Talk:Discrimination against non-binary people

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2015. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): April ahmed.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mahone m1. Peer reviewers: Bibibiwyy, Asher r1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacquelinerivera13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sswans1999.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sgriffin1023.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Google scholar leads

 * a few studies focusing on gender binarism
 * several hundred reports that may be helpful

Google Scholar also cross-references Google Books searches. Insomesia (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Virtually all of these sources are actually using the terms "gender binarism" and "binarism" as synonyms for "gender binary". Hence, they are not actually referring to non-binary/binarist discrimination but rather the overarching subject of the gender binary as a whole, and as a result, many or perhaps most of them are not actually of relevance. And for those that do go into the former subject, again, they do not refer to it as "binarism". As far as I know, there are no published sources which define "binarism"/"gender binarism" as "discrimination towards those who fall outside of the gender binary". Hence, it is my opinion that the use of the term in this way is unjustified, and for that reason, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I've written more about this matter below: click. Thanks. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 03:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * These are simply leads to find content. Insomesia (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Alrightie then. A few around editors here seem to be implying that these links justify the use of the term in the way that it is employed (which they do not), hence my concern. In any case, fair enough. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 05:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Content removal/rewrites
Hi there. I've removed and rewritten a lot of the content from this article for several reasons:


 * 1) Some of the statements were very opinionated (and while perhaps very true in some respects, such statements are not appropriate for Wikipedia). See WP:NPOV.
 * 2) Most of the citations were from non-published, potentially unreliable sources (such as personal blogs in a couple cases). Non-published sources should never be used on Wikipedia. See WP:RS.

I looked around a little and tried to find some valid references that could be used instead but I was unable to find much. Perhaps someone else would like to look into this further?

– el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. Here is my response
 * 1) All articles about discrimination report an opinion much like christian articles on homosexuality show an opinion. The statement that binarism refers to discrimination does not equal discrimination being bad. Technically we discriminate against pedophiles. I'm pretty sure no one thinks that is bad.
 * 2) I have added the actual true source of the statistics.
 * 3) Finally please recognize that while the concept of binarism and the gender binary often overlap they are not the same thing. Binarism is the prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes or erasure either caused by the binary or against people who are not on the binary. If you wish to temporally name this article non-binary discrimination I'm willing to discuss it however this article is about discrimination not the binary itself. Thank you. The articles creator. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. On second thought, I have decided to nominate this article for deletion. Please see the AfD discussion page here. Thanks. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 09:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that your unwillingness to work towards making this article better truely shows what kind of editor you are. Anyway if this article is to go away fine there isn't much I can do about it because hardly anyone has heard of binarism and no one on the binary could truely understand the binary privilege that they have. All in all I have no hard feelings towards you only towards the system of discrimination in our society.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of terminology and rename proposal
Hi everyone. As far as I can see, the use of the term "binarism" with the definition of "discrimination towards those who fall outside of the gender binary" is a neologism (see WP:NEO). In the published literature, the terms "gender binarism" (or simply "binarism") and "gender binary" are used almost exclusively as synonyms of one another. Out of the thousands of hits for "binarism" that I came across in the literature, I was only able to find a mere handful at best that employed the term with the aforementioned definition rather than simply as a synonym for "gender binary", and none that actually explicitly defined the term as such (again, see WP:NEO for why this is of importance). Indeed, I would not be surprised if (and in fact I think it's likely that) no such sources even exist at present.

As far as I can see, the use of the term "binarism" with the definition claimed by this article is a very recent phenomenon which has been promulgated almost entirely by several bloggers in the transgender-associated blogosphere and via other non-published, potentially unreliable online sources. (In fact, this article initially cited these blogs as sources for the definition of "binarism" as such, but as per WP:RS and WP:SPS (i.e., due to being non-published/unreliable sources), they have since been removed.) This is somewhat unfortunate, as I agree, "binarism" would be a potentially nice term to use to describe the phenomenon in question. But because I'm virtually positive that it's currently a neologism, and because the published literature almost exclusively uses the term instead simply as a synonym for "gender binary", I feel that the employment of the term with the definition given in this article is not appropriate. Please see the relevant excerpts of WP:NEO, which I have included and emphasized here:

Taken together, I feel that this article should be renamed (to something like "non-binary discrimination" or "discrimination due to the gender binary" perhaps) and modified accordingly. If no one objects, I'll be going ahead and making the changes soon myself. And if anyone does object (frankly, I'm looking at you Rainbowofpeace), in order to justify the continued use of the term here, I ask that they please provide valid secondary sources from the published literature which explicitly define "binarism" (or "gender binarism") with the definition employed by this article. Otherwise, if no valid sources are ultimately provided — even if there are any objections — as per WP:NEO, and hence Wikipedia policies, I will be going ahead and making the changes.

