Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 61

Merge discussion: Various non-binary genders
Hi, I figured I'd put this merge discussion here. I'm proposing that we merge these articles: into one article. (I'm thinking non-binary gender may be the best title in that it seems to be in increasingly common usage and is also clear in meaning to people unfamiliar with jargon, but that could be a separate conversation.) Agender was already merged into the main Genderqueer article, and I'd agree with that as well.

There is substantial overlap in content re: how people who identify in these ways feel about gender (eg. lacking a fixed gender identity or shifting from one identity to another) and act on those feelings (eg. through their dress, pronoun choice). I believe it would be beneficial to readers to discuss these identities all together, so that material commonalities can be covered in an encyclopedic fashion while differences in articulation of identity can be compared in one location. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I might be OK with this if the Genderqueer article is retitled Non-binary gender. Though I do think there are now enough sources for Agender to be a separate article, I'm aware people think I am biased as that is my own identity. I just worry that the differences that do exist - for example agender is an absence of gender, not a shifting/fluid identity - will be minimized or erased with further mergers. I would hope that if merged, each identity gets a more substantial section in this article. Non-binary folks are very misunderstood (I revert "there are only 2 genders" style vandalism constantly), and we do have many different experiences. Funcrunch (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To expand, I note that we have separate articles on bisexuality, pansexuality, and asexuality, rather than simply grouping all of those into an article on "non-monosexual orientations" or similar. Of course, gender identity and sexual orientation are different things, but the point is that we should be careful not to overstate commonalities and erase differences when describing marginalized groups. Funcrunch (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Bisexuality, pansexuality and asexuality have a lot more research traction than bigender, pangender and trigender, though. Bisexuality is clearly significantly WP:Notable on its own and should have its own Wikipedia article. Asexuality has gained significant scholarly attention in recent years. Pansexuality trails behind those two in terms of research attention, but that's mainly because it's so often considered a subset of bisexuality. There have been arguments to have it merged with the Bisexuality article, but I don't think that would work out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there being a Non-binary gender article is a good thing (and that title does seem better than Genderqueer for the reasons you state), and such an article should definitely have sections on all of those specific kinds of non-binary genders. If there is nothing more yet to say about one of them than would fit comfortably in a section, then it seems appropriate to redirect the title to that section specifically. If there is (or eventually comes to be) enough material for a full article / too much material for just one section of the non-binary gender article, then it should get its own article, but keep a MAIN'd summary in a section of the non-binary gender article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support merge There are two issues here. The one which Wikipedia checks is whether anyone, anywhere in the world has identified reliable sources which describe the subjects of articles. I agree that the concepts above are not well-differentiated in the cited sources and might not pass Wikipedia's notability criteria. If they do pass notability requirements, then the available sources might be so poor that it still would be better to combine the sources. The other issue is the social wish for Wikipedia to have articles on these topics. People might complain that Wikipedia is treating these topics unfairly in the sense that Wikipedia is not presenting the contemporary thought of these communities, but I would say that no one should expect the quality of Wikipedia to surpass the quality of the best available published research and journalism elsewhere. Although I hear these and similar terms used in casual conversation and dropped in popular media, right now, the state of human society might be that these are not being differentiated in journalism or research publications. It would be best for Wikipedia to follow the established precedents of the available published sources. That might mean merging these. People depend on Wikipedia's quality and we should only have articles whose subjects are well treated in published reliable sources.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm really only commenting here to say that I am not nearly well-read enough to say much about this topic. Gender is of course subject to a lot of scientific research and there can be a lot to dig in here. The articles are badly sourced, though, and I wouldn't even know where to start. I can definitely find myself supporting a merge at this point, for quite a lot of reasons... An issue is that, in my everyday experience, these three terms are very badly defined. It's not like genderfluidity, which has a very clear definition. That being said, I don't believe notability is really the issue. I honestly just don't know how to deal with these articles. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What about third gender as well? How are the listed pages differentiated from that concept? List of people with non-binary gender identities includes people with third genders. Trankuility (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support keeping non-Western third genders and Western nonbinary gender identities in separate articles. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That implies a significant re-write of third gender, and issues with WP:Globalize. ping for info. Trankuility (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely not any more of a rewrite than would be required if the merge of smaller articles to Genderqueer/Nonbinary gender did not occur. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Trankuility, thanks for the attempt at a ping. I state "attempt" because a ping only works with a new signature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As is no surprise to some or all of you, I support merging the Pangender, Bigender and Trigender articles into the Genderqueer article. For reasons why, see Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 55. I've pretty much argued similar to Roscelese. But since that first merge discussion, the three articles have been significantly expanded, and I do not feel as strongly about merging those articles into the Genderqueer article as I once did. The Pangender article should definitely be merged, and the Trigender article has a lot of WP:Synthesis issues that need to be addressed first. I remember getting frustrated about the Bigender article because of WP:Student editing; that article needs to be thoroughly checked for issues as well. As for titling the Genderqueer article "Non-binary gender," there are issues with that; see this discussion for what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * After a week+, I'm ready to carry out this merge. Sound good? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we have a clear consensus to merge. Only a handful of editors have weighed in, and not all clearly in favor. As several articles are affected, it might be best to list this as a formal RfC. Funcrunch (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It does look to me like everyone who has weighed in is in favor of this (you'd be okay if the resulting article discussed differences in how people conceptualize a lack of binary gender, Pfhorrest, Blue Rasberry, Mable, Flyer all in support; Trankuility mentions some rewriting that would need to be done, but that would be true whether a merge occurred or not given existing topic overlap). Do you not agree? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW I would not put myself definitively in favor of a merge, I am merely not strongly objected to it, have thoughts on how best to proceed if it should happen, and have an opinion on the title should the merge happen. I'm weakly opposed to a merger to the title of genderqueer, on the grounds that bigender people may not see themselves as such, if they have distinctively binary masculine and feminine gender modes (and are never in the "queer" middle). To my understanding, genderqueer is a subset of non-binary gender and not a synonym of it, and of the articles in question only trigender and pangender are wholly subsets of genderqueer in turn (though bigender may still possibly overlap with it), as is genderfluid (which may in turn overlap with either trigender of pangender). --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My concern is not just with the content but also the title of the target article; as I said in my initial comment, I'd be a lot more comfortable with the proposed merge if the Genderqueer article were renamed to Non-binary gender, which has been a recurring topic of discussion on the Genderqueer talk page. But if I'm the only one expressing those concerns right now then I won't try to stand in the way of consensus. Funcrunch (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title should be "non-binary gender", but I'm not sure why support for a merge would be conditional on the title change. Has there been a recent move discussion which did not succeed? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a factor in my case because I don't think pangender, bigender, and trigender people should all be described as "genderqueer". There has been a recent discussion on changing the article title, but not a formal RfC for the move. Funcrunch (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Trankuility, I think that Trankuility was only speaking in terms of a significant rewrite of the Third gender article in the case of keeping non-Western third genders and Western non-binary gender identities in separate articles. I don't see that a significant rewrite would be needed by merging the Bigender, Pangender and Trigender articles into the Genderqueer article; genderqueer is an umbrella term for those topics, although some people (for example, Funcrunch) dislike being called genderqueer. But I also don't see that a significant rewrite would be needed in the case of keeping non-Western third genders and Western non-binary gender identities in separate articles, since the concept of third gender mainly covers non-Western gender identity already. As noted above, there are valid concerns with renaming the Genderqueer article "Non-binary gender," and this is not only per WP:Common name concerns, but also the overlap with the concept of third gender. "Non-binary gender" is significantly used to refer to third gender people. We can't artificially draw a line. Retitling "Genderqueer" to "Non-binary gender" would ultimately make the Non-binary gender article significantly redundant to the Third gender article...unless we use a WP:Hatnote to inform readers the scope of the article, and dedicate one section to the third gender concept in the article, pointing readers to the Third gender article for further detail. I still have issues with renaming the article "Non-binary gender", though, because, like I stated, that terminology so often refers to third gender people in the literature, while genderqueer significantly covers the topic at hand in the literature. We would end up having an article that is titled "Non-binary gender", but that mostly has sources that use the terms genderqueer and genderfluid (if we are not mainly using news/media sources for the article, that is, since news/media sources have been using "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" more than scholarly sources have for the concept).

