Talk:Non-binary gender/Archive 2

Please move Genderqueer back to Gender fluid
The title says it in a nut shell. I'm a guy in my 50's and for most of my life the term "queer" has had pain and suffering attached to it. I know people try and say its a way for the LGBT community to take ownership of the word and thereby remove the sting from it. Not for me, and I would imagine not for a lot of other people. To me, queer and genderqueer are too much "in your face" kinds of words. I know my request will probably fall on deaf ears but I needed to speak my piece. -- Mike 2602:306:372B:C939:649F:3F32:AA43:7FB1 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Genderfluid is a nonbinary gender identity which is not synonymous with genderqueer. Genderqueer people encompass a variety of gender identities, including genderfluid. As to reactions to the term "queer", Wikipedia includes articles based on notability, even if the subject is controversial or offensive to a lot of people. Funcrunch (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we could find a less pejorative term. I came to this page because I was looking for information on Asexuality and Agender identity.  Perhaps "Non-binary gender identity" may be the appropriate term with "Genderqueer" being redirected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.44.190 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a previous discussion regarding merging Agender into this page. As for asexuality, I would see that as a separate category entirely, as sexual orientation is distinct from gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * +1 to what Funcrunch said above that genderqueer is a broad category that includes the subcategory genderfluid and hence it makes sense that the page is [[genderqueer]] and not [[genderfluid]]. As to offensiveness... considering that the younger genderqueer people I know self-identify with that label, and considering also the existence and use of phrases like queer studies, I imagine it must be a generational issue if older people find the term offensive. Of course, older people's offendedness is not less valid, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose moving the page to non-binary gender or non-binary genders. -sche (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if the page title were moved to non-binary gender (instead of redirecting to genderqueer as it does now), the term genderqueer still needs to be included in the article as that term is in widespread use. Funcrunch (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, genderqueer should definitely continue to be mentioned even if the article is retitled. Regarding this edit-summary comment, would "masculine and feminine" be better than "male and female"? My issue with "man and woman" was just that adjectives sound better in that slot than nouns. -sche (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, "masculine" and "feminine" are not so much gender identities as they are behaviors. Maybe word it as "a catch-all category for gender identities that extend beyond masculine and feminine gender norms"? Leaving it as "a catch-all category for gender identities that extend beyond masculine and feminine" does not fit as well to me since genderqueer identities are largely a mix of masculine and feminine traits. The only problem I had with "man and woman" is that they don't explicitly cover boys and girls. People usually consider "man and woman" to refer to adults. If WP:Slash didn't exist, I would suggest wording it as "a catch-all category for gender identities other than boy/man and girl/woman." Also, like I stated in a similar recent discussion (now a resolved matter), I would want "masculine" and "feminine" linked if it were not for WP:SEAOFBLUE. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Then again, we could word it as "a catch-all category for gender identities other than boy and man and girl and woman" if all the "and" uses don't seem too distracting. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why would it be necessary to distinguish "boy" and "girl" from "man" and "woman" in this article (particularly in the lead)? -sche (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. "Boy," "girl," "man" and "woman" are the standard gender identities. Those who do not identify as these gender identities are technically genderqueer, even if they do not identify with the term genderqueer. I stated, "People usually consider 'man and woman' to refer to adults." Do you doubt that -- the adult aspect -- to be the case? Or is it that you doubt that many children are genderqueer? In the Man and Woman articles, respectively, we are clear that these two terms can refer to children, but we are also clear that these two terms especially refer to adults. If using "man and woman" as though those are the only standard gender identities and that they automatically cover boys and girls does not bother you, which it seemingly does not, that's fine; I was simply noting that it bothers me because I do not find it very accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Re "Those who do not identify as these gender identities are technically genderqueer, even if they do not identify with the term genderqueer" - I believe it would be safer to say that such people are nonbinary even if they do not explicitly identify with that term. That is a less controversial term than genderqueer, without any of the historical baggage the word queer carries. As I stated above, many people do identify as genderqueer so the term still belongs in the encyclopedia, but perhaps genderqueer should redirect to non-binary gender rather than the other way around. Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Re "the standard gender identities": To the best of my knowledge, "man" and "woman" are the binary gender identities, and "boy" and "girl" are age-specific forms of them. (I've studied the gender systems of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and while references may speak of societies with cis male, cis female, trans male and trans female statuses as having four genders — and societies with male, female and two androgynous or otherwise genderqueer statuses are also spoken of in this way — I can't think of any which speak of a society of boys, girls, men and women as having four genders.) Since age is not major topic of this article, I think it would be confusing to distinguish the age-specific forms in the lead. However, the body of the [[transgender]] article has snippets about how children may show and/or realize their transgenderness at an early age, so perhaps it'd be appropriate to incorporate something similar into the body of this article.
 * In any case, all of this seems like another reason to continue to use adjectives, which don't raise age issues. :-p To address the good point that many genderqueer identities are a mix of masculine and feminine, perhaps we could use wording like Wiktionary's: "not exclusively male or female" or "not exclusively masculine or feminine". -sche (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Re moving the page: looking at the relative commonness of genderqueer vs non-binary gender in Google Books' Ngram viewer, it seems [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%5Bnon-binary+gender%5D%2Cgenderqueer&year_start=1990&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cgenderqueer%3B%2Cc0 genderqueer is so much more common than non-binary gender] that the latter doesn't show up in the ngram, and COCA's paltry data (just one datum) is consistent with this: 1 hit for "genderqueer" and no relevant hits for "non-binary". (BNC has no relevant data.) Google Scholar returns 254 works for "non-binary gender", but many of them seemingly don't actually use the term; for "genderqueer" it returns over a thousand works. That would suggest to me that genderqueer should actually stay the title. On the other hand, "non-binary" is more simply descriptive, and is probably also clearer for an uninitiated audience, who might assume "genderqueer" included sexuality (because of how "queer" has historically been used). (Raw Google web hit counts are not reliable.) Hmm... -sche (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Funcrunch, I'm not sure about moving this article's title because of possible offensiveness. That is not I how generally edit Wikipedia. It is also not how I think Wikipedia should generally be edited. I do take offensiveness into account with regard to my Wikipedia editing, but that is usually based on WP:Offensive material. We should keep that guideline, WP:Common name, WP:POV title and WP:Precise in mind with regard to moving this article's title.


