Talk:List of fictional non-binary characters/Archive 1

Page title
Thanks for creating the page. I note that a page already exists for List of people with non-binary gender identities and it might be helpful to use the same terminology, calling this page a List of fictional characters with non-binary gender identities. That title would avoid issues relating to narrow definitions of the word genderqueer. Trankuility (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I really hate the unclear terminology as well - Non-binary redirects to genderqueer, eventhough I would personally prefer non-binary as well. I definitely wouldn't mind a move of any page, but commonname is a bit difficult to establish. I really wouldn't argue against this being moved, though. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As this is a new page, and as a similar discussion has moved List of people with non-binary gender identities, I made this change, per WP:BOLD. Hope that's ok with you. Trankuility (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Nights
In case these refs ever come to use anywhere (for instance, in NiGHTS own article), I didn't feel comfortable just deleting them, though he has never really been described as a non-binary or genderqueer character, and I don't think he is human, so there. ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Haruhi Fujioka
To quote The Daily Dot, "In fact, Ouran is one of the rare instances in which an anime character embraces, if not a genderqueer identity, then at least a gender-ambivalent one." The Mary Sue explains Haruhi's character as followed:
 * "She is happiest in neutral clothing, and when a kid gets gum in her hair she chops it to pixie length without a second thought. The host club boys are often cooking up schemes to get her into dresses and bikinis. When these schemes succeed, Haruhi either has no reaction to the clothing or treats the high heels and frills more as costume than expression of identity."

And she follows this up by saying she would like to imagine Haruhi to identify as agender in a possible sequel to the anime. I personally do believe that these aspects would merit her inclusion on this list, probably more so than, for example, Pat from Saturday Night Live, for whom I was unable to find out anything other than that no one can "figure out" their gender (though their behavior, comically or not, does seem like they are purposefully keeping it ambiguous). ~ Mable ( chat ) 06:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider The Mary Sue a reliable source; Daily Dot I don't know. I just really don't think "is totally comfortable wearing pants and short hair" is a reasonable standard for "not a woman." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I could argue that "I have watched the anime and I think she is totally agender," but I suppose that would be considered original research :p Eh, if you believe the sources in the Haruhi Fujioka article aren't sufficient for this list, then I suppose that's that. I'll have to wait for better ones to pop up >.> ~ Mable ( chat ) 14:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

So according to one popular translation of the anime (the one available on Hulu, so I assume it's pretty accurate) Haruhi says “If you all think of me as a boy, then that’s ok with me too. My feeling is that any awareness of being a boy or a girl falls lower than that of being a person," here's a YT link, scene starting at 20:59 . This seems like a pretty clear sign of a queer gender identity to me. Another translation of this scene (I'm unsure of the origin of this one): “Haruhi… You’re a girl?” Haruhi: “Biologically, yes… It seems like my consciousness for genders is lower than that of an average person.” Another YT link at 3:16 . To me, this indicates a queerness of gender that goes beyond a mere apathy of expression. I think this alone is enough to warrant her inclusion, and I also don't think its insignificant that other writers online have interpreted Haruhi as genderqueer. Turnercampbell (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-human Characters
There are many fictional robots/groups of aliens that do not fall within binary gender because of their physical nature, but what about non-human groups that use gender in essentially the same way as humans? For example, the fairies characters in Peritale mostly fall within the male/female gender binary, while Lavender, included in the cast page here, identifies as non-binary. Is there a logical reason this character shouldn't be included in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desishan (talk • contribs) 04:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly have a problem with that. When I wrote that, I was particularly worried about gender-does-not-apply cases. I don't really know the works you are linking, so I can't make much of a judgment on them, but they wouldn't probably be eligible for the list if it wasn't for an issue I'll point out below. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with non-notable additions
There were a few of these in here before, but recently a lot of them got added: non-notable works (primarily webcomics) that include non-binary characters. I love these, don't get me wrong, but using primary sources to link to all of them is really just original research. There's no reason to believe that these specific examples are worth talking about, as it's theoretically impossible to know if anyone other than the editor who added those entries to the list have read these webcomics. At least for A Frigate Bird Sings, I found some secondary sources commenting on the work and its implementation of gender. I would like to remove the following characters from the list because the work they appear in isn't notable and reliable sources haven't mentioned the character: If I'm not mistaken, non-binary wiki already lists all these characters and many more. There may also be reason to remove Bolt and Watch/Garden Boy, as they seem to be lacking any kind of notability as well, though I'll keep those open as their works are considered notable. Thoughts and opinions? ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aster
 * Ember Chu
 * Kylie Coven
 * Lucy Marlowe
 * Norn Misra
 * Ted Verres