As for going ahead with the merge, we could start an RfC for the merge to get outside opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

But I agree that, in terms of this WikiProject so far, consensus is to merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: Genderfluid is also used as an umbrella term for the non-binary genders; I've mentioned this before (it's also why I stated "sources that use the terms genderqueer and genderfluid" above). But I know that some would object to retitling the article Genderfluid, and it's not nearly as popular as genderqueer in the literature as an umbrella term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A rewrite of third gender may be appropriate, but I am opposed to an approach that separates out white/Western identities from other identities. Seriously, consider this from the perspectives of both groups that are being distinguished here. Trankuility (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * But the third gender topic/article is already mainly about non-Western gender identities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be so, though it looks to me more like third gender contains a full range of Western and non-Western identities, it is just that this looks weighted towards the rest of the world because that is unfamiliar. The issue is that a non-Western/Western cultural split is fallacious and racializes non-Western identities. Trankuility (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest addressing this? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge articles into third gender. Trankuility (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean you support Roscelese's merge proposal? If not, what merge proposal are you suggesting? As for Western vs. non-Western, I'm not sure that I agree with you on "racializes non-Western identities," but I get the gist of your argument. I don't think that the Third gender article should go without any Western discussion; it can't validly do that anyway, since there are sources in that article that specifically talk about the third gender concept in relation to Western gender identities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest merging genderqueer and the other pages into third gender, recognizing also that some of the genderqueer page might belong in a page on gender fluidity. As well as ensuring that we don't have a fallacious Western/non-Western split, this also shows a history to third/non-binary genders. Trankuility (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since "genderqueer" is not the same topic as "third gender," and is notable in its own right, I don't think that merge suggestion is a good idea. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've raised really important concerns about racializing non-Western identities, which I think deserve a separate discussion; this one has gotten quite lengthy. Would you mind starting an alternative merge proposal, with an alert on the Third gender page? Funcrunch (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Added as a "pre-merger discussion" here thanks. Trankuility (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Leaning to support (but wanna hear more, first): One of my concerns is the article title as well, and the extent to which Wikipedia will appear to be an authoritative source for many that "non binary gender" is the superset, of which 'bigender', 'trigender', 'pangender' and maybe 'genderqueer' are subsets. Let's face it, a lot of people reading these articles may be relying on this as their only input into this whole issue. And if it isn't the superset, then I think we'd have to be clear in the lead about that.

Before naming it Non-binary gender, I'd like a clear consensus how people interpret that title: is it a descriptive title, like, say, Protestant denominations, or is it a "thing", as in, "I'm Methodist." I know that there are people who identify non-binary, and do not claim any of the other identities, and if the title is seen as merely descriptive, then we need to be careful not to somehow exclude them by titling the article "Non-binary" and having four main sections, none of which are "non-binary". Probably this whole issue of how we see the title should be sketched out in the lead, and will in, turn, influence the sectioning and treatment in the body.

It's clear to me that there are people that claim one or another of the four merge candidates as their gender identity, and also that there are some that claim 'non-binary' non-descriptively. When I hear someone self-describe as non-binary, I'm always a little uncertain what is meant, and usually interpret it descriptively and as a possible shorthand by someone who either wishes to be a little vague as is their right, or who may assume the nuances of gender identity might be lost on me or provoke a bunch of unwelcome questions or they simply don't wish to school me on the topic, all of which are fair enough reasons to use the term. But I'm also aware that that may in fact be their gender identity. It's fine to be uncertain when meeting people, but we shouldn't be uncertain in an article about this topic on Wikipedia.