 * -sche, I was not speaking of four genders when stating "man," boy," "girl" and "woman"; I was speaking of gender identities. All of those are gender identities. You mentioned age-related, but "man" and "woman" are just as much age-related as "boy" and "girl" are; I've been clear why I generally do not like using "man and woman" to refer to boys and girls. You disagree with that take. But either way, I have not been pressing for the "a catch-all category for gender identities other than boy/man and girl/woman" or the "a catch-all category for gender identities other than boy and man and girl and woman" wordings. I suggested the "a catch-all category for gender identities that extend beyond masculine and feminine gender norms" wording. What is your issue with that suggestion? I still think we should not go with the "other than male and female" wording, per what I stated in the edit summary you cited above. I would be fine with your "a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't proposing that the page title be moved because of possible offensiveness. As I responded to the OP on this section, notability is the criterion that matters. I was proposing that non-binary is probably a better "umbrella term" than genderqueer for people who do not identify with either of the prevailing binary genders. And as -sche pointed out, some new to the topic might easily confuse the "queer" in genderqueer with sexual orientation, which is the "baggage" I was referring to. Non-binary has no such history and less potential for confusion. Regardless, as -sche points out, genderqueer is probably in more general use currently, even if some non-binary people don't use or even hate that term. Funcrunch (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen genderqueer be used for people who are questioning their gender, or not quite fully at one end, like bi-curious for sexual orientations more than I've seen it used as a catch-all. Non-binary would make a better catch-all and I've seen it used that way more often. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, +1 from me to the proposed wording "a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine". Funcrunch (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK; I have changed the wording to "a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine". -sche (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-binary
I dislike the term genderqueer. Please change it to non-binary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.254.147 (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is a valid topic for continuing discussion (it was touched on in the section above). Many genderqueer people see being genderqueer as an identity unto itself, and not a catch-all/umbrella term. Non-binary is probably a better umbrella term to use, especially when it comes to making a list of notable people, many of whom do not explicitly use the word "genderqueer" to describe themselves even if they identify as something other than exclusively male or female. We should still have an article or subsection with the word genderqueer, however, as I commented in the section above, since it is a notable term. Funcrunch (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. 71.161.254.147 (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Since this page seems to treat genderqueer and non-binary as synonyms, and consensus from this page and List of people with non-binary gender identities seems to be that non-binary is the less offensive and more broadly applicable of the two, is there any reason we can't make this switch? Absternr (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think we've actually reached consensus on that yet, per the discussions earlier on this talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Upon closer reading it looks like the major sticking point is the relative commonness of the two terms. That is an important consideration, but it seems like a search engine comparison of "non-binary gender" vs. "genderqueer" isn't a particularly fair measure since the term "non-binary" can be used outside of the phrase "non-binary gender" in this context. Anyway, +1 to the idea of switching to non-binary for clarity and precision, but keeping an explanation of the term genderqueer somewhere on the page. Absternr (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-binary identity vs gender roles
Is that all non-binary is to everyone? Gender roles? At least with transsexuals there is physical dysphoria. Shouldn't we be fighting gender roles? So, if a woman isn't a stereotype, she's nonbinary? Wouldn't it be much easier if we just went by sex, and not gender, if that's the case? It's counterproductive. What's wrong with, "If you have a penis, you're male, and if you have a vagina, you're female, and if you have any dysphoria about this, you're trans", regardless of stereotypes? Trans is completely legitimate, but non-binary? Why can't people express themselves any way they choose, without all of this BS? By the way, I've always felt similar to non-binary, though it's difficult to explain. I HATE gender roles though. I see identity (the way I recognize myself and my body) as different from roles and preferences. I'm very egalitarian, and I know that there are butches and tomboys and women who just aren't stereotypes, though still cis. What is non-binary? Explain it in a way that is separate from social roles. My identity is Other and I use the "they" pronoun. It just feels right. But I don't want to be setting things back for men and women and equality. I don't want to escape from my biological sex, when I could be truly trying to make the world better by championing freedom. I don't want to distance myself if I could be representing my biological sex through my achievements. And yet there is a weird feeling about my identity. It's like I know I am Other-gendered, regardless of roles or the toys I played with growing up or whatever BS that shouldn't exist in the 21st century. Is there any proof to back this up, that someone could truly be Other, without conflating it with roles and other nonsense? 71.161.254.147 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum so I don't want to get deeply into this topic unless it specifically relates to editing the page. But I need to correct a misconception you have. Many non-binary people, including myself, do experience physical dysphoria with our primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. Just as with binary trans people, some of us pursue hormone treatment and/or surgery, and some do not. Funcrunch (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What about non-binary people who don't feel physical dysphoria? Is it about roles? I'd just like to know what it really is. 71.161.254.147 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's an article that may be helpful. Funcrunch (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

