Talk:Genderfuck

opinion
before you revert me yet again, notice what i added to back it up. what wrong with what i have now? Urthogie 04:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this page really nessisary? Isn't it just genderqueer with obsanity tacked onto it for "shock value"? Arcuras 19:29, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * "Genderqueer" with what? Anyway, genderqueer does not necessarily go with shock value, and neither does "genderfuck" go necessarily with obscenity. (If that is what you meant.) Besides, why not have the page? -- AlexR 22:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I was refering to the "fuck" suffix of the term "Genderfuck"... from the text of the current genderfuck article, the term (and a majority of the article) seems to simply mirror genderqueer, being no more then a variance of terminology. If I'm wrong on this, then this article needs to be significantly expanded to emphasize this difference, otherwise the term is simply "genderqueer" reworded in such a way to ensure it obtains the reader's/listener's notice. Arcuras 22:41, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article is somewhat improvable, and unfortunately I am not close enough to the relevant group to be able to improve it. I am positively certain, though, that both are two related, but different concepts. Actually, that is quite obvious from the articles, if one bothers to read them - genderfuck is first and foremost a "gender performance", genderqueer an identity. Theoretically, you don't have to be genderqueer to do genderfuck, although those who do genderfuck consciously probably are. Anyway, there is no reason for the merger, not even with the article as it currently stands. -- AlexR 14:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It is related to genderqueer, and there is some overlap, but it would be inaccurate to enclose it there. If I can, I'll expand on this - there are different histories to genderqueer and genderfuck.


 * Agreed that genderqueer and genderfuck have unique but similiar histories; I'm not an expert but my exerience is that genderfuck was coined first and speaks to "fucking" with concepts of gender unintentionally or purposefully usually as an external manifestation whereas genderqueer speaks to a broader movement to cast aside gender norms and male-female restrictions of explaning, defining and enforcing gender and societal roles. Benjiboi 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when does is "fucking" mean "toyed" or "jest" or whatever? "Fucking" is an obscenity and has no definition,they have no meaning but to offend. Anyway, id iimagine the closest definition refers to sexual intercourse.

Stub category
After recent arguments about which stub category this belongs in 9and I agree with AlexR that the ones previously given are far from accurate), I have changed this to fashion-stub. My argument for this is that Genderfuck is a deliberate fashion or style choice, albeit a deliberately provocative one. If anything, it's most easily comparable with the deliberate public wearing of bondage and fetish gear during the punk era of the late 1970s. Grutness|hello?  06:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Fashion stub? Come on... do we really have to pidgen hole every article into specific stub categories? This artile is to fashion as an improv group would be to fashion. Yes, fashion does have a part of it, but it's not the whole piece. Genderfucking is a direct challange of gender stereotypes, cultural stereotypes, and societal roles, and it achieves this thrugh various methods, unique to whomever is fucking with it.


 * These individuals are rebelling against labels. Ironically, that's exactly what people are trying to apply to them here. Arcuras 07:29, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there is now an appropriate stub-category (LGBT-stub); I've changed it accordingly