Removed the above characters from the list. Maybe some of them can be added once again some day, if their works get more notability. Would definitely be nice. (also, ugh, why do I hate those ugly "retrieved" dates so much? :s) ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External list
Someone has put together a list elsewhere of fictional non-binary characters. It could be mined for ones that satisfy the requirements of this page. It is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15gFNIpYesvtur_QIA_dkWk_VAVTOGtXwunGczo8dmsg I will add ones that I think meet the criteria. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally mined Nonbinary.org's list to get the current list. I doubt this list will help much, but I'll have a look. I'm already glad some of my personal favorite nonbinaries are in there. ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. Two I looked at but wasn't sure about were "The One Who Looks Like Neither a Man nor a Woman" (not sure whether this list or intersex list, or somewhere else), and "Corellon Larethian" (not clear whether there is canonical support). I'd be glad for your thoughts. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to find anything on "The One ...", but Corellon Larethian has some interesting sources. Both Kotaku and The Huffington Post quote the D&D rulebook, which says: "The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon’s image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character’s sexual orientation is for you to decide." I don't think there's anything particularly useful for this article, though. It's all more LGBT in D&D in general. Which, honestly sounds like a topic worth having all on its own: LGBT in Dungeons & Dragons. ~ Mable ( chat ) 10:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, thanks for finding those. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Forgotten Realms wiki has several good sources for Corellon Larethian, especially the note from Demihuman Deities: "Although Corellon had no gender, sources refer to him by male pronouns, since elves perceived him as a male father figure. His avatar is also stated to manifest as an androgynous male elf." http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Corellon#cite_note-DD1e-p91-4 Corellon Nymeros (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Another from the list that might be appropriate is Dr. Haru Tanaka, a one-episode character from the TV show Bones (TV series). The episode the appear in focuses on their non-binary identity, according to http://bones.wikia.com/wiki/Haru_Tanaka (which I know isn't a sufficient source on its own). JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I remember that episode. The usual characters in the show tried to figure out the character's gender. It was rather awkward. The character doesn't have much notability, however. There's this article by a website I've never heard of before, saying that they're "androgynous", but that's it. I'm not sure if that's really enough, seeing as they're such a one-off character ^_^; I think there isn't actually enough confirmation: even in the episode itself, the character never said anything about their gender, and the creators have (as far as I know) never confirmed anything. They might just happen to look androgynous for some reason. ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Glad I brought it up here first. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, next one. :-) Hedwig Robinson from Hedwig and the Angry Inch (musical). The article includes a citation for the claim that Hedwig is genderqueer. Seems pretty clearly appropriate to add to me. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems perfect! I'm adding it as we speak :) ~ Mable ( chat ) 13:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of fictional non-binary characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160618181052/http://comicsalliance.com/eths-skin-readers-guide/ to http://comicsalliance.com/eths-skin-readers-guide/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Actor names
Live action characters exist because actors bring them to life. The names of actors should be included for film, television, web series, and podcasts. I could do a bold edit, but I think consensus is the courteous approach here. Also, if the actor names are included the table formatting code should be changed to wiki markups that set the % of column widths. For example:

Pyxis Solitary  yak  12:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would put "actor" after "source" and "source type", but other than that, I am all-in. Sounds like a good idea. Moreover, now we have subsections, "source type" can likely be removed from the table, freeing up some space everywhere. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same about the "source type" column. In the // Television, web series, and podcasts // section the "Notes" column can include if a program is a web series or podcast -- I also think in this section "Source" could be changed to "Show" (because that's what they are). Pyxis Solitary   yak  13:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Right now, we're actually not listing any characters from podcasts, so I removed that part from the title. This way, the "source type" becomes particularly irrelevant for that one. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

mogumo should be on this list
Mogumo is from the manga fukakai na boku no subete wo and is non-binary. Masterball2 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See above. Fukakai no Boku doesn't seem to have been covered by any reliable independent sources yet, so we can't include it yet. ~ Maplestrip/Mable  ( chat ) 10:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

oh,okay,that work has no article,but mogumo is said to be non-binary by a website known as tvtropes. Masterball2 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * TVTropes isn't considered a reliable source under Wikipedia's guidelines because it is completely created by its users, with no real editorial oversight. Same with fanwikis. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 19:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It's still confirmed that Mogumo is non-binary. It's necessary to know that Mogumo is non-binary in order for the manga's plot to make sense. It's confirmed in the very 1st chapter. https://mangakakalot.com/chapter/fukakai_na_boku_no_subete_o/chapter_1 Masterball2 (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added =3 IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Year
There's inconsistency in how the "year" field for serial works is currently being used. Mostly it is used to describe when the work itself started/ended, but some use it to note when the character first appeared. I think there's value in noting the latter, especially in long-running works where the character may not turn up until far down the road, but it shouldn't be mixed up with the former. I'm leaning toward using the year field for the work's run, and noting the character's first appearance in the "notes" field. Oornery (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Genderqueer
Category:Genderqueer has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-human characters
I think it's a bit silly that this list includes so many non-humans such as angels, demons, shape-shifters, supernatural beings, etc. It really erodes the usefulness of the list, in my opinion. I can think of a dozen fictional characters that are capable of changing genders through magic or supernatural powers. Someone calling them "non-binary" or "genderfluid" doesn't really mean that much. We might as well list "God" while we're at it, since many sources consider God to be genderless, but anthropomorphic. Kaldari (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as seen at the top of this talk page (under the bullet point Determining whether a character is eligible), those characters aren't supposed to be here. Speaking for myself, I just got tired of cleaning up the page. Oornery (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What about works that don't fit in any categories
So I was going to add Nine, a main character in Jon Bois' multimedia story 17776 but it doesn't really fit in any of the available categories. Where should I put them?
 * Allie 849 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the wiki Allie 849. I see you're pretty new. You can pretty much go ahead and do whatever is useful or needed, such as creating a new new category. (If someone disagrees they may change it or revert the edit, which is no big deal. At that point you either accept their reason or you talk about how to resolve it.) Perhaps add an === Other === section and put the new entry there. Alsee (talk) 03:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Pseudononbinary character graveyard
I am creating this section in the Talk page in the hopes of making easily accessible a list of characters who, while they may seem, or technically be, nonbinary, probably should not (still) be included in the Article page, to 1) preemptively persuade people away from re-adding them, 2) give myself and others a place to put characters who seem sooo cool and baaasically canon nonbinary, even if they do not belong in the actual article, so we can feel like they're noted somewhere, and 3) perhaps, with the help of other editors, create a suggestive discussion of what constitutes a meaningfully nonbinary character for the purposes of this article, to aid in future eligibility determinations.