But is it about roles? Would non-binary (without physical dysphoria) exist if gender roles didn't exist? I'm not against non-binary folks, I just want to know more. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information and knowledge, so I'm not really making this into a forum by asking questions, am I? Is it neurological? Identity is different from roles, right? I just don't see myself as a gender, and I'm also Autistic. Are there any sources that are scientific that can explain the difference between social roles and identity? 71.161.254.147 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It just seems like dangerous territory, so it needs to be clarified. I mean, I just don't want every girl who likes stereotypically "masculine" things to think they're non-binary, for example. Girls can like, act like, and do whatever they like, and be whoever they are in personality and whatnot. Also, would non-binary people have equal distribution of birth sexes, if it weren't for social factors skewing the results? For instance, there seems to be a lot more females by birth who claim to be non-binary. Is that true? Are there really more females by birth than males by birth who are NB, as well as people of color? Does this have more to do with people wanting to escape roles and perceptions that are culturally restrictive, or do those social factors just get in the way of census results? 71.161.254.147 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTFORUM.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Cultural bias and the arbitrary scope of this article
User:Flyer22 didn't like the tag I added about cultural bias, but the response made to that removal illustrates a point about that cultural bias:in my view, a suggested lack of reliable sources from non-English speaking cultures is not a reflection of a lack of reliable sources, but rather a cultural bias apparent in this article that treats non-binary genders in English speaking countries as somehow unique, and unlike third genders in other cultures. On this basis, I think this article should be merged with Third gender. Trankuility (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I should add that this is an outcome of some thought about the almost entirely monocultural nature of the List_of_people_with_non-binary_gender_identities. Trankuility (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I reverted your tag (with a followup note here and here). As you saw, my point was that Template:Globalize states, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." And on that note, my point was that the topic of genderqueer is not widespread. That is, unless we consider the topic of third gender, which is an aspect of genderqueer and is widespread.


 * As for your proposal to merge the Genderqueer article with the Third gender article, I oppose since these two topics, while partially overlapping, are distinct. Flyer22 (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I stand by my position that this is a form of cultural bias, to say that only non-binary identities exist in my culture, and there is no evidence in other cultures. Additionally, numerous Globalize tags exist for different regions, for a reason; they are not the same. Trankuility (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Technically, though, you added Template:globalize/Eng (which is essentially the same as Template:Globalize). Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We cover the topic as the reliable sources cover them. Do you have sources that are not currently being used? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of sources, a mixture of notable English language sources and ones that would be notable but for language differences. For example, sad news regarding a Turkish non-binary sex worker activist of international renown has been widely circulated recently. Ordek is frequently quoted in international news about Turkey, and a Google search for Kemal Ördek, a proper name, turns up "about 387,000 results". The top results definitely relate to the same person. Trankuility (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In case anyone still thinks Ördek is not notable, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also commented on the case in a media release yesterday. The omission of Ördek from Wikipedia is also a matter of cultural bias towards English language sources. Trankuility (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection from repeated vandalism
Is it possible to get permanent semi-protection for this page? It has been a very frequent target for vandals. Funcrunch (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I got no response, I figured out myself how to request protection from the appropriate noticeboard. This page now has pending changes protection. Funcrunch (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonbinary vs. Genderqueer
There's a lot to say about this subject, so I'll try to keep it short: nonbinary and genderqueer are not the same thing.

Nonbinary is a gender that is outside the gender binary (not male or female) while genderqueer is exactly what it sounds like: a gender that is queer.

I'd also like to say that queer is a slur used against LGBTQIA+ people.

