the lead at this minute, but I'd suggest something to the following:

"Non-binary identities are a spectrum of gender identities that do not fall into exclusively masculine or feminine categories, and are considered to be "outside" the gender binary. Some [intersex] people identify as non-binary, though intersex people are not non-binary by definition of being intersex. Non-binary identities vary in their relationship to a person's assigned sex at birth, and many non-binary people experience [gender dysphoria], though it is not a requirement to experience dysphoria to be non-binary. Occasionally, the term "genderqueer" is used in substitution with "non-binary", though for some, "genderqueer" is a specific identity, and not a wide-reaching umbrella term to describe non-binary people.

Non-binary identities are typically described as falling under the umbrella of transgender identities. Though non-binary people may dress in a [gender variance|gender non-conforming] manner, a non-binary person does not have to present as [androgyny|androgynous] to be non-binary, as there is no one "correct" way to present as being non-binary. Gender non-conformity is not to be confused with being non-binary, as despite sometimes overlapping, a person can be gender non-conforming and still consider themselves a binary cisgender or transgender person.

Non-binary people may identify as having two or more genders (such as being bigender or trigender), having no gender at all (agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois), having a fluctuating gender identity and moving between genders (genderfluid, genderqueer), or being other-gendered or third gendered (a category that includes people who do not place a name to their gender). Some non-binary people reject gender "identities" altogether, and there no clear-cut definition of what constitutes any one label; what makes one person genderqueer will differ from what another person considers to make them genderqueer.

Gender identity is separate from sexual or romantic orientation, and non-binary people have a variety of sexual orientations, just as cisgender people do. In many cultures, specific gender identities with social roles and/or historic meanings exist, such as [two-spirit] people in some [Native Americans in the United States|Native American] tribes. These, though described in the English language as "non-binary" or "transgender" identities, often have no direct comparison in other cultures, and in some cases have no direct translation to English encompassing the cultural and social differences that define them."

I think this pretty much gets us to where we're looking towards. As someone who spends some good time thinking about how to bridge the divide between a transgender understanding of gender and a cisgender one, the lead at the minute doesn't do this, and I don't think it's especially helpful. I literally just came out to my parents, do you know what the first thing they did was? Look for the Wikipedia page. Do I think they found it helpful, or that it cleared anything up? Absolutely not, to be honest.

A last note; when considering sources for this article, yes, PsychologyToday is generally decent, but I'd start with sources from non-binary and transgender people, organisations and charities first, then jump to scholarly or medical sources. This isn't to "push" a certain agenda, or because "scholarly sources" don't have the "right slant for this article and make us look bad"; it's just that you will find sources with better definitions and more edifying explanations if you start with non-binary people. (That quote from PsychologyToday - it's in the right ballpark, but we need something more encompassing for this article's lead.) I hope this is helpful; either someone'll get to the lead before I get home and logged in, or I'll get that done when I'm on my home computer. --Ineffablebookkeeper (not logged in)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: I reverted your changes to the lead because the subject and content of this article is very contentious (see talk page archives for history), and large changes like that should be made with consensus reached here on the talk page first. As a non-binary person myself I hear and agree with much of what you're saying, believe me, but we're in a tiny minority (in life as well as on Wikipedia) and need to skew toward what the preponderance of reliable sources say about us. Funcrunch (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Ah, god damn. You're right but also I'm stumped now. How would we go about achieving consensus? If 'consensus' ends up being either a snail-paced crawl towards accuracy (a la talk page archives) or a round-the-drain discussion that doesn't go anywhere (a la talk page archives), in the most basic sense, what do? Is there some kind of polling system, or what? So many sources differ on exactly 'what' is correct - you could quite literally find a different definition in every single source.

I'm also conscious of the fact that inaccuracy or just-plain "I don't know exactly what to put here but my editor's asked me to write about non-binary people so I'm just going to take a stab and hope for the best" could crop up in a lot of sources - these seem fine on first glance to any other editor, and can often be from reliable sources, but a reliable website does not an accurate claim and assumption about nonbinary people make. I know the BBC, of all places, have published some pretty dodgy things about nonbinary and trans people in the past under the guise of "impartiality" and "considering everyone's views"; in this kind of instance, for example, a well-respected source could end up being inaccurate, and sometimes outright harmful.