Nick 556 (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thought I'd respond to this since I've done a good deal of editing on the main page. Your graveyard reminds me of my sandbox which has characters I stuck there because I couldn't find good sources for them, so I call that a graveyard too. Anyway, looking at your edits, it appears the following had sources for being non-binary:


 * Chick the Cherub in John Dough and the Cherub
 * Zoë Hange in Attack on Titan
 * Glen/Glenda Ray in Seed of Chucky
 * Pat in SNL
 * Twogami / Imposter in Danganronpa
 * Master Chief in Halo (franchise)
 * Nights in Nights into Dreams
 * Reala in Nights into Dreams
 * The Knight in Hollow Knight

I've wanted to change that notice for a while, expanding it beyond the "human experience" (or equivalent to it), but cannot due to the lack of permissions in that area, which is why it seems you removed many of these entries. In any case, it looks like the former entries for Chick the Cherub, Zoë Hange, Pat in SNL, and Nights have reliable sources. Not sure about the other ones. The Nights entry, the game's creator (Yuji Naka) says "Men or women, we all have dreams, so I thought that the residents in the dream world shouldn’t have a gender, rather, the form of the characters should be determined by the person who is dreaming" in an interview. Naa does talk about Reala but doesn't talk about gender, so that entry rings hollow. And those who created Hollow Knight say they support people seeing The Knight as Agender, saying "it's fantastic that players could feel empowered in such a way" and say that "HK does (almost explicitly) confirm its protagonist is genderless." So that seems to count too. I think these issues could be addressed in a page which I have been meaning to create, titled something like Non-binary characters in fiction, like the Asexual characters in fiction page. Back in early October, I started planning a page for it but never did it because of other stuff. But I'd be willing to get back to it again.Historyday01 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The article itself states (at current) "This is a list of fictional characters that either self-identify as non-binary (or genderqueer) or have been identified by outside parties as such. Listed are agender, bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, and other characters of non-binary gender, as well as characters of any third gender." As such, I believe that the page should only list characters who the source text itself or sufficiently authoritative members of the text's creative team identify as personally holding nonbinary gender identities à la the listed nonbinary gender identities, that is, in the manner of a transgender or gender nonconforming human, or a human who identifies with a gender form particular to their culture that is not manhood or womanhood.


 * Re: Chick the Cherub, the blogger cited seems to understand Chick as genderless, but the post and comments still confirm that Chick was intended to be of unconfirmed gender as a draw to interpretation of Chick as a boy or Girl. Re: Hange, the article cited repeatedly makes it clear that Hange's gender is unconfirmed, rather than confirmed as nonbinary. Re: Pat, quoth the web article: "probably a woman," quoth the book: "a character whose gender is never revealed." With regards to Hollow Knight, my experience of the game is that the Knight, like other Vessels, is not a man or a woman because they are a created being with a singular terrible purpose and do not have the same kind of autonomy or personhood as other characters who do have identified genders.


 * I think the Non-binary characters in fiction page is an interesting idea, but I think it would not fully address the issue of disambiguation (which I do not claim is fully possible, much less simple) between characters who are of nonbinary gender identity in a way that is comparable to a transgender human, characters who are of unconfirmed/ambiguous gender, and characters who do not adhere to binary gender because it does not apply to them. I think it could be useful to create a page, perhaps interlinked in some way with Gender in speculative fiction and/or Single-gender world, for portrayals of genderless beings in fiction, or fictional genderless characters. Androgyny in fiction is a category with the subcategory Fictional androgynes but neither seems to have an article proper. Nick 556 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @Nick 556, I guess I assumed this discussion was over when I posted my last comment on November 24.Oops. Anyway, I completely agree with you that the page "should only list characters who the source text itself or sufficiently authoritative members of the text's creative team identify as personally holding nonbinary gender identities." I don't even mind the notice that those characters should be human or humanoid anymore. What you said about Chick the Cherub, Hange, and Hollow Knight, that makes sense. In terms of the Non-binary characters in fiction page, I can agree with you it does not "fully address the issue of disambiguation" between characters which are non-binary "in a way that is comparable to a transgender human, characters who are of unconfirmed/ambiguous gender, and characters who do not adhere to binary gender because it does not apply to them." Creating such a page, which would be "interlinked in some way with Gender in speculative fiction and/or Single-gender world, for portrayals of genderless beings in fiction, or fictional genderless characters" would be a mighty task. That is good there is a category and a subcategory, and perhaps there could be a page for that, titled something like "Androgyny in fiction". That might be a better idea than trying to change the Non-binary characters in fiction page into something named Media portrayal of non-binary people, although I'm still open to that. I could easily fold everything from the Non-binary characters in fiction page into that new page. Historyday01 (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content graveyard
I said I was going to remove the content on December 30, but I felt it was time to make the move now than wait until the end of the year. If it was just a little bit of content that needed citations, that would be fine, but there is way too much as it stands now, so I'm moving it here rather than deleting it outright. I hope that people can provide sources for this stuff so it can be re-added to the main article. Historyday01 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Anime and animation

Books, print comics, and manga

Podcast

 Live-action television 

 Video games '

Webcomics

 Theatre 

Other

Haruka from Sailor Moon
Haruka says in the manga that she has aspects of male and female personality. It's explicitly stated. Wouldn't that make her nonbinary? --KimYunmi (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * KimYunmi, good question. I think so? A CBR article seems to imply it:

"In Sailor Moon Crystal, the most recent anime version for the franchise, Sailor Neptune remarks that Sailor Uranus is both male and female. She’s the first non-binary character referenced that way in the Sailor Moon franchise. While the Sailor Moon Stars arc of the 90s anime saw male pop stars transform into female Sailor Senshi, they were not explicitly referenced as non-binary."