Lectonar 12:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Annie Lennox?
There is no mention of genderfuck or anything related that I can find in the article on Annie Lennox, nor is there (obviously) any reference in this page. Perhaps it's obvious to some, but it seems much less obvious than other performers listed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.27.232 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed - before someone is 'claimed' for this absurdly irrelevant article, perhaps some citation of them identifying/being identified with this term should be provided. Izzard, for example, calls himself an 'executive" or "action" transvestite - a witty term unlike this article's puerile version. How about deleting the whole thing? Malick78 09:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong disagree on boths counts. Genderfuck is a well-know term in the queer perfomance and activist communities, both Izzard and Lennox fit the label for their purposeful blurring of gender norms, as do other pop Brit icons like Boy George, David bowie's Ziggy Stardust and countless others. The article should be improved to represent the nuances of gender bending and reinterpreting gender roles and allow that an articst might not lablel themself a gender outlaw, a genderfucker or androgynous hero but that hardly means they aren't doing it. Benjiboi 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiablility, not truth (see WP:VERIFY). If it is not verifiable, then it should not be included.  I've removed from the "famous" list those people whose articles do not mention "genderfuck" since their inclusion as "famous genderfuckers" is unsupported and uncited.  Doctormatt 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that reasoning is flawed. It sould like if I edit those articles with some vaguery "some think Aniie Lennox is a genderfucker" then they would be included. I wonder if deleting examples is premature as this is a newer concept and needs expanding and research but hack away if you must. Benjiboi 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I am in no way suggesting that "some think Annie Lennox is a genderfucker" is acceptable as a sourced claim.  What do you suggest as a citation requirement for this list?   It seems to me that there are two options: a citation right next to each entry in the list, or a citation somewhere in the linked article.   The former method is cumbersome and redundant if the citation is in the linked article already, so I think the latter method is generally better for lists on Wikipedia.  This also puts the burden of citation on the editors of the linked-to article, and not on those who edit this article.  By the way, I am not "hacking" away: I edited the list to be consistent with WP policy.   By paying strict attention to WP guidelines, we might be able to help articles grow into strong and effective ones, as opposed to creating, messy, unsourced, unencyclopedic trash.   Doctormatt 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. To me, it seems you're determined to remove anything from this article that doesn't meet a standard that should be reserved for articles that are more developed. This is a stub class article and I find your edits more harmful than helpful. The article needs expanding not removal of any idea that doesn't meet a strict WP standard no matter how technically correct. I'm finding it hard to see your edits as constructive rather than disruptive.

The LGBT wikiproject writes:

"The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful."

An article in its genesis needs more help for a general reader to relate to it not less. Annie Lennox, David Bowie and pop music icons are a good resource point for general readers to be able to understand what the article is talking about. The [Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence] are certainly genderfuckers so even if the resource has not yet been unearthered hardly means the very suggestion should be enpunged. This article is now five sentences thanks to your diligent effort. Benjiboi 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the WP guidelines are not applicable to articles in their genesis. Quoting myself, "By paying strict attention to WP guidelines, we might be able to help articles grow into strong and effective ones, as opposed to creating, messy, unsourced, unencyclopedic trash.".  I think it is more important that one sets a proper tone/structure/etc. for other editors - I think we should worry about the "general reader" only after an article is properly up on its feet.  Anyway, if you are having such a hard time finding well-sourced material for this article, perhaps there are other problems besides my editing.  Doctormatt 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll have to agree to disagree. I think WP guidelines are applicable to newer articles but also think that using your "strict" rules are disruptive to other editors. Although you may be technically correct that nothing should appear in the article that can't be verified I think this is a good example letting editors express ideas unfettered by seemingly restrictive rules. To me, this seems like a bullying tactic - if you don't strictly obey the letter of the law your contributions will be erased. By it's nature WP is not a machine but an organic process and it seems unfair to require every editor to only write encyclopedic facts. Even though, I hope, our goals are to improve articles our styles seem vastly different. I would rather encourage other editors to contribute and then (gently) correct as needed. Have Annie Lennox listed as an example as a genderfucker, to me, seemed fine at least for now. I certainly think her artistry is seen as such even if it has yet to be labelled exactly that way that we can reference. Instead you've removed that helpful piece of knowledge. As a little experiment, why not try adding two sentences for every one you want to get rid of? As this article is only five sentences right now you could effective double or triple its content rather quickly. If that idea seems too much then I kindly suggest there are many articles that need trimming and even have other editors looking for review help to remove "unencyclopedic trash." As for "having such a hard time finding well-sourced material" a quick book search pulls 137 references. To me it seems the problem is not finding the material but allowing it to grow rather than being pulled by the roots. Benjiboi 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously, man, why don't you just start adding some of that great material to the article (the first complaint above is from January!)? Nobody is stopping you, and if it is well cited (and perhaps even if it isn't - we're not machines after all) it should not be removed.  Cheers, Doctormatt 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my timing doesn't work for you, I'm also disturbed that it seems as though any edit to this article will be met with swift judgement as that seems against the spirit of cooperation that WP relies on. Here's hoping that a spirit of collaboration and encouragement will continue to grow so that WP can represent a worldwide body ogf knowledge. Benjiboi 19:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad to see you've made an edit of the article - your timing is fantastic! That's the stuff! Cheers, Doctormatt 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Snarky and sarcastic comments seem equally unhelpful. Benjiboi 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not being snarky and/or sarcastic - I don't have time for that. I am honestly very, very glad that you have taken enough interest in this article to edit it - at least one of us (yes, you!) has actually done something to improve the article. Kudos!  Cheers, Doctormatt 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't people just search for references, rather than deleting information? Here is one ref, found in less than fifteen seconds, for annie lennox: http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/21/21_br_singout.html . Sometimes I wonder if people really edit Wikipedia in order to help spread enlightenment through the ether, or rather to further their own narrow agendas. Jeffpw 09:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources and informing of my intention to clean up this page (maybe)
Anyway, if I get the chance, I'll clean up this page. Some of the sources I will be using include,
 * http://genderfuck.net/genderfuck.htm
 * http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=genderfuck
 * http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=genderfuck
 * http://www.audioterrorist.com/genderfuck/genderfuck/genderfuck_the_history.html (and links from this page)
 * http://www.audioterrorist.com/genderfuck/genderfuck/Genderfuck_Text.html

