Talk:Third gender/Archive 1

POV bias and merging this article on a non-notable term
''Third gender was widely used until World War II in Europe. It never went completely out of use, but was kept alive in the subcultures of the people described by it. In recent years it has made a comeback. Occasionally other gender is used instead of third gender.''

Non-Western cultures often had or have accepted gender roles for third-gendered people, for example the American Indian berdache and two-spirit people, or the Indian hijras (a.k.a. arivanna).

Provide evidence that this is actually true.

Non-Western cultures often had or have accepted gender roles for third-gendered people, for example the American Indian berdache and two-spirit people, or the Indian hijras (a.k.a. arivanna).

What is with this anti-western-culture bias? MOST cultures, even eastern ones, only have two gender roles. That's a very POV statement which is totally inaccurate. The examples you cite are rare sub-cultures.

Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article.

-Nathan J. Yoder 22:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, 19.2k hits show the term is more than common enough to warrant it's own article. Second, try following the links for proof of non-western third gender. Thirdly, how about some proof yourself, instead of rabidly going after everything you don't understand and/or like? Try editing the article in your usual style and I'll have to do another RfC again, although by now I am getting somewhat tired to have to do them every time you pop up on an articles talk page or start editing one. -- AlexR 12:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it's not, especially when 99% of those hits are from LGBT websites. It's not any kind of widely recognized term.  And I did follow the links, I did NOT see any proof that it's the opposite situation non-western socities.  Not just that, but Native Americans are western, not eastern.    The burden of proof is on the people who created and support the article to back up their claims, not on the person critcizing a dubious propostion, especially one that makes a generalization about an entire hemisphere of the planet.  Go read Cite sources, it is NOT acceptable on wikipedia to just make claims and not be able to back them up.  You can go ahead and cry wolf again, but from what it seems even your own allies are abandoning you now.


 * Really, you know the assertion about non-western socities is flatly wrong, but it's sad that you refuse to admit it even when it's obvious to everyone. China? Two genders, 1.3 billion people.  Europe? Two genders, 728 million people.  Russia? 2 genders, 143 million people.  Africa? Two genders, 797 million people.  India?  Two genders, 1.1 billion people.  Take note that the vast majority in India still adhere to traditional gender constructs and even oppress women to do this day, that one little sub-culture of India is the exception, not the case.  Do you get the point yet?-Nathan J. Yoder 04:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think most people would agree that 19.2k hits on google, regardless of whether "99%" are from LGBT sites, is notable. If it turned up only a hundred or so you might have an argument here. If you are really sure this is non-notable you can always try to put this page up for a VfD but I wouldn't hold out much hope for it.


 * Also, your example that "one little sub-culture" is not significant enough for Wikipedia is wrong - I would argue that a sub-culture is at least a significant minority and thus notable according to Wikipedia policy (see NPOV for significant minority policy). This also ignores the various "third gender" sub-cultures in other countries.


 * I also note you are using an argument from popularity here, something you have criticised others for Axon 17:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't put it up on VfD, because it should be MERGED (with redirect), not deleted. Where those hits come from his very important, because it's very easy for a relatively self-contained group to get an artificially high hit count when a term really is rare when you consider how many people know it (let alone use it) in the general population.


 * All it takes is one popular feminist writer to create a new term and within a few months you'll get thousands, if not tens of thousands of hits, even though 99% of the population has never even heard of it. This is even worse if it's spread throughout the "blogosphere", where memes can spread rapidly in a matter of weeks.


 * From looking at NPOV, they make it clear that you must specify that a tiny minority view is exactly that--a tiny minority view. This article, however, was making it seem like it was somewhat common in Eastern socities, when really it's extroadinarily rare.  Thus, you are violating NPOV policy by putting this statement in: Non-Western cultures often had or have accepted gender role.  Not only is it factually wrong (it is NOT 'often accepted' and Native Americans are not "eastern"), it's also forgetting to point out that it's a very small minority view.


 * And no, this is not an argument from popularity, you misunderstand what that means. Argument from popularity refers to saying that your stance is the correct stance because it is a popular stance.  Considering that we're the only ones on this article right now, it'd be hard for me to say that my stance on deciding to merge this article is a popular one.  What I am suggesting is that a) this is a rare view (statistical fact), b) this is not something that is unique to non-western socities (statistical fact) and c) that this term is rarely used/known to the general population (statistical fact).


 * Whether or not it's notable is something that does involve how many people/know use it, thus it's not a logical fallacy. It would only become one, in the case of argument from popularity, if I were suggesting that the term third gender was a "bad term" based on its minority usage.  Please try to understand logical fallacies better before citing them


 * By the way, I find it very interesting that you cited my "not notable in the slightest" statement as a personal attack. -Nathan J. Yoder 10:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * A merge or redirect can also be achieved through a VfD if that is what ou would like.


 * You minsterpret NPOV policy: a significant minority view is considered to be perfectly valid coverage for an article. Gievn the large ammounts of hits on this term, I would argue usage of the term "third gender" does contitute a significant minority.


 * Your argument that the high number of hits on Google are somehow manufactured of inaccurate are a) against wikipedia policy (see Google test) and b) incorrect given that it obviously constitutes a significant minority view at least. If you can provide evidence from a reputable publication that usage is actually much lower than indicated by the google search that would be acceptable. Otherwise, you cannot claim that this is a "statistical facts" - facts are backed up with evidence.


 * Actually, I think you are misunderstanding what I say above and the meaning of "argument from popularity": you are arguing that, since most people have not heard of the term (i.e. the popularity of the idea of the lack of popularity of the term) it is a non-significant minority term. It is also a baseless argument, given the google test results. It was also a reference to your continued attempts to back up your own POV based on the your claims of popularity.


 * Finally, I am not aware of where on this page I have made an accusation of personal attacks against you. Axon 09:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you are continuing to manage to completely and deliberately misinterpret what I say. I never said it wasn't a significant minority, stop and actually read what I say more carefully next time.  I said there should be a merge or redirect that would mean, by impliciation, that I am not for removing it.  And NPOV explicitly states that small minority views be presented as small minority views, so there is no way I can misinterpret that.


 * 1. Those aren't a high number of hits. I get 1,160 hits for search my own personal username, all in reference to myself.  Now just imagine how many hits I could get if I invented a term that has even the slightest bit of popularity with in a certain niche.


 * Remove all references to books, and you get 7.1k hits, almost one THIRD of the original search results ("hey read this book d00dz" and book websites).   Remove transgender and gay and you have 4.3k.  Remove references to hindu, native american and indians, you only have 973 left.  So if you take out the third gender sub-cultures which practically no one has heard of (don't even DARE to assert that more than a few people know about the Hijras), _attempt_ take out the LGBT sites and take out self-promoting book websites and people giving book recommendations for books most haven't heard of (the biggest one had a total of 2 reviews in Amazon, shock!), it's practically nil.


 * Try it: "third gender" -book -books -transgender -hindu -gay -"native american" -indian


 * 2. Nothing I've said is against Wikipedia policy, there is absolutely NOTHING on the Google test page that indicates that. The Google test page isn't even Wikipedia policy and the page itself explicitly states that interpreting Google test results is subjective.  Please stop lying and accusing me of violations of Wikipedia policy when I've done nothing of the sort.


 * 3. The burden of proof is on you that this is even remotely common, not me.  Why would a publication exist to prove that a term's usage is and always has been very rare?  That doesn't even make sense.  Only the opposite would be true, a publication would exist to show it IS common.  If you had bothered to look at the links google provides, it's almost exclusively academic websites in LGBT type studies, LGBT publications and random LGBT type websites.  How is that NOT a good indicator that it's rare?  Be HONEST now, if you were to survey the general population, how many do you think will have even heard of the term third gender, let alone know anything about it?  Even you admit that third genders within socities are rare, so why would the term be known, especially when most of society in the _world_ does not recognize a third gender?  And it's not recognized in English speaking socities at all, so how could this term be known?  Are we to assume that the general population suddenly has decided to take up gender studies?


 * since most people have not heard of the term (i.e. the popularity of the idea of the lack of popularity of the term) it is a non-significant minority term. First of all, I never used the word "significant" or "non-significant", don't put words in my mouth.  Minority status is determined by how many people use it.  How else would expect to determine what makes it a minority term?  Popularity of a term is determined by its popularity, that is VERY obvious.


 * You STILL don't understand what argument from popularity means. Please actually read what it says.  Seriously, you're deliberately being obtuse here and it's very counter-productive.  That's like saying if I present statistics on how popular blue jeans are, that I'm using an argument from popularity to determine their popularity.  Argument from popularity only works when you're saying your argument is right because many people agree with your argument, I'm not doing anything like that.  In fact, I've never made a single reference to how many people agree with my argument.


 * It is also a baseless argument, given the google test results. It was also a reference to your continued attempts to back up your own POV based on the your claims of popularity. I've already given an extremely valid basis for my argument, which is not at all POV.  By all means, show me the plethora of non-LGBT websites mentioning this term.  You have yet to establish YOUR belief that this term exists outside of a small niche.


 * I have presented a good argument here, all you've done is say "BUT OMG GOOGLE HITS1!!111!1!" and then proceeded to ignore what actually shows up in those hits and assert that some non-existant policy exists. I'm sorry, but the Google test includes actual _interpretation_ of the results, not just looking at the raw hit count.  PLease show some analysis that goes beyond just looking at a raw hit count and you _might_ have some credibility.  Thus far, you've done nothing of the sort.


 * Oh and you used my statement in reference to personal attacks on the RfA, nice try. -Nathan J. Yoder 15:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the burden of proof lies with you to dispute the results of the google test (which, perhaps not explictly wikipedia policy, is nevertheless considered a good rule of thumb for merging or deleting pages) and demonstrate that, according to your claims, the google test is actually non-representative and the term is a non-significant minority view so this page can be merged as per you request. As I have stated before, if you really believe the above put this page up for a VfD and vote for it to be merged.


 * I do understand what an argument from popularity is, thank you. By claiming that the simple majority (by which, I assume, you mean the "majority" heterosexual, non-academic population) have not heard of the term "third gender" it is not worthy of discussion and is irrelevant (hence the alternative name of the argument from popularity, "appeal to the majority"). Thus, we should restrict all writing on Wikipedia to the topics of Britney Spears, football and maybe pacman.


 * Regardless, I maintain that third gender is a term in common usage, at least in certain groups. What is more, it is an academic term and thus is worthy of discussion in an academic work like Wikipedia on it's own merits. For example, a majority of people have not heard of string theory for example (only a small minority in academic circles, and in physics circles at that have heard of it!) yet Wikipedia has an article on the subject.


 * Please keep all discussion of the RfA on the RfA pages in question until such time as the ArbCom have ruled. Axon 16:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the burden of proof lies with you to dispute the results of the google test (which, perhaps not explictly wikipedia policy, is nevertheless considered a good rule of thumb for merging or deleting pages)


 * I already did that, you're just ignoring everything I've already said. Why don't you actually attempt to refute what I've said instead of just lying and said I haven't presented evidence?  Furthermore, the burden of proof is on YOU, since you're trying to include the term.  It is standard Wikipedia practice that when something is contested, the person inserting the thing has the burden of proof.  This is getting quite insane, I think I will start an RfA on you, since either you have extremely bad memory, extremely bad reading comprehension or you are lying.


 * By claiming that the simple majority


 * I never referred to a simple majority, this is another lie. I said 99%.  There is no way you can misinterpret 99% to mean just a simple majority.  This is definitely grounds for an RfA since you're just making stuff up out of thin air that a I never said.