 * I think its also implied in this SYFY article, while this one says they explicitly identify as non-binary, and other says Haruka has an "ambiguous gender." So, yeah, I think that's enough to go on to have an entry for her. On a related note, I also came across an article saying Usagi is bisexual, which is interesting. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Entries that need better sourcing
Similar to the section I posted on the Talk:List of fictional trans characters page. These are all webcomics. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

II
Can someone add Paintbrush from Inanimate insanity to the list under “non-binary”? 104.191.116.91 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. Who is Paintbrush? Is Inanimate Insanity a video game? This request is pretty broad, so I'm just not sure what to make of your question.--Historyday01 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Palo Alto (2013 film)
I think this character might be non-binary: Fred, played by Nat Wolff. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 12:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If so, that's great. I'll look into it. As a note, the notice for this page has been expanded as it isn't just limited to humanoid non-binary characters anymore, just fyi, with this part as new: "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." Historyday01 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC about inclusion of Loki (MCU)
Should Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe) be included or removed from the list? Note, this discussion is exclusively about the inclusion of the MCU version of the character on the list, and not about the comic book version. JDDJS ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 23:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove. The line about his gender being "fluid" from the show was more a reference to the fact that variants of Loki don't have a consistent gender (ex Sylvie). How the main timeline Loki has been consistently portrayed as male. Sure he has the ability to shape-shift into females, but he almost never uses it. They exclusively use male pronouns for him. He is clearly portrayed as a male for purposes. Other than that one single line, which wasn't even said by the character himself, there is no evidence of him being non-binary. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 23:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: From the Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article: In Loki (2021), Loki's sex in the series is denoted by the Time Variance Authority as "fluid", in a nod to the character's genderfluidity in Marvel Comics and Norse mythology. Sourced to "Is Loki genderfluid? 'It's always been there,' Tom Hiddleston tells Inverse". ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain. Perhaps the entry for Loki in MCU should be improved while the comic book version is kept, removing that Men's Health source and adding the source ezlev noted instead. I have to disagree with those arguing that he should be removed. Perhaps the entry can be improved, but he is humanoid enough that it can be kept and he is a prominent of enough character, not some character who appears in only one episode, one time. I personally think the whole "match the human experience" requirement is junk and should be changed, but that's beside the point.--Historyday01 (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the character (in the MCU) hasn't identified as non-binary nor as a gender, on camera. the statement is "fluid" as a shape-shifter. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain, though I would leave it open to reconsideration in the futre maybe. Honestly the situation seems to be clear, the character's fictional identity is on record as being gender fluid, even though this is very poorly conveyed. OgamD218 (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain per the source given by User:Ezlev above. I'm open to reconsidering if anyone challenges the reliability of that source; please ping me in that case. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed/good point/same, please ping me as well if a reasonable challenge arises to the reliability of that source. OgamD218 (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

*Retain - I have to disagree with those arguing that he should be removed. Perhaps the entry can be improved, but he is humanoid enough that it can be kept and he is a prominent of enough character, not some character who appears in only one episode, one time. I personally think the whole "match the human experience" requirement is junk and should be changed, but that's beside the point. Historyday01 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove - Personally, I don't think it makes sense to include shapeshifters in this list as their gender identity (and identity in general) do not match human experience. Nosferattus (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with that, as shapeshifting can be a way of conveying to audiences that a character is non-binary. Admittedly, it not necessarily the best way, but it is a way that some creators have followed, like with Double Trouble in She-Ra who is solidly and clearly non-binary. Not sure about Imaginos (Desdinova) who is on the list on the main page, as that's an entry which needs a better source, but my guess is it may be the same thing. Historyday01 (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you accidentally voted twice - you made another comment to "retain" in bold, but it was 6 months ago so it's understandable if you forgot. Crossroads -talk- 05:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't see that until now... Historyday01 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - In light of this discussion, the edit notice for this page has been changed here to be more broad, meaning that the comment by Nosferattus no longer applies, as it now reads "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." Loki fulfills this requirement. For further discussion on this list's scope, please see Talk:List of fictional non-binary characters. Historyday01 (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Scope
As a result of this edit (prompted by this request), the scope should be clarified further to prevent people from cluttering the list with any and every of the sort of shapeshifters, body-swap scenarios, AIs, single-gender or many-sexed aliens, and the like that the phrase was meant to keep out, while still including those that should properly be understood as truly of non-binary identity. Namely, it should not be allowed to source it merely to the work itself, thus engaging in personal interpretation - separate sources are required. This is in line with normal Wikipedia practice regarding WP:NOR and secondary sources.

