Talk:Trigender

Merge w/ Third Gender
Above. Is Trigender and Third gender appreciably different? If not why are there two articles Heilingetorix (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, read line 1 of the article to see the differences. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC).


 * Well, it needs to be merged with Genderqueer; as noted in this discussion at the Genderqueer talk page, we have far too many of these non-binary or non-gender articles that are essentially covering the same thing and are generally non-notable. For example, I'm certain that the vast majority of sources in this article don't use the term trigender. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Genericusername57 boldly blanked the article as it was full of poor references, and turned it into a redirect. I subsequently recreated the article as a stub here. But as Genericusername57 points out, it is very hard to find "significant coverage in reliable sources."

I'm now thinking they (and Flyer22 Reborn) might have been right in the first place to make this into a redirect, but I'm not sure. On the one hand, there's WP:NODEADLINE and the whole area of gender studies is fast-moving, and more sources may be in the offing, so we could just wait and see. On the other hand, the notability guideline covers whether something deserves its own article, and it seems to fail point #1 ("significant coverage") of the WP:GNG, and WP:WHYN. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE: "Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." So on the one hand, we have WP:NODEADLINE, and on the other, WP:PERMASTUB (both essays).

The one thing that sways me towards keeping it, is that people often spend very little time at an article, never reading beyond the lead or even all of the lead. If trigender is buried somewhere within Non-binary gender, we may not be satisfying the reason the reader searched for "Trigender" in the first place. On the other hand, under the current state of sourcing, it doesn't seem likely the article will expand much in the foreseeable future, and if that's the case, then the policies seem to argue for WP:NOPAGE.

So, I'm really not sure what to do. I guess if we have to merge it to Non-binary gender (or, Third gender), maybe we can at least add a Wiktionary box, which might catch the eye of the person who searched for "Trigender", and at least satisfy their needs that way (although it's pretty light-weight, in its current incarnation). Pinging for thoughts and ideas. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I've read the sources for this and I don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article. It's also a different concept from the way most use "third gender". The only RS sources for "Trigender" group it under Genderfluid, which is currently a term scattered throughout the Non-binary gender article. I suggest we improve the genderfluid section in the Non-binary gender section, merge what usable content we have here, then redirect this page there. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 22:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical of the proposition that this isn't just a hypothetical identity in lists (whether in scholarly content or LGBT resources), so I'd support outright deletion, but if not, a redirect to Non-binary gender (not Third gender) is the appropriate course of action. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Even taking into account the two respondents on that survey, I've tended to think the same, . I think WP is the only place I've heard of it. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 18:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that Australia survey ref doesn't necessarily correspond to the prevalence in the general population: the authors note that "because of the nature of the research project, coupled with its extensive promotion, our sample population disproportionally represented the gender diverse." (And, oddly enough, both sex and gender identification were heavily skewed male: roughly 60% vs 30% female). gnu 57 05:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

All the content and RS sourcing is now merged to Genderfluid. Unless any objections are forthcoming, I think this can be turned into a redirect as soon as folks feel we've given enough time for discussion. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 22:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Roscelese's comment pretty much persuaded me, too; meaning Genericusername57's redirect was the right move in the first place, assuming others are on board with this. I think they very likely would be, however, there's no rush, and imho, it would have been better to give other editors a chance to weight in first, before merging.  But, okay, it's done, now, and I don't disagree, but let's just give it a little more time next time, in case others want to weigh in first, k? Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. I did this rather quickly so, yes, we should wait for others to weigh in in case they have a better idea than turning this into a redirect. There was so little content and sourcing here that it really didn't overburden that section to add it all. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 23:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to this particular merge/redirect. Funcrunch (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Mathglot raises a fair point that if we redirect an article on topic X to article Y where X is only mentioned somewhere buried in the middle of the page, readers might not find the content on X; however, this seems possible to solve with anchors. There does not seem to be enough content here to justify a separate article, and poking around, I don't immediately see anything to suggest that this is covered in enough detail in RS to merit a separate article; I think redirecting to Non-binary gender (and merging any RS-supported content from here to there) is appropriate. -sche (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I support redirecting both Trigender and Pangender to the non-binary page. While we're talking about it, how about Bigender? The sourcing there is quite sketchy right now. It seems similar to Tri and Pan: it turns up in lists and glossaries, a small number of people choose it on surveys, there is some news coverage of individuals' experiences, but I haven't yet found sigcov in scholarly sources. Cheers, gnu 57 05:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * gnu is right. Look at the sourcing on Bigender. It's as bad as trigender and pangender. One of the sources is taken from a tumblr post. I think the content and sourcing in the Genderfluid section also covers this better than the current standalone article. I agree we might want to merge this one, as well. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

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

Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)