I thought a more wide-reaching approach discussing that some labels differ in definition from person to person would work better, but I'd really appreciate any feedback. I know we only work from sources, but how do you handle reliable sources publishing unreliable things? Once added to the article, they'd be difficult to remove - since we're the minority, as you say, an argument of "look that really isn't true" could be shot down due to the general and overall accountability of the publisher. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: These are indeed vexing issues, and discussions on this page have caused me considerable distress, to the point that I have withdrawn from much of the discussion on this page and related ones. (See my user page for some of my talks and perspective on being a non-binary trans editor on Wikipedia.) With regard to hashing out the lead via consensus, at some point someone should probably create a formal proposal (WP:RfC) which can be put to a !vote and closed by an uninvolved administrator. Funcrunch (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: I'm so sorry that you've had to go through that - it is, indeed, incredibly painful at times, and I have to say that I myself in the past have thought "I'm not even going to go there" in regards to transgender articles.

An RfC would be good, but wouldn't it also fall under, if only partially and in an entirely non-typical way, the reliable sources noticeboard? Less for the specific source, more for the content - a reliable publisher becomes unreliable if what they publish on transgender people isn't, well, reliable.

I'd suggest some kind of case-by-case discretionary board as part of the LGBT WikiProject vis a vis which sources get added and what edits get approved. A board consisting of people who actually represent the minority that these articles address might be slow-going, but would provide some kind of solution or fall-back, at least - when an article gets heated and no-one can make head nor tail from an issue, a pool of people who have first-hand experience of that issue could save stress and future RfCs.

Actions would be entirely accountable, if meetings to discuss an issue were held, on or off-site, minutes could be posted to a noticeboard, and most importantly (I think for me), it would introduce a sense of safety to Wikipedia articles on transgender and non-binary people. I know I'd feel safer, knowing I wouldn't simply be jettisoned into the non-representative free-for-all of an RfC, where I know my voice would get drowned out.

It seems ridiculous to me that on a contentious issue relating entirely to one minority, most of the comments at a request for comment would be...not from those people, I mean, it's important to get outside views, but having mostly every view be an outsider's?

I understand, obviously, that you can't have everyone on the Wikipedia be involved personally and in real life with the article subjects that they edit - but for an issue such as this, I don't feel it's too absurd to ask for. This isn't some impersonal topic, it's practically BlP status. Why wouldn't comment from transgender editors come first?

What we do, say, put down here, this gets treated as fact when people wish to learn about something for the first time. If we're not particularly responsible with that kind of thing, especially in times such as these, then we're going to quickly landslide into something harmful. Most English Wikipedia editors are male - I value their contributions to the Wiki but I also see no reason why we'd gather consensus about transgender people, and base our policy and editing decisions on transgender people, from people who, er, aren't transgender and have little experience with the trans community. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think Wanda's point that, with the standard for noting non-synonymy being the presence of sources explicitly stating "these words not synonymous", the standard for calling them [always] synonymous is the presence of sources explicitly stating "these words are [always] synonymous", and in the absence of such sources I think this was a good edit. I think it is probably possible to find sources to eventually support adding a statement that the terms are sometimes synonymous and sometimes not, it's just a matter of having time to look for such sources... until then, we cut the Gordian knot by sidestepping the issue. :) -sche (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I can get behind side-stepping the question if necessary, but in addition to the two sources I linked above, can I also suggest verywellmind.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-genderqueer-or-non-binary-4140578 as a source for "explicitly different (sometimes)"? (Posted like that because it's currently on the spam blacklist for some reason. It seems perfectly reliable to me, and our page on Verywell doesn't sound like there's anything wrong with it.) Loki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to add Innate bisexuality (as defined by Freud)

I suggest to add Innate bisexuality(as defined by freud), since this handles actually about genderfluidity before the concept of genderfluidity existed. (Copy from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Innate_bisexuality#Innate_bisexuality_should_be_merged_with_gender_fluidity%2C_not_bisexuality)

As explained in Introducing Freud , the "innate bisexuality" is the bisexual and bigender state of a child between 0 and 2 years when it unconsciously converges to the decision that it is either a boy or a girl and is sexually attracted to men, women or both (father or mother).

