Talk:Gender bender

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jokretzmer, KaiMorrison, WST Student. Peer reviewers: Jlombera, Abigail Payne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I seriously question whether Shakespeare's Twelfth Night is a narrative of "gender bending". It is about masquerading as another person (who happens to be of another sex), it isn't about sexual deviancy.

How about adding Star Trek DS9: The symbiotic character Dax had several male and female hosts and explores at least some aspects of gender bending - one of the first "private" conversation of the charater is about the feeling of beeing female again after several male hosts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.66.102 (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Gender Bending?
In regards to the "gender bending" article, I think that it should stay and not be deleted since it is a term that is more scholarly than other more explicit terms that have been mentioned to replace it. I believe that college textbooks on gender would be more likely to have gender bending as the term of choice. To my knowledge, the term gender bending can be used as a form of resistance toward societal gender expectations, which could be added to the page. As for resources, Lorber's Paradoxes of Gender written in 1994 is a good one that speaks about this issue and could be used as a helpful source for the page. Amyellingsen (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Amy, UW

In Fiction
If we're to include this section, it needs some sourcing. I think the instances where the book or other work is notable and linked, usually the text covers the details of sourcing. But all of these manga and anime ones... they don't always mention episodes or any other details that would allow us to check if this is WP:V. The most recent addition, for instance, includes no mention in the linked article. For now I've flagged it for cites, but this is an issue on a number of entries on that list. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 19:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Examples
I've added a few citations, but I'm not especially fond of the "examples" section. I think one paragraph could probably summarize gender-bending in popular culture. Or maybe two, if we spent a lot of time discussing glam rock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to have a well-written paragraph or two (yes, Glam Rock!) than a list. That way we could contextualize it more with less repetition. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Genderfuck
Can someone explain why this belongs in the lede? The terms do not appear to be synonyms. Czolgolz (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This source says that "genderfuck" is a more extreme form of "gender bending". Maybe we could quote that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Czolgolz, you tried removing the term genderfuck from the article twice, and I reverted you twice, as seen here and here. I was clear that the term is there in the lead sentence because it's a WP:Alternative title matter, and I noted that the term is mentioned lower in the lead anyway. I don't see the problem with it being right there bolded in the first sentence of the lead when it is discussed lower in the lead anyway. Furthermore, per WP:Lead, the term genderfuck should be addressed in the lead. We have sections using the term lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how mainstream the term "genderfuck" has ever been, even though it's more used in-community (historically, anyway) than "gender bender". "Gender bender" is a more polite term that was picked up by the more mainstream media who couldn't print, "fuck" (or say it on broadcast TV or the radio). But since WP is not censored, "genderfuck" should be prominent and bolded, even if we don't choose it as the primary title of the article. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

- I went with the sex and gender distinction in the phrasing on "assigned at birth" to try and make this more culturally inclusive. Not all cultures assign the same gender roles based on sex; not all cultures define gender roles the same way. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * CorbieVreccan, with this edit, you focused on the fact that the link is "sex assignment" rather than "gender assignment." With this edit, I was responding to that, stating, "CorbieVreccan, that's true, but 'gender assignment' is an alternative term for 'sex assignment' and is mentioned in that article. After all, sex and gender are assigned at birth." As for your above comment, I don't see how your edit addressed the "not all cultures assign the same gender roles based on sex; not all cultures define gender roles the same way." aspect, but the vast majority of the world follows the gender binary, not third gender aspects, and bending gender is usually based on messing with the gender binary. On a side note: There is no need to ping me to this talk page since it is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Unscientific & Biased
This article appears to be very biased and uses very unscientific methods of explaining the Circumstance.

Many Ideas are simply stated as Fact and controversial Sources aren't hinted to be controversial.