I'll also have a look around the local library for books on the matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

The term "genderfuck" is used in the following academic articles (I'm happy to e-mail you copies if plan to use them to expand the article) Also, searching using the term "genderfuck" in my University library turns up a hit for this book: Pete.Hurd 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Glick, E. (2000) Sex Positive: Feminism, Queer Theory, and the Politics of Transgression, Feminist Review 64:19-45.
 * Reich, J.L. (1992) Genderfuck: the law of the dildo. Discourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture 15:112-27.
 * Coviello, P. (2007) review of "World Enough Sex and Time in Recent Queer Studies", GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 13:387-401.
 * Altman, D. (1996). Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalization of Gay Identities. Social Text 48:77-94.
 * Collier, R (1996) “Coming together?”: Post-heterosexuality, masculine crisis and the new men's movement. Feminist Legal Studies 4:3-48.
 * Whiteley, S. & Rycenga, J. (eds) 2006. Queering the popular pitch. New York : Routledge. ISBN: 9780415978057.

Real name
Seriously...is "Genderfuck" the actual name of this concept? I mean, it sounds sort of lay-man to me. It's even got a cuss built right into it, and I don't know the formal name for anything that has a cuss in it. Surely there must be a better, more formal name for this concept than simply "Genderfuck"? I mean, would you really flip through an encyclopedia under G and find the word Genderfuck in it? I think not... 24.15.53.225 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you would if the encyclopedia was comprehensive. The article indeed needs work but the concept is literally about "fucking" with gender concepts. Benjiboi 11:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is understandable. However, if it is a well-known psychological concept, it would have a scientific name instead of a colloquial term. I think what the lad was driving at is that he doesn't think the page is legitimate because it has a colloquial term as its title, and I'd have to say I agree with him. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I get the point, and perhaps a politer term would be something like 'gender play' or something. But gender-fuck is what its called. Hey, I'm a straight guy who's pretty new to these ideas, but I can confirm that even with my outsider status to 'the community' , its a term I've heard heaps. And I'll add its one thats not even that exclusive to the queer community. I have a mate who likes to rock about in a flowing dress, because it annoys conservatives. That gender-fuck. Fucking with gender, so to speak. 124.182.177.121 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scientific/formal name"?! A few articles have that, but it's not a general principle (nor is genderfuck a term, primarily, of psychology). What are the "formal" names for, e.g. Hip hop, Rock and roll or Jazz, all of which terms originate as (somewhat vulgar) slang? LotLE × talk 18:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gender-Bending" was mentioned in this discussion, and seems a more appropriate and commonplace term. You hear "gender-bender" or "gender-bending" used in journalism and the media to describe what this article appears to be about. That seems like the correct and appropriate term. Further, it actually links to this article for some reason, even though there's no discernible difference between the two. Perhaps this article should be merged to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.125.188 (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gender bending is too mild to go along with this concept. If the phrase can be assigned as a plot point of a sitcom, it doesn't fit with something this intense. Gender-bending is "To Wong Foo" and "Bosom Buddies." Genderfuck is cultural, social and sexual activism. To say that they're equivalent is like saying that a coffee break and afternoon tea are the same thing because hot beverages are drunk during both. Dreamalynn (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for AFD
I am nominating this article for deletion because it is patent nonsense. It is a repetition of "genderqueer" with a profanity used simply for shock value. If it is a valid term, it is not sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopaedia; and WP is not a dictionary. The article is unsourced and no evidence is provided for the claims made. 87.127.44.154 10:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll complete the nomination on your behalf. Give me a little while. --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. See Articles for deletion/Genderfuck. --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ugly list