As a corollary to all this, I'd like to throw out for your consideration Non-binary genders (plural) which could then have five sections in it, of which one could be #Nonbinary gender, to ensure there is no exclusion of those who claim non-binary as their identity. In this case, the -s suffix would serve as a clue to the title's descriptive nature, implying sections to follow with the presumed subdivisions of those plural "Non-binary genders", pretty much in parallel to what the -s in "Protestant denominations" does for me, when I see that title. (And yes, I know that one redirects to singular; I'm too lazy to find a better example. ) OTOH, if people feel the singular title is not descriptive, then why are we naming the article after one of five identities, when all the others presumably have equal weight? Why wouldn't 'genderqueer' be just as good? Or perhaps we'd need a different descriptive title that could not possibly be confused with one of the gender identities covered in the article. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding plural, see WP:PLURAL. I haven't seen it be the case that gender is an exception to the non-plural standard. As for everything else, my issue is still the "third gender" and "non-binary gender" overlap and the fact that genderqueer is the far more prevalent term in the literature covering western gender identities. If I want to expand on the topic from a terminology standpoint and with regard to other issues, genderqueer is the term to look under. Like I stated at the Genderqueer talk page, "when I look at genderqueer on Google Books, I get a lot of sources for it, with a number of them using genderfluid or similar as a synonym or as a subset of the term genderqueer. When I look at non-binary on Google Books, I get far less uses of the term with regard to gender. The term non-binary gender is more useful than non-binary when it comes to researching gender in the literature, but that term is so often used with regard to third gender identities." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also compare "genderqueer umbrella term" to "non-binary umbrella term" and "non-binary gender umbrella term." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, if it's to merge into Genderqueer, then I'm fine with that. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at the search variations, you will also notice sources stating that transgender is an umbrella term for all of these gender identities; I've mentioned that before. We note this in the Transgender article. But transgender is also commonly restricted in application, especially in the medical literature. If someone states that they are transgender, that is not usually taken to mean genderqueer, or vice versa. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I like this plural title solution to making it clear that this article is about various genders that are not one of the two binary genders, and not (just) about one gender identity called "non-binary". As for plural title policy, Mathglot actually gave precedent in their preceding comment: Protestant denominations. That article is not about a kind of thing called "Protestant denomination", it is about denominations of Protestant religion. (FWIW I would casually assume that the singular was also descriptive, and people identifying as rather than merely describing themselves as "non-binary" is news to me, but if that's a thing that causes a problem this sounds like a good solution.) --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The WP:PLURAL guideline has exceptions, but I noted that I have not yet seen gender be an exception. As for existing article titles, I have seen a number of articles get moved per the WP:PLURAL guideline; this means that a lot of articles are deemed to be incorrectly pluralized. In any case, I do not see that using a plural title would be any better regarding the topic at hand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll just state for the record that it is emotionally draining for me to see others debate about how to label my lived experience. I won't reiterate what I've said in previous discussions regarding the appropriateness of relying primarily on academic sources for this subject. But please consider the impact on the living individuals who inhabit these identities, when titling and editing pages that rank very highly in Google searches. Funcrunch (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Funcrunch, there are a number of academic sources with queer-identified and/or non-binary-identified authors who make it clear that genderqueer is an umbrella term for non-binary gender identities. And like I stated to you before, "one could state that unless it is known that editors following the rules do not identify as genderqueer, it should not be assumed that they do not identify as such. Remember that one can identify as male or female and still be genderqueer, and that the LGBT community's opinions on matters such as this are diverse. There is no one right answer. Furthermore, one does not have to be the topic, or have personally experienced the topic, to fully understand the topic, which is clear by any number of scholarly fields." Any assumption that I am some white, binary person who cannot possibly speak on this subject with sound knowledge is just an assumption. I recently watched a Wikimedia Foundation video of you talking about transgender/non-binary people and I really liked a lot of what you had to state; and, although I know people with similar experiences to yours, it helped me understand you better. I would state more, but I mainly keep my personal life off Wikipedia, and for good reason. Like you, I have dealt with harassment on Wikipedia. And, in my case, being very open with my life on Wikipedia comes with the threat of a number of demented editors who stalk me and/or wait for my downfall (yes, some have used that terminology -- "downfall"), and this includes child sexual abusers because of my efforts to thwart them on various child sexual abuse and pedophilia topics. It's difficult for me to trust an editor on Wikipedia with my personal details. I trust very few; Rivertorch is one. So although I understand the harassment you face for being so open and appreciate you being so open, I cannot afford to reveal my identity/personal life on this site. I've been through enough harassment simply as "Flyer22" and "Flyer22 Reborn." Just know that I do respect you and where you are coming from. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , I never made any assumption that you were white. You have linked to my comment on the agender merge (which you did without any discussion, citing an AfD that was over a year old at the time, and later stated that you would send to AfD again if the article were recreated) out of context, and I ask that you reword, strike, or apologize. As for your gender, you have stated on your profile page that you are female, and I have been going from that assumption. Whether you also identify as genderqueer or not, my arguments about sourcing and respecting others' lived experiences still stand. Funcrunch (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Funcrunch, we've misunderstood each other at times, I think. You've given your perspective. Now here is my perspective on how you have interacted with me at times: Your tone in the aforementioned discussions indicate to me that you have assumed that I am white and binary. In the case of me possibly being binary, your tone has come across to me as stating that I cannot validly speak on this topic, or should not speak on this topic. Even in the case that someone is binary and has not lived a life similar to yours, it can be that the person is educated enough on the topic to validly speak on it. I've met with binary LGBT scholars who are well-versed on the topic of non-binary gender identities and/or focus on that field. Activists alone do not make the literature. And considering claims of them being biased, it's good that they don't. When it's not just activists stating a matter as valid, and it's non-activists agreeing with the activists, this helps the activists' cause. I've certainly seen this be the case regarding the LGBT community. As for my sex/gender in particular, as I've stated before, all you know is that I identify as female. You do not know what my experiences were as a child and, despite my assigned sex as female, whether I've always identified as female or whether I identify as non-binary or genderqueer now. You can assume, like many do when it comes to me (boy, do people love to speculate about who Flyer22 is), but you do not know. You have not always identified the way you identify today, and I appreciate you being open about that; this is another reason to leave out speculation about another editor's gender identity and/or sexual orientation, and to not make assumptions about the editor based on their identified sex (unless questioning the matter is central to the discussion, as it has been in some men's rights advocacy cases). I do not see why the argument of "you are not non-binary" or "you probably are not non-binary" should be brought into this discussion; this goes for your following statement as well: "I'll just state for the record that it is emotionally draining for me to see others debate about how to label my lived experience." As you know, Wikipedia is not about editing based on our own personal experiences; it's about editing based on what reliable sources state...with due weight. Like you, I have biases, but I try to make sure that those biases do not get in the way of the way that I edit Wikipedia articles.


 * I was clear that I merged the Agender article per Articles for deletion/Agender. I then elaborated on the matter when you compared my doing the merge to "a white person merging an article on black people to a larger article on 'people of color' with the reasoning that all non-white people fit under the same category." Not only was that incredibly insulting to me, I do not see it being the same thing for a number of reasons. And those reasons are made clear by what I stated before and by there being a merge discussion on the matter here now. Furthermore, the article was poor, and not every merge/redirect needs a discussion, especially if previous consensus is against the article existing. Yes, if that particular version of the article had been recreated, I would have taken it to AfD. I do not see where I need to apologize for what I did in that case. But I do apologize for offending you and/or others; offense was certainly not my intention. I know that I stated, "We have enough of these articles. We do not need another one." But so have non-binary/genderqueer people I've talked to off Wikipedia; I have witnessed them wondering why all these articles exist separately, apart from "Genderqueer," when they could be grouped under "Genderqueer" (as they already are by name in the article) and make a more comprehensive article. To me, it sometimes feels like you believe that transgender and non-binary/genderqueer people mostly think the same about transgender and non-binary/genderqueer topics (including with regard to what they find offensive), but my personal experience has shown this not to be the case...with some exceptions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion that I have ever assumed you are white is flat-out incorrect, as are your suggestions that I think binary people should not voice their opinions about non-binary issues or that all or most non-binary people feel similarly about these issues. I have nothing more to say to you on this topic. Funcrunch (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no need to ping me to a page that I am obviously watching. As for the rest, you have gone on about how you feel, with implications that, in my opinion, attempt to paint me and/or others in a bad and/or questionable light or attempt to elevate your opinion above others. I was simply noting how I feel. I have nothing to feel guilty about when it comes to my editing and/or commenting on these topics, and I will not be made to feel guilty with demands of an apology. I do not like feeling as though I need to justify my editing by outing myself (meaning my identity/experiences); I've been through enough of that with Jokestress/Andrea James. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My main argument here is that we're not doing the topic - or the people - justice by keeping these articles separate (or even by segregating the topics post-merge). Most of the sources in these smaller articles - even where sources are cited that are both reliable and that actually refer to the article subject by that name, which is not the case for a lot of them! - even note already that there is overlap in the way people experience their gender, and in the issues they may face in society, even if they choose different words.