I propose that nonbinary be the official title of this wikipedia article.

Note: I am a nonbinary person. People who are not nonbinary should not be deciding what language to use to define us; so if you are not nonbinary please do not try and decide which terms are wrong and/or offensive and which are not. That is up to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.63.170 (talk • contribs)


 * I recommend you read the above section, "Changing the title on the basis that 'non-binary' is now the more common term". I believe the resulting consensus is basically to wait and see which term becomes more popular, but that it currently seems that "genderqueer" is still the more commonly used term. ~ Mable ( chat ) 17:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Section title: Out genderqueer people
Title makes it feel like it is to be a comprehensive list, and would the fact that we know they are genderqueer already show they are out, i propose changing the title to "notable genderqueer people" or "genderqueer celebritys" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.63.170 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't believe there is such a section in the article right now. There does exist a separate article, List of people with non-binary gender identities, which seems to meet all your standards ^_^ ~ Mable ( chat ) 17:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing the title on the basis that "non-binary" is now the more common term
Looking at the available data in several countries, it appears that the term "non-binary" is now more widespread than "genderqueer". Sources include The Guardian My life as a non-binary transgender teacher – and why I’m still closeted, [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/29/binary-gender-feminism-transgender-womens-award We’re all a bit non-binary inside. So why do we segregate by gender?] Greater transgender visibility hasn't helped nonbinary people – like me popularised by people like DarkMatter (spoken word), Jack Monroe and others. Bustle (magazine) have published 12 Questions About Non-Binary Gender Identity You've Been Afraid To Ask, And Real Answers.

The Scottish Transgender Alliance have reported almost 900 survey responses in a UK non-binary survey with related press coverage, such as [http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/real-life/can-wake-up-male-female-4952770 I can wake up as male or female. Or neither: Young Scot raises awareness of non-binary gender identity] in the Daily Record (Scotland). A UK Parliamentary inquiry looked at Law and transgender equality, including employment issues examined in September 2015, including non-binary gender identity. Trans Media Watch has produced an extensive guide to non-binary gender identities.

In Australia, an alliance of organizations has called for the redefinition of the Australian 'X' sex and gender classification to mean "non-binary", these include the National LGBTI Health Alliance, Organisation Intersex International Australia and Transgender Victoria.

Related Wikipedia articles include List of people with non-binary gender identities and Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons. The latter cites 10 Myths About Non-Binary People It’s Time to Unlearn] at Everyday Feminism.

These citations give more specific support to the term "non-binary" than many of the citations for the article on genderqueer as it currently exists. For example, at least 6 of the current 25 citations list lexicons or articles summarizing multiple different labels. Trankuility (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've supported using "non-binary" as an umbrella term in preference to "genderqueer" every time this topic has been raised, which it has been multiple times as can be seen on this talk page and archives. Would be good to get more voices weighing in because it seems like the same handful of people (myself included) are normally the only ones talking about this. Funcrunch (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * On Google Scholar, 109 articles use "genderqueer person" and 335 use "genderqueer people", while 8 use "non-binary person" and 44 use "non-binary people", so I don't think commonality is a reason for moving the page ("genderqueer" seems to still be more common by an order of magnitude). However, "non-binary" does have the advantage that its meaning is clear even at first glance. And a few (older) people have said they dislike the "queer" in "genderqueer". I'm not persuaded that the article needs to be moved, though. If it is moved, it should continue to mention both terms in bold in the lead. -sche (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A Google Scholar search for "non-binary gender" just gave me approximately 393 responses. (Edited for encapsulated query) Trankuility (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 2 for previous commentary. From what I see, the terms genderqueer and genderfluid are still more common than using the term non-binary for a fluid or deviating gender, both in common discourse and WP:Reliable sources. So I don't support a move to Non-binary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it may be appropriate to start a separate page then, utilizing the references cited above and more. Those kinds of actions by notable organizations and individuals are not being represented here. Trankuility (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If our coverage of the topic of non-binary gender / genderqueerness is incomplete, please expand this article which covers that topic. Splitting the synonyms onto two separate pages would be redundant forking, and doing so in response to the lack of support for a move to your preferred title could easily be seen as POV forking. -sche (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with that position, -sche. It seems to me that enlarging this page by renaming it 'non-binary' would enable the inclusion of that material, but the scope of the article as it is, with the current title, seems more appropriate as is, some basic information about terminology debates. A page on 'non-binary' would be able to explore some of the substantive issues about legal recognition. It might, perhaps, overlap more with Third gender than 'Genderqueer', but those arguments, too, have been rehearsed here before. Trankuility (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Trankuility, such a split would be a WP:Content fork violation; I'd be against it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The page title has been discussed for years; would someone please formally open a WP:RM so that we can settle it one way or another? No such user (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm against framing culturally specific gender-identifying people together with trans people who arise in a binary gender system, whether binary or not. Even the term 'third gender' has colonialist connotations.