I find the new addition "List of musicians..." to be really amateurish looking. Without specific discussion of why they are included or how they relate to the topic, such lists are vacant verbiage. It would be so much better to add any artist who is relevant to the actual body of discussion, with explanation of how or why that specific person relates to the concept 'genderfuck'. LotLE × talk 00:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please try to be a bit less judgmental with labeling my (or any editor's work) as "ugly" and "amateurish." It's hard to hear your constructive comment past those remarks. If you have a suggestion for the best way to do so then go for it. Benjiboi 00:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think he intended it as a personal jibe, and I certainly don't when I agree with him. It actually reminds me of WP:OR and it is almost like a trivia list at the moment. It contributes nothing to the article in its current form, and is not referenced. As User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters suggests above, if incorporated properly into the article proper (i.e. turning lists into prose), it would be much better for the article's quality. --Dreaded Walrus t c 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, my intention is not to criticize Benjiboi as an editor (which is why I didn't mention the particular editor's name in my comment). It's the list itself that I don't like (and wouldn't any more if a different editor added or removed some names from it).  I quite share Dreaded Walrus' concern with WP:OR here.


 * There is also a certain POV issue that comes up. Take a look at Lists in Wikipedia, which is a good essay on the need for criteria in lists.  The problem is that an uncited "fact" can be (allegedly) established by adding a name to a list, or category, of "X who are Y".  Even if the claim "X is Y" could not be supported in the article on X, it gets snuck in by a back door via including the alleged fact in a list.  Or even if the fact is stated on the X article, that full article is able to contain more nuance and context for the "is Y" element than is the raw enumeration of X with some other (allegedly similar/identical) things.  It all feels very sloppy, and possibly even deceptive.  LotLE × talk  00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with these comments and also have another reason to suggest removal of list and incorporation of the names into the article text: that is the article text could then be used to explain why artist X is a genderfucker (is that the correct term?); and in doing so might help to explain in clearer terms than present what the genre is. 87.127.44.154 11:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretentious
Wow, the whole premise of genderfuck is unabashedly pretentious beyond most things i've seen. It's completely prideful in a self-conscious way, how has it not drawn criticism from the LGBT community for it's elitist and smug pretentious attitude?. Michigan Frog (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) -- Banj e b oi   20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) This article uses profane language and should be taken off Wikipedia and is abhorrent. I nominate for deletion on the grounds that is cruelly offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.104.235 (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There might as well be a page for "Cocksucker" and "Pussyeater". I mean this is ridiculous!
 * WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't care if it offends you, and we don't care if it uses 'profane language' (ha!). Zazaban (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This was actually already on here. We just re-wrote it. I am sorry if this is offensive to you. But you do not have to look at it. This is something that is crucial to gender studies, queer theory and feminism. That is why it was a stub and needed revisions. Mhoward058 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent rewrites
Mhoward058, and I have chosen to re-write this article, we have kept the original material though some of it has been rearranged and reworded, however it is all there. On top of that we have added material and links, and references to the information provided. We did this as a part of project feminism and as a senior project for our senior capstone class. CourageCowardlyLion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