 * have not heard of the term "third gender" it is not worthy of discussion and is irrelevant (hence the alternative name of the argument from popularity, "appeal to the majority")


 * I never said it is not worthy of discussion, I specifically said to MERGE it, when implies that you will DISCUSS it. I'm not even sure how to classify this now, I've repeated multiple times that I want a merge (from the BEGINNING) and even bolded it before this, how can you keep repeating this nonsense?  Again, all the more reason to file an RfA against you, this is quite obviously a deliberate misinterpretation of everything I've said.  Just so you can't cop-out of this, I'll repeat the word merge many times: MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE MERGE, NOT DELETE.  Thus, I am now using an argument from popularity.


 * Regardless, I maintain that third gender is a term in common usage, at least in certain groups.


 * I notice how you tacked on that "in certain groups" at the end, and yet you refuse to concede that the general population doesn't know about this. You haven't presented ANY evidence at all that this exists in any significant amount outside those certain specific groups.  I already asked you to show that this is significant usage outside LGBT/(gender/feminist academic) circles, you have provided no such evidence.


 * What is more, it is an academic term and thus is worthy of discussion in an academic work like Wikipedia on it's own merits.


 * WHEN DID I EVER SAY IT SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED. PLEASE POINT TO WHERE I SAID THAT OR STOP WITH THIS ABSURD ATTACK.


 * -Nathan J. Yoder 17:18, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please tone down the hostility and personal attacks, Nathan. It does your argument no favors.


 * I am aware you wish to merge this page. If you read my comment above you will see that I do acknowledge that you wish to merge this page. This is why I recommend you put it up for VfD and vote "merge" or "redirect" if you do not think it can stand as an article by itself. Please read my comments more carefully.


 * Unfortunately, I maintain the burden of proof does lie with you to demonstrate that the google test is wrong and that this word is a non-significant minority view and thus not worth an article of it's own. None of what you have mentioned above is any evidence - it's just cries of personal incredulity and conjecture. It is also irrelavant that the "general populace" (whatever that might mean) has not heard of this term. After all, the general populace is probably largely ignorant of the concept of Bayesian filtering but an article exists for this page. This is what I mean when I refer to "simple majority" above.


 * Similarly, if, as you state above, you do think the term "third gender" is worthy of discussion then I do not really understand what your position is? It either warrants it's own page or it does not.


 * I also note that, by repeating a word several times this constitutes and argument of popularity. This is not true: repeated arguments are not popular because of their quantity. The argument on popularity requires a majority of opinion. Axon 14:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have used no personal attacks here. Do not confuse pointing out your disingenuous behavior with being a personal attack, if it were, then you could never call someone a liar even when it's obvious that they are.


 * I've already provided evidence of this case and you have simply disregarded it outright because it doesn't suit you. Instead of saying "oh no, it doesn't count!", why don't you actually address what I said instead of just rejecting it outright?  Your assertion that this raw hit count alone is meaningful in determining this terms usage is highly dubious conjecture.  So please don't be a hypocrite, if you're going to accuse me of using conjecture, then you better offer more than conjecture (very minimal conjecture at that) yourself.


 * Plus I've presented evidence and refuted your raw hit account assertion, you have a burden of proof which you've refused to fufill. It is standard practice on Wikipedia for the person to defend inclusion to have the burden of proof.  But hey, if you want to go against standard practices, feel free.  By all means, misunderstand the google test as well.


 * And yet again you're demonstrating how disingenuous you truly are. The google test involves interpreting the results of said test, not just relying  entirely on a raw hit count.  If you had actually read the google test page, you'd understand that.  So you yourself are not acting in accordance with a standard Wikipedia practice, the google test.  Please do not grossly misinterpret its usage.


 * You seem to be changing your argument here. You start by saying that it is in common usage, now you've backed off from that assertion and are now saying it is in fact only in minority usage, but deserves to have its own article for some unspecified reason.


 * And you are also changing your argument about how you used simple majority. I was never referring to a simple majority, which refers to 50% or more people.  Clearly, the lack of usage of this term falls beyond even a supermajority, so that's a silly thing to say.  The fact is, I never used an appeal to popularity even once and now you're changing your argument in light of that without acknowledging your error.


 * This is even furthered by your strawman argument that I was saying it wasn't worthy of discussion, which I obviously never said. I don't quite understand this, how can you say you understand that I want a merge while simultaneously saying that I'm asserting that it's not worthy of discussion?  With a merge, it would be discussed.  Therefore, to suggest that I was saying that it shouldn't be discussed is a horrible and totally illogical strawman.


 * Similarly, if, as you state above, you do think the term "third gender" is worthy of discussion then I do not really understand what your position is? It either warrants it's own page or it does not.


 * What kind of strange line of reasoning is this? A false dichotomy, of course.  Your absurd logic is: "If it is to be discussed it must have its own article. If it is not to be discussed, it must not have its own article."  What ever happened to it being merged and discussed on another page?  Or are you using some strange definition of 'discuss' that I'm not aware of?


 * I'm wondering why you think this warrants its own article. Third genders within cultures are rare, there really isn't enough to write about to warrant its own article.  Using your absurd reasoning, you can justify having an article for every conceivable gender and gender related topic.  After all, why not write as many articles as possible?  Or perhaps, you could condense it into a single article where a small, minority subject would be all together with other information


 * I also note that, by repeating a word several times this constitutes and argument of popularity. This is not true: repeated arguments are not popular because of their quantity. The argument on popularity requires a majority of opinion. 


 * I'm totally confused here, what part of what I said are you responding to? Your last response here is a bit incoherent.  What's this about repeated words?  The only word I've been repeating is "merge," but me repeating a word is not an appeal to popularity.  I could say "hello" 1000 times over, would you accuse me of an appeal to popularity then?  Then you said something about repeated arguments, what are you referring to?


 * An appeal to popularity requires that a person assert that their stance is right because (according to them), the majority agree with that stance. However, I never once said my stance was right because my stance is popular.  If you think otherwise, please point to anywhere in this article where I did that.  Keep in mind that the issue here is whether or not to merge.  So me using an appeal to popularity would mean that I said something like "we should merge this article because it is the popular view to merge this article."


 * I really don't understand what your last statement here is supposed to mean....  -Nathan J. Yoder 02:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see you took my advice and have calmed down, but I see you still make further personal attacks. I cant help feeling you make accusations of "lying" and "hypocrisy" because you can't be bothered to actually argue your point and treat my statements as they stand. You would rather attack me than actually discuss the issue at hand, so it would seem - a sure sign of bad faith if ever there was one.


 * I reiterate again that you have not supplied any actual evidence that third gender is a topic not worthy of it's own page. It is true, a google test should be interpreted but a result of 17k hits is pretty unequivocal evidence of notability by anyone's standards. Again, if you really think the google test is misleading and want to merge this page simply put it up for VfD, and put forward your "evidence" there. There is really nothing else to say on the matter.


 * Since you continue to be obstructive rather than constructive I shall be ignoring you from now on. Axon 09:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * A wise decision, Axon, a wise decision. Now he can spend some time getting together that reply on the Arbcom page, for which he claimed he had no time yet. ;-) --AlexR 11:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've already addressed your argument a million times now and you have refused to address mine. You have made your own conjectures and refused to back them up.  I provide evidence, you claim I've provided none and then you go on and proceed to make statements with no backing evidence yourself.  That is extremely disgingenuous and hypocritical.  I could present a PhD thesis with completely tons of irrefutable evidence and you'd still complain that I've provided no evidence at all.  I WILL put this on VfD now.  I love how you're ignoring me now because I've blown your argument out of the water.  I'm still curious, in what strange world does including something in an article mean that it's not being discussed? -Nathan J. Yoder 17:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Having actually read through VfD policy, I noticed that VfD is not intended for merger requests. Instead, I have properly placed the request in Duplicate articles and included a merge tag on the article page.  Incidentally, I hope you guys realize that the RfA is just going to die off, since there is no real evidence against me, you had to resort to lies on it and no one except a grand total of 3 people thinks action shuold be taken.  Nathan J. Yoder 17:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Have done yet another RfC, going to update Arbcom page later. -- AlexR 22:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, what will happen is that we'll look over the diffs cited in evidence and see what they say. Any "lies" or not will be evident therein - David Gerard 00:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article should be kept and expanded, not merged. I disagree that nearly 20 thousand google hits is not evidence of notability. Articles are kept on far less. The argument that hits which refer to books should be discounted seems strange. If anything, an appearance in a book is more noteworthy than a use only on the Internet. Print media, and especially books, are less likely to contain neologisms. Jonathunder 22:48, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)


 * What difference does it make if it's in book form? You can find virtually any subject or crazy theory, no matter how far-fetched or obscure, in a book.  There are a total of 3 books on it in Amazon, which have a total of 2, 2, and 1 review respectively.  And about 14 people actually read the reviews of one.  These aren't exactly common or popular books within ANY community.


 * Further evidence can be found just by searching all college websites. 'site:.edu "third gender"' gets 688 results in total.  Compare that to the 14.5 million total pages on gender on college websites.  That means "third gender" is only mentioned on 0.00475% of .edu gender websites.  Gender on the entire web gets 74.5 million hits.  If you're going by google raw hit counts, it only makes sense to do this comparison as well.


 * As I already stated, the topic of third genders are about 2-3 tiny sub-sub-cultures, what about that is deserving of an entire article? You can try inserting theory as filler, but that would go along the lines of 'original research.'Nathan J. Yoder 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Almost forgot to ask. On your user page it says that you sometimes use #wikipedia.  Did AlexR or someone else recruit you off IRC? -Nathan J. Yoder 14:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Crazy" theories, if sufficiently notable, can be the subject of a decent article. For example, I have contributed to an article on flat earth proponents. This theory has more support and is much less crazy than that. And no, I was not "recruited" by anyone. Jonathunder 21:31, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)


 * You searched for "gender", and then tell others they can't interpret data? You call any hits on "gender" to be "gender websites"? Where do you think ten million hits comes from? Ever thought about "The policy of this institution does not discriminate on accounts of race, nationality, gender, background..." that almost every single *.edu has?


 * Ooh, let's try this. "string theory" turns up 93,600 hits on edu, whilst "theory" turns up 30,600,000! String theory "is only mentioned on" 0.30588% "of .edu theory websites"! What an insignificant concept!


 * Ooh, let's try this other trick. Search only in English "gender -civil -rights -clothing -computer -game -games -policy -disease -date -enhance -company" to get rid of rights advocacy sites, dating sites, clothing advertisements, computer games, policy banners as mentioned above, gender-specific disease sites, and "sex enhancement" drug sites. Not to mention that in German, "gender" means "towards", pretty durn common. Look! 65 million hits, which is 87% of your 74.5 million hits, are suddenly gone, leaving you with 9 million!


 * I would very much refrain from using statistics to argue insignificance. I would reiterate Axon, in case you simply skimmed over his arguments, that "third gender" is a significant term as long as it is recognised strongly in minority circles.


 * In fact, if you would just pay a half-second's thought to the topic and think who would be concerned enough about "third gender" to make sites on it, you'd realise that looking for "third gender" minus LGBT is as ridiculus as looking for "string theory" minus physics minus physicist - no kidding you'd get no results.


 * -- Znode 21:54, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)


 * Please read what I say more carefully next time, I explicitly stated that if you're going to go on raw hit counts with no interpretation, then you must accept my analysis above, lest you be a hypocrite. So which is it, are we to exclusively use a raw hit count or aren't we?  You MUST choose one.