 * Genderqueer is an early 1990s Western thing, nonbinary a 2005 Western thing, for DMAB people asserting a difference from cis men and trans women, and DFAB people asserting a difference from cis women and trans men, you can't say it encompasses genders from BEFORE the creation of a cis gay man/trans woman and cis lesbian/trans man distinction (equivalent to 19th century Western bisexuals/Uranians/inverts). There is a lot of political and identity friction between travestis and nonbinary trans people in Brazil, for example. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that "queer" is a slur and, as such, the umbrella term "Genderqueer" is controversial within the nonbinary community. Not all non-binary people are comfortable using a slur for self-indentification, and certainly not in this format, which misguides non-LGBT individuals to use an anti-LGBT slur to describe non-binary people. Generally, this is respected among people within the community, and while some still self-ID this way, non-binary is used as an umbrella term because no one is uncomfortable with it being applied to them, and at any rate, non-LGBT people should never, ever use the word because it is a slur. I understand that there are more sources that use "Genderqueer" because it has a longer history of use, but certainly that doesn't override the fact that this is an article about a community that is no longer comfortable with a slur being applied to all of them. It's an issue of respect. We use the title "Trans Woman" for that page, and the use of a space in that term also has a much shorter history than when it was written without a space. There is no difference.Eximago (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I do feel uncomfortable with "genderqueer", but MOS:IDENTITY is pretty clear on this one: "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources." There are other examples where the "proper" title isn't the "preferred" title by the subject group, such as with Jews, which a number of Jewish people find offensive to some degree, describing it as a "slur". ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , as you likely know, the term queer is embraced by many within the LGBT community these days, as is clear by the Queer article and the fact that various LGBT studies are called "queer studies." That stated, I understand your objection, and this article might be titled Non-binary or Genderfluid in the future (the near future or significantly later). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I would personally oppose to using genderfluid as a synonym (or a "more common name") of non-binary/genderqueer, but I have not actually read the literature. It seems odd that an article that covers agender (and to some extend third gender) would be titled "Genderfluid". I will mostly stay out of this discussion, though ^_^ ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While some people distinguish the term genderqueer from genderfluid, I noted above that the terms genderqueer and genderfluid are still more common than using the term non-binary for a fluid or deviating gender, both in common discourse and WP:Reliable sources. In the literature, genderfluid is usually commonly used as a synonym for genderqueer, not as merely a subset of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * They are usually defined the same way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * According to that logic, wouldn't the agender section have to be moved to another article if "Genderfluid" were to be used as the common name? I find it hard to imagine that agender is described as a subset of genderfluid. That being said, as long as the article title doesn't change to "Genderfluid", I don't see this being an issue. ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it'd need to be moved. Yes, genderfluid is listed as a subset of genderqueer often enough by the literature, but the terms are also often enough used as synonyms. You apparently define the term genderfluid differently than genderqueer. That is not a surprise. As is reported on by scholars in this 2014 Trans Activism in Canada source, page 128, "everyone has a different definition of what trans or genderqueer or gender fluid means." In what way do you distinguish the terms genderfluid and genderqueer? We don't create separate articles to cover each different definition, not usually anyway. Like WP:POV fork states, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." While the Bigender, Pangender and Trigender articles are not necessarily POV forks, I don't see why they should be separate articles (especially the latter two). I and others argued this before; see Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1. I found the opposition to merging the articles to be wholly weak, and I am likely to propose another merge in the near future. That stated, the Bigender article has been expanded since that aforementioned merge discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The expansion of the Bigender article is the only reason I stated "especially the latter two." The Trigender article is full of WP:Original research, so it falls under WP:TNT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel that the discussion is becoming off-topic, but for the record: I agree that it is odd that we have article on pangender and trigender while this article here still needs so much expansion and improvement. Pangender being only one paragraph, could easily be merged.

Back to the topic at hand, when I look at the word "genderfluid" and notice the "fluid" part, I immediately assume somekind of "fluidity" in gender, hence why it seems odd to me from an instinctive level to define agender as a subset of genderfluidity. It is definitely true that these definitions are all still very fluid (pun intended): many people still read various different things into these words. I suggest we put this argument to rest for a year or two and then see how the sources deal with this. I can only imagine that as more people start talking about non-binary topics, terminology will become clearer.