Taking the Loki example that prompted this - because RS support that Loki should be understood as genderfluid, he should be included; but hypothetically, if those sources did not exist, he would not be included even if someone thought he should be based on "the work itself". Crossroads -talk- 05:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't mind clarifying the scope further, although I thought that saying that "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" already seems limiting enough, as someone can't add "any and every of the sort of shapeshifters, body-swap scenarios, AIs, single-gender or many-sexed aliens" as they would have to be a recurring or main character, not someone who showed up in one individual episode. That was the idea at least and I think it is MUCH better than the previous wording, which seemed problematic and is arguably too limiting. I still believe the page should not be limited to just humanoid non-binary characters (as the previous writing could imperil a number of entries currently on the list) as that could led to too much contention on what counts as human and what doesn't count as human. Rather, the page should be focused on including recurring and main characters who can be said to have a non-binary identity, whether they are human or not. It could also encourage further participation, as the previous edit notice may cause confusion and lead less people to contribute and add to the page, unlike the current notice which the changed wording. That was the point of my request and I continue to stand by it. As for Loki, it is my understanding that he should be included. Historyday01 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we shouldn't go back to the previous wording, again for the same reason - we should be relying on secondary sources, and if they categorize a "non-human" character as non-binary, then so be it. Basically, I think we should just eliminate the clause that permits sourcing simply to the work itself. Crossroads -talk- 17:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. How about the first line of the notice is changed to "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)" from "Characters are considered non-binary when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly in either the work itself or by the character's creator(s)"? I could see how someone could just use a cite episode template (or cite the book, video game, etc. directly) as a "source" and then declare the character is non-binary. That's happened on lists of animated series with LGBT characters before which is why I mention it. Historyday01 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes that sounds good. Crossroads -talk- 21:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll submit a request for that in the template. Historyday01 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Crossroads that we should not be including entries without secondary sources that explicitly say a character is non-binary. There is no reason a many-sexed alien can't be identified as non-binary, but a character should not be identified as non-binary because an editor thinks so, only because a writer or reviewer thinks so (and ideally it's a mainstream current of reviewer thought, not one reviewer out of 50). Even in the case that a character is explicitly described as non-binary within a work, there should still really be independent sources that mention this or else the character (or that part of their identity) is not significant to the work as a whole. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment is definitely relevant when other editors below are claiming they need to know "my" definition of what is non-binary for consensus, something which doesn't make a lick of sense to me. So, if you could jump in the discussion here, that would be great. Historyday01 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The new inclusion criteria are leading to exactly the problem that Crossroads predicted. Editors are now adding genderless AI robots to the list. In the cited source (which merely refers to them as "genderless"), the creator explicitly says "I was committed to the idea of a character who was not human and did not have a human expression of gender." If this list is not limited to characters with a human expression of gender, it will quickly become a meaningless list. "Genderless" is not the same thing as agender. Agender entails a complex human experience that is not at all embodied by robots, cartoon animals, AIs, deities, aliens, talking hamburgers, or amorphous purple monsters, and frankly its offensive for it to be equated to such. I strongly oppose the changes to the inclusion criteria as this list is about an LGBT identity, not a grammatical gender. Can we please reinstate some sort of wording that focuses the list on the human experience of non-binary gender? Nosferattus (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nosferattus The problem with making it ONLY focused on humans is that we then would be wrangling over what counts as human. That is why I support having it more broad rather than narrow. However, I would support creating a page called something like "Androgyny in fiction" which would cover a broader scope. But until that is created, I am wary and opposite to changing the inclusion requirements at this current time. Historyday01 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about the edit I made that removed several "genderless" non-human characters? Specifically Murderbot and ART/Perihelion (genderless robots), Korvo and Terry (genderless aliens), Zoit from Lloyd in Space (genderless alien), the knights from Hollow Knight (genderless insectoids), and Quina Quen from Final Fantasy IX (genderless alien). Nosferattus (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I wasn't able to look at the criteria on my phone, but it states "Characters can be added to their list if either the work they appear in is notable...the character themselves is notable, or if the character's gender has been covered by multiple reliable sources...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)...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." However, this clashes with the opening part "This is a list of non-binary characters in fiction, i.e. fictional characters that either self-identify as non-binary (or genderqueer) or have been identified by outside parties as such. Listed are agender, bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, and other characters of non-binary gender, as well as characters of any third gender." So, perhaps the list page should incl. all those under the non-binary umbrella? If not, then, we might need more spinoff pages. And there are LOT of those for LGBTQ topics already.
 * So, the line in the criteria says "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)". It could be changed to "Characters are considered non-binary, agender, bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, or genderless when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s)" if that makes sense.