Thanks. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 05:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't I at least ask for some time to find some sources before you bully me into changing my article.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rainbowofpeace, see WP:OWN. This is not "your" article; it's Wikipedia's article.  This isn't bullying on El3ctr0nika's part:  they are an editor, engaging in the normal back-and-forth that constitutes editing in controversial subject areas in Wikipedia. - bonze blayk (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:OWN says nothing about the creator of the article. Nowhere in it does it say that and you two clearly are bullying me for a few reasons. You don't negotiate decisions you force them. And you gang up on me. Clearly you do not understand what I'm going through. Besides you are the person who thinks that all transphobia is caused by the gender binary which I find not only inaccurate but actually down right insulting for you to compare the discrimination you face to the discrimination I face..-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rainbowofpeace, your black-and-white thinking is painful to watch. I quote you: "Can't I at least ask for some time to find some sources before you bully me into changing my article." Now see the first sentence of WP:OWN: "No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article." By saying "my article," you are implying that you are the owner of the article. Indeed, that seems to be the way you think. If it weren't, I would imagine you would've used different terminology, whether you happened to be the creator of the article or not.


 * Anyway, enough bickering. To answer your question, I was not planning on making any changes until 2-3 days had passed. So yes, you should have plenty of time to find sources (if they exist, anyway).


 * As for the "bully me" comment, I'm just trying to resolve what is in my opinion a fairly severe flaw with the article. Take that as you will.


 * – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, I gave it four days. The page has been renamed. Thanks. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 12:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Rename from "Non-Binary Discrimination" back to "Discrimination towards non-binary transgender persons"
Hi. I recently renamed this article from "Binarism" to "Discrimination towards non-binary transgender persons" as per WP:NEO (see above). Rainbowofpeace then proceeded to rename the article to "Non-Binary Discrimination". While "Non-binary discrimination" is a title I suggested myself before, I now feel that it is not a good choice as it is very ambiguous and (in my opinion) sounds like some sort of scientific term at first glance. As per WP:TITLE, article titles on Wikipedia should be precise and unambiguous, as well as descriptive when necessary, to the extent that a given individual should be able to tell exactly what a given article is about solely via its title (which I feel is not the case with "non-binary discrimination"). Also, see this excerpt from WP:NEO: "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." Finally, in my opinion, because it is so overly concise, the term "non-binary discrimination" could actually be interpreted as somewhat of a neologism itself, which is another reason why I feel that it should be avoided.

For these reasons, I'll be changing the title back to "Discrimination towards non-binary transgender persons".

To Rainbowofpeace: if you have any issues with this change, please discuss your thoughts here with me. I am open to another rename, but only after proper discussion and consensus.

Thanks. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 08:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all while I'm 99% sure you are unaware of it your title is binarist. Many non-binary people including myself do not consider themselves transgender. Many feel that Genderqueer (and other non-binary identities) are seperate from transgender and cisgender identities and also that several transgender people are discriminative towards non-binary people. Out of respect I personally ask you to take out the transgender part. Much like how you say that although Genderqueer is a term that technically includes all non-binary people many people don't identify as genderqueer the same is true of transgender/transsexual. So as the title offends me and I'm sure will offend other non-binary people I strongly recommend a change back and also suggest you read the genderqueer article so you will know more about genderqueer and other non-binary identities.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a fair point. I've gone ahead and changed it as per your request. Anything else?




 * I have read it before. That being said, it is not exactly extensive. Any other reading suggestions? Indeed, I admittedly am not as informed as I'd prefer to be in regards to non-binary identities, so if you have any good reading recommendations, I would genuinely appreciate them.