this is like genderqueer, yes, but this and genderqueer are slightly different. this and genderqueer need to be linked together and we need to add judith butler for citation as well as many others Mhoward058 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

examples
If Lady Gaga is to be considered a 'good' example, why is Grace Jones left out? Katie3byea (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Grace Jones is more of a proper genderfuck example than Lady Gaga :P And Annie Lennox! Sarah (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. I just didn't have the time to get to it. This was for a class project and I had a deadline. Thank you for the information and I will do some research and try to get Grace Jones added. Mhoward058 (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I added additional examples to the list (Grace Jones, Boy George, Cyndi Lauper, Andy Warhol, David Bowie, and Prince). Check out: Good article Katie3byea (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have yet to be able to do more research in the last few days to a week. I appreciate your constructive contribution. 146.187.89.120 (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I have to agree, I don't understand why Lady Gaga is here, she did drag once - and there was more of a novelty one-off - and aside from her own opinion, no one has noted anything notably androgynous about her. There's so many artists and figures who would fit better on this list (including some of the ones mentioned above); Kathy Acker, Jackie Curtis, Leigh Bowery, Genesis Breyer P-Orridge, 'The Divine' David Hollah, the list is endless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.21.92.247 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that Gender bender be merged with this page. There is no clear distinction between the two terms... And infact there are two cites I added recently that identify the two terms as synonymous. The Gender bender article has no citations or references at all and so would be improved by merging I believe. Likewise, this article would be improved by merging since many of the artists people want to identify as genderfucks have no citations as such that I could find... But most of them were identified as gender benders and so an article merge would solve the problem of uncited artists having the potential to appear to be WP:OR --Dakinijones (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As "gender bender" (or "genderbender) is the more common name for this topic (for example, people who identify as practicing this are defined significantly more as "gender benders" or are stated to be gender bending than they are defined as "genderfucks" or are stated to be gender fuckers), that is the title this topic should go by...per WP:COMMONNAME. So, obviously, what I am stating is that the Gender fuck article should be merged into the Gender bender article.


 * I'll alert WikiProject LGBT studies to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You may want to alert any, or all, of the other related WikiProjects (found at the top of this talk page) to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also worth reading all or parts of the Articles for deletion/Genderfuck, and, specifically, where Cailil argued for merging this article with the Gender bender article while Lwalt argued against it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible to me. Even if there were nuances of difference, and I'm not saying there are, it'd be better to treat them as a consolidated topic and note any differences in a consolidated manner.  --j⚛e deckertalk 16:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Joe Decker, do you agree that it's the Genderfuck article that should be merged into the Gender bender article instead of the other way around? I'd also like for others who may weigh in on this discussion to comment on that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Gender-bender is a more broad term that could encompass gender-fuck. But I think genderfuck is an underdeveloped article that should stand on it's own. Insomesia (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At the moment, the Gender bender article is significantly more underdeveloped than the Genderfuck article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think they both need to be improved and should not be merged at this point. Insomesia (talk) 09:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lady Gaga? Please
There is nothing androgynous about Lady Gaga, no matter what she might say. She completely packages herself using traditional female images of sexuality, there is nothing remotely masculine about her. She doesn't even wear pants, for goodness sake. I realize that she supports the LGBT community but, honestly, like Madonna or Britney Spears or Beyonce, when it comes down to it, her female sexuality is a large part of the image she users to sell her music (she's basically all about female sexuality and fashion).

It would be interesting if she played around with gender roles (beyond the "sex sells" BDSM layer), but she doesn't. She's still about long blonde wigs, biniki top and bottom, and stilettos. It's not transgressive at all. She is more Marilyn Monroe than Annie Lennox or David Bowie. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)