 * 1. Your analogy with regard to searches is fundamentally flawed. 10 million hits are not going to come from individual non-discrimination policy pages as there are not millions of universities in the world.  If you had actually looked at the results, you'd notice that they are almost exclusively from gender and feminist studies related pages.  Ok, so you might get some false positives, but even being extremely generous and discounting half of them, you are left with 7 million hits.


 * 2.a. Searching for just theory is not analagous. If you want to make a valid comparison, search for physics theories, not theories in general.  If we do a naive search for just 'physics theory' (no quotes), we get 5.1 million.  So that's 1.82%.


 * 2.b. If we correct your search even further, by doing string theory without quotes or by searching 'site:.edu superstring OR string theory' (it's often not referred to by the name "string theory"--it is sometimes grouped in with other theories), we get 600k hits. That brings us up to 12%.


 * 2.c. That is VERY significant, as if 96k hits in and of itself wasn't significant enough in itself, as compared to the ~700 from "third gender" on .edu sites. Also note that "string theory" (in quotes) without restrictions gets 755k hits in google.


 * 3. I'm not sure what this search has to do with anything, as we are talking about third gender specifically and not just gender.


 * 4.a. I would very much refrain from using statistics to argue insignificance. 


 * Why? The whole debate here is over its prevalence, which is exclusively a matter of statistics.  If you can't determine the notability of a term by how common it is used and not even do it just within the field/community that would be most likely to know it (e.g. gender theories, LGBT groups), then how exactly are you supposed to determine its notabililty?


 * 4.b. I would reiterate Axon, in case you simply skimmed over his arguments, that "third gender" is a significant term as long as it is recognised strongly in minority circles. Axon had arguments? I could have sworn he was just repeating "google test" over and over and engaging in a highly dubious strawman argument that would required complete absence of reading comprehension and logic.  If you had read _my_ arguments, you'd realize that I was contesting how strongly recognized it was, even in minority circles.


 * Axon presented no evidence beyond just a raw hit count that it was strongly recognized even within minority circles. You see, the problem is that he was pretending that I misunderstood his argument (read:playing dumb to avoid substantiating his assertions), when really I was just asking him to substantiate it instead of repeating himself over and over (including "BUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON EVERYONE EXCEPT ME!) as if it makes him right.


 * 5. ''In fact, if you would just pay a half-second's thought to the topic and think who would be concerned enough about "third gender" to make sites on it, you'd realise that looking for "third gender" minus LGBT is as ridiculus as looking for "string theory" minus physics minus physicist - no kidding you'd get no


 * As I've already explained, your comparisons with searches are false. Removing words like "gay" and "transgender" is more akin to removing the names of other, unrelated fields of physics, not removing physics as a whole.  Gay and transgender websites are at best, only tangentially related to "third gender", so it makes sense to exclude them if you are assesing its use in the general population.


 * Furthermore, third gender is part of gender theory, so the only analogy would be searching for third gender while removing all gender theory pages. If you're going to use analogies, please spend some more time thinking them out so that you don't waste my time.


 * If you want an idea of how prevalent "third gender" is on LGBT type websites, you can use combined terms like gay "third gender" and compare that to LGBT websites as a whole (e.g. searches for gay, transgender, etc... that exclude anti-gay websites). Even comparing the ~20k hit count for "third gender" would be sufficient.  If you notice, there are far, far more LGBT type websites that mention it than those that don't.  If we are to use google as our only means of testing, then we'd be forced to conclude that "third gender" is rarely used even in LGBT communities.


 * 6. (Response to Jonathunder) Your assertion is conditional on its notability. This is what I'm contesting from the beginning.  Those books listed on Amazon have 2 reviews at most, with only 14 people (at the highest) having voted on the reviews.  The fact is, you can find books and even documentaries on all kinds of very obscure cultural phenomenon.  There are people who will spend years studying the 50 person wee-wok tribe of some isolated region of the Amazon and will write a book about it.  Does it mean that they are a significan culture? No, it just means that someone was interested enough to write a book.  As has been mentioned before, the sub-cultures that have third genders are very small, not as small as some obscure tribe, but nonetheless very small.


 * Here's a break down of book search hits on google in general and on .edu website (book name - total hit count - .edu hit count):
 * Changing Ones : Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America - 774 - 48
 * Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History - 509 - 71
 * Sex and the Gender Revolution, Volume 1 : Heterosexuality and the Third Gender in Enlightenment London ("Sex and the Gender Revolution" "third gender" -- adjusted due to variation in how title is cited) - 366 - 78
 * Total - 1649 - 197


 * Not terribly popular of a subject, especially in terms of books read. -Nathan J. Yoder 01:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You can slice statistics all kinds of ways, but the fact remains articles are kept all the time here on far less evidence of notability. List this on VFD for a merge, if you like. I doubt it will pass. But if you feel so strongly about it, go ahead. Jonathunder 04:16, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)


 * VfD is not for merges, this was already discussed earlier. Just because other articles were included, doesn't mean they should have.  I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a more convincing argument than "but they did it toooo!"  -Nathan J. Yoder 05:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for comments
I'd like to make some input (if I can) here, but there's just two much text to wade through. I'd like to invite those for and against merging the article to clearly and briefly state their respective cases, if they could :-) Dan100 11:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * To summarise (briefly :), my position is that third gender is not a neologism and a notable subject in it's own right given that it passes the google test and returns 19k hits on a google search, (and 1k hits on a google groups search). It refers to the various minority cultures across the world that possess are third gender - unique sub-cultures that are of interest and constitute at least a significant minority - and seems to have some relevance in academic circles, such as gender or queer studies. With this in mind, the article should not be merged and should be marked as a stub for future elaboration. Axon 14:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've read the case put on this talk page for a merger and it does not convince me. Gender is not a long article and already links here. The 'Third Gender' is a separate concept that deserves a separate article. David | Talk 21:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Axon for his statement. I'd really like to hear from the other party too now :-) Dan100 07:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * My position is that it's an obscure, ill studied thing (even within "gender/feminist/LGBT-type studies" circles) that refers to very and rare cultures and obscure cultures thusly should not have its own article. I've already shown evidence with google using various searches to demonstrate that it is not well know except within a small group.  I've also demonstrated that the existing books on the subject are very unpopular, showing how obscure of a subject this is.  They are unpopular both within academic circles and in the general population.  The oldest book written on the matter is only from 1996, so it's something that has also been recently brought into any remotely significant level of study.


 * It does not make sense to make an entire article on a few rare sub-cultures, especially when what little information is available could be included in gender. I'm not sure why gender being small is evidence that this shouldn't be merged, if anything it's the opposite.  When an article is too large, it gets split up, but in this case it's the exact opposite.  -Nathan J. Yoder 16:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't you worry about the length of the gender article, as soon as constructive work there is possible again, it will be a lot longer again. Or did you really think your removal of content would remain? -- AlexR 17:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I've seen the proposals for the new version of it, they're not that long. Third gender is not going to add that much to it.  Considering how unrecognized the theory behind it is, anything that goes much beyond just basic facts would be in violation of no creation of original research and not giving undue recognition to small theories (they are supposed to be given out in accordance to acceptance).  The last thing we need is 50 billion tiny articles on every gender subject under the sun, when they'd be better placed on the gender page itself.


 * Considering that the gender article specifically deals with basic types of genders as historically recognized by cultures, as opposed to random theories and other analyses (aside from basic areas of contention and the biggest socio/biological theories), splitting up something that basic would not make sense. There are even some websites (and a book) proposing a fourth gender, should we make a "fourth gender" article too?   What if we find some obscure culture with a fifth gender?  Nathan J. Yoder 17:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathan, I agree that it's a little-used term. However I don't think that means it can't have it's own article - see wiki is not paper for one view. But there's also no reason why the material of third gender cannot also be used as part of gender. That might not seem logical from some points of view ("why have a seperate article for material already in another?"), but it's also not very harmful. I'd like to see a way out of this dispute which leaves both sides happy - maybe this is a solution that could do that? Dan100 18:08, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Duplicating the same content in two articles is tedious and the two versions will most likely remain out of synch for most the time. The wikipedia is not paper article, to me, is more about being able to make longer articles, rather than making many smaller articles.  Articles should really only be broken up when it's an organization issue that hinders a reader somehow, not because of article size.  It's better to combine similar topics when possible and it would be both redudant and teidious (as described above) to duplicate it in both. Nathan J. Yoder 00:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Since the content of the articles is not the same, the argument is irrelevant. Also, there is a distinct possibility that both articles will become longer, hence the argument about short articles is not relevant, either. -- AlexR 01:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make any sense, of course the content of the articles is not the same since they're different articles. If that was a valid argument for not merging, then NO articles would ever get merged since the content is always going to be different.  If that weren't the case, then it wouldn't be a merger, it'd just be a redirect.


 * As has already been stated, wikipedia is not paper, so the length of the articles doesn't matter in terms of saving space, it only matters from an organizational stand point. Also, an article getting longer doesn't mean it will get a lot longer.  I could add one character to it and that would mean it got longer, but it's meaningless to say.  Claiming that the third gender will get to a large size is rather dubious considering the rarity of the subect.  If you're going to try to refute my arguments, try to address them in a way that is coherent.  I REALLY can't even see where you were going with that "the content is not the same" even thinking over it multiple times, so my guess is that you're just desperately grasping at straws and non-existent straws at that.  Nathan J. Yoder 02:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathan, I understand the 'out of sync' issue. The bottom line is that (as far as I know) there's no Wikipedia policy on this matter. You could, however, list the article for deletion, with the suggestion that it be merged with gender. You'd likely get a lot of input on the VfD. (The outcome would either be keep these articles as they are or 'merge and redirect'.) The only other way out is to leave things as they are - or continue arguing, which isn't pleasant and doesn't really add anything to Wikipedia :-( Dan100 11:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as for the continuing argument, Njyoder has an arbcom case pending, so there is a chance that this will not go on indefinitely. -- AlexR 15:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As I've already stated multiple times now, the pages regarding VfD specifically state that if you want a page merged, you're not supposed to put it up on VfD. I put it on a page specifically for mergers and it was also put on an RfC.  I really woldn't keep harping on that RfA Alex, it's just going to die off and given that you had to resort to lies, distortions and red herrings on it (as shown  by your _own_ evidence), it's not really making your side look good. Nathan J. Yoder 02:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I think the term is well-enough established and widely-used to warrant a separate article, I think the subject matter would be better dealt with (i.e. better context, higher visibility) in the gender article. Tverbeek 17:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Tverbeek, I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. Does this mean you think it does warrant a seperate article and should be dealt with in the gender article, or just that it should be dealt with in the gender article? I would argue that it could be dealt with in some detail on the gender page and in further detail on this page... that is both options are possible and satisfy both parties, given that Wikipedia is not paper. Axon 07:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Third gender article should be merged into Gender.
I have read all your arguments. I have no questions and nothing to add to the discussion. I have decided that the Third gender article should be merged into Gender. Eyeon 20:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Eyeon and Tverbeek, If you could explain your reasoning and why you think the article should be merged, given that the term is substantially different from gender, that it is notable in it's own right (given the results of the google test) and that the general consensus is to keep this page (Wikipedia is not paper) that would help the discussion on this page immeasurably. Axon 07:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Axon. This article should be kept seperate. If you disagree, you really need to provide a coherent argument to back up your position. Dan100 18:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you don't harp on people who agree with you (Axon) to provide an explanation. Jonathunder only provided a very brief explanation which doesn't really address the points, David gave no explanation at all.  Wikipedia should not be dictated by 'compromise.'  And don't kid yourselves about general conensus, this article hasn't received much attention and the people who agree with me have just got here.  Nathan J. Yoder 20:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be dictated by "compromise". - well, it has to be, really. We're all only human. Things can only happen here through consensus - and that often means compromise by one or more parties, otherwise you're just stuck in an endless loop... Dan100 (Talk) 20:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, in a case like this it should be done by vote, but the options should be to merge or to stay as-is, not a more convuluted option of managing two seperate versions in two different articles. When I get back from my vacation, I'll see if I can find a better way to promote this article so it receives more attention and can receive a wider range of votes, as it seems to be very low-interest. Nathan J. Yoder 22:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a sidenote: I identify with the term "third gender" and was pleased to find that this term had its own article in wiki. There are others like myself who have a hard time finding information that describes how we identify (ie. third gender) and merging this article with gender would minimalize who we are and are difference from those that identify as male and female. Thanks!