 * Thanks. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 09:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * this was nice thank you the word "nonbinaryism" is not descriptive 67.190.156.118 (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Websters gives the following definition of Binarism: " a mode of thought predicated on stable oppositions (as good and evil or male and female) that is seen in post-structuralist analysis as an inadequate approach to areas of difference; also :  a specific dichotomy subscribed to or reinforced in such thought ." Yet Wikipedia equates "Binarism" solely with gender, which is just plain wrong. This article reads like jibberish to anyone not involved in gay (LGBTetc) activism. Ridingdog (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I just came here to say that the name is terrible in general! :D No one would say "discrimination towards female gender persons", for example, would they? Non-binary is just an adjective. There is no equivalent to "man" or "woman", except for "nonbinary people", but I don't get why the "gender persons" is there at all. I wouldn't say "I'm a non-binary gender person", I'd say "I'm a non-binary person" or (more likely) "I'm non-binary." "Persons" as a word is generally only seen in legal texts. So I think this article should be renamed "Discrimination towards non-binary people." -- Cassolotl   (talk) pronouns: they/them  12:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:Merge
This article should be merged with the re-created Cissexism article, per WP:Content fork. I would suggest that it be WP:Merged with the Genderism article, but I will soon seek that the Genderism article be WP:Merged with the Gender binary article, per WP:Content fork and WP:Neologism. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are implying that there seems to be very little clarity about the purpose many of these pages serve and how they fit together, I would agree. It is difficult to find useful information. The Cissexism article is just a redirect to Transphobia. On a possible merger of this article with Transphobia or Genderism, I find Genderism to be a neologism that could alternatively be merged here. Trankuility (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edits
Hi I'd potentially like to rework this page. I feel that the specific ways non-binary people face discrimination really need to be expanded upon. I have some potential sources on my user page; however, a few of them focus more on issues of transgender people rather than non-binary people, so any suggestions for sources would be appreciated!Abergin13 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I propose to edit the "Social" content of this page. I believe that it requires worldwide views on this topic, as there is only general information on how non-binary gender people are socially discriminated. I would also like to add examples of unfair treatment from different parts of the world and regional perspectives on this community. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvalitov (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Page Expansion
Hello! For my Women and Gender Studies course, I will be spending the next few months expanding this page. As of right now, I am looking to add more specificity and concrete examples of discrimination, namely in the fields of legal recognition and health care. Hopefully this will allow more attention to be given to this subject.April ahmed (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

After receiving critiques from my peers and instructor, I've incorporated my additions onto the main page. Please let me know if there are any alterations that need to be made. Thank you so much. April ahmed (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding Sources and Information
I am working on finding more sources for this piece in order to provide it with less bias and more factual information surrounding the discrimination non-binary people face. Below are some of the articles that I plan on using to create more citations and potentially add more information.

"Gendered Violence and International Human Rights: Thinking Non-discrimination Beyond the Sex Binary"

"Intersections of gender and intimacy in the lives of transgender people with non-binary gender identities"

"‘For Fun’: (De) Humanizing Gisberta—The Violence of Binary Gender Social Representation"

"Challenging cisgenderism in the ageing and aged care sector: Meeting the needs of older people of trans and/or non-binary experience"