If we are worried about Wikipedia affecting this process, I suppose I could suggest this article to be renamed "gender identities outside of the gender binary". This may be somewhat overkill, though. I am somewhat worried that people will adopt the language used by Wikipedia, honestly, which is why I care about the title of this article. ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "Gender identities outside of the gender binary" is a little long. I'd prefer "Non-binary" or "Non-binary gender identity" to that; these two options would also be safer than "Genderfluid." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the organic changes that have taken place on List of people with non-binary gender identities are interesting to note in the context of this discussion. While imperfect, framing the page as about "non-binary gender identities" has enabled the inclusion of additional people who don't identify as genderqueer, and also the inclusion of people with third gender identities - all of whom appear to belong to Indigenous or non-Western cultures. To me, this highlights what are arbitrary distinctions between articles on different constructions of non-binary gender identities. I would welcome the renaming of this page as "Non-binary gender identities" or similar, as suggested above, and a review of the relationship between this page and the one on "third gender" Trankuility (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Merging agender and other non-binary articles
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-binary section
As seen here, here, here and here, keeps adding a Non-binary section to the article and androgyne.0catch.com as a source. As seen with those links, I reverted because the section is not needed and is poorly sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Other Genders: Androgyne, Genderqueer, Non-Binary Gender Variant source appears to fall under WP:Self-published. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Update Created a Definitions and identity section; no need for a section for each term or an individual section for any of those terms. Also deleted the aforementioned non-binary material, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * How do I participate in this discussion? -- 20:32, 21 January 2016 (EST)


 * , you participate the way you just did. You make your case in this section, and sign your post. But do keep in mind what I stated above. Androgyne.0catch.com is not a WP:Reliable source. And the other one appears to be a WP:Self-published violation. Also, there is no need for a separate section for "non-binary"; definitions can be covered in the Definitions and identity section, and "non-binary" is already covered by the "genderqueer" definition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So, we just click on "edit" and type stuff into here manually? At least I read about the four-tilda TimeStamp.  :)


 * I am androgyne and have always disliked the term genderqueer, but am quite cool with non-binary. It's just annoying to get no recognition for being one of the very first to use its original form, "non-binary gender variant" since, at the time of its coining, genderqueer had already become rather oppressive.


 * Another point: why has no one mentioned the term "undifferentiated," which pre-figures neutrois and agender? Undifferentiated was a term created by androgyny researcher and theorist Sandra Bem to describe persons who scored low on her scale of femininity and her scale of masculinity, while androgynous was her description for persons who scored high on her scale of femininity and her scale of masculinity. -- Molasar (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Molasar: I'm familiar with the Bem Sex-Role Inventory you are referring to. But I believe that is significantly different from what this page is talking about. The gender identities described on this page are self-assigned, independent of any stereotypically masculine, feminine, or neutral traits that a test such as Bem's might categorize. "Undifferentiated" is not a self-descriptor a non-binary-identified person would be likely to use (though anything is possible). Funcrunch (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Funcrunch: said "Undifferentiated" is not a self-descriptor a non-binary-identified person would be likely to use -- but only because media, queer studies, LGBT studies, Wikipedia, etc. have not provided exposure for the term. Had someone posited "green cantaloupe" as a synonym for nonbinary on Wikipedia and it stuck for a year, I'll bet some folks would start referring themselves as green cantaloupe.  I mean, is it any weirder than neutrois, which was coined by one person at a long-dead website? Molasar (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is that "undifferentiated" is a term created by a cisgender person to describe the personality of people matching an arbitrary set of characteristics that she came up with. Neutrois, in contrast, is a term created by a non-binary-identified person to describe themself, and other non-binary people adopted that signifier for themselves. It's not a matter of how "weird" or uncommon the term is; the issue is self-determination of gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Semi-interesting factoid: the full name of my gender as of April 13th 2016 (2 days ago – no matter how much I feel like I got to the bottom, I always discover new things about myself) is → cado(maveriqueflux/endoneutrois surgemigender • [nonpuerflux/endoproxvir • nonpuellaflux/endojuxera] molligemigender shuffler)-quasicance[boy • girl]-condicend[schrodi]pangender* impri/muto/aero/absor/ludo/imperi/amorgender/attrafluid argogender/genderblur fluidflux ← (* meaning condi([schrodi]pangender • [schrodi]antipangender), that is, I'm conditionally every gender possible to me, and also their polar opposites, genders known as antigenders that mostly just exist for the sake of not being the referenced gender), which is a really mouthful way to say "something close to neutrois and maverique but not quite, also really fluid on context, to the point of being a gender sponge for anyone with any non-closed gender identity / I'm neutral and universal – neutrois-antimaverique – yet also singular, autonomous and self-determined – maverique-antineutrois – because I want to opt-in all identities possible to me, since, at least in theory, I feel like I can equally relate to a degree to every other human gender-wise, but to the point that I've become my own separate, exquisite and misunderstood kind of person in the process".