I investigate the authority of "wise men" and astrology with science and technology, as well as genetics. I beleive that if this articel relates to castration then it is not a gender issue, due to physiological surgical post natal operation.

Keep this article seperate or expand it
if this is going to be merged with anything, it should be the eunuch article. the concept of a third gender is not, historically, limited to a small minority. there is clear evidence in ancient sources that this was widely recognized, though often the terms for it have been mistranslated by modern scholars who were unfamiliar with the ancient source. allow me to provide a few references I happen to have on hand related to the proposition that a plethora of terms often rendered 'eunuch' in english were refernces to third genders, not just castrated men. the greek 'eunochos' just means 'bed keeper', and there are seperate words for castrated men.

"If a woman marries a eunuch, I think that a distinction must be drawn whether he has been castrated or not, because in the case of a castrated man, there is no dowry; if the person has not been castrated, then there can be a marriage, and so there is a dowry, and a claim on it." - Ulpian, Digest, Book XXIII 3.39.1. Latin: "Si spadoni mulier nubserit, distinguendum arbitror, castratus fuerit necne, ut in castrato dicas dotem non esse: in eo qui castratus non est, quia est matrimonium, et dos et dotis actio est."

"to me it appears the better view that a eunuch is not diseased or defective, but healthy, just like a man with one testicle who is also able to procreate." - Ulpian, Digest, Book XXI 1.6.2. Latin: "Spadonem morbosum non esse neque vitiosum verius mihi videtur, sed sanem esse, sicuti illum, qui unum testiculum habet, qui etiam generare potest."

"Some men, from their birth, have a nature to turn away from women; and those who are naturally constituted in this way do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs from birth." - Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, III 1.1. Greek: "Phusikôn tines echousi pros gunaika apostrophôn ek genetês, hoitines, tê phusikê tautê sugkrasei chrômenoi, kalôs poiousi mê gamountes. Houtoi, phasin, eisin hoi ek genetês eunouchoi."

those are three I happened to have cited as sources in an essay I wrote recently - there are hundreds more references to third genders in ancient and modern sources throughout the world.

as far as the claim that 99% of these websites are GLBT...if they support their claims with citations from viable sources, if that were even true, why does that matter? if the GLBT community isn't going to research this, who else is going to wade through oceans of sources in dead languages for references to a community that largely no longer exists in the western world? if well researched, sourced materials on the subject are discounted just because they were produced by individuals with a reason to be interested in the subject, then you're never going to get anything on it. Do we discount articles on african culture because the anthropologists who wrote them were mostly black? people do not devote a large ammount of their time to subjects that they are not interested in. unless they're letting their natural interest in the subject lead them to manipulate their sources, there's absolutely no reason to discount them. there's plenty of ancient source material on this stuff - unless it can be proven that this is being mistreated, then it has been established that a good many ancient cultures have had a third gender. if the GLBT community was trying to construe these sources into saying the third gender was elevated or superior, (and I know this has been claimed, particularly in relation to the third gender's association with the spiritual) then we'd have reason to doubt them - but this article is claiming only that it was an acknowledged class, not making any value judgements about that class. the sources I've seen cited are often derogitory of the third gender in the same way that ancient male authors often are derogitory of women, but weither they're celebrated or despised, they were indesputably RECOGNIZED, and understood as a naturally existing class, with legitimate social roles - even if these roles were cheifly as body servants to the wealthy (or the gods) as the very terms eunochos (greek "bedkeeper"), Saris (hebrew/akkadian "eunuch/chamberlain"), Sht, Hm (egyptian "eunuch" "priest")all suggest.

Pliny the Elder references a third gender in his natural histories (11.48-50) "And for that reason they acquire the third gender, on the side of hermaphrodites and eunuchs."

honestly there are so many sources that make it clear that the ancient mediteranian world was totally familiar with the concept of a third gender (as was the east, and many indigenous americans as well, depending on the particular group) I don't know which to cite, and I don't wish to be redundant or to make this comment any longer than necessary. anyone who spends time looking this up can see that this is not a recently invented term, nor is it recognized only by a minority. the third gender itself has always been a minority, of course, but it has generally been recognized by the majority until relatively recently. if you wish, I'd be glad to cite more sources, my latin is bad but decent enough to provide my own translations if necessary, though I'm sure others have better command of the necessary languages. the author who's website I found these references cited on is fluent in english, german, latin, greek, and arabic - and passable with several other languages (hebrew, egyptian), and independant translation of the terms can be arranged I'm sure, if you don't trust a GLBT scholar to put ethics before personal interest. --Feralnostalgia 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Those discussions above appear to be long finished (check the dates), with the outcome being to keep the article seperate. The article was a stub for a long time, but I've since expanded it substantially. I just added the Pliny quote from your post above to the article. Wanting to check the context (to see if he was talking about humans), I found your reference is wrong. The correct citation for the quote you provided is 11.110 (complete text). Their translation also differs somewhat, and is headed "the testes - the three classes of eunuchs". I think I'll remove it from the article for now, as I'm a little unclear as to Pliny's understanding of a "third gender". Can you elucidate? ntennis 05:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Current Article is well written
I just wanted to say that the artilce as it now stands is well-written and should serve as a good starting point for anyone looking for information on the different cultural views of the third sex. The referencing is excellent as are the overviews of the various "types" of third genders that exist in certain cultures. Well done. Ntennis! Well done indeed. Lisapollison 23:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Aww shucks! Thanks for your nice comments :) ntennis 02:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ntennis, I've been following the big debate here about historic views on gender and the third sex and maybe I'm missing something but I just don't see how this article could be improved by further highlighting non-western views on the third gender. It already addresses these issues adequately.  If it makes any difference, my background is in Anthropology.  My degrees are in Anthropology, Archaeology and Linguistics. I feel you've done an admirable job here. Perhaps user masculinity could suggest some additional examples from non-western cultures to both of us here and then I could get to work on adding them with your help.  Perhaps that might adress his/her concernsLisapollison 18:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! You can see some examples from history that user:Masculinity added to the article in this diff — for now, I moved this new content to the subpage Third gender/Masculinity. Please have a look if there's anything from this that you think can be added to the article. ntennis 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New additions to article
For other editors' information, several new sections were recently added to the top of the article by User:Masculinity. Masculinity, I see that you have a strong interest in this area, and a lot of theories you would like to share. For now, I've moved your recent version to Third gender/Masculinity for discussion, only because it is so large and I don't want to choke up the talk page here.

I also see that you are new to wikipedia, so I encourage you to familiarise yourself with some of the policies and guidelines here. One of the most important is No original research (NOR). This is not a place for personal essays, making arguments, or introducing new information that has not been published in a reputable source such as an academic journal. All the claims made should reflect the scholarship on the subject, except for the lead section, which briefly summaries and introduces the article. In addition to NOR, please read the other two key content-guiding policies, Verifiability and Neutral point of view.

When approaching articles that are already well-established, it is considered good practice to seek consensus on the discussion page before making major edits — especially to the intro. Hope we are able to reach one! ntennis 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ntennis,


 * I get the point.


 * However, I find the current article problematic because it carries a very western interpretation of ancient and even contemporary gender identities in the non-western world. This western interpretation is coloured by the heterosexual-homosexual phenomenon which is non existent in the non-western and in the entire ancient world. The problem is that most of the published work on this subject is by gay scholars/ activists that have tried to distort ancient/ contemporary identities as they are practised in the non-western world.


 * But nevertheless, I will try and get the references from published and other sources on the net.


 * At least, you can add that there is another interpretation of the third gender than forwarded by the gay and lesbian activists who are aggressively trying to reinvent history in order to find validation for the western concept of sexual identity.


 * regards


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masculinity (talk • contribs)

I agree that some gay and lesbian historians have appropriated "third gender" types that are found in historical texts, misreading them as homosexual; they are probably motivated in part by a desire to validate their own identities. And they are not the only ones using history for ideological ends. I am actually very mindful of this, and in all honesty, I can't see anything in the history section of the article here that does that at all. Could you outline for me which particular sentences you find problematic? ntennis 08:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably not so much in the history section, but the very first definition of third gender colors the rest. It uses the terms "sexual orientation" and "(heterosexual) male and female", concepts which were unknown to the ancients and to contemporary non-western societies which have the 'third sex' category.


 * Besides, it is really important to understand third sex in order to understand human gender in its totality. Therefore, I will try to find out references to back up my texts, and edit the rest.


 * Masculinity


 * I fail to see how this article "carries a very western interpretation of ancient and even contemporary gender identities in the non-western world." The article clearly places western societies in context, and is dominated by non-western and historical uses of the term. It appears that you want to expunge some of the ways this term has been used. Please do take the time to read the policies and guidelines I linked at the start of this thread. They are honestly a useful guide to approaching a topic as an editor. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.


 * The terms sex, gender, gender role and gender identity are linked in the lead section. Each has its own article, and does not warrant an extended explanation here. ntennis 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ntennis,

the moment you bring sexuality into the definition of third sex, you present a western --- not only western but gay/ lesbian viewpoint of looking at non-western identities. Because, although some elements of sexual behaviour formed part of the third sex identities in the middle ages, the whole thing was way too different than the binaries of homosexual and heterosexual suggest.

E.g., towards the middle ages, the third sex came to be associated withwith receptive anal or oral intercourse. But the main criteria for doing so was that such participants used their anus or mouth as substitutes for vagina, in their assertion of their 'femininity'.

A man who liked to penetrate another man or indulge in mutual masturbation, on the other hand was not ever considered a part of the third sex. However, the concept of 'homosexual' includes both the categories --- of masculine and feminine. If one must use the word 'homosexual' to define third sex, one should say feminine or effeminate homosexual.

In India e.g., most men who indulge in sex with other men still do not consider themselves to be 'homosexual', and no they are not running away from reality as people from a western outlook may see it.

I am not criticising the west, nor gays and lesbians. But in over enthusiasm, they are creating false notions.

In fact you can understand the wide gap between the way our two cultures looks at things by the following fact:

The post Christianity west does not recognise gender as a natural phenomenon. It sees it only as a cultural one. So a male donning a female dress is doing so because he was raised 'differently'. The east and pre-Christian west believed this to be part of that male's inherent nature. In fact the term used for 'gender' in ancient India was 'prakriti' which means 'nature'.

Because of this difference, the west does not recognise identities based on gender. On the contrary it has sexual identities. Now my argument here is not about which one is right and which one is wrong. However, western scholars will have a great difficulty comprehending non-western identities because they lack the perspective which recognises 'gender' as a natural human quality.