I think it's also clear that the sources have conflicting views on which terms are specific and which are general, and that we're going to have to make our best call as editors re: which sources to go with. For instance, our article Genderqueer refers to it as "a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine", and plenty of sources do treat it as a catch-all in that way - yet other sources treat genderqueer as a synonym of genderfluid in a way that would exclude people who do not feel that their gender is fluid at all. Terminology shifts very fast in this subject area, but recent sources like A and B seem to be starting to use "non-binary" as an umbrella term that covers, but is not synonymous with, genderqueer or genderfluid. But this is more of a move rationale, by now. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I have seen previous comments of yours about this, and I'd like to consider them. Can you please go ahead and repeat them (or link them) for me?  (What I'm trying to say, in part, is please don't hold back out of fear of being repetitive.)  If you don't wish to eat vertical space due to the redundancy possibility for others who follow this issue closely, you can always cot/cob your remarks.


 * Also, a question for you: how do you deal in general with the discrepancy in the time lag that must inevitably occur between your lived experience, and WP's encylopedic requirements for reliable sources and secondary sources, which inevitably lag behind primary sources and news sites, which in turn lag behind your day-to-day reality? Mathglot (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You can see the most recent discussion on the Genderqueer talk page (link is to the "Nonbinary vs Genderqueer" section). In short, I disagree with Flyer22's assertion that academic/scholarly sources should take precedence over media sources in determining how to label/title the article. I really don't want to get into that whole argument again on this page; it has just about worn me out. As to how I deal with the discrepancy/time lag, among other things, I'm working to get more biographies of non-binary people on here so that their voices can be heard. Funcrunch (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also pinging as they started the above-mentioned discussion, and would likely be interested in this related conversation. Funcrunch (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Roscelese, I definitely think we should focus on merging first, especially since that is what this discussion is supposed to be about. And it does seem that we have a rough consensus for merging, but since this has been somewhat challenged above, we should go ahead with an RfC for merging. I would be willing to advertise the matter if need be, so that it's not just LGBT editors weighing in if outside editors don't pay attention to the RfC. Regarding the moving aspect, last year, we had a heated move discussion, which Funcrunch pointed to above. And, like Funcrunch, I'd really rather not get into all that again, but we've already recently debated it at Talk:Genderqueer and started to debate it again above. When we do have an official move discussion on that again, I will make sure to be more cordial. In that last discussion, I got agitated because I felt that editors were going more on emotion than on Wikipedia rules, and I am someone who thinks it's usually best to keep our personal feelings about a topic out of our editing when we edit that topic, as to stay objective as best we can. I don't always succeed at doing so (especially in cases concerning children and sexual abuse), but it's something I'm always striving toward. I do think that academic/scholarly sources should take precedence over media sources in determining how to label/title the Genderqueer article, for reasons I've gone over in previous discussions and above. Also see the statement that EvergreenFir made if you haven't already. The common name is "genderqueer" and this is why there is a lot more to work with from sources using that term as the umbrella term. Media/news sources that use the term non-binary gender are focusing on legal aspects regarding non-binary people, or a personal story, or some celebrity, or a fictional character; they usually are not focused on discussing the different non-binary terms and the issues. By contrast, many sources that use the term genderqueer are focused on discussing the different non-binary terms and the issues. And I've noted this before, but, per WP:Alternative title, the genderqueer term would still be in the lead. So it seems to me that the only argument to move "Genderqueer" to "Non-binary gender" is because some people would rather not be called "genderqueer," but this is not a guideline or policy-based reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point here, Flyer22 Reborn. I supported a move because of increasing legal recognition of "non-binary" gender, and I think you're right to identify that as one of the areas where that is used, along with personal and celebrity stories and fiction. It seems to me this is because the term is used in real life. You contrast that with genderqueer, where people talk about labels themselves, and "the issues". I'm interested in what "the issues" are. Do they appear in the article? Should they? If all there is to genderqueer is actually a discussion of "the different non-binary terms", then really the article should reflect that and be renamed. Trankuility (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * By "the issues," I mean various issues that non-binary people face. If you look at the aforementioned news/media sources using the term non-binary or non-binary gender, they are usually speaking of specific legal cases, a specific celebrity, or a person's own personal story, or a fictional character, which does not address the topic as a whole. This is in stark contrast to scholarly sources addressing the non-binary topic by using the term genderqueer. It's even in stark contrast to media sources using the term genderqueer. For example, this 2015 "What the Heck Is Genderqueer?" source from Slate magazine, which addresses the non-binary topic as a whole. It also calls non-binary "the somewhat newer and less politicized term." Another example is this 2015 "There’s Transgender and Then There’s Genderqueer" source from Newsweek. If non-binary or non-binary gender is to eclipse genderqueer in usage, with regard to Western gender identities, it is our job to wait until it does. Wikipedia follows; it does not lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "I definitely think we should focus on merging first, especially since that is what this discussion is supposed to be about" - I agree that that's the purpose of the discussion, but I bring it up because the title of the merge target being "Genderqueer" was raised as an obstacle to a potential merge for people who otherwise seemed to support it. Also, re: nonbinary vs. genderqueer, are you saying (not trying to put words in your mouth, trying to see if I've understood) that at this point in time, nonbinary is the term in common parlance and genderqueer is the term in academic parlance? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see any proof that non-binary is more common than genderqueer in common parlance. As for the rest, I don't see that the title "Genderqueer" is an obstacle, other than people who object to being called genderqueer. But we are not supposed to judge the title of our articles based on what some people may object to, except for some WP:NPOVTITLE cases. I do not think that "Genderqueer" can be validly argued as a WP:NPOVTITLE violation. Also keep in mind that all these other terms are already mentioned in the Genderqueer article as genderqueer identities anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Follow summary style - Pangender, bigender, and trigender should all be covered at genderqueer. Of those 3, only bigender has enough content to stand on its own as a sub-article. Thus I would support completely merging pangender and trigender into genderqueer, but bigender should merely be summarized there. I oppose renaming genderqueer as both Google Ngram and Google Trends show that "genderqueer" is clearly the primary usage by an order of magnitude. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On Google Trends, I would argue that a search of "genderqueer" vs "non-binary" (as opposed to "non-binary gender") should also be considered, even though the article rename on discussion would include "gender" in the title for clarity. Though by strict definition non-binary doesn't necessarily relate to gender, a Google search on "non-binary" returns primarily results relating to gender. Also consider history of comments, above and on the genderqueer talk page, regarding concern over inappropriately labeling people who don't identify with the term "genderqueer". Funcrunch (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of things that would make me reconsider my opinion on it: actual cases of someone objecting to the label "genderqueer" (either on Wikipedia or elsewhere); "non-binary" eclipsing "genderqueer" on Google Trends. Otherwise, I worry we are being overly jargony for no good reason. Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I object to the label "genderqueer" for myself, but I don't have a Wikipedia article written about me and I'm not published in what most here would consider reliable sources. Same goes for some other non-binary people I've seen voice objections to the label. That's the uphill battle I face when representing non-binary identity on Wikipedia accurately. Regardless, I don't see how the term "non-binary" is more "jargony" than genderqueer; I'd argue that the former is less vague and more easily understood. Funcrunch (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would definitely agree that the surface meaning of "nonbinary gender" is more obvious than "genderqueer", if we're trying to avoid jargon. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're right. I've just been living in the Bay Area for too long :) OK, I didn't realize that was actually an issue. On the flip side, are there any people who might object to "non-binary", but not "genderqueer", for example bigender people? Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've lived in the SF Bay Area since 1992 (25 years), FWIW (*shrug*). I imagine there might be people who identify as genderqueer while rejecting non-binary, but what objections do you think bigender people specifically would have to the term? Non-binary simply means not identifying exclusively as male/man or female/woman. Funcrunch (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing in particular. Just want to make sure we've thought this through :) I'll strike my vote on the title change for now. Kaldari (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the wording "non-binary gender" being clearer than "genderqueer," I think this is why legal cases usually use the term non-binary or non-binary gender. The latter gives a better indication as to what the topic is about. But, given the sources on this topic, I do not think that a descriptive title trumps the common title. Kaldari, good point about the flipside. I thought about mentioning that since I've seen that discussed elsewhere (meaning off Wikipedia).`Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Support merge: Of just those [edit for clarity:] Pangender, Bigender and Trigender into Genderqueer, and consider renaming Genderqueer, but leave related articles that largely rely on cultural examples (like Third Gender etc) out of it. As for naming, Adding the same general comments I left over at the category discussion: While Genderqueer may be more common on Google, and I personally am fine with it, I think we should go with one of the options along the lines of  Non-binary genders. While I am personally comfortable with "queer", this reclaimed usage is far more common among younger populations and in urban communities of the US. Older LGBT populations, rural communities, and those in other countries, in many cases still consider it a painful slur. In my experience I also have not heard "Queer" used in the traditional, indigenous communities that have Two Spirit people, but only among younger, urban folks.  The longer names under consideration here, that use  various forms of "non-binary" may be wordier and clunkier, but for the international and intergenerational scope of en-wiki they are probably more inclusive. -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * CorbieVreccan, like I stated in the category discussion, queer has its roots in Western culture, while third gender has its roots in non-Western culture, which is why we don't see "traditional, indigenous communities that have Two Spirit people" use terms queer and genderqueer. It's also why I will not be supporting this conflation. "Non-binary gender" either refers to Western gender identities or to non-Western gender identities, but, like I noted above, it usually refers to non-Western gender identities. And in the latter case, genderqueer is restricted to Western gender identities. Third gender does not usually mean "genderqueer" because third gender is not usually speaking of Western gender identities. Instead of stating more on that, I'll be saving my arguments (with sources)...shall merging the Genderqueer article into the Third gender article be proposed in a new section for discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by "urban" above, especially since I'm used to "urban" and "urban culture" being used as a euphemism for African-American culture; I take it that you mean "urban area"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no need to hone your arguments against something that is being asked or suggested, and not proposed. I've added the discussion you already pre judge as a "conflation" in a different form, as the pre-merger discussion that I believe we need. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion includes the suggestion; that is why I've commented on it. I see it as a serious issue to suggest that merge simply because of some "racialized" view, when it is indeed the case that the "third gender" concept is usually speaking of non-Western gender identities and the "genderqueer" concept is usually speaking of Western gender identities. If anything is "racialized" because of this division (which at times blurs due to Western authors noting the different terms for non-binary concepts), it is the cultures'/literature's fault. And we are supposed to be following the literature, not designing articles in the way that we want due to our personal feelings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Having been asked for a suggestion, I gave one. A suggestion is not a proposal. And this is the wrong place, unless you prefer I move the pre-merger discussion here. But I do note that some sources cited on third gender use the term as a global term, or one applicable in the west. Trankuility (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll discuss the matter there. This discussion in particular has already trailed off enough from what it is supposed to be about. I don't mind if you keep your suggestion at the Third gender talk page or bring it here as a new section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Flyer, part of the argument I've been making here is that in current parlance "non-binary gender" does not refer to non-Western culture as distinct from Western culture. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When I research "non-binary gender" in the literature, I see that it is being used to mostly refer to non-Western gender identities; it is mostly being used to discuss the third gender concept. When it's used in the context of Western culture, I see that it is more so used in passing or without defining "non-binary gender"; it is at times noting "non-binary gender" in relation to the transgender topic, genderqueer topic, or under a similar term. If it is regular Google, as opposed to Google Books and Google Scholar, then it is mostly being used to focus on legal aspects regarding non-binary people, or a personal story, or some celebrity, or a fictional character. But, again, it is usually not discussing the topic as a whole. Aside from having an article that is mostly about legal recognition of "non-binary," a non-binary person's personal story, an article on some celebrity, or a fictional character, there is not much to work with when it comes to non-binary and non-binary gender in the context of Western gender identities. There is so much expansion that I could do to the Genderqueer article when using sources that use the term genderqueer for the topic. And it would be a far more encyclopedic article.