Innate bisexuality is also the idea that the other sex or gender and the attraction to the other gender or same remains in the unconscious for the rest of your life and that one may develop psychosis due to a conflict between the unconscious identity and desire and the conscious manifestation of opposite identity or desire.

I am sure that this can be improved by people who have read more about Freud than the graphic introduction. Jringoot (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps for a historical perspective, but I don't think Freud's methodology is much used anymore, especially in queer theory. I would hesitate to add it to this article without some quality modern sources that discuss Freud in the context of queer issues. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2020

Lachlan Watson, 2001, American, Actor 108.54.192.254 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

reversion of "Infact gender fluidity is ipso facto of gender, in that the definition of gender intrinsically includes the notion of fluidity by definition."

Inscrutable diatribe by now indeffed user

circular logic or self-evident restatements, all supported by WP:SYNTH at best. You need to write a direct simple sentence with a ref that directly supports the conclusion - User: DMacks With regards to WP:SYNTH = "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material I only added 1 source, so how is it possible I synthesized sources? - the other indication of source is there only to show verification of the author being relevant to Gender Studies, that is all I used of that source, so it isn't possible that SYNTH is applicable c.f. "French & Italian Languages and Literature - Todd W. Reeser". University of Pittsburgh. www.frenchanditalian.pitt.edu. - "..2013-2018 Director of the Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Program at the University of Pittsburgh..." - accessed 2020-03-13 I see how "Circular argument" - fallacy in argumentation is the petitio principii (“begging of the question”), in which the speaker presupposes that the audience accepts a thesis that actually is contested by them, even implicitly https://www.britannica.com/topic/circular-argument is true at viewing of the passage with 13:50, 13 March 2020 included because the sentence refutes the existence of gender fluidity the concept - in that by stating << gender fluidity is the same >> as << gender >> which is because the source shows "gender fluidity is usually taken as exceptional when in reality it is omnipresent" so that the contradiction identified by DMacks stems from "exceptional" : "omnipresent" - in that "exceptional" would indicate not very common, and "omnipresent" would indicate ubiquitous - which is tantamount to stating the notion of fluidity is an error because gender fluidity is only actually inherently already present in ideas of gender, and is no different These things indicate that DMacks has identified the passage was made flawed by my addition, but I didn't write the earlier sentence... i.e. "You need to write a direct simple sentence with a ref that directly supports the conclusion" Is true as a criticism, because I didn't make the necessary effort to integrate the sentence to the existing content, which is attributable to conditions in my environment at the time preventing accurate processing cognitively is my reasoning on the matter thanks, Diametakomisi (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC) This was frankly hard to understand, so I will squarely address your edit that you are talking about. It's WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It's not enough to dig up some random source that offhandedly makes an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. It has to be WP:Due. Gender (in the context of this article, that means gender identity) is stable and unchanging for the vast majority of people. Gender identity is the topic of a great many sources in psychology and they are clear that it is stable. Crossroads -talk- 23:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) Yes, that's fine, and I do agree with your opinion in part actually Crossroads, because the suggestion in the source isn't a central statement of the nature of gender fluidity, but more a suggestion of something that should be true of the idea of fluidity but isn't proven (i.e. the source has "gone out on a limb" as WP:FRINGE) - that is to state the source is stating that gender fluidity is the same thing as gender (as I understood "exceptional" being relevant to "omnipresent"); which might be true, but the current situation is that gender fluidity, the idea (as expressed as "idea" Fausto-Sterling & Fine, in Hines & Taylor 2018) is a separation of the reality of a fluidity of definition with regards to gender existing from the currently accepted definition of gender (which I think is the same thing as "...that means gender identity) is stable and unchanging for the vast majority of people. Gender identity is the topic of a great many sources in psychology and they are clear that it is stable..." @ Crossroads 23:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)), since there is an actual idea at all that is << gender fluidity >>. But actually, "This was frankly hard to understand..." - << fluidity >> is very difficult to accept perhaps, is the reason it is difficult to understand, but, although I attribute your lack of understanding Crossroads to my choice of words to explain the source. Diametakomisi (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) I don't agree with you (objectively, as you or I might not want to accept the suggestion, the sources don't support your or my position on the subject, if it is the case that) firstly: "unchanging for the vast majority of people" if true, and surely it is most probably likely to be true, the subject is infact fluidity, which is actually a fringe topic, if, by your statement "vast majority" is "stable" - by << stable >> you are defining the subject gender as only possible as a consideration as being in reality male / female the same thing as male / female (being the word "stable" @ Crossroads 23:09, 13 March 2020) being not very flexible, fluid, changable, malleable (as Hines, Taylor, (2018)), choosable, independently determinable per individual (as contrary to "vast majority of people" @ Crossroads 23:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC) - seems a contradiction of the source Hines, Taylor 2018 @ "...but shifts according to social, cultural and individual preferences.." @ "individual"). What I'm trying to state is that Crossroads is trying to refute the existence of fluidity by "WP:FRINGE. It's not enough to dig up some random source that offhandedly makes an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim" @ "FRINGE" & "EXTRAORDINARY claim", because it is obvious that the the subject is a fringe subject (this being something like extra-ordinary) - that the source (Reeser as interpreted by Krauss) goes so far as to state (@ is "omnipresent" not "exceptional") gender and fluidity are the same (as interpreted by user:Diametakomisi), is a fact of the source, whether it is true to a user or not - please see the source is a professor Director of the Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Program at the University of Pittsburgh that you or I should be so liberal in this opportunity, to use an analogy: lay down a suppressive fire against an individual, if the source is reliable Diametakomisi (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reversion @ 22:56, 13 March 2020 With respect to User: Crossroads @ 22:56, 13 March 2020: Undoing. It's off topic (not about those who identify as genderfluid), WP:UNDUE as it misdefines fluidity and appears to claim everyone is fluid, and it's also incomprehensible - what could "defining gender includes positions on individual definition determined by different societies and cultures" possibly mean? (User: Diametakomisi bolded the quote of User:Crossroads, I concluded after the following response that I didn't word the passage correctly, so decided to re-add the content re-worded, since the question by Crossroads is answered by the source, shown at the foot of this section) The source (Hines, Sally; Taylor, Matthew (2018). Is Gender Fluid?: A primer for the 21st century Thames & Hudson, 18 October 2018. p. 8th (no page numbers shown). ISBN 0500774382) shows the following (which I've critically appraised, in addition to, identifying the relevant source material that I took the information from to add to the article - that shows the content isn't "off-topic" i.e "(not about those who identify as genderfluid)"): "For some people, gender derives from the biological, reproductive characteristics of sex - that is to say, from the physical hormonal and chromosomal differences that, they argue, definitively separate male from female. For others, for others gender is an expression of social norms - a combination of the behaviours, roles and expectations through which a society defines women and men, Many people see gender as a combination of these biological and social factors. But today, an increasingly large group of people say that gender is not hard-wired and can be understood..." obviously the factual accuracy of the statement that "an increasingly large group of