 * If I lived before Tumblr / in an alternative reality with no equivalent community, I'd likely just identify as neutrois (and it did happen: I once didn't really have a name for maverique, so my cadogender was really just cadoneutrois), and the term undifferentiated would mean nothing to me as I feel really strongly about actually having a [really colorful and volatile] gender (plenty of neutrois people are comgender as opposed to identifying under a non-gender). Neutrois to me isn't about not being masculine and feminine, which is super binary in ideology as it assumes these identities as the sole possibilities (they aren't) and mutual opposites (they aren't), it is about being conflicted between pangender and antipangender – every other identity possible balances each other out so that your inner sense of gender is neutral towards every other kind of human identity. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This may not be the proper place to discuss this, as we already have enough issue defining "agender" through reliable sources, but I'd like to know where you heard some of the terms you describe. I've heard interesting gender-defining terminology in my life, but never have I seen an identity turned into a formula, and color me impressed. I'm fascinated, could you post a link? ~ Mable ( chat ) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Might be useful: http://mogai-lexicon.tumblr.com http://pastebin.com/VKuXFvqk http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Genderfluid#List_of_specific_kinds_of_genderfluid_identities_and_experiences http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Pangender http://pt-br.identidades.wikia.com/wiki/Neutrois (Brazilian source on my particular understanding of neutrois) https://esgibthope.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/qa-why-am-i-transgender/ (this explains why I use an identity with very dim chances of scientific validation within my lifetime). Please message me if you are confused about individual terms, prefixes and suffixes. I had many full, complex explanations in both English and Portuguese of how they play into my identity, but my Facebook account (where I wrote these) was just shut down through reports based on the real name policy. I have serious doubts if my profile will be returned, and I'm being defamated by some angry online mobs within my country's activist community while this happens. (It started with actual oppression vs "fake oppression" discourse drama, and me calling out sex worker exclusionary feminist views while I'm not welcomed by most DFAB folks and trans women to speak on the behalf of "their" movement/ideology.) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This all is fine – thank you for sharing these links. I don't believe this is the proper place to actually discuss any of this, but that's alright. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not a well-learned Wiki editor. I usually just copy and paste the markup tags relevant to the stuff I want to add in. -- Molasar (talk)  02:08, 22 January 2016‎


 * Molasar, I see. Thanks for taking the time to finally reply. Above on this talk page, there are discussions about preferring "non-binary" to "genderqueer." If you look on Google Books for sources that discuss "non-binary" by using the term non-binary, you can add something to the Definitions and identity section from those sources. That is, if they are WP:Reliable. Same goes for a media source. Read WP:Reliable for what I mean about what Wikipedia considers reliable. My main objection, other than sources, is that we shouldn't have all these different sections for the same topic. A Definitions section suffices for discussion of the topic under different terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Tags
This article is an ungodly mess as it stands, and while I could normally care less about Wikipedia's gender theory articles, it's creating BLP issues when uninformed editors rely on it to apply to individual articles. The lead section is simply not true - it's a bizarre series of half-truths from someone who's only partly understood the topic - a bit like what happens if you run an English sentence run through three languages in Google Translate. And that has led to problems with, for example, intersex people being tagged in genderqueer categories because it's so badly worded.

There are many gender identities that do not lie within the gender binary. Many of these people in the groups that have been merged into this article do not identify as genderqueer. It is absolutely not an overarching category in the way that it is described here - it should be one of the identities mentioned in the list. It really ought to either be at something like Non-binary gender identities because there is no guarantee that anyone in the "catch-all" list actually does identify as genderqueer, or refined to actually being about people who identify as genderqueer. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, The Drover&#39;s Wife, I reverted you. The reasons were clear: WP:Drive-by tagging and WP:Overtagging. Even now, I do not see that the tags you restored are justified. And if there is WP:Consensus to remove them, they will be removed. You stated the article is "creating BLP issues when uninformed editors rely on it to apply to individual articles". How so? You stated that "The lead section is simply not true". How so? We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight, not the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. You object to genderqueer being an "overreaching category," but it is indeed an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, as made clear by many reliable sources. It is also the WP:Common name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the article has all the issues that are tagged. I didn't just throw a bunch on for fun.


 * It is inaccurate, because it mashes together many groups of people who would not identify as genderqueer in a very odd way
 * It is confusing for related reasons, as it doesn't explain the topic well at all, and it can't identify how it relates to all the unrelated identities
 * It definitely does not represent a worldwide view of the subject, because there is zero evidence for people with non-binary indigenous genders that predate the concept by thousands of years identifying as "genderqueer"
 * It is unfocused: it refers a whole bunch of non-binary identities in an article about a very specific non-binary identity and has the others mashed about all over the place
 * It is outdated, because the usage the author is fixated on, to the extent that it was ever used in any significant way, is a solid decade old, as are all the sources being cited to support this weird definition The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You've provided no proof for any of those assertions. As indicated in the, you are arguing purely from emotion. As for a worldwide view, do see that Template:Globalize states, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." This article is about the term and concept "genderqueer"; it is not about "people with non-binary indigenous genders that predate the concept by thousands of years identifying as 'genderqueer'." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * For the situation of "globalize" specifically, I think it is important to note that this article primarily refers to a western topic: genderqueer or non-binary gender identities could be seen as the modern western form of third gender, which is an entirely different topic. I'm vastly simplifying, of course, and I haven't done much research. I just wanted to make clear that third genders or indigenous gender identities are indeed outside the scope of this article. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Third gender is not only about indigenous identities, the page also includes discussion of biology and recognition in Australia, Germany and New Zealand. Your arguments do, however, highlight that this article should not just be "about the term and concept "genderqueer"". The western material in Third gender may not currently belong there, but it might belong here if the article name properly reflects a diversity of non-binary gender identities. Trankuility (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Trankuility, like I stated to you in the section below, "Since genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary genders, I do not see how this article is limited with regard to the non-binary aspect, except for keeping out detail that is better left to the Transgender, Third gender and Gender variance articles. So as for globalizing, this is not the Third gender article, and I fear that it will become as bloated as that article if it is retitled 'Non-binary gender'."