I am not the only one who is saying this. Several scholars have objected to the use of the words homosexual for 'third sex'. And I can bring the quotes.

If this article must include the words heterosexual, homosexual, like you say, in order to accomodate a section of the gay point of view, then it must be qualified as such --- that it is a claim made by a section, and is also counterclaimed by another. That is you should say that there are two scholarly points of view on the matter. Of course if you can find evidences for this scholoarly controversy.

The problem is especially acute because the web is chock full of a section of gay/ lesbian activists who are trying to misguide on the definition of the 'third gender' and most of them are not scholars.

And there is yet another problem with this definition. While including a big section of the western 'homosexual' identity, which were not part of the 'third sex' anywhere in the world, it completely excludes the section of 'heterosexuals' who were part of the ancient 'third sex' as evidenced in native America, polynesia, etc. The moment you define third sex as someone not forming part of the heterosexual-homosexual divide.

masculinity

.....also, if the words 'homosexual', 'heterosexual' must be used to define or understand third sex, it should not be used in the very first definition, but as alternative definitions provided by one section of people, later in the article. Using it in the ver first definition gives undue credibility to this point of view, while there is no reference to a divergence of views. masculinity


 * It appears to me that you haven't actually read the article — or my posts here — but are instead battling an imaginary foe. The misrepresentation of historical and cross-cultural "third genders" as gay and/or lesbian does not appear in this article. You've clearly been annoyed by some other pages on the web. Please do not take out your frustration here.


 * Your posts appear to me, ironically, to be a classic example of binary thinking! There is not one "right" and one "wrong" definition at play. Various people, from Vedic times to the present, have used notions of a third gender in different ways. The purpose of this page is to document them, and weight these uses with respect to their notability. You write "the wide gap between the way our two cultures looks at things" — what two cultures? There are many cultures, and multiple views both between and among them. And again: "you should say that there are two scholarly points of view on the matter." No, there are many scholarly views on the matter. Your characterisation of the entire ancient world as monolithic, and the way you split an imaginary global history into pre- and post-christian views on gender is similarly problematic.


 * I would argue that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse these nameless 'gay and lesbian activists' of doing — inventing your own romantic past and projecting your own favored identities onto it. And your view (third gender = effeminate male) is far more restrictive than the examples in this article show. Please read it! You will see the many other ways the notion of a 'third' gender has been used. As a mid-way point between male and female; a state of being both; the state of being neither (neuter); the ability to cross or swap genders; another category altogether independent of male and female. It has been used to describe non-reproductive women, or even feminists. In fact, anyone who does not fit into a binary scheme of male or female normativity. And when maleness and femaleness are defined in terms of sexual roles — which they usually are, at least in part — then those who do not engage in certain normative sexual practises of men and women (i.e. heterosexual or 'opposite-sex' sexual acts) have been seen as belonging to third sexes. And not just in the modern western world.


 * In a further irony, this very acknowledgement of a diversity of views is what irks you! You want to expunge all but one definition — i.e. your own personal idiosyncratic definition — and apply it to all times and places. And yet you complain that the article contains no reference to a divergence of views! Please, try to clear your pre-conceptions and approach the article with fresh eyes. ntennis 08:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S I hope this came across more as vigorous argument than incivility. I think we are on the same page. ntennis 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I reworked the lead section; hope it is clearer and reads better now. It may address your concern? ntennis 03:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to answer some of the points that you raised, but couldn't get the time to do the required research. The lead looks O.K. (actually that was the only section that looked problematic), but for the words "sexual orientation". Is there evidence that the concept of "third sex" included "sexual orientation" in any of the ancient or contemporary societies where the third gender is found?

masculinity


 * Um... yes. It's in the article. ntennis 05:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from Gender Binary
I don't believe that the redirect from Gender Binary to Third Sex is appropriate. The Gender Binary should be a separate and distinct, (yet linked as related) article.

Article quoted in a Dutch Court case
Hi,

Here is a bit of trivia that might interest you. This article was quoted in a dutch Supreme Court case. A man wanted his gender information to be removed from his record, claiming he was of third gender. To find the quote search for (70). (his request was denied). Regards, Sander123 09:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mona ahmed book cover.jpg
Image:Mona ahmed book cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The word "sexual orientation" should be deleted from the description of third gender
I want to know, what is the source of this statement:

"The state of being neither male nor female may be understood in relation to the individual's biological sex, gender role, gender identity, or sexual orientation."

Because, the notion of 'sexual orientation' is mutually exclusive with the concept of 'third gender'. Sexual Orientation sees sex only as Man and woman, and does not recognise third gender. Thus a Hijra having sex with men is seen as an MSM. (Masculinity (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC))


 * A false objection as usual. The sentence is perfectly correct. The concept that a third sex as defined by orientation is used by early 20th century sexologists like Hirschfeld. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hirschfeld and the ilk are just initial Western scholars trying to interpret the non-western concept of third gender. They believed that at a time. Then it should be mentioned accordingly. Is it still believed so by Western scholars or do they know better today? Are there instances from the world where third gender is defined on the basis of the western concept of 'sexual orientation'. Just one example?


 * In any case, Please provide the citation.


 * (Masculinity (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC))


 * In this paper titled "Thai Buddhist accounts of male homosexuality and AIDS in the 1980s (THai Sexuality in the Age of AIDS: Essays in Memory of Robert Ariss) by Peter Anthony Jackson; The Australian Journal of Anthropology; Vol.6 No.3; Pp.140-153; Dec.1995) it clearly says that inspite of the fact that a man has sex with men, he is distinct from a third sex (here Pandaka) that has sex with men.


 * Thus sexual orientation in itself doesn't define third sex. It is the effeminate behaviour of the male combined with an interest in receptive anal and oral sex that does.


 * Also, note that a man who penetrates another man will not qualify as a third sex. Only someone who gets penetrated will be.

The Vinaya lists those sexual activities with men, women, pandaka and ubhatobyanjanaka that entail spiritual defeat and a monk's automatic expulsion from the order: 1. Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with a female human, non-human (i.e. an immaterial being or animal,            2. Anal, vaginal or oral intercourse with an ubhatobyanjanaka human,             non-human or animal,             3. Anal or oral intercourse(7) with a pandaka human, non-human or             animal; and             4. Anal or oral intercourse with a male human, non-human or animal.

Rejection of binary sex opposition does not equal third gender
In animals that exhibit sexual dimorphism, a number of individuals within a population will not differentiate sexually into bodies that are typically male or female. In non-human animals, this is called hermaphroditism, and in humans, it is called intersexuality. The incidence varies from population to population, and also varies depending on how femaleness and maleness are understood. Biologist and gender theorist Anne Fausto-Sterling proposed in a 1993 article that five sexes may be more adequate than just two, for describing human bodies.[6]"

The presence of two sexes and a continuum in between is not evidence of a third gender. A third gender would constitute a different social attitude towards individuals in this sexual continuum who weren't male or female. Unless it can be shown that society views intersex people with a different gender stereotype that is not just a mixture of masculine and feminine, this information is redundant. Snellios (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This para is confusing and wrong
"To different cultures or individuals, a third sex or gender may represent (1) an intermediate state between men and women, (2) a state of being both (such as "the spirit of a man in the body of a woman"), (3) the state of being neither (neuter), (4) the ability to cross or swap genders, or (4) another category altogether independent of male and female. This last definition is favored by those who argue for a strict interpretation of the "third gender" concept."

The four kinds of third gender enumerated above all refer to the same individuals -- people who represent a third gender apart from men and women. When the society views them positively they are considered both men and women. When it views them negatively, they are seen as neither men nor women. But, they don't refer to different individuals.

Also, whichever way you look at it, they are always considered as a distinct category independant of male and female so (4) is not an option, its the rule.

Please change this sentence accordingly. (Masculinity (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Jesus was not a eunuch
This statement in the article is wrong and need to be deleted or explained further:

The first Christian theologian, Tertullian, wrote that Jesus himself was a eunuch (c. 200 AD).[71]

It misleads and misinforms by ending the statement just at that.(59.180.154.27 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Ntennis, will you stop sabotaging the article?
So, you think the Western LGBT point of view on the non-Western, living concept of third gender is the only neutral POV on the topic. Well, you're not only very wrong, you have ignored the discussions that I've initiated on this forum, and gone ahead with your deletions everytime. In anycase, if you want to discuss the changes, you're more than welcome, but then please at least discuss them, instead of just going ahead and deleting to uphold the Western point of view.

Let's discuss the following changes first:

"The state of being neither male nor female may be understood in relation to the individual's biological sex, gender role, gender identity, or sexual orientation."

There is no history of 'sexual orientation' as is understood in modern West being a determinant in deciding the third gender status, anywhere in the world.

I believe, by 'sexual orientation' you mean "an attraction of men for men". In no parts of the world was this considered to be a part of third gender. What was considered to be a part of third gender was an active and constant interest in receptive anal/ oral sex, although the essence even in this case was the 'femininity' of the male.

Do you have any proof that 'sexual orientation' as defined in the West was ever a criteria for determining the 'third gender' status, then please show the evidence otherwise, please stop tampering with the changes.

Furthermore, why do you keep deleting the following paragraph? Is it your personal disliking or do you think the information is wrong? Please clarify, why you think the information is wrong, when I've given valid references.

"Although, original accounts of third gender (like from ancient tribes such as American tribes and Polynesian tribes) indicate that the category was only about gender, i.e. feminine gender in males and masculine gender in females, by the middle ages, the accounts from Indo-European societies suggest that Third Gender had now come to be closely associated with feminine males who had receptive anal and oral sex with men, and with that it had also become extremely stigmatised.  This latter definition of third gender in terms of feminine males who have receptive anal sex is a common feature of all Indo-European societies, be it Catamites of ancient Greece or Hijras and Kotis of India or Pandaka of ancient Buddhist societies or lady boys of modern Thailand or the Mollies of modern England or Zenanas of the Arab world. Many scholars feel that attempts to understand the traditional third gender identities through the Western models of gender and sexuality is problematic and distorts its original meaning. "'''

regards (Masculinity (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

If you or someone else doesn't respond to this call for discussion within a reasonable period of time, then I'll go ahead and restore the deleted texts. (Masculinity (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I have restored the deleted content since no one has come to discuss these changes even after 12 days. If anyone has problems with these changes, please discuss those specific problems before unilaterely deciding to delete them. regards (Masculinity (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Many of the references you gave did not support the claims made. For example, the quotes attached to the passage "Although, original accounts of third gender (like from ancient tribes such as American tribes and Polynesian tribes) indicate that the category was only about gender, i.e. feminine gender in males and masculine gender in females, by the middle ages, the accounts from Indo-European societies suggest that Third Gender had now come to be closely associated with feminine males who had receptive anal and oral sex with men, and with that it had also become extremely stigmatised."

did not support the passage, only that receptive anal sex was stigmatised. This pattern of misrepresenting sources to present a particular one-sided POV continues throughout the edit. The very next passage "This latter definition of third gender in terms of feminine males who have receptive anal sex is a common feature of all Indo-European societies, be it Catamites of ancient Greece or Hijras and Kotis of India or Pandaka of ancient Buddhist societies or lady boys of modern Thailand or the Mollies of modern England or Zenanas of the Arab world."