 * If the creator (or reliable sources) specifically called the characters genderless then it should stay. I know Korvo and Terry, since I added that one a while ago, and I'm pretty sure the creator (or creators) called them genderless. I have heard of Zoit, but I think it was pretty ambiguous from what I remember. Not sure about the others you listed as I don't know them off hand. Historyday01 (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stuff like that needs to go. "It/its" pronouns or being a member of a genderless species are not sufficient to include someone as non-binary or under the LGBT umbrella. To be included we need sources that specifically identify a character as meaningfully non-binary. Being a member of a whole class of beings that lack gender like depictions of robots, AI, or certain alien species does not make one non-binary, LGBT, or 'queer', and inserting such entities into the list is a form of WP:Original research. It's like saying my computer or an asexually reproducing organism is non-binary - it completely loses all meaning. The list scope and that of any other list is dictated by reliable sources, and sources do not consider the two groups the same nor is 'members of genderless species' a notable topic. Crossroads -talk- 21:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If I call my computer "genderless", would you say that my computer is "non-binary"? Nosferattus (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not going to go down the speculative route here, nope. I stand by what I said on Nov. 20, and feel that Crossroads has a good point, as we "need sources that specifically identify a character as meaningfully non-binary", even though I take a more expansive, rather than reductive/restrictive, view when it comes to entries on this page. Unless a creator or reliable source describes a non-human character, or characters, as "genderless", or otherwise falling under the non-binary umbrella, then it should be removed. Its as simple as that. In line with that, I have completely agree with @Aykhot's edit, which brings back those characters, as agender characters fall under the non-binary umbrella. That's established. Historyday01 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just being "genderless" is not sufficient if a class of being, such as an alien species or robots, are entirely without gender. That is not at all the same thing as someone like a human having a non-binary gender identity. Again, is an AI or an asexually-reproducing creature non-binary and LGBTQ? A computer or a plant? Reliable sources don't support that general contention. A character who is a member of such a species or class of being needs sources identifying them specifically as having a non-binary gender identity, such as an agender identity, rather than being included simply because of their species. The latter is a form of WP:Original research (and clogs up the list from much better examples anyway). Crossroads -talk- 21:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. How I define "genderless" does not matter. All I'm saying is that if a creator or reliable source says a character is genderless or otherwise under the non-binary umbrella, it should be on the page. I think that's a pretty simple rule to follow. No need to get into the weeds in this discussion. That's a waste of everyone's time. Historyday01 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that sapient beings, such as sufficiently advanced AIs or asexually-reproducing nonhuman creatures, specifically identified as "genderless" would count as non-binary, since gender is a concept specific to sapient beings. "Genderless" means different things depending on if the subject is sapient or not (since calling a non-sapient subject genderless is somewhat tautological); a computer or a plant is "genderless" meaning they have no relationship whatsoever to the concept of gender, being inanimate, while Murderbot or the Knight, for example, are "genderless" meaning they have a relationship with gender characterized by rejection or inapplicability of the concept (thus falling into the agender category). Beings with agency, like AIs or nonhuman sapients, are capable of using said agency to reject or distance themselves from the concept of gender, unlike an inanimate object or non-sapient creature, which cannot even conceptualize it in the first place, thus distinguishing the nonbinary agender identity (which can be described as "genderless" or "without gender") from the default genderlessness of non-sapient objects or entities. Aykhot (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to find out what your definition of "non-binary" is. Do you consider anything that is referred to as "genderless" or "without gender" by a reliable source to be "non-binary"? Does it have to be animate? Does it have to be anthropomorphic? If someone asked the creator of Gumby "What gender is Gumby?" and the creator replies "Gumby is a piece of clay. Gumby doesn't have a gender.", would you include that character in this list? I just want to know where you draw the line so that we can reach a consensus. Nosferattus (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How I define "non-binary", "genderless", or "without gender" is irrelevant, so I'm going to ignore that question, and all the questions in your comment. I see them as unnecessary diversion in this discussion. So, please, do not go down that road. My definitions do NOT matter and will NOT influence the page in any way, shape, or form. What matters is what creators and reliable sources say. That is the bottom line. If they say that a character is non-binary, genderless, or without gender, then I don't see a problem with it on the list. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean your personal definition. I mean within the scope of this article. Now that I understand your position I can respond to it. In my opinion, defining "without gender" as agender and non-binary regardless of the context, is wrong. Yes, "agender" literally means "without gender", but that meaning has context. Agender and non-binary are queer identities with their own history, culture, and modes of representation. It makes no sense to refer to robots or furniture as agender or non-binary. I agree with Crossroads that the scope of this article should be limited to the LGBT sense of "non-binary" and things described as "genderless" or "without gender" should be excluded unless they are clearly referring to a character that is expected to have the human experience of gender. Nosferattus (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, especially since many of the characters on the main page are humanoid. However, I tend to push back on the "human experience of gender" as we would be debating what a "human" is and isn't. That's my main issue with it and I'd like to avoid that debate if at all possible. That criteria of a humanoid/human focus is not applied to any of the other LGBTQ character pages, so it makes no sense for it to be applied to this page. In fact, that was part of my rationale for the changed inclusion criteria earlier this year, which I proposed back in June.
 * I would be fine with limiting the article to LGBTQ sense of "non-binary". While saying that, i do not think that a character should be included should a voice actor say the character they voice is agender (like Angel Jose in Craig of the Creek or Milo in Danger& Eggs), genderfluid (like Val/entina Romanyszyn in gen:LOCK, who had a whole scene in season 1 where they say they are genderfluid), or a creator (or reliable source) says something to the same effect.
 * In addition, I'm fine with excluding species (like if someone says an entire species is genderless) or character groups (like if someone says a group of characters is non-binary) from the list. The page should be for individual characters, not for character groups or species, if that makes sense.
 * As I said earlier, I strongly support creating a page like entitled something like "Androgyny in fiction" (that name probably isn't right) which could completely revamp that awfully text-heavy Non-binary characters in fiction page. I had meant to create it a while ago, but... I never got around to it, like my graveyard of pages which will never be created. Anything that would be removed from the main page could go into a page titled something like "Androgyny in fiction", within reason, as it could become too large. Historyday01 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding That criteria of a humanoid/human focus is not applied to any of the other LGBTQ character pages, a human(oid) focus is basically 'baked-in' from the get-go for those, since genderless species couldn't be trans in the sense of having a gender differing from sex, nor would they have sexual orientations. This article is a bit more of a special case. Crossroads -talk- 16:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Crossroads Hmm, I think it makes sense to have somewhat similar criteria for all of them, instead of having an outlier. Historyday01 (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed.
