Talk:List of fictional non-binary characters

Removing Chara, Frisk, and Kris
The case of including the Undertale/Deltarune humans has always been shaky in my opinion - Chara and Frisk are sourced to an article where Toby refuses to answer a question about the characters' gender, and Kris is sourced to an article by "Study Breaks", which looks like a clickbait site and in any case only refers to Kris as "gender neutral". But matters on this front have changed with the announcement of a book on the Japanese translation of Undertale, officially licensed and written with input from Toby. Preview images from this book state that Monster Kid, another character in the game that is referred to with they/them pronouns, has no canonical gender. This makes the already weak case for including the humans even weaker - weak enough to warrant removal, I feel, especially considering that the humans are deeply tied up with the player. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know any of those characters, but if the source is shaky, and not reliable, then the entry should be removed. If I had more time, I would be going through such entries myself, but I don't go on here as much as I did before. Historyday01 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm removing them then and writing in the edit log that people can come to the Talk page if they want to make a case for their inclusion.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. There have been a LOT of discussions on here before about who should, and shouldn't, be included on the page, so thanks for doing that. Historyday01 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the sources in question and agree with the removal. A character's gender being ambiguous is not the same as being non-binary, and although they are called "gender-neutral" by studybreaks.com, this seems to just refer to the ambiguity, not to an explicit non-binariness. Nosferattus (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of objections to this reasoning that I haven't had the time to set down until now:
 * -First, the book referenced does not state that Monster Kid has no canonical gender; it says that their gender was never specified and that they were designed to have no clear gender. These are two very different things, as nonbinary people (both real and fictional) often present/are designed with the intention that they do not have a clear gender, but that does not mean they lack a (canonical) gender. Additionally, a character can be designed without a specific gender in mind and still have a canonical gender (such as Ellen Ripley in Alien) or inversely be designed with a specific gender in mind while having a different canonical gender as a result of the creator changing their mind on the issue (Vaarsuvius in The Order of the Stick, who according to the creator did originally have a binary gender before reader confusion ended up convincing him to make them canonically genderqueer).
 * -Second, a work can have characters whose gender is unspecified along with specifically nonbinary characters. The presence of one does not necessarily negate that of the other. In the case of UT/DR, while I don't specifically remember an instance of Monster Kid being referred to with they/them pronouns within the game itself (as far as I'm aware Monster Kid doesn't interact with anybody in-game besides Frisk and Undyne onscreen and Papyrus offscreen), we do have Napstablook, who is referred to with they/them by their cousin Mettaton in Undertale and by both Mettaton and Alphys in the 5th Anniversary alarm clock dialogue. The canonical gender or lack thereof of Napstablook, who is almost certainly nonbinary based on Mettaton's dialogue, does not negate that of Monster Kid, and neither would that of Monster Kid negate that of the humans.
 * -Third, in regards to the assertion that "the humans are deeply tied up with the player", both games go out of their way to stress that the player is a distinct entity from the humans. In Undertale, a major reveal hinges on the fact that the human depicted in the intro sequence is not the same as the one that the player controls, and even though the player can name the aforementioned intro human, the fact that they have a "true name" (Chara) and are not controlled by the player (in fact, they are even capable of directly overriding the player's actions, as seen at the end of the Genocide Route) reinforces them as a distinct entity. As for Frisk, whose canonical name is confirmed by Asriel and later used by every character that addresses them after its reveal, Flowey, who can break the fourth wall, specifically states that the player and Frisk are separate entities in the sequence one gets when opening the game after completing the True Pacifist Route; he acknowledges the player's ability to perform a true reset and asks the player to "Let Frisk go. Let Frisk live their life." Similarly, in the sequence after finishing the Genocide Route, Chara specifically addresses the player, who is able to respond to dialogue independently of Frisk, as the one responsible for the world's destruction, rather than Frisk. In Deltarune, the separation of player and player character is a major plot point and theme; the vessel the player originally creates is discarded before the player assumes control of Kris (with the statement that "no one can choose who they are in this world"), Kris removes their SOUL (which the player can still control in the epilogue of Chapter 1) at the end of each chapter to perform their own actions, Kris is noticeably disturbed if the player decides to play the Snowgrave route in Chapter 2, and other characters, such as Toriel and Alphys, comment that Kris has been behaving strangely lately (referring to the different mannerisms of Kris when not controlled by the player and the player controlling Kris). Additionally, in the battle against Spamton NEO in the Snowgrave route, the game specifies that Kris calls for Ralsei and Susie's help, while "you" (the player character) call for Noelle, reinforcing that Kris and the player are separate entities. In both games, the player and player character are very distinct, and when they do intersect, the distinction is still emphasized (Kris's reactions to certain actions by the player, the name "Chara" being emphasized as the true name, etc).
 * Considering this and the fact that every character, including those very close to the humans (Toriel as Kris's mother, Asriel as Chara's brother) and those with fourth-wall knowledge (Flowey post-Pacifist and his dialogue concerning Frisk) specifically refers to the humans with they/them pronouns, I think it makes sense to include the Undertale/Deltarune humans, as long as adequate sources can be found, obviously. Aykhot (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, I do wish toby or the marketting or something would give us an adequate source though. Would love to have them on this list. its a me mario (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * None of this is evidence for the characters in question being non-binary rather than having no specified gender. When multiple characters with they/them pronouns are referred to in official media as having their gender be "left unstated", "unstated and unclear", or in the case of Onionsan explicitly saying their gender was "meant to be unclear" all while never, for even a single character, saying they were meant to be nonbinary, we cannot assume such characters are meant to be nonbinary. And then there's the times in Deltarune the party is referred to as "boys and girls"...--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the presence of characters whose gender is unclear or unspecified does not mean that nonbinary characters cannot appear in the same work. Given the context for each of the characters (the use of they/them by family members in Chara and Kris's cases, who would be likely to have the least ambiguity about their gender, and the use of they/them by a character with meta-knowledge - Flowey - in Frisk's case), their being non-binary is the simplest explanation, even if it's never actually stated. Additionally, just because a character's gender is never explicitly stated in terms familiar to us does not mean their canonical gender cannot be inferred; when a character presents femininely and is referred to with she/her pronouns, for example, it can be reasonably inferred that she is a woman even if she is never explicitly referred to as such, and there usually needs to be clarification that she is not a woman if such is the case (see Janet from The Good Place). The vast majority of minor and background characters and even some primary characters, particularly in visual media, are never referred to as a man or a woman, and yet are inferred to be canonically so from context; it seems a double standard to not also apply this contextual inference to nonbinary characters.
