Talk:Sex and/or gender diverse

Page move to 'Gender diversity'

The term Sex and/or gender diverse appears to be a neologism that has begun to fall out of favour. The term 'gender diversity', in contrast, seems to have greater acceptance and notability, such as appearing in the Australian government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender, and alongside other terms such as intersex and transgender. Moving the page would improve readability and provide a more suitable location for information on the legal recognition of gender diversity. Nsw2042 (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I saw your comment here several hours ago, about the time it was posted, but I'm just now replying because I was too sleepy to reply at that time (but not too sleepy to revert at least one unconstructive edit). I'm not sure about the suggested move. However, WP:Common name should be a factor. We generally label articles by the name most commonly used in WP:Reliable sources. This is why the Gender identity disorder article has not remained titled Gender dysphoria (despite the former term being more stigmatizing); it was changed to that twice, but changed back; see the recent discussions about that on its talk page. Besides this, the wording "sex and/or gender diverse" is clearer as to what the article is about (as opposed to gender diversity); for example, that the article is about biological sex as much as it is about the social construct of gender. Renaming the article to Gender diversity doesn't much differentiate it from the terms gender variance, atypical gender role and genderqueer. In fact, one or more of those articles should be merged, per WP:Content fork. There is a merge discussion on the Genderqueer talk page with regard to merging some of its spin-off concepts. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, User:Flyer22, I removed a long section on legal recognition, taking the view that it doesn't belong in an article on an identity label, and it's already detailed elsewhere, like LGBT rights in Australia and Third gender, which are more appropriate. I changed other language, however, to reflect the mostly historical use of the term. My feeling is that the content would be better merged with gender variance, as "gender diversity" appears to be a local term for that, particularly when combined with the word transgender, as in "transgender and gender diverse". Thoughts welcome. Trankuility (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your aforementioned changes to the article, seen here and here. By that, I mean that the legal recognition of a person's sex and/or gender is an aspect of gender identity. You are right that it's covered elsewhere, but I think that we should make that clear in the article's text...without extensively commenting on it as to avoid substantial duplication. As for merging... Well, the Atypical gender role article was merged with the Gender variance article because it's the same topic. The Sex and/or gender diverse article is mostly about gender variance, and the Gender variance article also addresses biological sex, so I wouldn't mind if you merged the Sex and/or gender diverse article with the Gender variance article; however, redundant information should be cut so that it fits well into that article, and, per WP:Due weight, it should not be given so much weight in that article that it is half the article; sex and/or gender diverse terminology, as defined by the Sex and/or gender diverse article and its sources, is specific to Australia...not to the world in general. After the merge, Template:Transgender sidebar should be updated to remove the sex and/or gender diverse link.

Pinging Newsoas (Nsw2042) so that Newsoas is aware of your changes and merge proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that the legal aspect is still somewhat noted in article, though. Yes, including a bit of that and pointing to an article with more detail on it is better than extensive duplication. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've made further changes based on your feedback - largely the removal of duplicate information and the addition of "See also" links. I've also added a merge template, and will copy this thread to Talk:Gender variance. Trankuility (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted your copy and paste duplication for the reason I stated in that edit summary. All you have to do to make sure that people join this discussion is point them to this discussion with the specific link in the merger template. That stated, adding the merger templates is not needed in this case. These articles are not high-traffic articles, and the merger templates are likely to sit there for months or for over a year without anyone else weighing in on this matter. That is, in the likelihood that you do not go ahead and merge the articles before that point. And what I mean by merging this article with the Gender variance article is that either the sex and/or gender diverse content should go in a section that is already in that article with one or more Wiklinks pointing readers to more detail on its aspects, or that a Sex and/or gender diverse section is added to that article and features a Template:Further information link, or a similar link, to point readers to more detail on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, by "however, redundant information should be cut so that it fits well into that article," I meant any information in the Sex and/or gender diverse article being needlessly redundant to things that are already covered in the Gender variance article. Regarding my "06:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)" post, to add on to that, some things in the Sex and/or gender diverse article might fit well in more than one section in the Gender variance article. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I was actually following the rules on the merger guidance page.... Nevertheless, I will go ahead an merge the two, unless you'd like to start the process? I haven't done it before. Trankuility (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The text states to duplicate the discussion? Flyer22 (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No. WP:MERGE says the discussion should be on the destination talk page. Trankuility (talk) 08:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know; I was trying to see where you are coming from on the duplication matter. In this case, the discussion is already happening here; so the best thing is to point editors/readers here. That's my point on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

That's done. Looking at page views and "What links here" it looks like clearly the right decision. Feel free to add to the content at Gender variance if you think I've left anything substantive out. Trankuility (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "transexed"

I am hesitant to just remove it, so I will ask here first: Does the person who added the word "transexed" to the article self-identify using this term? Otherwise, can the person who added it explain and provide a source for what would be a new (and quite recently changed) usage of this word?

"Transexed" is analogous to "Transgendered" as an offensive or invalidating term and should not be used. It implies that being transsexual or transgender is something that is done to you or something that you "have", rather than who you are.

However, the fact that it is immediately followed in the intro by the word "transsexual" would give the impression they're describing two different things. This, combined with the fact that I personally am not a part of the group of people who might use this term to identify themselves, makes me reluctant to just remove it right away without confirming the meaning of the word hasn't changed or begun to be used differently.

The person who added it is unlikely to see this, so if anyone else is reading this and you apply this specific word to yourself and you know others who do as well, please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibertyOrDeath (talk • contribs) 02:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)