 * As a potential compromise, maybe we do not include entire species or classes of being that lack gender or have a gender/sex division outside the "human experience" (in other words, entire classes of being that could be considered nonbinary) on the list while still including specific individuals or characters of said class on the list; for example, the Vessels from Hollow Knight, who are all genderless, would not be collectively included on the list (as "Vessels"), while the Knight and the Hollow Knight, who are specific characters who happen to be Vessels, would be included (as "the Knight" and "the Hollow Knight" respectively) with an explanation of their class of being's lack of gender. This way, we keep the characters who fall outside the binary due to the nature of their class of being on the list, while excluding said entire class of being from the list itself (although I could definitely see a use for the proposed new page to catalogue genderless classes of being or other classes with gender or sex structures "outside the human experience"; to continue my Hollow Knight example, the Vessels as a whole would be described on that page, with the Knight and Hollow Knight in particular also being included here as individuals). After all, we already have this in place for a number of entities; Gaiman's angels/demons, the Gems from Steven Universe, and the Daedric Princes from The Elder Scrolls are all genderless classes of being and not included collectively on the list, but specific examples, such as Aziraphale, Crowley, Boethiah, and the various Gem characters, are.
 * Under this system, the only major omissions currently on the contended version would be the taronyu from SCP Foundation (a species) and possibly Welcome to Night Vale's angels/Erikas (the Erikas are a bit of a weird case, because there's more than one of them and they seem to be a specific class of being that can gain and most likely lose members, but they canonically share a collective memory and experience and could thus arguably be classified as a single being; I personally lean more towards "class of being" and thus omission at the moment). Aykhot (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I'm a bit wary of defining it as having to be inside the "human experience" (we'd be arguing what is and isn't a human being) and would rather such entries be described on a page about non-binary characters in fiction (I noted a possible page name earlier in this discussion). While I appreciate your idea, my issue is that it may become too cumbersome for editors to implement, in that it would be often violated, especially by those which haven't been part of this discussion. I have various degrees from various higher educational institutions and your proposal confuses me, as it is hard to wrap my head around it. If it confuses me, then I imagine others may feel similarly. The criteria for this page should be easy to understand, not something people will have to jump through a bunch of hoops to figure out, or think about for ten minutes before they add a character entry. Otherwise people will say Wikipedia is against LGBTQ people, again. Additionally, I think there need to be at least some limits on the page's content, as it could balloon out of control and be hard to manage. As it is, it can be a challenge to maintain it and make sure people are using reliable sources for the entries, even now. I personally think a focus on characters, rather than species/character groups, would still be workable, and allow for most of the entries to remain intact. Historyday01 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the "human experience" thing is probably a poor metric to use, especially considering the fact that so many fictional nonbinary characters are also nonhuman due to the "Non-Human Non-Binary" trope. The way I used it as an example, classes with specific genders or sexes that only apply to them (such as a species with six sexes, for example) would be "outside the human experience", although I don't think that "within the human experience" should be used as a criterion.
 * The implementation at least as I envisioned it would basically be the same as we have it now, with the context of the character's class of being in the description table if necessary; a human character wouldn't have this context, but an AI character would, for example, since their class of being is relevant to their gender identity. For example, there would not be an entry for "angels and demons, from Good Omens", but there would be entries for Crowley and Aziraphale, with the additional information/description section including the fact that angels and demons collectively lack gender (as it exists in the current article).
 * Maybe a criterion of "individual characters" rather than "classes of being" could be implemented to make the criteria clearer? Perhaps something like "do not include entire classes of being that are genderless, but individual characters from a genderless class of being may be included"? Aykhot (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that could work to have entries for Crowley and Aziraphale but not for "angels and demons, from Good Omens". So, something like "do not include entire classes of being that are genderless, but individual characters from a genderless class of being may be included" could work. I think the emphasis should be on individual characters. Historyday01 (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we need to get back to basics, in terms of relying on reliable sources. Entries should only be added if reliable secondary sources (i.e. not the work itself) describe them as non-binary - meaning, they have a gender identity that falls under that umbrella and per sources should not simply be understood as just being 'cisgender' for their species. So, someone would not be included for the simple fact of being a member of a genderless species - and some of the previous entries were justified simply on the basis of being referred to with it/its pronouns - but someone of that sort would be included if a reliable source on LGBT representation in fiction included them as examples of non-binary characters. Crossroads -talk- 20:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the problem there is that even if an individual would be considered "cisgender" for their genderless or otherwise nonbinary species, they may also be considered nonbinary by their creator, leading to some ambiguity. Take for example the character of Vaarsuvius from The Order of the Stick; Rich Burlew has explicitly stated that Vaarsuvius is genderqueer, thus falling under the nonbinary umbrella. However, he also notes that Vaarsuvius would not consider themselves such, as elves in the OOTS universe have a different concept of gender than humans. By elvish standards, Vaarsuvius would likely not be considered to fall under the nonbinary umbrella, instead being closer to an elvish concept of "cisgender", but by human standards, they would be considered nonbinary and are usually considered such both in-universe by other characters and out-of-universe by readers. There are basically two possible ways to address this: either removing Vaarsuvius from the list, despite their creator explicitly confirming them as falling under the nonbinary umbrella, or keep them on the list, despite the standards of their species not considering them as such. I personally advocate for the latter given that (a, both readers of Wikipedia and the creators of works of fiction are presumably all human and thus consider the gender of nonhuman characters based on human rather than nonhuman concepts of gender, and (b, excluding characters of nonbinary species due to their own species not seeing them as an equivalent to nonbinary has far too much potential to create reader confusion, especially when creators explicitly confirm a character of a nonbinary species who would be considered "cisgender" by their own species' standards as falling under the nonbinary umbrella (Crowley, Aziraphale, Vaarsuvius, etc). Aykhot (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Aykhot here, although I also agree with the point by Crossroads that we should be using reliable secondary sources or primary sources (i.e. creators / crew) for the entries on the page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would consider this as an analogue to the case I mentioned where a character from a genderless species is included as an example of non-binary-gender representation by a source, just with a primary source instead of secondary. So that would count as a non-binary character. What I'm thinking of is