 * Also, the "boisengirls" line ("THIS IS IT, BOISENGIRLS! SEE YA!") comes from Jevil, who (a, did not know Kris prior to their fight and thus would not be aware of their gender or pronouns, and (b, is canonically insane and thus of dubious accuracy (see any of his dialogue about everyone else being in prison). Given that the Fun Gang is also referred to as "guys" collectively by Lancer, who actually does know them at the time of reference, one could just as easily make the argument that they're all boys, since "guys" is not necessarily inclusive despite generally being used as such. Aykhot (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The core problem is that the argument for said characters being canonically non-binary is essentially "they/them pronouns = non-binary". But an official source, made in close collaboration with Toby, only refers to several of these characters, including Frisk, as having an "unstated gender", when considering the context if they were canonically non-binary it would have been mentioned. Indeed no character in Deltarune or Undertale has ever been confirmed as non-binary inside or outside the games. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that in the case of Deltarune/Undertale that the use of they/them pronouns indicates a character is meant to be non-binary. Also, regarding "boisengirls", that is not the only instance of the party being referred to as "boys and girls" - Lancer refers to them as "boys or girls" at one point.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The argument in favor of their being nonbinary is that characters who would logically know their genders refer to them with they/them; Chara is referred to with they/them by their brother Asriel, Kris by their mother Toriel, and Frisk by Flowey, who has meta-knowledge of the player and their relationship to Frisk (admittedly this is somewhat weaker than the evidence for Kris and Chara, but it's still a reasonable inference). Since all of the humans are canonically and diegetically separate from the player, the explanation that makes the most sense is that they are nonbinary and use they/them pronouns. Also, once again, just because something is not explicitly stated about a character does not mean that thing is not a canonical trait of that character. For example, in Undertale, Alphys dates Undyne, a woman, and is revealed by Mettaton to have a crush on Asgore, a man. This makes Alphys canonically bisexual. The word "bisexual" is never used in-game to refer to Alphys, nor is it ever used to describe her by the creator outside of the game (to my knowledge), but because she displays attraction to multiple genders, she is bisexual regardless of whether or not that word was used to describe her. Even though her exact sexuality is never explicitly stated, it would be false to claim that her sexuality is "unclear" or "unknown", because it can be inferred from the traits she displays in game. Similarly, the humans are never referred to as nonbinary, but because they are referred to in-game by characters who know them with they/them pronouns, the simplest and most logical explanation is that they are nonbinary. If you can think of a better or simpler explanation for why they would be referred to with such in-game, by people who know them, by all means let me know.
 * As for the Lancer line ("You boys or girls had better turn back while you can"); (a, while he has interacted with the party at that point more than Jevil, Lancer still doesn't actually know the party members that well, as evidenced by the fact that he explicitly stated he didn't know Kris's name slightly before the C Round sequence ("Blue person whose name I neglected to learn all along"); and (b, he specifically uses "boys OR girls" (emphasis mine), which definitely indicates that he doesn't actually know Kris's gender and is just guessing based on Ralsei and Susie's genders (which he does know for Ralsei at the very least, as evidenced by his referring to Ralsei as "kindboy" in the post-Legend sequence - "Stay out of this, kindboy!"). Additionally, since "boys OR girls" is a binary choice, if we were to take that statement as accurate it would mean that either Susie and Kris are both boys or Ralsei and Kris are both girls, both of which are canonically false. Aykhot (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Oscar, whose androgyny is misinterpreted as non-binary
I removed Oscar from Rose of Versailles because, firstly, the character's cis gender was never questioned and was even regularly one of the main focuses of manga and anime, and secondly, half of it consisted of original research about her sexuality, not gender identity. In fact, attempts to interpret Oscar as a trans male or non-binary character have been around for a long time, but are always regularly criticized for denying the character's "raised different gender" experience and the feminist message of the original work. As with Utena, this teaches that a woman can successfully fill the same social roles as a man. The thought that Oscar achieves this as a trans man simply destroys it and actually serves the idea that the work itself opposes. All this is not to mention the fact that androgyny and living a stereotypically male lifestyle does not make a woman non-binary. With the same logic, we could consider most butch lesbians and tomboys to be non-binary. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I'm not going to disagree since I only added it originally because it was mentioned on all the other sources, and am fine with it being removed, but I would also like to hear what others have to say. Considering the above discussion on this page (which has been pretty lively in the past year), @User:Nosferattus, @User:Crossroads, and @User:Aykhot, is there anything you would like to add? Historyday01 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, the idea of ​​an Oscar as a trans man makes a lot more sense than a non-binary Oscar. For example, I once read a review comparing her sex with Andre to an "almost BL scene between two men". But this still ignores the fact that the main focus of the manga and anime has always been that Oscar was a female in a male role. If she had not been pioneers and had not appeared even before the foundation of the archetype itself, I would say that Oscar was a classic ikemen onna. Also, I noticed that you were referring to Okazu. Although Erica Friedman discussed this work extensively in yuri (in which the work was incredibly influential, even in a certain context), even she was somewhat surprised when she learned that Amazon was selling an anniversary edition in the queer/trans category. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Removal seems good to me. Crossroads -talk- 23:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing her. If any sources describer her as a tomboy, she could be added to List of tomboys in fiction instead. Nosferattus (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there even a separate list for such characters? Well, actually I'm not sure we can describe her as one, because in this context, tomboy isn't as androgynous as she is after all. She is rather a typical ikemen onna or prince-ish girl (aka takarazuka character, just like Sailor Moon's Haruka later), but it will be difficult to write a separate article or list about this archetype. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What would such a list be titled? List of androgynous characters, List of ikemen, or something else? But, I have to agree it would be a challenge to write a separate article or list on the archetype. Historyday01 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Rue Bennett
Rue Bennett has been categorized as nonbinary? Klee Bakudan (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, remind me who Rue Bennett is? I'd be fine with including Rue, if there is a reliable source showing Rue is nonbinary (or otherwise falls under the nonbinary umbrella). Historyday01 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * https://thecinemaholic.com/is-rue-asexual-bisexual-or-lesbian-in-euphoria/
 * https://64.media.tumblr.com/9a5b662b8f10bbc0ed97fbcef52b0098/67dbf7f4d0f0e48e-8d/s500x750/04a61b3382fe83596200d76c4c42b55d7b3d90ba.jpg
 * I'm not sure if the second one is reliable enough, but if I can find the original site I'll show you. KaleeBR (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rue Bennett is the narrator and the character focused on by the show. She is played by Zendaya. KaleeBR (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The show is Euphoria. KaleeBR (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of entries
Recently, @User:Tomorrow and tomorrow removed entries for 19 characters from this page, stating that their removals complied "with inclusion criteria" and argued that "characters where source did not describe as NB (Source saying they/they pronouns does not count as them being NB)" were removed. In another edit, it was claimed that "a non-human genderless entity is not NB regardless of pronouns used to refer to it." I reversed both edits here and here. My edits were reversed with the claims that "being bold isn't a reason to revert an edit, we literally have a guideline encouraging it," that their edits were "enacting an already in place inclusion criteria" and stating I needed to get "consensus for inclusion." Another reversal claimed that it was "unclear if you object to the edits" or if I "didn't realise WP:Be Bold was a thing." I DO realize that Be Bold is a guideline, but the user conveniently ignored this part of the guideline: "if you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." I would argue that this page falls under the "controversial subject" description, as there is a lot of contention about what entries should and shouldn't be added to this page.