is totally unreferenced, and contradicts a passage sourced to Peter Jackson (that you conveniently deleted). Further insistence on equating the third-gender with individuals receptive to anal penetration were not at all supported by existing sources. siℓℓy rabbit (  talk  ) 13:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I still see this as western cultural hegemony, as the western viewpoints are strewn all over the place on lgbt articles, even where no references exist, while something that is common knowledge in the non-west has to be exactly worded as in the referenced sources. I'm not going to argue on this since, that is how Wikipedia works.
 * However, there is still no evidence that 'sexual orientation' constitutes 'third gender' in any other society but the modern west. And, there are plentiful of sources that specifically accuse western scholars of redefining third gender in terms of 'sexual orientation.'
 * Why have you deleted all those statements as well as the references? Why have you added the 'sexual orientation' part without any valid reference? Since, this has gone on repeatedly, I see this as aggressive lgbt propaganda.(Masculinity (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

Roughgarden section
Its unclear right now if the idea of the deer and other animals really are considered by the majority of scientists to have more than 1 type of male and/or female, or if this is a minority view of Roughgrarden. I'm assuming its a minority view since the Wikipedia articles about those animals don't even mention it, and that Roughgarden is "stretching" the concept of morphs and relabeling them genders. Anyways, its fine that its there, but the section may be too long and giving too much weight to a minority viewpoint. Either way, can the wording be updated to make this more clear? 76.184.107.198 (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are the three genders in Rendevouz with Rama?
After reading this entry, I rented Rendevouz with Rama from the library. I could not find any reference to three genders in it. Do the three genders occur in one of the sequels? If so, the article should be edited to say so. Stagefrog2 (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Misstatement of Anne Fausto-Sterling's "proposal"
There is a persistent piece of misinformation, apparently, going around about Anne Fausto-Sterling's 1993 paper, "The Five Sexes". The common claim made is that Fausto-Sterling proposed that human beings be divided into five sexes, and intersex advocates among others have responded fiercely to that misinterpretation. In actual fact, as has been pointed out at Talk:Anne_Fausto-Sterling, the so-called "proposal" was not in any way a proposal for real-world action, but an admittedly "tongue-in-cheek" thought experiment, an exploration of an alternative way in which human systems of gender might be structured.

In light of that, I will be revising the reference to this paper to avoid the suggestion that "The Five Sexes" was a definite proposal for an actual re-envisioning of gender. --Getheren (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of controversial paragraph

 * Even in the very ancient tribes, masculine gendered boys had to strive for and prove themselves for attaining manhood socially, through "manhood tests" that became more and more torturous and painful. However, the third gendered males had always been exempted from the manhood tests, as they were neither men nor women. Furthermore, boys who failed the masculinity tests were banished into the third gender category, and this is how they started to be stigmatized for men.

I have removed the above paragraph for the following reasons:


 * "third gendered males" - A contradiction in terms?
 * The assumption that third gendered people would be 'banished' rather than choosing that life for themselves.
 * Confuses gender with biological sex. It is important, I feel, to make it clear the two are separate.
 * Not NPOV. Arguably encourages Transphobia.
 * The single source for this paragraph is at best misquoted, and at worst unreliable and misleading.
 * Makes wild generalisations and assumptions. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Emma dusepo (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * - Third gender male is not a contradiction. It may seem so if we go by the western standards of gender. However, the concept of third gender cannot be understood through western assumptions about gender and sexuality. Male refers to the sexual organs of the individual. Not every male is a 'man' -- the latter denoting the gender identity -- rather than just the sex identity.

- The statement clearly states that third gender category was a highly honoured one at one time. It still retained its significance for the third genders (including feminine gendered males), however, it is a historical fact that the third gender identity started to serve as 'banishment' for the 'men' (masculine gendered males). What is a prized gender identity for one gender, can easily be hell for someone who doesn't belong there. Esp. since, the third genders have been extremely degraded even in the ancient world, and for men it has amounted to loss of honour. It's a historical fact and there should be no room for lgbt activism here.

Jesus being a Eunuch according to Tertullian
This is actually probably false as as in context, spado, which in most cases means eunuch, is generally translated as virgin as in here and a fuller explanation can be found here.

The original translation given in the notes is: Tertullian, On Monogamy, 3: “...He stands before you, if you are willing to copy him, as a voluntary spado (eunuch) in the flesh.” And elsewhere: "The Lord Himself opened the kingdom of heaven to eunuchs and He Himself lived as a eunuch. The apostle [Paul] also, following His example, made himself a eunuch..."

I added a bit to the reference to better explain it so a future editor can incorporate it into the article. DemonicInfluence (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

violations of WP:RS
This page has a lot of material from non-RSs, including web sites with no established scholarly credentials. I know it's hard to find material on this topic, but WP policy is not to allow material cited to non-RSs. Please see WP:RS. Leadwind (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Amen, amen, amen But pseudo-scholars can always be found. When a people go insane in the sense of "mentally unhealthy via intense self-deception" they can do so quite thoroughly, and with a whole barrage of pseudo-intellectual language.

Since there IS no such thing as a third sex, I feel like the boy in "The Emperor's New Clothes" shouting "The king is naked!!!". Only the people have come to believe whatever they are told today, and are afraid not to see it.

A society that engages in such self-deception cannot survive. I would delete the entire article, if I did not know that silly people would quickly re-instate it. My main consolation is that this life is not all and death is not "game over".

I suppose I could publish an article on the 4th gender of bicycle-people, and produce similar nonsense about remote cultures, sociology and so on and so on. Only I know that I would be insane (mentally unhealthy) to do so. Rusmeister (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would give a befitting reply to Rusmeister, but, he should remember that the talk page is not for such discussions. It's the 'sexual categories' and the homo-hetero divide which is insane and self-deceptive -- yet, Wikipedia being a western forum, its hard to talk sense on any topics concerning the lgbt.(Masculinity (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

"Derp"

 * In some western cultures, to contrast the common "boy" and "girl" phenotypes, a third gender is commonly referred to as a "derp". Although recent slang for derp has died down said meaning, the word still stands as used in place of most 3rd gender stereotypes.

Given that "derp" is a word that one utters when another individual says or does something foolish, I wonder if these two sentences are meant as a cruel joke. Furthermore, no citation was given, and a quick online search did not support the above claims. These sentences have escaped a few revisions, however, so I am uncertain whether deleting these particular sentences is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.240.68 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I will remove those sentences within a few weeks if no one responds, as I would not want to offend any transgender individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.240.68 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the "derp" sentences a while back, but user Wikiwind restored them. The "derp" sentences are sandwiched between a paragraph discussing information from the Peter A. Jackson source. However, I reviewed this source, and "derps" are not even mentioned. Do not restore these sentences without providing an accurate source. "Derp" clearly has a negative connotation, and a simple Google search will reveal that. Should a transgender individual read those sentences, he or she may become offended. If the sentences are accurate, that is fine—but provided a citation! I will continue to remove these sentences unless a reliable source is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.239.181 (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

East versus West false dichotomy
What I really loathe about this article is that is seems to make some sort of distinction between East and West as if they are two kinds of mutually exclusive methods of reasoning and should be kept segregated and not conflated. Instead I urge authors to replace this with a modern, objective, scientific viewpoint on the subject and keep the historical and subjective viewpoints of individuals in their proper context. 147.197.230.37 (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Third gender is essentially a historical term which is widely prevalent in ancient societies as well as contemporary non-west. The western society is totally contrary to the concept of 'third gender' as it acknowledges only two genders -- man and woman. It sometimes tries to confuse third gender with its own 'sexual orientation' category. Therefore, while talking about this historical and non-western gender category, we must maintain the western/ non-western disctinction to be able to do justice to the topic and not just make it another 'politically correct' article.(Masculinity (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC))


 * I agree; this bias seems to stem all the way back to 2005 version. When the article refers to "Western" culture it may justifiably be trying to mean "conventional Judeao-Christian Western' however the article is proof itself that in modern "Western" culture there is an awareness of alternatives, not to mention the hundreds of books and academic articles on intergender studies all of which are products of "Western" culture e.g modern psychiatry from Foucault, Sartre, Jung etc. More importantly I wanted to find about past examples of inter-gender conceptions in Western culture, the circumstantial evidence for which is enormous; e.g Celtic Druidic culture; Lindow Man and Brehon Laws, pre Christian-society 'pagan' culture e.g the Roman Emperor Eliogabalus, Greek society where a 'homosexual' model famously predominated, even within various forms of Christianity; Quakers seem to have apparent conceptions of intergender awareness, although the focus is often on celibacy or asexuality. I'm not an academic but this is a fascinating area of study and i'm sure there is plenty of research on this.


 * I just added a section to this article on the third gender.  The content synthesized a number of research articles and current material on this topic.  Please do let me know if you have suggestions or can point to additional material to support this contribution.  I am uncertain how to add any new topics like the Germany birth certificate addition.  Thanks so much  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enejill (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Australia, Norrie, birth certificate....
Born in Scotland, Norrie has lived in Australia for the most time. I understand the issues regarding the passport and gender definition, but one thing puzzles me.

How can a country issue a birth certificate for a person who was born in an entirely different country?

Surely a person can only have a legal birth certificate provided by the country of birth.

If that's not correct, I'll welcome enlightenment.

PårWöet (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Third gender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090226235121/http://www.phenomenologycenter.org:80/course/berdache.htm to http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/course/berdache.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120422134525/http://feed.belowthebelt.org/2009/10/great-third-gender-debate.html to http://feed.belowthebelt.org/2009/10/great-third-gender-debate.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Third gender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141229093240/http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/pah/theravada.html to http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/pah/theravada.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of "some individuals" for the lead sentence
With this edit, changed the following lead sentence by adding "some" in front of "individuals": "Third gender or third sex is the concept that individuals are categorized, either by themselves or by society, as neither man nor woman." He or she stated, "Clarified the first sentence by the inclusion of the implicit but unstated 'some', the omission of which is confusing."

I reverted, stating, "'Some' is not needed, and is WP:Weasel wording. No one is going to think that we mean 'all people.'" A few minutes later, I changed the lead sentence by adding "is a concept in which individuals" in place of "is the concept that individuals." I stated that "the editor I just reverted had somewhat of a point." I thought the matter was settled, but, minutes ago, "Zoe Buchanan" made this edit, stating, "Re-inserted 'some'. When I first read I did indeed think it meant 'all people', and it took a number of re-reads to determine it did not. So, not a weasel-word, a necessary clarification." And as that link shows, I reverted, replying, "'Some' is not needed. It's not a concept about 'some' people; it's a concept specifically about this group of people."

I do not see how "some" is at all needed. The lead sentence is quite clear that the topic is about a concept (note the "a concept" part) in which "individuals are categorized, either by themselves or by society, as neither man nor woman." It is not a concept about some individuals being "categorized, either by themselves or by society, as neither man nor woman." Using this type of wording is standard. For example, at the Corrective rape article, we do not state, "Corrective rape is a hate crime in which some people are raped because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." We state, "Corrective rape is a hate crime in which one or more people are raped because of their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."

All that "some individuals" wording in cases like these is going to do is compel an editor to add a Template:Who tag. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

And it's more than obvious that the vast majority of the world does not subscribe to a third gender viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Unsourced info is supposed to be deleted"
MagicatthemovieS, with this edit, you stated, "Hey EvergreenFir, I deleted this info because it was unsourced. Unsourced info is supposed to be deleted."

It is not necessarily true that unsourced info is supposed to be deleted. Do see WP:Preserve. And this discussion currently taking place at its talk page, especially the comments by S Marshall. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"Transgender spirit"
MagicatthemovieS, regarding this, while I'm not arguing for restoring that material, I do ask that you keep in mind that "third gender" is under the transgender umbrella. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

"Western conceptual categories"
In the first paragraph, this sentence appears:
 * "The concepts of \"third\", \"fourth\", and \"some\" genders can be somewhat difficult to understand within Western conceptual categories."