where there is a character that is a member of a genderless species or class of being, and no secondary source describes them as non-binary, trans, or LGBT, and the creator(s) either never refer to the character as such or in passing just say that the species is genderless or has no gender, or whatever, and draws no further connection to trans/non-binary/LGBT classification, effectively making them cisgender. My point is that examples like that should not be included. Crossroads -talk- 23:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the main issue there is that characters from separate genderless species, or even two characters from the same genderless species, could potentially be excluded based on whether or not they were explicitly stated to be nonbinary. If a character is regarded as nonbinary by their creator due to their species either lacking gender as the creator conceived of it or lacking gender entirely, it sets a precedent that characters of genderless species fall under the nonbinary umbrella, as their gender identity stems from that characteristic of their species. Gaiman’s angels/demons and the Vessels, for example, have both been described as genderless, and the genders of named angels/demons and Vessels (Aziraphale, Crowley, the Knight, and the Hollow Knight) thus stem from their species’ genderlessness, so the only real difference between their genders as described is that Neil Gaiman specifically used the word “nonbinary” outside the text, while Team Cherry did not. If we take two characters whose descriptions in their respective works give them more or less equal claim to belonging under the nonbinary umbrella, even using the same language to describe them (especially the term “genderless”), and then include only one because they were explicitly described as nonbinary outside of the work they appear in, that seems to set a precedent that the primary determiner is whether or not the character has been explicitly described as nonbinary, with their actual gender characteristics only factoring in as secondary determiners. Based on that, many of the characters who we would recognize as nonbinary, even human ones or members of species with quote-unquote “typically human” concepts of gender, would be disqualified if they were never referred to as nonbinary either in or out of text.
 * This has two main problems: firstly, it creates a situation in which casual or normalized inclusion of nonbinary characters (like with a number of minor human characters in Welcome to Night Vale and The Murderbot Diaries) without explicitly stating “they’re nonbinary” disqualifies the character due to their in-universe surroundings being accepting of nonbinary people and thus not considering their nonbinary gender something unusual, which in turn promotes a default worldview where a character’s nonbinary gender is abnormal, character-defining, and something to make a big deal about (which is ultimately not great and kind of dehumanizes real nonbinary people).
 * Secondly, it means that sources must use a very specific set of words in their descriptions to “qualify” the character, and narrowing the “acceptable” descriptions that “qualify” someone as nonbinary to a limited vocabulary just leaves the definition open to gatekeeping and exclusion (“this character has all the characteristics of a nonbinary person and has even described their gender in vague yet definitely nonbinary terms, but because they didn’t use the word nonbinary/agender/bigender/genderfluid/genderqueer/etc, they don’t count”). This is especially an issue with characters in older works whose authors and contemporaries may not have been aware of or even possessed the vocabulary to describe a nonbinary person; it’s this exact sort of thing that has repercussions in real life as well as in fiction (the whole “James Barry never said he was transgender, therefore he wasn’t trans” crowd). While obviously there is a basic description or definition of what a nonbinary person is as opposed to a cisgender or transgender binary-gendered person, and we shouldn’t necessarily be describing every single person who described themselves or behaved in a vaguely gender non-conforming way as nonbinary or transgender (think Louisa May Alcott, who probably considered herself a woman and is usually considered to be a cisgender woman despite once describing herself as “more than half-persuaded that I am a man's soul put by some freak of nature into a woman's body”), vague or nonspecific descriptions of a gender identity that lies outside the male/female binary, including the phrases “genderless” or “without gender”, should still be understood as describing a nonbinary gender identity, even if they don’t specifically use the exact terms we would use to describe them in our society and time. Narrowing the qualifications to a list of highly specific and in many cases fairly recent labels is essentially a form of gatekeeping based on whether a character is “nonbinary enough”, which again has real-world consequences and promotes the idea that someone has to label themselves a certain way and be performative or specific about their gender in order to be considered nonbinary (which in turn implies again that being nonbinary is something abnormal and character-defining, when it’s really just another characteristic of a person who has other traits beyond their gender).
 * Basically, I think that excluding or including characters based on the amount of specificity with which their gender identity is described is exclusionary and promotes a default worldview of nonbinary people as abnormal and/or needing to prove that they’re “really” nonbinary in order to be acknowledged as such, so characters described in vague yet definitely nonbinary terms, including the terms “genderless” or “without gender”, should be considered to fall under the broad nonbinary umbrella even if the specific term “nonbinary” or any other microlabels are never used to describe them. Otherwise, nonbinary gender becomes something that needs to be proven via conforming to whatever labels or stereotypes or whatever that others may have of nonbinary people, which just turns a group of gender identities inherently rooted in defying the binary into another part of that binary. Aykhot (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding that seems to set a precedent that the primary determiner is whether or not the character has been explicitly described as nonbinary - well, to some extent that is the point. Wikipedia is based on reliable, WP:Secondary sources. Unlike some other wikis in which editors are allowed to add entries based on the source material directly, we here have to avoid WP:Original research. And those other sites still exist with longer lists; this is just about what we do on this site. And it can't be based on reader interpretation of fictional works.
 * Regarding concerns about gatekeeping or singling out something as 'abnormal', that's obviously not the intention, but the fact the list exists means that it is noteworthy here and that we need some basis for including a character. And it's just that Wikipedia standards set the bar at external sources from the work itself. That doesn't mean other sites are wrong or less useful to do what they do, but it is the approach we take across topic areas. Fictional works are nothing if not open to interpretation and if an entry is not here it just means the entry didn't meet Wikipedia standards (or nobody thought to add one yet), not that the character is definitively not non-binary. Crossroads -talk- 21:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point about wanting to avoid debates about what is human. I imagine that could get pretty tedious. What would you think about adding a criteria like: Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings, for example, robots. This would probably necessitate the removal of Neil Gaiman's various angels and demons, as all angels and demons are genderless according to Gaiman. Nosferattus (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nosferattus I'd be ok with that. As I said before, a better place for that content would be a page about non-binary characters in fiction, like the one I mentioned earlier. Historyday01 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)