The question remains: should the following entries be included in this page? I would argue YES and would argue that some (if not all) meet the inclusion criteria:

"Determining whether a character is non-binary: Characters are considered non-binary when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s). Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings, for example, robots. Determining whether a character is eligible: A character is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful."

The addition, but related, question is if the inclusion criteria should be pdated. I've pushed to improve/update it in the past, but I'd be fine with changing it again.

Here are the entries in contention:

Anime and animation

Books, print comics, and manga

Live-action television

 Video games 

 Webcomics 

Other

Considering your previous comments in previous related discussions, @ Crossroads, @Nosferattus, @Bilorv, @Aykhot, @Eldomtom2, @Solaire the knight your comments here would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have any strong opinions on most of these characters, though things like referring to Bastion as "agender" in quotation marks when the devs haven't used that term is definitely dubious. A core problem with this page that I see is that its focus is far too indiscriminate - we can hardly list every fictional non-binary character.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I don't have strong opinions on most of these characters either. And surely, the focus can be broad, but I do think there has been good progress in the "RFC about inclusion of Loki (MCU)" (2021-2022), "Scope" (2022), "Removing Chara, Frisk, and Kris" (2022-2023), and "Removal of Oscar, whose androgyny is misinterpreted as non-binary" (2023) discussions, which has resulted in a narrower scope than before. I think there should balance between being somewhat broad while making it clear we can't list every fictional non-binary character, as you rightly point out. Historyday01 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I favor removing robots and things like "primordial entities", basically anything that is anthropomorphized rather than anthropomorphic. Does that make sense? This list is going to get extremely long in the coming years, so it makes sense for us to narrow its scope and keep it focused on human (or nearly-human) characters, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair and makes sense. Korvo and Terry are aliens, as is Tala. Acid Storm is a robot (a Decepticon) as is Bastion and WX-78 . Life and Void Dragon in Aurora are primordial entities. I think Nine in 17776 is a robot. Not really sure about Murph (sort of an alien? in any case, not human). Quina Quen would fall under us not including "genderless species or class of beings." Aziraphale and Crowley are gods, Janet is a genderless entity, as is The Sibling, Desire, Aziraphale (another version).
 * I believe the only one which may qualify under what you are proposing is Courtney in Dead End, who MAY have humanish characteristics.
 * Would you support this changed inclusion criteria? I streamlined it a bit, and I wanted to make it more clear, so there is no confusion in the future:
 * Determining whether a character is non-binary: Characters are considered non-binary, genderqueer, or any of terms under the non-binary umbrella (including agender, bigender, trigender, pangender, demigender, xenogender, or two-spirit) when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s).
 * Determining whether a character is eligible: A character is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful. Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings, for example, robots, or are primordial entities. Only include characters with anthropomorphic qualities (i.e. human or nearly human characters), not those which are anthropomorphized.
 * Historyday01 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I am rethinking the above proposal and will purpose a new one later, as I note in a below comment.Historyday01 (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue with this is that a robot/nonhuman entity's baseline gender, especially those entities shared between works, is typically dependent on the work that they're from - angels might be nonbinary by default in the Good Omens universe, for example, but not so in the Ultrakill universe, or the Supernatural universe, etc. This can even apply to individual characters or entities, especially those in the public domain or those that have multiple conflicting adaptations - Nyarlathotep, for example, might be treated as male in one work, genderfluid in another, and genderless in a third. Excluding broad categories of nonhuman entities, especially ones whose baseline gender expression varies from work to work, seems overly strict to me, and ignores the fact that in many (indeed, most) cases nonhuman entities can have a binary gender identity (to use an example from the deleted characters, Caliban from Aurora is a nonbinary deity, but they coexist with numerous other deities that appear to have binary genders, such as Vash, Tahraim, Gleicann, Lady Ilia, Tynan, and Zuurith; for another example, elves from The Order of the Stick have different cultural views on gender than humans, as exemplified by the character Vaarsuvius being considered genderqueer by the author despite not viewing themselves as such, but there are still elf characters with binary genders, such as Lirian, Veldrina, and Zz'dtri). Additionally, a category of nonhuman entities being nonbinary by default does not necessarily mean that they cannot have a gender identity distinct from their category's baseline, and "nonbinary by default" does not necessarily mean "monogendered by default"; ghosts from Undertale, for example, are treated as nonbinary by default but can apparently experience dysphoria and transition to a binary gender (Napstablook, "Hapstablook", and Mad Dummy are all referred to neutrally, but when the latter two become Mettaton and Mad Mew Mew respectively, they are consistently referred to with binary pronouns).
 * Since there's no real way to distinguish between an "individually nonbinary" nonhuman and a "default nonbinary" nonhuman without having the context not only for their class of nonhumans but for the work they're from, and "nonbinary by default" isn't a clear criterion anyways (does a species with more than two sexes, like the five-sexed Tralfamadorians from Slaughterhouse-Five, count? One that has binary genders or sexes but that switches between them, like the inhabitants of Gethen in The Left Hand of Darkness? One that universally accepts nonbinary gender identities, like witches in The Owl House?), I would err on the less strict side and include nonhuman beings, although I agree that it would make sense to differentiate nonbinary classes of being from individual characters somehow. Is there a way to create sub-subcategories, so that each medium's subsection could have a "nonhuman" section beneath the main section (so the live-action TV section might have a "humanoid" section that includes Jim Jimenez from Our Flag Means Death followed by a "non-humanoid" section that includes Crowley, Aziraphale, Beelzebub, and other angels/demons from Good Omens, for example)? This would probably need a bit more refinement before actual implementation, as well as a working definition as to what exactly constitutes non-humanoid nonbinary, but I think it would solve some of the debates about whether certain characters qualify, and it seems simpler than just creating a separate article, which would probably result in even more confusion. Aykhot (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with proposal to Only include characters with anthropomorphic qualities (i.e. human or nearly human characters), not those which are anthropomorphized, which I think would support almost all the removals above. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's... the opposite of what I said, but since you're the one who made the removals to begin with, I'm not surprised. Do you have a reason for not including nonhumanoid characters? Aykhot (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I am rethinking the proposal (I have withdrawn it, for now) based on your comment, and will reply more in detail later. I didn't expect there would be two diametrically opposed views and was perhaps too hasty with the proposal. I'll propose a new one tomorrow. Historyday01 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aykhot sorry, I agreeing with @Historyday01's original proposal, I realise that wasn't what you said. I was using the reply tool and that sometimes doesn't put responses in the most logical spot.