I have two problems with this:
 * 1) The phrase 'Western Conceptual Categories' sounds pretty much meaningless and buzzwordy (what the hell is a "conceptual category"?)
 * 2) I've never actually met anybody (here in the 'West') with any trouble understanding the concept of "not a man, not a woman". Maybe I just haven't met enough of that variety of asshole, but I'm pretty sure everybody understands what it means; some people just refuse to accept it as valid.

The sentence looks like it isn't really relevant to the article and might be devoid of meaning. Hppavilion1 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm agender, live in the USA, and have seen plenty of people say they don't understand the concept of being neither a man nor a woman. Not all of these people are "assholes", there's simply quite a lot of ignorance about the subject. Funcrunch (talk) 05:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Funcrunch about the ignorance matter. Regarding the current wording of the lead, I'm not sure that the "Western conceptual categories" part is supported by the source or that the source supports the entire sentence. And it would probably be best to change "somewhat difficult to understand within Western conceptual categories" to "somewhat difficult for western society to understand", or something similar to that. After all, the categories aren't trying to understanding anything. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Intersex/DSD
I am concerned that your edits are making it seem like there is a third sex category. That's not what the diverse variations of intersex/DSD are. The presence or absence of a Y chromosome in, say, XXY individuals, still makes humans sexually dimorphic. Which of course is a biological matter and a whole, separate, issue from gender identity. Is it that you're concerned about the feelings of people with AIS? They know what their chromosomes are and how that differs from their gender identity and presentation. I don't have AIS so I'm not going to speak for them but most of what I've seen from those who are out is they want the science to be understood so that it can be worked on and the misinformation cleared up. Personally, I don't want WP to contribute to the fuzziness and misinformation that is becoming more prevalent in the media about these conditions and at times even conflating them with chosen gender identities. I would be for removing "Third Sex" from this entirely except as a note that it has been erroneously used in outdated sources. If you read up on the literature from Intersex organisations - those run by Intersex people, not political groups who want to include Intersex folks for political purposes, usually without consulting any intersex people - they are pretty clear that they don't want to be seen as a "third sex." Or maybe you know different intersex people and orgs than I do. I don't know. But I'm concerned about issues of clarity here. I don't want to fight about this. This is an article about gender identities, not Intersex. But these details matter, especially if they're going to be in the lede and the first section. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 23:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for your comments, and edits. The matter of how intersex and identity issues intersect is a long and complicated one that regularly appears on Wikipedia, see for example "Primary research on brain structures" and "Intersex" and the confusion here (all Wikipedia Talk page links). Now, the problem with your edits is that you have taken one discredited method of determining sex and assumed it is clear, universal and satisfactorily answers the question (also internal WIkipedia linka). It doesn't. The definitions at Intersex are clear. Because of the endless additions to pages on transgender and gender identity pages of materials relating to intersex (and vice versa), some mention of intersex is necessary, and I have done my best to make sure that this is done respectfully. The current information on this page attempts to do that, including by citing sociological data. I accept that you may have a different perspective, and I respectfully suggest that you review the links I've provided. Thanks again. Trankuility (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * also, for a discussion on intersex or DSD, I recommend Contesting Intersex by Georgiann Davis. Trankuility (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that Intersex/DSD should be mentioned in a neutral manner. It is definitely relevant to the topic. But we need to not confuse sex with gender identities. Your POV about which perspectives are "discredited" are your POV. I'm sure you see mine as POV as well. However it's phrased, it needs to be neutral. May I remind you about the Arbcomm issues here. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 15:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Arbcomm issues? Please be more clear. You introduced an edit that defined sex by one variable only, when the intersex page defined sex in multiple ways. The use of chromosome testing to define sex has been discredited is not my POV, such testing was discontinued by sports authorities because of its negative impact on this population. An inappropriate reductive approach to defining sex can repeatedly be seen on the Talk page for Caster Semenya. However, we are in agreement on the core principle and my edit history on this page and others should demonstrate that. I just am aware that sex is more complicated than the approach you introduced. Trankuility (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Third gender. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/men-women-pacific
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160914152729/http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf to http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204073813/http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/news/latest/intersex_forum_2013 to http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/news/latest/intersex_forum_2013
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515005531/http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/femm.html to http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/femm.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.att.net/~leela2/creation_myth.htm

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) 05:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Pre-merger discussion: the relationship of this page to non-binary, genderqueer, bigender, pangender and trigender
In the course of discussion on the naming and merging of pages for non-binary gender, genderqueer, and a range of other new related gender identity terms, pangender, bigender and trigender, I raised a question about the relationship between those terms and concepts of third gender. In particular, I saw a significant overlap between those pages and this one. There is lots of evidence for this, including the content of the ledes for both pages. There is also evidence of an overlap where sources mention terms like non-binary gender and third gender synonymously. Some of the citations on this page are evidence of third gender being used as a global term. This is not a merger discussion, and the point of opening up discussion here is to have a discussion, rather than people taking sides on page names.

If non-binary, genderqueer and the consolidation of new terms specific to Western English-speaking contexts happens, then it is important (at least to me) to discuss what that means for this page? And what it makes out of a separate merged English-speaking Western page on non-binary gender identities? Should this page be rewritten, and what should it present? Are there risks that this page becomes a residual category for non-Western, identities - making it a racialized category? Does that make a new separate merged page for English language Western identities a form of exceptionalism? What does a separation of identities mean for WP:GLOBALIZE? Thanks to for inviting further specific discussion. Trankuility (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in our discussion over at WT:LGBT, I agree that separating Western and non-Western gender identities without good cause is concerning. However, I've often felt that the term "third gender" itself is problematic, as likely few people who Westerners have described with that term would identify with it themselves. I could be wrong on this, however. I understand (and it is explained in the lead) that "third" isn't meant literally; as there are numerous "third parties" in U.S. politics, for example, there are many more than three genders expressed in various societies (even if, as with those U.S. political parties, they are seldom acknowledged by the mainstream). I just want to strike the right balance between explaining how the term is used and being respectful of the people who inhabit various gender identities. Funcrunch (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that a respectful balance is needed, but I don't believe the situation is clear cut. You might be describing a case of U.S. exceptionalism, except that the Open Society Foundations citation on the third gender page is published in the U.S. and the West is larger. In Germany, for example, the campaign for non-binary legal recognition is called "Dritte Option" (Third Option). The same language is used in France and across Asia-Pacific including Australia and New Zealand. Trankuility (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's potential overlap, at least in the legal implications of recognizing genders that aren't female or male if not in the background, gender expression, etc. - however, this potential overlap exists whether or not we merge bigender etc. to genderqueer/non-binary gender, so I think it best to carry out that merge first and then discuss how to merge or not merge Third gender. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe we should consider the impact here first, or we are only considering a partial solution to the issues you (correctly) raised. We might be a situation where sources vary so much that it is hard to define what content should go on what page, but I believe we should be paying attention to worldwide usages, and not just the U.S. or English-speaking countries. Trankuility (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Where to begin? Okay, when it comes to merging the Bigender, Pangender and Trigender articles into the Genderqueer article, I do not see that anything needs to change for the Third gender article. "Bigender", "pangender" and "trigender" are already Western concepts. They are also already covered in the Genderqueer article. So all merging the aforementioned articles would be doing is consolidating them for a more comprehensive Genderqueer article. The "third gender" concept is usually speaking of non-Western gender identities while the "genderqueer" concept is usually speaking of Western gender identities. The current lead of the Third gender article, and other portions of the article, also make it clear that the "third gender" concept is mainly a non-Western topic. This 2016 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies" source, from SAGE Publications, page 461, states, "Although the term genderqueer may not yet be one that is well understood in broader Western cultures, most non-Western cultures incorporate more than two genders. Many groups that are indigenous to what is now the United States describe a two-spirit identity for individuals who feel both masculine and feminine; there are many terms for a two-spirit identity, based on the culture (e.g., nádleehi--Navaho; niizh manidoowag--Ojibew; Bote/Bate/Bade--Apsáalooke [Crow]). Outside of the United States, there are numerous examples of individuals who may be considered to have a 'third gender' that often translates similarly to the concept of Western genderqueer identity (e.g., the Chuckchi in Siberia, Bakla in the Philippines, Hijra in India, and Quariwarmi in Peru)." The topic of third gender is also an anthropological topic, while "genderqueer" is not; not usually anyway.