Jacquelinerivera13 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There are also 3 new reports from the UK, available via Scottish Transgender Alliance web page on Non-Binary Research. Trankuility (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional information
Undeniably, non-binary people is a hot topic recently, but it's a complicated one as well. In addition, It's especially hard to define various kinds of identities. The article introduces current situation non-binary people is facing in different countries. From my perspective, it's significant to let the audience know how non-binary people is treated differently across the world due to culture difference. However, we must admit that non-binary people's life has been improved recently thanks to many individuals and organizations' contribution. If the article can contain the progress and improvement non-binary people is experiencing and the contributory factors behind it, the article will be more comprehensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibibiwyy (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Corrected title preposition
Moved the page to use the correct preposition in the title. "Discrimination against" is over 100 times as common as "discrimination towards". In addition, the latter term is misleading, because it is possible to unduly discriminate in favor of some group, but that is not what this article is about. Mathglot (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding "phobia" definition
Multiple IP editors have recently made an edit stating "However, the definition of "phobia" is "having irrational fear of something", which, in this case, is a totally false narrative", and citing a dictionary definition (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I and other editors have reverted. The "totally false narrative" line is WP:Original research and fails WP:Neutral point of view. The dictionary definition of "phobia" cited does not relate specifically to the lead of this article, where the edit has been repeatedly inserted. Please discuss here before continuing to edit war. Funcrunch (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The more recent edits have cited a Medline topic page on phobias instead of a dictionary definition. My argument remains that this is original research based on the "false narrative" part of the edit, which is not backed up by the cited source. Funcrunch (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The objection to the IP edits is even stronger than that, because they are using supposed dictionary or medical definitions of a completely different word, i.e., "phobia", and it's completely trivial to state that in English compound words often take on different meanings than the uncompounded root. "Strawberry", "cobweb", "hogwash", "driveway", "wedlock", are all examples. Furthermore, the same word can mean one thing in one professional context, such as medical or psychiatric, and another in common parlance among the public; see for example, moron, cretin, and imbecile which were medical words with specific definitions in 19th and early 20th century psychiatry, and all of them nothing but name-calling epithets among the public.
 * So when Medline defines "phobia" in a medical context, that is completely irrelevant with respect to the use and meaning of the word transphobia (or homophobia, etc.) for two reasons: 1) they are two different words, and you can't make assumptions about what happens when you combine them into compounds (otherwise, we would drive in the driveway, and park in the parkway, but that's not what we do, is it?), and 2) compounding with suffixes doesn't have a systematic, parallel meaning in every word that uses it, so sometimes (especially in medical context) it may mean "fear of" (actually, a better description is "irrational fear of" because fear of lions is not a phobia), but in other contexts it certainly means "hatred" or "dislike", and it has long precedent for this going back at least 200 years, where for example, "negrophobia" existed since 1819, and morphed into racialist, racist, race prejudice, and anti-Negro.
 * These suppositions about what various -phobia compounds mean based on their supposition of what the compounds ought to mean based on medical definitions of only half the word, are the purest OR and SYNTH and can, and should, be completely discounted as they have no basis whatever in the actual meanings of these words, but merely in their own personal theories. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree with your analysis, the reason I didn't focus on the etymology aspect is because some in the LGBT+ community have suggested using terms like trans-antagonism instead of transphobia, to avoid the fear-related connotation, either because of ableism concerns (out of regard for people who do have legitimate, medical phobias) or to emphasize that anti-trans discrimination is often motivated by factors other than fear. Regardless, agreed that the IP's edit is OR and SYNTH. Funcrunch (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole trans glossary is changing rapidly at the level of public discourse, words come and go, and people coin different terms for different reasons which either have more or less basis in classical compounding. I think for example that transmisogyny is well-established now, even though coined recently (by Julia Serano), and Virginia Prince's "femiphobia" never really caught on&mdash;thank goodness&mdash;though it's even older than "transgender", and I personally find "transantagonism" fairly awkward and hope it dies (and words like transmisogynoir extremely awkward) but it's not up to me or any of us individually to decide, because in the end, whatever people use a word for is what it means, classical Greek root definitions be damned.  Dictionaries follow meaning, not the other way round.  That's yet another reason why the IP's attempt to say what a compound "should" mean based on how part of the word is defined in a medical resource is so, so, wrong.  I'd like to hear their definition of "driveway".
 * But precisely because it is changing so quickly and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Wikipedia will inevitably be "behind the times" and lag behind the latest, greatest usage at college LGBT centers because of the encyclopedic requirements to use reliable, secondary sources, and that's exactly how it should be. That will inevitably leave insiders, activists, and those on the bleeding edge feeling that the article titles and usages are hopelessly out of date from their perspective, but that's an eternal conflict that will never end, because it is the nature of an encyclopedia not to be on the bleeding edge, but to lag behind, until things stabilize a bit and become clear enough to have a number of reliable secondary sources to cite.  It's just the nature of the beast, and there will *always* be people coming in saying the terminology is all wrong and antiquated, and all we can do is keep repeating the guideline mantras, and if their vogue term of today becomes the stabilized term of tomorrow, then the good ol', turtle encyclopedia will eventually come around to using it.  Just not as soon as they'd like, but (hopefully) as soon as it should. Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring protection
I note that as of 18:22, 20 July 2017, has  the article for "Persistent disruptive editing" [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 18:22, 30 July 2017) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 18:22, 30 July 2017) ."