 * Though in response to Do you have a reason for not including nonhumanoid characters? yes, because otherwise I think we go down the path of including a whole range of nonhuman entities on the basis that "they don't have a gender therefore they are NB" when infact they don't have a gender because they are a robot/angel/god/dragon/alien/anthropomorphized version of the Pioneer 9 space probe. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * While I can understand that reasoning, as I've argued before (in the "Scope" section of this page), any nonhuman character will be interpreted from a human perspective due to the fact that only humans are creating or interpreting them, and as a result of this characters that might be "cisgender" for their species might still be considered nonbinary by their creators, by associated or derivative works, by other characters in the same work, or by the people who consume that work (see Neil Gaiman labeling angels in the Good Omens show as nonbinary, for example). Additionally, a lot of nonbinary characters, particularly in older works, are nonhuman precisely because having a nonbinary human would have been labelled as unbelievable or pandering, and in a lot of cases "these beings don't work the same as humans" is a justification for representation via proxy when it might not be safe or profitable to represent actual nonbinary human beings (alternatively, a nonbinary character might be nonhuman because of authorial bigotry, or their non-humanity might be unrelated to their being nonbinary). If we don't include nonhuman characters, this can result in a situation where being explicitly labeled as nonbinary by the creator is still not enough to warrant inclusion, which is unnecessarily confusing and seems to directly contradict previously established guidelines. Aykhot (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a problem. And its why I am planning on posting new possible guidelines for consideration on here either today or tomorrow (whenever I have time). Historyday01 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aykhot do you have source for a lot of nonbinary characters, particularly in older works, are nonhuman precisely because having a nonbinary human would have been labelled as unbelievable or pandering, and in a lot of cases "these beings don't work the same as humans" is a justification for representation via proxy when it might not be safe or profitable to represent actual nonbinary human beings? or this: a nonbinary character might be nonhuman because of authorial bigotry?
 * Furthermore, even if this is true it doesn't have an impact on whether they should be included. Our purpose on Wikipedia is not to take a broad (arguably inaccurate) view of nonbinaryness in order to create "representation", it is to document what reliable factual sources say, and a tweet saying that an entire class/species in a fictional work is genderless does not mean that each individual can be listed as a "Non-binary character". That is what the vast majority of these removals were about. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Some sources commenting on the ubiquity of the trope:
 * https://parasomniac.home.blog/2021/06/09/why-are-so-many-non-binary-characters-not-human/
 * https://theafictionado.wordpress.com/2023/01/26/otherworldly-bodies-non-human-non-binary-characters-in-ya-fiction/
 * https://electricliterature.com/we-need-more-non-binary-characters-who-arent-aliens-robots-or-monsters/
 * https://www.cbr.com/non-binary-alien-trope-problematic/
 * As for the second statement, "nonbinary" is already a broad term as it is, as this very article acknowledges in the description (and for that matter, "nonbinary" is literally just any gender identity that isn't exclusively man or woman; it literally means "not having a binary gender"). There isn't a way to take a "strict view" of nonbinariness, since it's an umbrella term defined against two very specific things and encompassing literally every gender identity that isn't either of those two things. And to address your claim that the "vast majority" of removals were due to the characters originating from a genderless species, let's take a look at the removed characters:
 * Acid Storm: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species (Cybertronians have binary-gendered members and are not genderless, and in fact, the vast majority of known Cybertronians have a binary gender - see Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Megatron, etc).
 * Bastion: Agender robot, but not described as "genderless", unless we're using the terms equivalently (which, at least based on previous discussion, we're not).
 * Courtney: "Not aware of gender", but not a member of a genderless species (Danny, a fallen angel of the same class of angel as Courtney, is male, as is Fingers, an angel of a different type).
 * Korvo (and Terry): Explicitly described as genderless.
 * Aziraphale (book version): Explicitly described as genderless.
 * Desire: Not a member of a genderless species nor genderless themself, as they are genderfluid and have siblings with binary genders (Destiny, Dream, and Destruction are men, while Death, Delirium, and Despair are women).
 * The Sibling: Not a member of a genderless species, as it is unique or unusual among spren for not having a binary gender.
 * Aziraphale and Crowley (show versions): Explicitly described by the author as nonbinary (as opposed to the book versions, who are described as genderless).
 * Janet: Described as genderless, although I can't actually find the source for that; presumably it's in an episode of the actual show somewhere, but it's worth noting that she's referred to as nonbinary by other sources.
 * Quina Quen: Explicitly described as genderless.
 * WX-78: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species, as they're originally human and essentially a very advanced cyborg rather than a true robot.
 * Caliban: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species, as other gods in the setting have genders (Vash, Zuurith, Tynan, Ilia, Tahraim, Gleicann, etc).
 * Life (and the Void Dragon): Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species (as these two seem to have different genders from one another - it seems likely that all primordials are nonbinary, but each one is nonbinary in their own way that goes beyond mere genderlessness).
 * Murph: Never described as genderless (they are described as having "no set sex or gender", which is not the same as being genderless) and the only known representative of their species.
 * Nine: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species (as Ten and Juice evidently have different genders and pronouns from both one another and from Nine).
 * Tala: Never described as genderless (they are described as "neither male nor female") and the only known representative of their species.
 * So of the 19 characters that were removed, 5 were described as genderless and 14 were never described as genderless (in fact, of those 14, 8 are explicitly from species with multiple genders), so clearly genderlessness is not what "the vast majority of these removals were about". Aykhot (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "ghosts from Undertale, for example, are treated as nonbinary by default" - wrong. As stated by official sources, they are treated as having an "unstated" gender by default.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, the fact that their genders are clearly able to be inferred from the way their relatives address them (Napstablook is the most prominent example of this, but "Hapstablook"/pre-transition Mettaton, Mad Dummy/pre-transition Mad Mew Mew, and even the dummy in the Ruins are all characters whose genders are known to their cousins and thus inferable from the way said cousins address them) means that their genders are not unknown despite not being explicitly stated, and the facts that all known ghosts are addressed neutrally (barring Mettaton and Mad Mew Mew, but as noted they were both referred to neutrally pre-transition) and the two that transitioned specifically had to transition to either binary gender points towards their being some flavor of nonbinary by default. "Unstated" ≠ "unknown". Aykhot (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * When an official source discussing the translation of their pronouns only says that Napstablook has an "unstated" gender, treating they/them pronouns as proof of a character being nonbinary is OR.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So if a character is never explicitly described as a woman but indicated in every other conceivable way to be one (feminine presentation, she/her pronouns, portrayed by a woman, the absence of any evidence indicating she's not a woman, etc), we can't treat this as proof of her being a woman according to this logic. The same goes for men - masculine presentation, he/him pronouns, portrayal by a man, and the absence of evidence to the contrary are all apparently not enough for a fictional character to be considered a man, he has to be specifically referred to as a man to count. You and I both know that's not how it works, and calling it "original research" when nonbinary characters are treated the same way is a double standard. Aykhot (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again I have to repeat myself - the official book discussing the translation of Undertale discusses the translation of Napstablook's pronouns, and in doing so rather than saying Napstablook is non-binary says they have an "unstated" gender. Since unlike she/her pronouns and (nowadays) he/him pronouns, they/them pronouns are used in more contexts than just referring to non-binary people, this indicates that assuming Napstablook is canonically non-binary is incorrect.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And again I must repeat myself - unstated ≠ unknown. The context in which Napstablook's pronouns are used is one in which their being nonbinary is the only reasonable explanation. It doesn't matter that there are other contexts for they/them use (the main ones I can think of are reference to a nonbinary person, to a person whose gender is unknown, misgendering a binary trans person, multiple individuals sharing a body, and as a generic pronoun), because none of those contexts are relevant to Napstablook's situation (it can't be generic because Napstablook is an individual, there's no indication that they're more than one person, and as discussed, the context of familial usage indicates it isn't misgendering or lack of knowledge). I once again ask if you have a simpler/more reasonable explanation for the use of they/them pronouns by close family members than the character referred to being nonbinary, because if so, I would love to hear it.