Wikipedia is not a Lobby for Transgenderism! I will propose Changes soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emdeelf (talk • contribs) 03:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall I think this article was well written and had a great structure that flowed well and get the reader engaged. As some people have mentioned before me, I do think the term "genderfuck" didn't need to be given as much emphasis as it was. Using it as a reference for street slang is acceptable, but as a way of keeping the article written in a scholarly manor, I think it would have been best to leave it at that, and not continue to use it so much throughout the text. There could have been some more elaboration in certain sections, particularly "Literature". There could have been more examples of pieces of literature, and perhaps even the history of literature's role in gender bending and how it has changed throughout history. For the most part, this article did a great job citing it's sources and gathering it's information from many sources. The only section where there was a lack in citations was the examples listed at the end. Some of the examples listed had no citation at all, and although they may very well be legitimate, doing the necessary research to provide a citation would bring more validity to the section and article as a whole. Overall, a solid article. (Abigail Payne (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

Title
Shouldn't this article be called gender bending instead of gender bender? It seems to me that the title should focus on the activity instead of individuals who bend gender roles. Does anyone else have input on this, as I am not sure of Wikipedia's rules on this. I noticed that "genderfuck" was merged into this, and its title referred to the activity instead of genderfuckers. generic_hipster 21:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender bender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140628230217/http://psych.princeton.edu/psychology/research/prentice/pubs/Prentice%20Carranza.pdf to https://psych.princeton.edu/psychology/research/prentice/pubs/Prentice%20Carranza.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender bender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112054310/http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/BtlrPerfActs.pdf to http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/BtlrPerfActs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Genderfucking
I replaced the use of "genderfucking" in the article with "genderbending" in this edit. I see now that it is actual slang (still stated as such in the lead). But I think the instances I changed are still an improvement since that is the term used in the article title and section headings. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. 'genderfucking' should be in the article, but not the lede. Bkatcher (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's in the lead, in the "one who genderfucks" way, because of WP:Alternative title. Most of the "genderfuck" material in the lead should be moved below and a "Terminology" section should be created to harbor it and other material on gender bender terminology. As for this, that's because the Genderfuck article was merged with this one. That was leftover text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2019‎ (UTC)
 * Ah that explains it. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 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) 03:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the topic
The sections in the article have information that comes off as irrelevant to the topic of the article. Like the article defines gender bender as A gender bender is a person who dresses up and acts like the opposite sex.

Yet the article goes on it mentions stuff like “gender binary” as well as “Judith Butler and gender as performance”. Yet these sections don't mention gender bending nor do they say why they are related to gender bending. Plus Wikipedia already has articles for these topics we don't need to explain what these concepts are.CycoMa (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your claims about irrelevance are reasonable, though I've not looked into it in detail.
 * Slightly o/t: here's a tip about templates: you can *always* use a reason param in a template, even if it's not documented, and I recommend using it almost always. If there's no code to handle it, then it will not have any effect, other than to sit in the wikicode, where it has a documentary value. Ditto for talk.  So, for example, you could code the template thus:
 * and that's perfectly legal. Anyone reading the wikicode later will see it, and it won't interfere with anyone reading the article.
 * On another point: there's always WP:BOLD; you can try just blanking a section, and see if anyone squawks. Before you do that, I might wait a week or so, to see if anyone responds to the template you already placed. (If you do decide to blank, I'd pick just one section to blank first, and see how that goes, before you blank the other one.) Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * On another point: there's always WP:BOLD; you can try just blanking a section, and see if anyone squawks. Before you do that, I might wait a week or so, to see if anyone responds to the template you already placed. (If you do decide to blank, I'd pick just one section to blank first, and see how that goes, before you blank the other one.) Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks for the tip about templates. Also with regards about blanking sections, I’m the kind of person who tries to give sections a chance. Especially those sections, because it looks like some people worked hard on those sections. So I’m gonna give those sections a chance. If the tags in those sections remain unresolved for longer than 3 months I’ll remove them.CycoMa (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding Images to the Page
My intention is to add images of all the people on the Wiki page so that others can see what these people look like, and connect a name to a face. While also adding images of the Films in that section as well. Parkerclaudio (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Photo example of gender bending
The photo of the Mad Hatter cosplay was added for the following:


 * 1) The Mad Hatter himself can be argued to be a gender bending character as they are typically portrayed as a male character with make-up (something generally associated with femininity
 * 2) The sex and gender of the cosplayer in question are ambiguous.
 * 3) The intended gender of the cosplay itself is ambiguous: Is it supposed to be a feminine man or a gender-bent Mad Hatter?

Formless Entity (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)