people say that gender is not hard-wired" (being either true or not true), the suggestion "hard-wired" isn't true because humans don't contain wires (which suggest a kind of weakness of description of the fact of neurons and synapses (viz. cognitive network; analogous (for example, as atomic time has superceded digital time which has superceded analogue time, perhaps) to computer networks) being the actual referent in the text, and so, the use of the analogy wiring (indicating maybe something like, since people are robot like creatures (perhaps a reference to the argument from design, in the mind of one or both of the authors, I am, and other readers are expected to accept the limited explanation of hard-wiring being in any way true of an explanation of the species "...and expressed in a far more diverse range of ways. In addition, the work of scientists such as Anne Fausto-Sterling (b. 1944) and Cordelia Fine (b.1975) has highlighted that some of the physical and physiological differences between the sexes are not as clear-cut as we might think.." seems to suggest, that, although the subject is gender, the word given "sexes", is used to express that differences biologically identified identify gender i.e. the authors have taken here sex as the identifier of gender, is a contradiction into the passage, (because there is such a word as "gender", and << sex >> is defined as a thing which occurs in course to reproduction as in sexual intercourse, I don't really agree that sex is possible at all as a description for gender differences - i.e. the criteria of an individual sex: M/F is an error of definition generally, independently of accepting any necessary definition of gender fluidity being more separate from the position of biological observation as to the presence of different genitalia - because, monks and nuns are very distinctly two different groups (i.e. nunneries and monasteries) so, how it is possible in the text to take "sexes" + "physical" & "physiological" as being so "tightly coupled" (i.e. Licklider) to gender as two descriptions (I ask rhetorically). The use of the word "clear-cut" with "as we might think" really does suggest, operations transgender (which is a confusion actually, and might just be better expressed as, "clearly-defined"), especially since "-cut" + "mutable" is (surely the suggestion) mutilation (and so perhaps an attempt to "silence the critics" (being the same thing as being made mute) c.f. Silencing Critics: Why and How Presidents Restrict Media Freedom in Democracies Marisa Kellam, Elizabeth A. Stein - ‎July 26, 2015 (Volume: 49 issue: 1, page(s): 36-77) @ "silencing critics" being something akin to The Silence of the Lambs (Thomas Harris) @ "silence the critics" is the suggestion I'm making, I suppose, to be true) "...From any of these perspectives, gender might be understood as being somehow mutable or malleable - or, to put it another way, gender might be thought of as fluid. The idea of gender fluidity suggests that gender is not fixed by biology, but shifts according to social, cultural and individual preferences." Diametakomisi (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (< --- after signature user Diametakomisi added a linking url @ "tightly coupled" which is meant to show the close association of the words meanings to each other as two things are tightly coupled to each other as stated by Licklider, because "much of the above comment was incomprehensible" @ Crossroads 19:14, 19 March 2020, Diametakomisi (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (< --- after signature user Diametakomisi added a copy of the source information to this section with a linking url Diametakomisi (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)) I made this a subsection because it is the same discussion. I'm saying this for your own good: much of the above comment was incomprehensible. At any rate, I stand by what I said above and in my edit summary. Nobody is saying "hard wired" except you. But many psychological traits are stable through the lifespan. You're also conflating gender and gender identity. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for giving sermons about one's views on gender. We represent what the best sources say. Crossroads -talk- 19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) if you look to the source you'll see I copied the words "hard-wired" from there (as it is shown in the passages in this section) Diametakomisi (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC) I just recognised this error in the article though - "Non-binary gender or genderqueer" is to state; 1:0 / 0:1, being that individuals determine only male or female with no possible mixture of the binary values, is the same thing as genderqueer - is not true, because people who determine a non-binary gender aren't necessarily attracted to the same biological gender. The lead confuses sexual orientation, or preference, with gender identity. For example, transvestites might identify female (when wearing a dress), but aren't homosexual, that is obvious. Diametakomisi (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC) in: Richards, Bouman, Seal, Barker, Nieder & T’Sjoen - Non-binary or genderqueer genders "The umbrella terms for such genders are ‘genderqueer’ or ‘non-binary’ genders" is the same as this article but "genderqueer and non-binary gender identities" is to identify two different groups. In the first statement the authors identify an "umbrella term" but in the second they need to identify an additional umbrella term to identify. Diametakomisi (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC) the source Richards et al is Journal International Review of Psychiatry Volume 28, 2016 - Issue 1: Gender Dysphoria and Gender Incongruence - is a contradiction of the fact of non-binary genders being, in my understanding, if a man isn't macho, and a woman isn't weak - as the fact of non-binary - that is if their are existing premises as how to define the genders, that are traditional gender definitions, the stereotypical definitions being macho (like soldiering; being a soldier): weak (like not doing soldiering; being a soldier) (as binary values) - the non-binary is expressed as men might apply moisturizer (previously thought of as a beauty treatment), for example, and women might, go to a gym and "pump-iron" (do weight-lifting) - that some people take this as being an indication of some type of mental disorder is itself a type of mental disorder that is all - as proven by the fact of women who do (are actually doing today, by my own observation of reality in a gym very recently) weightlifting for health reasons, and men who apply moisturizer (which I myself do, and am not a homosexual) for the same reasons of health. How these two things are the same as genderqueerness? They aren't obviously. Diametakomisi (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC) "mutable" in; Hines, Sally; Taylor, Matthew (2018). Is Gender Fluid?: A primer for the 21st century. Thames & Hudson, 18 October 2018. p. 8th (no page numbers shown). ISBN 0500774382 - is a hindrance to comprehension, as an inheritance of previous neologism (that the application of mutable ("late 14th" origination, if the source is reliable c.f. WP:5P2) - is, the word is archaic today but still in use, and is harming the understanding of modern gender determination) as applied to a modern idea - since mutable is formally similar to mutation & mutilated - and the meanings are very similar - which is something that indicates the possibility of the incomprehension of a genderfluid individual is mutable by definition, is a type of abuse of understanding. Diametakomisi (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Crossroads Diametakomisi (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) Diametakomisi, first of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I cannot determine what your native language is (Greek, perhaps? Διαμετακόμιση = "transit") but you have to be able to discuss with other users here in English in a way that is sufficiently understandable that a coherent discussion can be held. While Crossroads is doing a valiant job in responding to the best of his ability, I feel that a lot of your comments are both difficult to understand and respond to, as well as not appropriate for a Talk page. Discussions of vocabulary terms which you seem either to misunderstand ("hard-wired" has nothing to do with wires) or are irrelevant, unhelpful, or confused ("mutable" / "mutation" / "mutilated") and I am inclined to collapse this entire discussion per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM as unhelpful to the improvement of the article. If I speak a language that can help you elucidate your point, I will do so; but as things stand now, I don't believe this discussion should continue any further in its present form. Sorry, but this is a volunteer project, and we can't tie up the time of volunteer editors on a discussion that is clearly going nowhere. Maybe you can contribute better at another Wikipedia, like Greek Wikipedia, if that is your language, or some other one, if it is not. Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Collapsed gobbledygook by user now indeffed for CIR, per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Categories needed