 * Also, she/her and he/him pronouns are also used in more contexts then referring to women and men respectively; besides the existence of nonbinary people who use either or both set of pronouns, she/her pronouns are used for ships, countries, and other inanimate objects, he/him was historically used as a generic or neutral pronoun (as you mentioned; further confusing matters here are authors who, in response to longstanding usage of generic he/him, use generic she/her), and he/him and she/her are used to refer to male and female animals respectively. They/them isn't unique in this regard. If we can take an instance of she/her and deduce from context that the usage is referring to a woman instead of a ship or an animal, why can't we use context to deduce they/them is referring to a nonbinary person? Once again, it's a double standard. Aykhot (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry "them being nonbinary is the only reasonable explanation" is OR, plain and simple. Yes, unstated ≠ unknown, but in the context of a fictional work unstated does meant unknown unless the character's gender is stated elsewhere, which in this case it isn't. Fictional works can and do have characters who do not have confirmed genders without this meaning they are canonically nonbinary. As they/them pronouns are neutral and can be applied to men and women, the use of them to refer to a character of unstated gender, while somewhat unrealistic (not that dialogue in fiction is often realistic), does not indicate the character is meant to be canonically nonbinary, at least in a case like this where official sources could have referred to them as nonbinary but did not. This last point you keep ignoring - why wouldn't the officially licensed book on Undertale's translation, made in close collaboration with Toby Fox, say Napstablook was nonbinary if they were intended to be canonically nonbinary?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So based on this logic, inferring that a character whose gender is never stated has a binary gender based on context is also original research, and thus characters who are never referred to as "men", "women", "guys", "girls", or other synonyms but that display every other indication of being either a man or a woman have "unknown genders". However, that's not how it works in practice, is it? If we're going to apply the "explicitly labeled as such" standard, we need to either apply it to all fictional characters regardless of gender, which would likely eliminate a number of characters from various lists and necessitate the editing of articles referencing them to reflect the fact that their gender is technically never stated, or don't apply it at all and allow labeling based on context clues. To apply it to some demographics but not others is a double standard, which is something you've failed to address.
 * The reason Napstablook's gender is listed as "unstated" in the translation book is because their gender is never explicitly stated. This does NOT mean that their gender is unknown. Things in fiction can be true without a character or creator ever explicitly stating them. For example, in The Dark Knight, Joker reveals himself to be wearing a number of grenades underneath his jacket when in a meeting with Gotham's underworld bosses; while none of the characters in the scene explicitly state "if we kill him he'll blow us all up", it's obvious from context that this is his message. For another example, in Hollow Knight, in one piece of dreamnail dialogue Zote the Mighty thinks to himself, "I'll kill a thousand more... Will that be enough, father?" From this, it is clear that Zote has relationship issues of some sort with his father, even though nobody explicitly stated this. For yet another example, in the Dracula novel, Jonathan Harker overhears Dracula commanding the three vampire women to "wait" and "have patience" outside his door, proclaiming that "To-morrow night, to-morrow night is yours!" From this, it is obvious that Dracula is about to feed on Jonathan, but at no point is this explicitly stated in the novel (the closest we get is in an American edition, in which the line is "tonight is mine, tomorrow night is yours!"). For yet another example, see my earlier example of Alphys's bisexuality, which is never explicitly stated and yet demonstrated to be canonical. Asking why Toby never explicitly labelled Napstablook as nonbinary is like asking why he never explicitly labelled Alphys as bisexual, or Bram Stoker why he never explicitly stated Jonathan was fed on by Dracula, or Team Cherry why they never explicitly stated Zote had father issues, or Christopher Nolan why he never had the Joker explicitly state he was going to blow up the bosses' meeting place - because it's unnecessary to explicitly state those things when they've already been clearly indicated and/or implied, and oftentimes, implication, indication, and other indirect forms of providing information are more effective storytelling devices than explicitly stating information. "Show, don't tell" is a writing guideline for a reason.
 * Finally, the reference to Napstablook was not meant to be the main point of the initial argument - I was using Undertale ghosts as an example of a nonbinary or monogendered species that can have genders different from the baseline of that species. If my using Napstablook and their family really detracts from the argument that much, just mentally replace the references to them with 82 White Chain and the angels of Kill Six Billion Demons, where angels are male-presenting nonbinary by default but White Chain exclusively identifies as female, or Cheery Littlebottom and the dwarves of Discworld, who traditionally all identified as male for cultural reasons and discriminate against Cheery for being openly female. Hopefully that should make the actual, original argument easier to swallow. Aykhot (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "The reason Napstablook's gender is listed as "unstated" in the translation book is because their gender is never explicitly stated". I'm sorry, by your own logic this doesn't work. The only characters the translation book refers to as having an "unstated" gender are those with they/them pronouns. So if it is a double standard, it's a double standard officially approved by Toby Fox. "Show, don't tell" applies to works of fiction - not non-fiction books about the translation of works of fiction.
 * I also know Napstablook wasn't the main point, but I wasn't interested in arguing the main point.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Toby Fox never explicitly stating the genders of characters with they/them pronouns is not the double standard here. That happens all the time even with the best and most explicit of intentions, as the current focus of this talk page proves. The double standard is when characters with unstated but implicit genders are treated as having unknown genders, which gets applied almost exclusively to nonbinary characters; a character whose gender is never stated but is contextually a man or woman will almost always be treated as such, whereas one who is contextually nonbinary gets labelled as "of unknown gender". Toby Fox never said their genders were unknown, just unstated, which as discussed above are not synonymous terms. As the creator, in this case it's actually impossible for him to engage with the double standard without removing it, since if he makes a statement either way the whole issue ceases to apply to the relevant characters; his explicitly confirming that a character is either nonbinary or of unknown gender would remove the double standard, but since all he's said is that their gender is "unstated", he's not approving it, he's simply not engaging with it at all.
 * You're correct that "show, don't tell" doesn't apply to nonfiction, but since the nonfiction in question deals with the issue of translating Napstablook's pronouns and not the context in which those pronouns are used, it doesn't actually provide us with information that contradicts or changes said context. There isn't anything to tell in the translation book besides "Napstablook uses they/them pronouns and has never had their gender explicitly stated", which does not contradict or supersede the actual game showing the context for that character. Aykhot (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a work of fiction not stating a character's gender and a non-fiction work about that work of fiction explicitly stating a character's gender is unstated. You keep dancing around the question of "why wouldn't the translation book say Napstablook was non-binary if that was the intent?". What would you take as evidence that a character referred to with they/them pronouns is not canonically non-binary beyond an official statement.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither Toby Fox nor the translation book has an obligation to elaborate on Napstablook outside the place where they're relevant to the topic of discussion, that is, translating their pronouns. The question is, "why would the translation book say Napstablook was nonbinary", since it's their pronouns specifically that are relevant and not the gender-indicating context of those pronouns. It's simply not relevant to the topic at hand, unlike in the game itself, where their gender, and those of ghosts more broadly, is relevant enough to be contextually indicated and contrasted with those of their cousins.