This follows an edit-war in July 2017( history ) regarding the definitions of words like "homophobia" or "transphobia" put forward by various IP editors. This eventually led to an Edit-warring notice at ANI, and the article protection soon followed. Mathglot (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to remove "gender" and certainly no consensus at all about where the article should go. Most people seemed to support pluralizing "persons" to "people" but I certainly don't feel comfortable making that move. Red  Slash  00:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Discrimination against non-binary gender persons → Discrimination against non-binary people – "Non-binary gender persons" is so awkward. No one would say "discrimination against female gender persons" when talking about discrimination against women. The use of "persons" is overly formal, and the use of "gender" is redundant. There is no way a person can be non-binary other than in terms of gender. So the proposed move meets the goals of consistency, naturalness, and precision. -- Cassolotl   (talk) pronouns: they/them  12:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NATURALNESS. The article is about discrimination against a certain group of people not individual persons. We wouldn't have an article titled "discrimination against black persons", we would use "people". Rreagan007 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, although it may be more appropriate to move to Discrimination against genderqueer people as non-binary is a redirect to the article Genderqueer which states Genderqueer, also known as non-binary, is a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌identities which are outside the gender binary and cisnormativity. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 *  Oppose there are no non-binary people as sex is binary either xx or xy chromosome if you leave the word gender in you can at least make believe its possible to be non-binary עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written - seems "gender" needs to be retained in the title. Vsmith (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and per the "naturalness" and "conciseness" WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. There is also a COMMONNAME-like argument to be made about how much more commonly reliable sources refer to "non-binary people" than "non-binary gender persons". (Even if "gender" were retained, it should be "people" rather than the awkward "persons".) -sche (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Supoort and suggestion What about Discrimination against people with non-binary gender identities if the word "gender" is necessary? There is a list article named List of people with non-binary gender identities. --Ptko (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both "gender persons" and "gender people" seem incorrect. I think the proper phrase would be "gendered persons" or "gendered people", or "people of non-binary gender". —BarrelProof (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * BarrelProof, you're breaking it up wrong: it's not "[non-binary] [gender people]", it's "[non-binary gender] [people]", i.e people who are not gender binary or of a binary gender. jamacfarlane (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

User:Red Slash, I have moved the article to "people". jamacfarlane (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me Red   Slash  04:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Discrimination against non-binary gender people → Discrimination against non-binary people – I don't think the construction of "non-binary gender people" is used in common parlance; it's typically either "non-binary people" or, more rarely, "gender-nonbinary people", but almost never "non-binary gender people". "Non-binary people" thus pass the "naturalness"/"conciseness" test, as per in the previous discussion. Incidentally, I can't see a consensus myself in the previous discussion (only one person in the above discussion actually argued on the substantive point on the use of "gender" in the title; the only other opposition was reheated transphobia), but its age means that seeking a reversal or overturning without a new move request will probably be a waste of time for everyone involved.. Sceptre (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. The phrase "non-binary people" is clear! ...Yeah, only one person argued for including "gender" in this page's title. (The other, not pinged because they're now a banned user, was only here to start unrelated and incorrect transphobic arguments.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging everyone who participated in the previous discussion: . Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I have a slight preference for Discrimination against people with non-binary gender identities. Cheers, gnu 57 17:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. Would also be fine with Discrimination against people with non-binary gender identities as proposed above. Funcrunch (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alternative move to  per above. That seems more clear, recognizable and natural than "non-binary people", which doesn't even mention any relationship to gender. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support again as this is clearly the common name. jamacfarlane (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the related article is at Non-binary gender and removal of the word "gender" is undesirable. Also oppose needlessly wordy presented alternatives. -- Netoholic @ 23:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support nom. Also want to point out that "non-binary people" comes up with nearly 800,000 more results than "non-binary gender people" on a Google search, with the top results of the latter being links to this page. "People with non-binary gender identities" comes up with around 2,000 more than "non-binary gender people". --Equivamp - talk 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for the same reasons as before, namely the 'naturalness' and 'conciseness' WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and because reliable sources more COMMONly refer to 'non-binary people' than 'non-binary gender [people]'." -sche (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Netoholic. Mikus (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "Non-binary" is not ambiguous since "people" serves as a natural disambiguator. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


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

categorisation
Category:Transphobia Vulture (a.k.a. Transandrosupport) (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As per my comment on Talk:Discrimination against transgender men I've removed this unnecessary category and added it to the main page for this talk page. Tvcameraop (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Too much focus on English countries
This article mentions like only four countries this UK, USA, Australia, and Canada. All of these are English countries.

Where are other countries for this thing? I think I may have to tag this article with the Globalize template.CycoMa (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Well, I'd imagine wherever nonbinary people are found, discrimination against them also is found; essentially, worldwide. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That seems very likely. I just think this article should be expanded upon a bit more.CycoMa (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I
— Assignment last updated by Meowcats734 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media, Activism, and Social Movements
— Assignment last updated by Enina24 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)