 * What I see right now is that we have consensus to merge (although not unanimity), from this project, and that renaming is a different issue that should have no bearing on the merge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If consensus does not require unanimity then a rename of genderqueer to non-binary would have happened last year - you were the only editor with an objection. Whatever the scholarly sources say about non-binary referring to non-Western societies, the law, society and media in the U.S. have already moved on ahead of Wikipedia. Trankuility (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:Consensus is based on the weight of the arguments; it is not a vote. As for the previous move discussion, go and revisit it again; I was not "the only editor with an objection." I was the main editor arguing with a policy-based rationale and with sources. But like I noted above, another editor came along with a policy-based and sourced-based argument as well. You stated, "Whatever the scholarly sources say about non-binary referring to non-Western societies, the law, society and media in the U.S. have already moved on ahead of Wikipedia." Where is your proof regarding society and the media...other than U.S. legal cases using the term non-binary (obviously for clarity)? The U.S. is not the world. And just like last time, no proof has been given to show that non-binary or non-binary gender has eclipsed genderqueer. Meanwhile, more than enough proof has been given to show that genderqueer is the WP:Common name, and that the current title of that article is adhering to policy. WP:Common name is policy; it is not a guideline. So I repeat: Wikipedia follows; it does not lead; you do not have to like that, but that is the way Wikipedia is. If you want us to start an RfC on the merge, I am all for it; I will make sure to heavily advertise it. Sames goes for any future move discussion of the Genderqueer article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You are entitled to your own perspective on the merits of different arguments, but please be consistent here. In a recent previous comment you referred to "When I research "non-binary gender" in the literature, I see that it is being used to mostly refer to non-Western gender identities" and now you question the relevance of U.S. law and media. U.S. legal cases and law reform, and the reporting on it, generally use the term "non-binary", but also other terms. Genderqueer has not been used in the context of law reform. Generally, Wikipedia does not wait for scholarly sources to catch up to legal development - this is visible in the context of same sex marriage where every development in relation to reform in Germany and Malta is currently being reported. The same is not happening on the genderqueer page in relation to developments in California and Oregon, because the page title doesn't fit the situation. Trankuility (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What inconsistency? Stating "When I research non-binary gender in the literature, I see that it is being used to mostly refer to non-Western gender identities" is not the same as your statement of "Whatever the scholarly sources say about non-binary referring to non-Western societies, the law, society and media in the U.S. have already moved on ahead of Wikipedia." I asked you where is your proof that non-binary or non-binary gender is the more popular term in society and the media...other than U.S. legal cases using the term non-binary. So where is it? In what way is non-binary or non-binary gender the more popular term in society and in the media? I do not see it when doing a simple Google search of "Non-binary gender" vs. "Genderqueer." And we know it's not the case on Google Books or Google Scholar. And as Kaldari made clear above, both Google Ngram and Google Trends don't support such a view either. So what is the catching up you are referring to? If you are solely speaking of legal matters, it is unlikely that any law will be using the term genderqueer, for reasons made clear above. The law does not trump common usage. And U.S. law certainly does not. Wikipedia does wait in cases like this one, and Wikipedia is also clear that Wikipedia is not news. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Either international or national developments are relevant or they are not. I believe they are all relevant. As discussed earlier, "non-binary" alone is commonly used and not just "non-binary gender". Precedent - normal practice - in WikiProject LGBT studies is not on your side in relation to the reporting of legal developments. Maybe what needs to happen is for the page Legal recognition of non-binary gender to be renamed Non-binary gender. Trankuility (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your latest argument. Your statement of "Precedent - normal practice - in WikiProject LGBT studies is not on [my] side in relation to the reporting of legal developments." does not compute. There is no precedent with regard to this gender matter. The same-sex marriage issue is not the same in the least. Precedent is on my side when it comes to adhering to the WP:Common name policy and not engaging in WP:Recentism. As for renaming "Legal recognition of non-binary gender" to "Non-binary gender," I'd oppose per WP:POVFORK. Having both a "Non-binary gender" and "Genderqueer" article would be a clear-cut WP:POVFORK violation. "Non-binary gender" should redirect to the Genderqueer article, the Gender variance article, or to the Third gender article. We are not going to create yet another "umbrella term for gender identities" article when we already have the Genderqueer, Transgender, Third gender, and Gender variance articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Renaming a page non-binary gender cannot be a POV fork in relation to genderqueer given what we have already agreed about non-binary gender and third gender. If non-binary gender is a POV fork, it is a POV fork with third gender. If we come to agree that non-binary gender and genderqueer are POV forks then we have to agree that genderqueer and third gender are also POV forks. I invite you to consider applying WP:NOTNEWS to Same sex marriage and associated articles. Trankuility (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the absence of consensus about a page titled non-binary gender, that redirect probably should point to Legal recognition of non-binary gender. Trankuility (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I also don't understand this latest argument of yours either. Non-binary or non-binary gender is an alternative term for genderqueer. It's why we have it listed in the lead of the Genderqueer article. Sources have already been pointed to above on this matter. Although non-binary gender is used to refer to non-Western gender identities more than Western gender identities, its use to refer to Western gender identities is not incredibly scarce. And there is the fact that the terms third gender and genderqueer are WP:Notable terms/topics. By contrast, non-binary gender is mostly seen as an alternative term for either of the two, or is used interchangeably with both. So there would be no way for you to validly distinguish non-binary gender from genderqueer, much like there is no valid way for you to distinguish non-binary gender from third gender. WP:POVFORK sates, "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a 'POV fork' of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." So, yes, a Non-binary gender article would be a POV fork; and all I'd need to do is argue my case with relaible sources, and the community (not solely this WikiProject) would agree with me. As for same-sex marriage, I've already addressed that; we won't be agreeing. As for your latest suggestion, it is not a good idea to have "non-binary gender" redirect to Legal recognition of non-binary gender, since the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article is solely about legal matters and "non-binary gender" is not. I don't see why we shouldn't just redirect it to the Gender variance article, which has been suggested by you on the Genderqueer talk page before.