 * If a character is referred to with they/them pronouns in a context that indicates their being nonbinary (familial usage, in this case), beyond an explicit statement either in or out of universe to the contrary, a good criterion would be a usage that both contextually indicates otherwise and invalidates the former indications. For example, if a character is referred to with they/them pronouns by a family member but later revealed to be multiple people in the same body, or a fake family member whose gender legitimately is unknown by the referents, or some kind of memory-altering doppelganger a la the (ironically named for this discussion) Not-Them from The Magnus Archives, that would be context that negates the earlier indication. Aykhot (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The translation book could just have said that Napstablook is referred to with they/them pronouns. Instead it refers to them as having an unstated gender and links this to the use of they/them pronouns. So no, I really don't see a reason why the book would have said their gender is unstated instead of being nonbinary if Napstablookk was meant to be canonically nonbinary.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Whew. Your arguments and that of Aykhot are so different that I'm not sure I can reconcile them. As such, the edit notice should stay the same, for now. Even so, this discussion is still important nonetheless. Historyday01 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Spot-checking four of these, the removals were absolutely correct. A source needs to say that a character is non-binary (or in rare cases some strict subset of the category) for them to be non-binary. They/them pronouns is not enough. Inclusion of these entries in the list is synthesis. The secondary sources in some entries mean that the gender should be commented on at a "List of characters" page or an article about the character or show. The tweets are typically worthless.Historyday01's actions were completely wrong, opposing the edits on mistaken bureaucratic notions rather than contesting the reason for removal. This sort of behaviour makes these topic areas toxic as editors are reverted just for the sake of someone reverting them. Don't revert unless you can be accountable as to why these entries should be included. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree thoroughly with your argument. Secondly, I only reversed each of their edits ONE time and didn't even get in an edit war (I used to do that in the past, but do NOT do that anymore, as I've learned). I fully and completely stand by my reversals. And as I half-expected, this turned into a discussion, which is a positive. I did NOT contest the reason for the removal because I was hoping that the reason for the removal could be more fully explained in this discussion (and it appears it has, and I'm working to come up with a compromise between all the perspectives to propose new language to the edit notice). I have to say, your comment is very unhelpful and almost verges on a personal attack. I'm surprised (and disappointed) to see this comment from you. I would not say my reversals (I only did two, and no more, no less) are "toxic." I don't own this page and I'm not acting like a bureaucrat. In fact, I don't even have any role in what some call the bureaucracy on this site. I'm just an editor like everyone else. I'm not going to fight over whether something should be included or not through an edit war. That would be a waste of everyone's time. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree thoroughly with your argument. Secondly, I only reversed each of their edits ONE time and didn't even get in an edit war (I used to do that in the past, but do NOT do that anymore, as I've learned). I fully and completely stand by my reversals. And as I half-expected, this turned into a discussion, which is a positive. I did NOT contest the reason for the removal because I was hoping that the reason for the removal could be more fully explained in this discussion (and it appears it has, and I'm working to come up with a compromise between all the perspectives to propose new language to the edit notice). I have to say, your comment is very unhelpful and almost verges on a personal attack. I'm surprised (and disappointed) to see this comment from you. I would not say my reversals (I only did two, and no more, no less) are "toxic." I don't own this page and I'm not acting like a bureaucrat. In fact, I don't even have any role in what some call the bureaucracy on this site. I'm just an editor like everyone else. I'm not going to fight over whether something should be included or not through an edit war. That would be a waste of everyone's time. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Adding back characters who were deleted off the article
When I was looking at the earlier talk pages, I noticed characters such as Aziraphale, Crowley, Korvo, Terry, and Acid Storm, who were previously on the list before, were deleted. I can see why people think they don't fit the criteria for this list, but these characters are non-binary because they really don't have a determined gender inside the gender binary. With these characters' lack of gender in the binary, they can have the decision to choose their gender and pronouns, like Aziraphale, Korvo, and Terry choosing he/him, and Crowley and Acid Storm changing between genders. I would also like to point out Loki, who doesn't think he has a gender or orientation, and changes between male and female forms, like Crowley. Another example is the character Garnet from Steven Universe, who is a fusion of characters Ruby and Sapphire, who are sexless, but female presenting. Garnet goes by she/her pronouns by characters in the show, like Krovo and Terry going by he/him pronouns by other characters, and creator Rebecca Sugar stated that "the Gems are all non-binary women," which includes Garnet, and her friends, Amethyst and Pearl. And just like Aziraphale and Crowley, Garnet is human presenting. One last character who is one the list I want to point out is Nightshade from Transformers: Earthspark. They're a Transformer, like Acid Storm, and tells Optimus Prime they go by they/them pronouns, stating that "he or she just doesn't fit who [they are]". Seeing that Loki, Garnet, and Nightside are on the list, I think the deleted entries should be added back in. FeministDisneyDragon (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * In part, I can say that I got rid of characters on the list because of discussions on here. As it stands now, as long as the character meets the inclusion criteria (listed at the top of this page), then it should have an entry. Historyday01 (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In the criteria, it states "Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings", but all of the gem characters in Steven Universe is sexless, which is a synonym for genderless. The word non-binary can be defined as a gender identity that does not conform to the male/female gender binary, and genderless is can be defined as not having, not suggesting or not identifying as (= considering yourself to have) a particular gender to the male/female gender binary. This further proves my reasoning to add back the previous deleted entries and to add other genderless characters on the list. FeministDisneyDragon (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As the criteria explains, we don't include all genderless or nonbinary characters in this list, only ones that are human or belong to a class of being that isn't typically genderless. While robots can have gender, they are typically genderless. Thus if we included them here, they would quickly overwhelm the list with hundreds of characters. Similarly, the Gems in Steven Universe are all genderless, so I don't think they should be included in the list. Shep, however, is a nonbinary human character in Steven Universe and should be included. Hope that makes sense. Nosferattus (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding Ed to Paranatural?
One of the main characters, Ed, has recently(Chapter 8 Page 36) been confirmed in-comic to be non-binary, and uses they/them, with occasional he/him. However, a quick google yields nothing but fansites and the comic itself. Is the comic itself sufficient citation to add them, or should we wait for an article or something to come out? PiddleAndTwiddle (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we can wait for an article. Historyday01 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Are they/them pronouns and/or neopronouns enough (on their own) to say a character is non-binary?
Hello all. As you all know they/them pronouns are often used as appropriate pronouns by people who are non-binary, genderqueer, or other individuals under the non-binary umbrella. Some use neopronouns like ze/hir, fae/faer, ey/em. My question is simple: are such pronouns, on their own, enough to say that a character falls under the non-binary umbrella (i.e. is non-binary, genderqueer, etc.)? Or are more secondary and /or primary sources needed?