 * The Drover's Wife, you were reverted twice on those tags. Once by me, and once by No such user. Per that and above, there is clearly no consensus for them. You should not be enforcing these tags. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are presently a party of one in the face of what is becoming a fair list of editors disagreeing with the current state of this article, several who have expressed that they have had concerns about the article for some time and been scared of engaging. The only "consensus" you have that that the article shouldn't be tagged is that, for some reason, you're really passionately invested in what is your personal unique interpretation of this topic. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Editors disagreeing with the title of this article is not the same as "editors disagreeing with the current state of this article"; you are the only one arguing for the current WP:Overtagging, and without any valid justification. I see no editors that have stated "they have had concerns about the article for some time and been scared of engaging." As for being "passionately invested in [...] personal unique interpretation of this topic," no, that's you; I've already made that clear. I'm not the one voting one way or the other. You are, and with nothing but personal opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have certainly had concerns about the article for some time, as I previously noted, but I haven't been "scared" of engaging, just weary of it. But the topic of this article is an issue that affects my actual daily life, so if I have legitimate objections to its content then I don't have the privilege of simply ignoring it. If that makes me run afoul of your interpretation of WP:ACTIVISM - despite other editors agreeing with me on the sources favoring different titling or wording - so be it. Funcrunch (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources do not favor different titling or wording. As for your activism, you remain more objective than some others; so I appreciate that. When it comes to LGBT issues, a lot of our LGBT editors engage in activism editing, which is understandable, given the extent that LGBT people are marginalized. But that makes it all the more golden when our LGBT editors can be objective and stick to Wikipedia's rules in spite of their personal feelings. -sche and Roscelese do that often enough. Roscelese's objectivity can be recently seen at Talk:Gay pride (WP:Permalink is here). And I'd be interested in knowing what -sche and Roscelese think of this recent overtagging, the quality of the article, and the move proposal below. Do I think this article is anywhere close to being a good article? No. Do I think the overtagging is warranted? Obviously no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Careful with the WP:GOOGLEHITS, Flyer. Some of them are calling "genderqueer" an umbrella term, while many others are saying "transgender" or "queer" are umbrella terms. Still others are just flat-out unusable (I'm going to say let's not cite The Ultimate Sissy Boy Training Guide).
 * I don't think there are BLP issues with having this article at "Genderqueer", although I personally think "Non-binary gender identities" is a better title. The issue isn't "do people identify with the umbrella term as well as with a subset of it" (I'm sure you could find older gays and lesbians who aren't jazzed about being "LGBT") but "is it really the best umbrella term", since no way do we need a bunch of separate articles. I've only taken a quick look at GBooks, admittedly, but it seems to me that "non-binary gender" is the more common term in academic literature and is beginning to attain popular prominence as well.
 * I think there's a reasonable case to be made that indigenous and historical third genders should stay in the Third gender article, while this article should focus on modern gender identity and contain a brief summary and link to third gender. (The Australia material in that article should likewise be cleaned up, if this scope is agreed-upon.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that it seems to me that this discussion should be taking place in the move discussion below, though simply linking from that discussion to this one may also be fine. Some people in the move discussion may not be paying attention to what happens in this section. ~ Mable ( chat ) 05:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Roscelese, thanks for weighing in. I am aware of WP:GOOGLEHITS. I take the time to analyze the sources. I'm not seeing any indication that "non-binary gender is the more common term in academic literature and is beginning to attain popular prominence as well." See my "05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)" reply to Trankuility below. You know I agree that we in no way need a bunch of separate articles. That's why I pushed for Agender being merged here. Pangender should also be merged here. I obviously agree that "indigenous and historical third genders should stay in the Third gender article." I also agree about the Australia content that Trankuility added to the Third gender article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Genderqueer. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120425081046/http://www.glbtq.com:80/social-sciences/genderqueer.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/genderqueer.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141024234412/http://encompassnetwork.org.uk/uploads/LGBTQ-Needs-Assesmentabsolutelyfinal.pdf to http://encompassnetwork.org.uk/uploads/LGBTQ-Needs-Assesmentabsolutelyfinal.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110408181824/http://www.nlgja.org:80/resources/stylebook_english.html to http://www.nlgja.org/resources/stylebook_english.html#T

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

What's in your palette?  Paine  04:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)