 * When it comes to something like Template:Globalize, it's about "where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist." If "third gender" mainly refers to non-Western gender identities, which it does, we can't globalize the article so that "third gender" refers to genderqueer people in an equal way; this would be a violation of WP:Equal validity, which in turn is a violation of WP:Due weight. What we can do is note that the term third gender may at times apply to genderqueer people. The article already recognizes Western gender identities, especially with its "Legal recognition" section. Since the "Legal recognition" section includes Western identities that may not be termed third gender, I do worry about some of that material. But at the same time, although non-binary gender either refers to Western gender identities or to non-Western gender identities, it more often refers to non-Western gender identities; so I don't see much issue with including the "non-binary" terminology in this article, any more than I see an issue with the fact that the Transgender article is clear that transgender is an umbrella term for non-binary gender identities and lists different non-binary gender identities. It's okay to note these aspects in the Transgender article and Third gender articles, but, at the end of the day, transgender is more often restricted to mean those who have gender dysphoria and third gender is more often restricted to non-Western gender identities. This is why these two articles should be weighted with respect to the literature on them. This 2015 "Gender, Sex, and Politics: In the Streets and Between the Sheets in the 21st Century" source, from Routledge, page 149, when speaking of the third gender topic, for example, states, "These terms, and many others around the world, are similar to, but not analogous with, Western concepts of transgender." All that stated, if "Genderqueer" is renamed to "Non-binary gender," then I do see an issue with maintaining separation between the Third gender article and Non-binary gender article, since, as you and I have noted, "non-binary and third gender cannot be usefully distinguished." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, the English language terms "transgender and non-binary", or "transgender and gender non-conforming" show that the concepts of transgender and non-binary gender are not synonymous. I have had to be more specific about English-language Western usages of language, because of what is happening in Europe and the Pacific. But maybe this means that non-binary gender should point to third gender and not to genderqueer. Also, in the same way that many indigenous and other culturally-specific identities are not merged with third gender, maybe this has implications for English language identities. Trankuility (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Transgender is used as an umbrella term for non-binary gender identities. Numerous reliable sources are clear about that. Take this 2012 "Handbook of LGBT-Affirmative Couple and Family Therapy" source, from Routledge, page 201, for instance. It states, "Transgender is an umbrella term that is used to broadly describe people who are gender variant and do not fit into the traditionally defined gender dichotomy as male or female. The concept of transgender includes, but is not limited to, such gender expressions as gender-bender, gender outlaw, genderqueer, drag king, drag queen, androgyny, two-spirit, cross-dresser, and transsexual (Caroll, Gilroy, & Ryan, 2002; Cole, Denny, Eyler, & Samons, 2000; Lev, 2004)." But even so, we still have the Genderqueer and Gender variance articles. We also note in the Gender variance article that transgender may be used as an umbrella term. Yes, transgender is also used in a restrictive way; I've noted this at WP:LGBT and above. But it is also an umbrella term. As for "non-binary gender" pointing to the Third gender article, maybe it should, but I think that our readers will usually be Western and will wonder why they are not at the Genderqueer page instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If two concepts "cannot be usefully distinguished" then readers should not be surprised. Arguably, they are unlikely to be surprised any more than people searching for non-binary gender already are by reaching the genderqueer page. We need a consistent, logical position here. Trankuility (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Since the lead of the Genderqueer article includes "non-binary" as a WP:Alternative title, I highly doubt that many people would be confused by reaching the Genderqueer page when typing in "non-binary gender." Some will object to the title because they find genderqueer offensive or for some other reason, but they will know that they are on the right page. If the editor is looking for a third gender identity, I think it is highly likely that the person will type in that specific term, rather than "non-binary gender," which is not as popular as the specific non-Western gender identity terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As the concepts of non-binary and third gender are, as we have said, indistinguishable, it would make sense for this page to include the term non-binary in the lede. However, as suggested just now at the WikiProject LGBT studies, it may make sense for the page Legal recognition of non-binary gender to be renamed Non-binary gender. Trankuility (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A WP:Alternative title is supposed to go to one article, with the redirect pointing there. As we know, right now, the Genderqueer article is the destination for "non-binary" and "non-binary gender"; this could change. Given that the non-binary gender term applies to both Western and non-Western gender identities, I think it makes more sense to have it redirect to the Gender variance article than to this article. And that article could be expanded so that it is clearly about both Western and non-Western culture. There would be overlap, sure. But given the literature, it wouldn't become overly redundant to the Third gender article. As for "Legal recognition of non-binary gender" being renamed "Non-binary gender," I noted that this would a WP:POVFORK violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The number of articles under consideration here keeps growing, probably because many of them are not well defined, or are created without consideration of other existing pages. I'm not sure it makes sense to point non-binary gender to gender variance, given its use within legal contexts. I'd like to see other editors' perspectives. Trankuility (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I support redirecting non-binary gender to gender variance, at the current time. Trankuility (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I would support removing "non-binary" from the lead of the Genderqueer article and redirecting "non-binary" and "non-binary gender" to the Gender variance article and then shaping that article up accordingly. It already includes a little bit of non-Western gender material. The Genderqueer article would still mention non-binary and similar terms in its "Definitions and identity" section, but the Gender variance article would be the wider topic, especially since it includes matters such as childhood gender nonconformity. The Genderqueer article is more of a term article anyway. The Gender variance article is clearly not mostly about terminology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I have to invoke disability here, and ask for some patience and compassion. I'm having health issues and cannot keep up with this entire discussion on all the pages, and I'm bogging down in deciding which redirects should go where. So please forgive me if there are some points that have already been made that I am restating. I just want to make a couple points as this is going on so they don't get lost in the shuffle. For some of the cultures that are covered in this article, there has been a history of serious misrepresentation of the individuals, beliefs and practices by anthropologists. Because the anthropologists, who were cultural outsiders, managed to publish their interpretations of material that is usually kept private and even secret in the actual cultures (often because it is of a sacred and ceremonial nature), the anthros are mistakenly seen as RS here on WP, even when they have published grotesque misinformation and racist fantasies. So those sources were put in the articles. As more people from the cultures have been entering academia, media and social media and speaking for themselves, we have been slowly rehabilitating some of the articles on WP with better sources. But the process has been slow. Sometimes there has been only one or two of us who can discuss why a particular University-published source is actually not RS on the topic. People outside the cultures and field have often been insensitive and aggressive in wanting to privilege sources that were discredited decades ago in-community. At the Indigenous wikiprojects, we've been prioritizing sources from within the culture in question as RS, not things by outsiders to the culture. I would like for this to continue - that when dealing with marginalized cultures, that those voices be prioritized. As members of LGBT wikiproject, we are used to prioritizing queer voices. "Nothing about us without us." With these identities, we have to prioritize cultural lgbt voices first, and the terms they use to define themselves, not voices - of any identification - from outside those cultures. So, TL;DR: I don't support putting any of the third gender content from traditional cultures that actually have these roles historically into the articles that are framed in terms of modern queer identities, especially when the idea to subsume historical/traditional identities into modern ones are sourced by modern writers who are not from those traditional cultures. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that comment. This page (and others) need more of those voices, though I note that this has been challenging on Wikipedia as the marginalization of global South voices is a form of WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS, and why I invoked WP:GLOBALIZE. Trankuility (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I too would strongly disagree that non-Western third genders and Western nonbinary/genderqueer identities are indistinguishable. Our articles seem to indicate that people having non-Western third genders such as hijra, sworn virgins, and winkte have a codified role in their societies, whereas a nonbinary identity in Western society seems to be more "not that or that" rather than carrying a social role of its own. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept aspects of your argument, but what troubles me is an homogenization of non-Western groups into third gender, and an homogenization of Western identities into a different category. That process of homogenization is a racialization that does not respect the individual character of those codified roles in many different societies. Trankuility (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't fully agree with CorbieVreccan on the "prioritizing sources from within the culture in question as RS, not things by outsiders to the culture" and "prioritizing queer voices" statements; this is not only per commentary I made earlier, but also because Wikipedia doesn't fully work that way. It works that way when it comes to some media topics, like using film critics to comment on film matters; we prioritize the film critics over other types of commentators, but we still include the other types of commentators. And media topics like film are a different matter. On Wikipedia, we can't validly exclude a third gender source simply because it's not written by a third gender person. In the same vein, we can't exclude an LGBT source simply because it's not written by an LGBT person. We can, however, judge the quality of the sources, and this includes whether it's WP:Due or WP:Fringe.


 * I obviously agree with CorbieVreccan and Roscelese that Western and non-Western gender identities are distinct. I don't think this means both can't be discussed in one article, though. Both are discussed in this article; a lot of sources compare Western and non-Western gender identities, which makes it understandable for the article to discuss both. But I clearly agree that the genderqueer topics should not be merged into this article. Do either of you -- CorbieVreccan or Roscelese -- have an opinion on having the non-binary and non-binary gender redirects point to the Gender variance article instead of the Genderqueer article? This would resolve the issue of the occasional non-binary person being offended by landing on the Genderqueer title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that many culturally specific genders are similar to Western nonbinary genders in that they are just an exclusion category without a defined role. It is the case of Brazilian travestis, whose position in our society is sometimes described by academics as não-lugar, "not having a place to be in". At the same time, most travestis who do not identify as trans women also do not claim não-binária as an identity. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

____

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Third gender. 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/20170110091545/http://www.transformationsjournal.org/issues/08/article_03.shtml to http://www.transformationsjournal.org/issues/08/article_03.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226074847/http://www.intersexualite.de/index.php/public-statement-third-international-intersex-forum/ to http://www.intersexualite.de/index.php/public-statement-third-international-intersex-forum/
 * Added tag to http://www.nzaf.org.nz/articles.php?id=472
 * Added tag to http://nativeout.com/twospirit-rc/two-spirit-101/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150102172337/http://nativeout.com/twospirit-rc/two-spirit-101/two-spirit-terms-in-tribal-languages/ to http://nativeout.com/twospirit-rc/two-spirit-101/two-spirit-terms-in-tribal-languages/

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) 04:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Asia-Pacific section addition?
To possibly add to the Indonesia sub-section, I'm wondering if anyone has more information on Javanese 'wandu'. I've found this one source but I'd like more, to get a clearer picture.

"Historical texts of the 1800s and 1900s note that the Javanese women who dressed and acted like men in their childhood were called wandu; the term also used for identifying male transgender persons."

Ardhanary Institute. 2011. Female transgender: Gender & sexual identities among transgender female to male persons in Jakarta. Wieringa, Saskia E. Women-loving women in Africa and Asia. Amsterdam/Den Haag. pp. 300-346 http://www.isiswomen.org/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=364:women-loving-women-in-africa-and-asia&id=8:isis-publication&Itemid=243 BlakeALee (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Assoc. Press headline: "Germany creates 3rd gender identity for records: ‘diverse’"
LINK--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have an issue with a specific line.
“ Biology determines whether a human's chromosomal and anatomical sex is male, female, or one of the uncommon variations on this sexual dimorphism that can create a degree of ambiguity known as intersex”

Biologically speaking the sex of an organism is defined by what gametes it produces or what gametes it’s capable of producing.

Also just to let you know the whole concept of an intermediate sex is technically outdated. CycoMa (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edit
The whole “Biology determines whether a human's chromosomal and anatomical sex is male, female, or one of the uncommon variations on this sexual dimorphism that can create a degree of ambiguity known as intersex.”

Is just misleading. An organism’s sex is literally defined by their gamete types.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201011041118/https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-47829-6_340-1

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Evolutionary_Biology/_r4OCAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=anisogamy+encyclopedia&pg=RA1-PA213&printsec=frontcover

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/gamete

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25323972/

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Current_Perspectives_on_Sexual_Selection/UEdvBgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Anisogamy+define&pg=PA138&printsec=frontcover

The whole notion that intersex individuals are third sex is based on misinformation.

I changed it because the sentence gave off an impression that intersex individuals were a third sex. So stop reverting my edit, I get that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy but, we shouldn’t add false facts.CycoMa (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also the whole notion of a third sex should be removed.CycoMa (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are trying to substitute your personal opinion and a few carefully cherry-picked items, for an entire long-standing article with a plethora of sources. This violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Just because you don't believe in the information in the article doesn't give you the right to mangle the article beyond recognition or utility. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

How are these cherry picked? Many of these are written by people with PHDs. CycoMa (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Plus I don’t understand how these are even original research CycoMa (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The information presented here is just false it’s that simple, I don’t understand how this is a personal opinion.CycoMa (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also the notion that intersex individuals are a third sex is misleading.

“ Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition affecting males, and it often isn't diagnosed until adulthood.”

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/klinefelter-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20353949

“Turner syndrome is a chromosomal condition that affects development in females”

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/turner-syndrome/

“Females with severe or classic virilizing CAH”

“ Males with this type of CAH will not have ambiguous genitalia. Both genders can experience other symptoms such as early onset of puberty, fast body growth, and premature completion of growth leading to short stature, if they are not diagnosed and treated in early life.”

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/congenital-adrenal-hyperplasia/

So I’m not lying or cherry-picking here.CycoMa (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Also two of the sources cited in the section I was editing have flaws.

One of them is a source from made John Money during the 1970s. Which makes it possible that it’s outdated.

Also it cited Alice Dreger she’s probably not the best source in the world, because she isn’t really a biologist and she probably is biased.CycoMa (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know why that sentence is even there, but it can't stay as is because it does indeed imply that intersex people are some sort of third sex after male and female, which is not correct. I see that said something similar above under, perhaps in reference to that sentence. Crossroads -talk- 06:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "third biological sex" implication was misleading/nonsensical, so I have proposed a minimalist change to the sentence so that it no longer implies a three-fold typology. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Third gender and non-binary aren’t the same
This article acts like non-binary and third gender are the same but in reality they aren’t.

Non-binary is a gender identity while third genders in different cultures aren’t gender identities.

Sure they are related, but treating them like they are the same thing is like saying race and nationality are the same thing.CycoMa (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree this is an issue that affects several parts of the page. I propose removing the legal recognition section (no sources, makes claim about recognition for nonbinary identities) as well as the map for nonbinary gender recognition in the sex and gender section. On the legal recognition of nonbinary identity main page users noted that this map is potentially out of date (refers to 2017 info at the latest), and because this results in an understanding of nonbinary identity as representing third gender I think it is less confusing if this is removed. Delendaaest (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hozho74.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sam Brinton.jpg