Area for genderfae, genderfauna and genderflora should be added. Idotrytohelp (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Idotrytohelp, You'll need to provide a reliable source if we are to discuss those. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There ought to be a section on intersex identities in this article

I've just edited the section on Legal Recognition - and it struck me that, with the sentence talking about the legal recognition of the first indeterminate sex person in Australia, this might *actually* be describing an intersex person instead.

The definition between intersex and non-binary is important; I'm non-binary myself, but intersex people are those determined to have neither entirely male or entirely female genitalia at birth.

It's important to note that for decades, these people were operated on to give them the "right" genitalia very quickly after birth, in some cases decisions having been made on the basis that raising a girl would be "easier".

Intersex people have a wide variety of gender identities, and it's not an area of trans rights I've ever been well-knowledged on myself, but the distinction between a medical condition (not making any arguments about how much a medical condition dysphoria is) that marks one as 'other' and a gender identity seems important. I'm surprised it hasn't been included here yet. Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, I've added a brief sentence on it. In the future if you see something like that, feel free to be WP:BOLD and add it yourself! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Names in lead

I agree with Astrophobe in their most recent edit that we are reaching MOS:LEADCLUTTER with the number of alternatives names & abbreviations in the lead. It's already linked in the article, so perhaps we just need the "(also spelled nonbinary)" in the lead. Thoughts? Tvcameraop (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. A short sentence somewhere at the end of a lead sentence saying something like "nonbinary gender identities are also referred to by 'enby', 'NB', 'genderqueer'" etc. would work well to reduce clutter but ensure the names get mentioned. (I also wish to point out, based on the edit summary of the editor who removed 'enby' - as someone who's nonbinary myself, I don't really get the whole association with 'enby' being offensive - it's definitely valid that people don't wish to be called certain things, but I wouldn't say there's anywhere near consensus, as the editor suggested, to remove it.) --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I would support moving "NB" and "enby" out of the lead sentence, probably just leaving them in the body (where they are already present). -sche (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that when I more or less undid that edit earlier today in this diff, I had a false memory of what had been going on with this page from around this July 4 diff and subsequent edits. I thought that having the disambiguation "enby" in the lead was a stable version of the page with implicit consensus behind it, but actually that's not true at all. So since it looks like we do need to build consensus on this point, I'll say that mentions in the lead and also more detail in the body seems appropriate. I think the variation in language around nonbinary gender identities is not so much a problem of having many words for the same concept as it is about having many words for many slightly different concepts. If "enby" and "NB" are really just abbreviations with no other content, then they're MOS:ALTNAMES and can be listed in the lead with no further discussion of them in the body. But I think they do actually have content, context, and usage distinct from "Non-binary". Right now that merits the absolute briefest mention in the article, but there's clearly plenty of discussion around their usage that we should incorporate into the article -- of which, by the way, the edit reversions back and forth are a symptom, since they cite rationales on exactly how different "enby", "NB", and "nonbinary" are. So I think we should work more discussion into Non-binary_gender#Definitions_and_identity and then we can summarise whatever that discussion is in the lead. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of "non-binary", "nonbinary", "NB", "enby", and "genderqueer", I would say "NB" seems like the least important since it's just(?) an abbreviation; so, if we only move one of them (if things are getting cluttered), I'd move that one. -sche (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would replace the entire parenthetical in the lead with (or abbreviated as enby). Hyphenation or not is immaterial, and we can explain the Non-binary == NB == enby later in the article. Lead is looking super cluttered as of this edit. Folly Mox (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I took a shot at rearranging the various terms to make the lead less cluttered and easier to read. Feel free to tweak further. Kaldari (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should still have "genderqueer" in the first sentence as it appears to be a significant alternative term. See this book's title, Genderqueer and Non-Binary Genders, and its statement, Even the book title evolved over the time of writing as the word genderqueer became more accepted and utilised as another umbrella term for those outside of the gender binary—and was consequently included in the title., as well as the sources I pointed to here. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lead

Right now the lead says "Non-binary identities can fall under the transgender umbrella", making it sound like this is the exception rather than the rule. I think it would better reflect reality and the sources (which often assume that all non-binary identities are transgender) if we changed "can" to "often" or "typically" or "generally". Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I support any of those changes. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Pangender redirects here but this article doesn’t explain what it is!

Pangender redirects here but this article doesn’t explain what it is! Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: You may follow the steps to nominate the redirect for deletion. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I'll just add a sentence about it. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Here’s the old talk page for Pangender as you can see, Pansexuality would not make a better redirect. Also gives some definitions without references. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to drop a couple of potential sources here and let others decide if they're reliable enough to include or not, as I don't have the energy to debate non-binary issues right now:

• What it means to be pangender, July 16, 2020 (The Daily Dot)

• Pangender, Dictionary.com (referenced in Daily Dot article)

• Pangender or demigirl? Australian study identifies more than 30 gender options, October 10, 2018, Reuters

Funcrunch (talk) 02:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Valencia Flag is wrong

The Valencia flag has the wrong colors and needs to be removed as the non binary flag has black on the bottom not green and the purple and white need to switch places — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:BC82:2300:7DB6:7474:E27F:9704 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The caption doesn't describe the flag as the nonbinary flag - it describes it as an example of the genderqueer pride flag seen at a Pride march in Valencia. Nowhere does it claim to be the nonbinary flag; though I will add alternative text clarifying this is if this is your problem. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)