Your thoughts would be appreciated. My proposal would be adding a third point to the inclusion criteria to address this issue. My main interest is ensuring the page is a better resource for users. I wish last year's discussion (ending on Sept. 20) hadn't got so heated, resulting in an unclear consensus by the end, at least from what I could tell. But, my hope is that through this discussion there could be a clearer consensus, providing better guidance for those adding entries to the page. Surely, the inclusion criteria should be revised and improved. And I am hopeful that discussion could be one step toward that improvement.

Although I may not agree with all of you all the time, considering your past contributions on here, and the fact you all mentioned pronoun usage by fictional characters, in past comments, I thought your thoughts would be helpful on here @User:FeministDisneyDragon, @User:Eldomtom2, @User:Bilorv, @User:Aykhot, @User:Tomorrow and tomorrow, and @User:Crossroads. Historyday01 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the case of "they/them" alone, no. Author intent has to be clearer than this. He's not a fiction writer, but Matt Parker uses they/them pronouns to describe all people. And with fiction we reach edge cases real quick: aliens; robots; multiple consciousnesses occupying one physical body. Would "non-binary" even make sense as a term if talking about a fictional civilisation with a four-gender system? The answer to it all is: if and only if reliable sources describe the character as non-binary, whether author or reviewers, then we can list them.I'd be interested in a case where neopronouns were used but there was no clear expression of gender, but I would still tend towards no per the edge cases idea. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have not changed my viewpoint from previous discussions. We should not include characters just because they are solely referred to by they/them pronouns. In my view that is original research. The only exemption to this rule I would allow is if it is made clear that the character themselves wishes to be solely referred to with they/them pronouns.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's my thought as well. It is too easy for some to see a creator (often on Twitter) say that a character uses they/them pronouns, and this means the character is nonbinary. I think that is too much of a leap. I know in some cases, like characters in Steven Universe, where Rebecca Sugar called Gems "non-binary women" and then elsewhere it was stated that these characters used they/them pronouns. But, yes, have an exemption about whether the character wishes to be solely referred to with they/them pronouns would be a good one. I'll draft up some language for a third point to the inclusion criteria in the coming days, after responding to all the comments on here. Historyday01 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While I don't think they/them usage alone is enough (after all, someone whose gender is unknown can still be referred to with they/them), if a character is consistently referred to with they/them in a context that makes it clear their gender is not unknown (close friends/acquaintances/family using they/them, characters with omniscience or other forms of meta-knowledge about the character in question using they/them, etc), that seems like enough evidence to classify them as textually nonbinary (unless there's some speculative element, like the character in question being canonically multiple distinct people in one body, that sheds new light on said context).
 * To use a frequently argued example, Kris Dreemurr from Deltarune is consistently and diegetically referred to with they/them by their family members, childhood friends, and other important people in their life, and since the game is very clear that Kris and the player controlling them are two separate entities whose sharing of a body is both a recent development and unknown to the people who refer to them with they/them, I would consider that enough textual evidence to label Kris as nonbinary, since the speculative context (player possession) does not change the primary context (usage by family/friends/peers unaware of the speculative context). Aykhot (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For starters, that's still OR. Second, there is at present no explanation in the game for the use of they/them pronouns. Thirdly, it has been confirmed that the use of they/them pronouns for many characters in Undertale does not indicate an intent to make them canonically nonbinary, and there is at present no reason to believe Kris is different.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding Glen/Glenda
Glen/Glenda from childs play films is genderfluid 2603:6010:A3F0:8380:850F:DC5C:6A95:36D4 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Added. Nosferattus (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Kino's gender identity
According to our list, Kino's gender identity is "transmasculine", which means they should be in List of fictional trans characters, but not here. According to the Wikipedia article, however, "Kino's gender is ambiguous in the beginning, but was confirmed to be female in the fourth episode", which would exclude them from both lists. Can someone familiar with this character please clear up the confusion? How is Kino's gender identity best described? Nosferattus (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Its a bit confusing, but here's what it says at List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000–2004 with sources (it appears to be the same as the present entry on this page):
 * "Kino is a traveler who goes to 'unknown mystical places' with a talking motorcycle named Hermes. Kino was assigned female at birth, but has a 'androgynous persona,' alternating between using feminine and masculine pronouns, while resisting those that attempt to pin a gender on them as a 'girl' or 'boy.' While the show's official website, described Kino as a 'young man,' the series creator, Keiichi Sigsawa, said in September 2017, 'Kino really doesn't think of herself too deeply when she uses pronouns. Depending on the circumstances, she may use 'boku' or 'atashi', it kinda depends on the situation she finds herself in,' adding that it was not he 'wanted to write a story about a girl who lives like a boy directly, [but] it was just an interesting way to start the story, and her character's personality has continued that way since then.' As such, some reviewers even described Kino as one of the 'rare transmasculine anime protagonists.'"
 * As a disclosure, I wrote this entry. When using the Transmasculine you get this from the transgender page: "Transmasculine refers to a person assigned female at birth who has a predominantly masculine gender identity or presentation." Hence, I'd say that it would fall under the non-binary umbrella, but it would ALSO fall under the trans umbrella. Hence, Kino should have an entry on the List of fictional trans characters page and this page as well. As I see we have three choices:


 * Keep the entry as it presently stated


 * Remove the entry


 * Update the inclusion criteria from "Characters are considered non-binary" to "Characters are considered non-binary, gender non-conforming, fa'afafine, agender, genderless, bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, third gender, androgynous, or otherwise under the non-binary umbrella"