 * Either way, I'm ready for the RfC now, if we are going to do that. I see no point in debating this matter any further here at this talk page. Right now, the actual purpose of this discussion has changed to a renaming topic, with different suggestions being thrown out. Let's just get on with RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Or have "non-binary" and "non-binary gender" point to the Gender variance page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've been considering the discussion and I'd like to make a few comments. Firstly, the point of my comments on same sex marriage is that claims of recentism or WP:NOTNEWS should either be applied consistently across WikiProject LGBT studies, or we should accept that Wikipedia has a valid role in reporting legal and social developments, after those developments occur. WP:Ignore all rules may apply here but, if Wikipedia does not report recent developments then Wikipedia has no role in reporting electoral developments etc either. Secondly, my assertion that non-binary cannot be a POV fork of genderqueer because it is more likely a POV fork of third gender was rejected. Flyer22 Reborn rejected it on the basis that third gender is notable. But this also applies to non-binary gender, because we have a page on legal recognition of non-binary gender, and this is notable. Google statistics also demonstrate this - the fact that genderqueer is more established is not relevant when non-binary gender is regarded as an independent term. What I take from this is that genderqueer should not be renamed non-binary or non-binary gender because genderqueer is a subtly different identity (with connotations of fluidity and resistance) and, as the Google statistical data shows, is independently notable. Perhaps all notable identities need their own pages describing what they mean, and those should probably be children of a page like gender variance. A page called non-binary gender could serve that role, but it is is anyway independently notable and legal recognition of non-binary gender could form the basis of that page. Trankuility (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Marriage is overwhelmingly a legal topic. Same-sex marriage became more and more legally accepted across the world. The topic of "genderqueer" or "non-binary gender" is not mostly a legal topic; genderqueer and non-binary gender are mostly terminological and anthropological matters (with "non-binary gender" falling more so under anthropology due to its third gender association). There are some legal cases involving the "non-binary" terminology, but it is not mainly a legal topic. That, and your focus on U.S. cases with regard to "non-binary," is the difference when it comes to you comparing the genderqueer/non-binary topic to the same-sex marriage topic. The "Legal recognition of non-binary gender" article was created by you as a split away from the the Genderqueer article. In that article, you have included the topic of intersex, and the topic of Western and non-Western gender identities. But like I and two other editors thus far have stated, Western and non-Western gender identities are distinct. Furthermore, the same-sex marriage matter is not a common name issue. This is. Regarding the legal developments concerning "non-binary," genderqueer is still the common name for the topic of Western gender identities that fall outside of, or blend with, the gender binary. Well, that and transgender. But we've already been over the transgender term. You and no one else has offered any valid proof that non-binary or non-binary gender is the common name in the literature or in the media for Western gender identities that fall outside of, or blend with, the gender binary. Like I noted above, none of the Google tools show this. So your argument of Wikipedia being behind in this regard has not been proven. And even if Wikipedia were behind, it's still the case that Wikipedia is supposed to follow, not lead. Wikipedia does report recent developments; it simply does not prioritize them when they conflict with the bigger picture. Something like electoral developments rapidly change and are supposed to be updated, but we still adhere to WP:Recentism even in those cases. And Wikipedia is still following, not leading, in those cases. The literature on these gender topics does not move nearly as fast. As for the WP:Content fork guideline, I see no proof that "non-binary gender is regarded as an independent term." In fact, I've pointed to or provided sources showing just the opposite -- that it's a synonym. I've already explained how a Non-binary article would be a content fork; if you do not believe me on that, you can ask at the WP:Content fork talk page; or, since that page barely has traffic, you can ask at Village pump (miscellaneous). The latter is also slow, but it has more traffic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely not insisting that it is "the" common name for Western/non-Western gender identities outside the binary. I'm not proposing that it replaces any other term, and haven't for some time. I'm acknowledging that non-binary is now a legal term in parts of the U.S. and elsewhere. This makes it an independent term. It exists. Its legal status makes it notable, and it is widely reported across the U.S. and elsewhere. The legal recognition of non-binary gender page is currently focused on legally recognized gender identities other than male or female, because it made sense to collect this information. You have picked out one old diff, but you could have picked others from other pages because, at the time, information on legal recognition of whatever we call gender variance/non-binary/third genders when it becomes legally recognized was previously spread across a number of different pages and was often out of date on multiple of them. The page couldn't be named "legal recognition of genderqueer" or similar because genderqueer will probably never be a legal term. It didn't seem right to call the page "legal recognition of third genders" for issues that we are now discussing on Talk:Third gender, where I have requested discussion on how that page relates to others under discussion here. There is no point asking people unfamiliar with any of these terms if something is or is not a content fork. Regardless, a large number of pages related to gender variance/non-binary/queer genders exist, and it is still unclear how all these pages relate to each other, and why there is one term amongst all of those closely-related pages that you consider a POV fork. Trankuility (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You stated, "This makes it an independent term." I disagree, for reasons I've already stated. The "Legal recognition of non-binary" article is about legal cases. It is not a term article. A "Non-binary gender" article would be a term article with legal cases included in it, just like the Genderqueer article is a term article with legal cases included in it. This would make it a WP:Content fork. And if you were to simply leave it as a legal article, this would not do since "non-binary gender" is not solely a legal matter. You cannot create a Non-binary gender article that is distinct from the genderqueer or the third gender topic. And that is the very definition of a WP:Content fork. Furthermore, most of the encyclopedic content for this topic is under the term genderqueer. As for "there [being] no point asking people unfamiliar with any of these terms if something is or is not a content fork," there is a point if they know Wikipedia's rules and adhere to them. It matters not if they are unfamiliar with a term. Being unfamiliar with a term and/or concept has no effect on my ability to judge what is the more popular term for a topic and what is a content fork violation. I picked out a relevant diff of you splitting content away from the Genderqueer article to create the "Legal recognition of non-binary" article you keep pointing to. You stated, "Regardless, a large number of pages related to gender variance/non-binary/queer genders exist, and it is still unclear how all these pages relate to each other." I would not state "a large number." The only ones that should be merged with the Genderqueer article are the Bigender, Pangender and Trigender articles. And sources are clear on how these terms relate to genderqueer; they fall under the genderqueer umbrella. The Transgender article is clear on how these terms relate to transgender. The transgender article is not solely about terminology; it exists far beyond terminological matters. The Gender variance article is a wider topic than the Genderqueer article. The third gender topic is mainly about non-Western gender identities. So, no, the Genderqueer, Transgender, Third gender and Gender variance articles are not content forks. Overlapping is not a content-fork violation; ceating an article that cannot be validly distinguished from another topic is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal info of Mike Doyle (actor) and Andrew Rannells
Editors repeatedly asserted the breakup of Mike Doyle (actor) and Andrew Rannells; YouTube video (the primary source) is used as confirmation to the info. The content dispute is discussed at Talk:Mike Doyle (actor), where I invite you there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeking opinions at Transgender rights in the United States
Seeking opinions about the central focus of the article Transgender rights in the United States. Please see this talk section. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Transgender people in the United States military?
I wonder if content from Transgender people and military service could be forked out to Transgender people in the United States military, with some additional expanding? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible new category
Would it be possible to have a category named Category:Cross-dressing Wikipedians? It would be like Category:Transgender Wikipedians, and could have at least one template that could put users into that category. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Lana Wachowski
Lana Wachowski is on this list, but the link is officially Lana Wachowski (Q9545711). Is there a way to connect that Wikidata info into The Wachowskis? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Vicky Hartzler
I've just added WP LGBT Studies to Vicky Hartzler's talkpage, and added a sentence about her role in President Trump's US military transgender ban to the lede. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:ITN/Candidates
Members of this WikiProject may want to support or oppose this nomination for In The News (on the main page). Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?
Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC) LGBT Welcome use these {{ on each side and write LGBT Welcome. Kmwebber (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber Updated User:Kmwebber's post: I assume you meant to refer to this template, not to transclude it. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks, {{u|Kmwebber}} I wonder how your project would recruit and invite new editors? We are Wikipedia researchers, and are conducting a study to help WikiProjects recruit new editors to contribute. I am not sure if this would be something you are interested in. Here is our study meta-page. Bobo.03 (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Matrix and Wachowskis
There is an ongoing dispute at The Matrix about referencing the directors as "Wachowskis" or "Wachowski Brothers" in the article body. Please see the discussion here: Talk:The Matrix. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yotam Ottolenghi
Could someone please take a look at Yotam Ottolenghi and see if there are still POV-pushing sentences (and if so, trim them)? Otherwise I think we should remove the tags at the top. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sex reassignment surgery title change discussion
There is a discussion on the Sex reassignment surgery talk page regarding whether to change the term and page title to Gender confirmation surgery (which currently redirects to that page). Funcrunch (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting this here. The proposed change is to the title and the primary term on the page (while keeping a reference to the old term, Sex Reassignment Surgery, for google search purposes). UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