 * As I see it, even if we DO remove this entry for Kino, we should do point #3 as it could be useful in the future evaluations of entries on the main page. Any discussion on whether Kino should have an entry on the list of fictional trans characters, should be discussed at Talk:List of fictional trans characters rather than here, as this isn't the appropriate place to discuss whether Kino should have an entry on that page.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As an update, I recently added an entry for Raine Whispers in The Owl House, who is also transmasculine and non-binary. Kino is similar in the sense she can be described as "androgynous", with the Androgyny page saying "Regarding gender identity, androgynous individuals may identify as transgender or non-binary and use this as a form of gender expression, in which androgyny has fluctuated in popularity in different cultures and throughout history. Physically, an androgynous appearance may be achieved through personal grooming, fashion, or hormone treatment" and would fall under the non-binary umbrella in the case of what is noted in the above entry... I would say the interview with Keiichi Sigsawa is the strongest source here and supports the entry's inclusion. Also the statement you quote ("Kino's gender is ambiguous in the beginning, but was confirmed to be female in the fourth episode") provides NO source, so it can't be used to remove this entry. I don't think any of us should go by our familiarity or non-familiarity with Kino, as that gets into dangerous WP:OR territory. We need to avoid that at all costs.Historyday01 (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Remove. Nothing specifically says that this character is "non-binary" which leaves us interpreting what the sources are saying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is an issue, but I do think the sources listed by Hydrangeans point toward inclusion... Historyday01 (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Secondary sources identify Kino as a nonbinary character. As Wikipedia aims to summarize what is in secondary sources, it is appropriate to follow that identification:
 * American Library Association Institutional Repository, "Nonbinary Gender Identities in Media: An Annotated Bibliography": they appear to be either nonbinary or at the least gender nonconforming
 * Vrai Kaiser, "Kino is the Nonbinary Protagonist We Deserve", Anime Feminist, March 11, 2018: a nonbinary, AFAB anime character
 * Nadav, "Kino’s Journey: The Beautiful World Review", Anime Reviews, November 27, 2018: Kino, a non-binary traveler who drives on the talking motorcycle Hermes.
 * Nikola Marković, "Transgender and Non Binary Anime Characters, Their Outfits, Hairstyle, & Makeup", Offbinary, June 2023, “Kino”, iconic as being one of the first trans-masculine non binary anime personalities to not be portrayed with a dramatic, exaggerated character design. Kino is assigned female at birth but declines the terms bouya (little boy) and ojou-san (missy), and, as an avid traveller who dedicated their entire life to it, mostly referred to with the gender-neutral phrase tabibito-san (traveller).


 * Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 21:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that. I think these other sources in addition to the existing sources provide enough evidence to keep the entry. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Lean remove or option 3 - As far as the work goes, especially the extensive conversations regarding Kino's gender identity on the work's talk page, I find listing Kino as a trans or non-binary character to be generally interpretative, and thus not really meeting either list. You can make an argument for and against that interpretation, which itself is a beautiful thing I guess, but I find the objectivity of "Kino is non-binary/transmasculine" by including her on such a list to be questionable given the fact that the sources given is: A) use of pronouns in Japanese, which isn't necessarily indicative of anything considering "tomboy" characters also famously use "masculine" pronouns like "boku"; B) translations of said pronouns, which are kept gender-neutral, but I don't think are any more relevant than point A; C) Sigsawa's comment about her being written the way she is and not necessarily intending for her to not be a female. The latter point can also be considered somewhat irrelevant since intention and presentation are two different things, but I digress that the List of NB page notes Sigsawa also comments "it kind of depends on the situation she finds herself in", which (trying not to go WP:OR here) sounds more like a description of circumstantial/situational awareness.


 * As for the thing about episode 4, it's referring to the episode "Land of Adults" that shows "Kino" as a child who is very obviously female-presenting. The story of the episode is that when kids reach a certain age, they undergo a surgery to become "adults", and the original "Kino" (a man) saves her from this fate. While this episode shows she is (at least biologically) female, I've seen interpretations of the episode also lean into the trans identity idea, particularly from an article by Anime Feminist, but like Knowledgekid said there's nothing definitive in the work itself.


 * Whatever the case, the best option I feel is to either remove it entirely or update the list's criteria, since there does not seem to be general consensus regarding this. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't watched the series presently and while I disagree (see my other comments for that), I appreciate you commented here! It's better than me trying to solve this myself. In terms of option 3, I am strongly in support of that, as I think it would help readers and us as users/editors too. The editing criteria has been revised a lot over time, and in some ways this is a bit of a test case to determine whether its worth putting a criteria which may somewhat resemble it, on pages such as List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present... I've gone back and forth whether that would help and I'm still not sure at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think changing the criteria matters in this case. I'm not worried about whether Kino is identified with the specific term "non-binary", what I'm worried about is whether Kino is in fact binary male (a transman) or binary female (a tomboy, as the Wikipedia article seems to suggests). Can we rule out either of those options? The label "transmasculine" isn't very helpful here, as transmasculine can mean transman (binary male) or transmasculine nonbinary, depending on whether they identify as male or not. It sounds like "transmasculine nonbinary" might be a good description. Thoughts? Nosferattus (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I only mentioned changing the criteria because I happened to think about it at the time. I admit it doesn't directly relate to whether this entry should be included or not, but... I thought I'd bring it up regardless, as I do think that the criteria needs to be updated. In terms of the label for Kino, I think transmaculine nonbinary can be a good description to solve the issue you are bringing up... Historyday01 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – I think this is the most appropriate listing for Kino, as their relationship with gender is complex and best-described here. It's not uncommon to have somewhat ambiguous situations like this especially with older characters, and we're lucky to have such an in-depth description of how Kino falls outside of the gender binary. I don't think a move to the trans-masc list would be appropriate, but I am open to that option. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, that was my thought too. I do think it is lucky we have such an in-depth description for Kino. I would be fine with forgoing the move to the trans-masc list in fact, as the sources in the existing entry and those shared by Hydrangeans lean to more ambiguity. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Krazy Kat
I'm skeptical of listing Krazy Kat. Krazy Kat's creator described Krazy Kat thus: "something like a sprite, an elf. They have no sex. So that Kat can't be a he or a she. The Kat's a spirit—a pixie—free to butt into anything". To me, being sexless is different than being non-binary or agender. You could easily argue that Big Bird is sexless or any number of ambiguous cartoon animal characters. (Yes I know that Big Bird is canonically male, but still.) This is another reason why I think our inclusion criteria should include some mention of the character having a human-like experience of gender, but I suppose that's a bigger discussion. What do folks think about the inclusion of Krazy Kat specifically? Nosferattus (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

iris menas
Clicking on the hyperlink immediately states that the names are supposed to be written in lowercase, yet they're upper case on the list 2001:9E8:480E:3700:255A:7677:8282:A3E1 (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)