anti-LGBT bill in the Haitian senate
Hello. I've updated LGBT rights in Haiti, based on: "A bill passed by the Haitian Senate last week provides for up to three years in prison and a fine of about $8,000 for either party to a marriage not between a man and a woman. The bill also would prohibit any public support or advocacy for LGBTQ rights."' It may be worth creating articles about the senators who sponsored the bill, if anyone can find their names. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Name change issue
I wanted to share a name change/article title change discussion that I started. I described a move request at Talk:Heather_Cassils. A person of interest to LGBT studies has had a name change and is vocal about their preferred name to the media.

Wiki LGBT+ still does not have policy guidance on what to do. Some sources call the person by a different name, most call the person by their preferred name, and the person themselves has a statement for their preferred name on their own website. These issues are increasingly routine so I thought that I would log it here so that it can be part of establishing the precedent of what we do.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

LGBTQ Murders
I've located the article page: History of violence against LGBT people in the United States and found that nothing expresses the murders on a state by state basis. Whether it be a picture, chart, (and I did find a chart on annual homicides that wasn't licensed by Creative Commons), it is essential and necessary to have this information. I would also suggest a Category page for LGBTQ persons who were murdered on such a basis (if there are over 10 or so that are well-known). I really think in our studies it is important to have specific state-state homicide info. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.43.195.150 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We do have Category:Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes, which isn't all murder but which may be of interest to you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Merlis
Two anonymous IPs have edited Mark Merlis, the writer of the award-winning LGBT-related novels American Studies and An Arrow's Flight, to claim that he died earlier this week — one claiming that he died on Monday, and the other claiming that he died on Tuesday. However, neither of these editors has provided a reliable source to confirm the claim, and I haven't been able to locate one on a Google search either — but Wikipedia is a place where death hoaxes have been perpretrated or replicated for people who were or are still alive, so we cannot simply accept unsourced claims of death. I've applied a week of semiprotection to the article accordingly, but this may need a bit of a team effort — can people keep an eye out in case a proper source for his death does emerge in the next couple of days? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Added to watchlist. Did you try emailing him? There's a link on his website. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   17:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if somebody were to do that, it wouldn't result in a published reliable source that we could cite either way. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But if one got a reply, it would be a damn good reason to keep the article protected and revert further death reports on sight. Finding a RS saying that someone is still alive is frequently a tall order. Moot point now, perhaps. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   19:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Friends of Mr. Merlis on social media are posting that he has, indeed, died. No doubt a reliable source will be forthcoming shortly. Ping me if you need an additional admin for protection issues. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not WP:RS as it's FB, but Mark Merlis's husband has announced his death to Wesleyan, Mr. Merlis's alma mater. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Gay Mafia sources
I want to know if these sources are credible to avoid a edit war over Gay Mafia I think and  are acceptable for to describe the insult. Any opinions are welcome. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's see.... A polemic published by a notorious right-wing publishing house and written by a former Breitbart editor who believes that Sesame Street is left-wing propaganda? A book about the Illumnati written by a noted conspiracy theorist? They don't appear to be reliable sources for much of anything. I suppose they might be primary sources for "describing the insult", but you really need secondary sources for that purpose. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   16:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style for Trangender people who has a radically different name prior to transition.
Would somebody advise me how to deal with such cases. It is relatively easy for the cases of Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning where they only changed their first name but how about the case of Jake Zyrus, whose claim to notability is his singing career under his pre-transition name "Charice" or "Charice Pempengco". I understand that all feminine pronouns should be appropriately replaced with masculine ones irregardless of when but do we replace all instances of "Charice" with Zyrus and take note that he performed under the name Charice and was not publicly known as a trans-man then? I want to avoid potential confusion while maintaining respect to his gender identity. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The guidelines relating to trans people in MOS:GENDERID and MOS:BIRTHNAME should apply regardless of what portion of the name the trans person changed. If they were well-known under a different name before transition that can and should be stated once at the beginning of the article, then the new name should be used thereafter. Funcrunch (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With regard to Chelsea Manning and MOS:GENDERID, I'd been meaning to note (for a few months now) that Manning did express a preference, as noted by SlimVirgin, but her Wikipedia article currently does not use that preference. That stated, I do not know if Manning changed her mind on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that he was already notable before coming out as transgender, it is necessary for us to acknowledge that he was formerly known as Charice. But we also have to balance that against not giving his old name undue weight compared to his current name — once we've acknowledged the former name, it's not necessary to dwell on it any further. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Looking for Now" (Looking television episode)
"Looking for Now" has been nominated for deletion, if project members want to contribute to the ongoing discussion and/or help expand the article. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry on how "age of consent" should be defined?
See Talk:Age_of_consent WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Transgender personnel in the United States military article split discussion
There is a discussion regarding the creation of a new article, Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a split from Transgender personnel in the United States military. Discussion is happening on the talk pages of both articles (not ideal, I'm aware). Funcrunch (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Gays for Trump
Gays for Trump has been tagged for lacking notability, if anyone is interested in expanding the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this before. We feel microaggressed by the warning at the top of the talkpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess you're still using the Royal we, as in the previous thread on this page you were the only editor claiming to feel this way. Also, removed the editnotice in response to your complaint, but noted the page does still fall under discretionary sanctions.  Funcrunch (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need to have the same discussion here. I was just posting a general invite for anyone who wants to expand the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing gay athletes from gay categories
User:Kevin_McE is wholly invested in removing the entry Colin_Jackson from the appropriate LGBT sportspeople categories, using what I can only describe as a nonsensical argument that Jackson doesn't belong in the category because he's identifying as gay is irrelevant to his public life - despite the fact that he's come out and did so in a public venue (on TV no less). Jackson previously denied being gay, and the entry has covered his denial for years. It makes sense that it must now acknowledge his admission. Kevin insists on not accepting that point. Can you all please add your two cents on the Talk Page to the entry? Thanks. Rafe87 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe I am applying WP:CATEGRS as intended: maybe there is grounds for discussion there. Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why the Removal?.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You can look at the lengthy discussion on the article's talk page, but the content has been restored so the discussion has ended. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   14:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Munroe Bergdorf/L'Oréal
Hello. I've just added some referenced info about Munroe Bergdorf's dismissal. Could someone please double-check (possibly rephrase) it please? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good! I added a little bit of L'Oréal's comments from a NYT article and clarified where Munroe made her comments. Pure RED  &#124; talk to me  &#124; 14:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Frances X. Frei
Hello. I am looking for an RS confirming that Frances X. Frei is a lesbian. If you google her name and "lesbian", Taki's Magazine comes up but I don't think that's an RS, is it? I've been looking for a wedding announcement in The New York Times, to no avail. Are you able to find an RS please?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I've found one.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

More eyes appreciated on edit request
A proposed change to the History section of Homosexuality could use some careful attention. Please see Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017. Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   16:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no idea what this person is looking for. Like you mentioned, the phrase "same-sex behavior" is really functionally useless. I brushed my teeth today and I'm a gay man--does that belong in the article? :P Pure RED  &#124;  talk to me   &#124; 16:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm keeping an eye on the matter. I'm trying to figure out why this editor wants the content added and if it contains any more WP:Synthesis. The proposed text mostly looks like WP:Synthesis to me. For the record, "same-sex behavior" usually refers to "same-sex sexual behavior," like it does in this 2009 "Same-Sex Behavior Found in Nearly All Animals" Live Science source. And I see that Rivertorch asked the editor if he/she/they mean "same-sex sexual behavior." The term currently redirects to the Same-sex relationship article, however, which is probably better than it redirecting to the Homosexuality article since the term is missing "sexual" and since the Same-sex relationship article does currently note that a same-sex relationship can be platonic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I also see that the term did redirect to the Homosexuality article before the editor in question redirected it to the Same-sex relationship article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Eduardo Berizzo
Good day to you all,

i have kindly been directed here by fellow user User:Hmlarson, and my question is the following: is the "remarks on homosexuality" section found in this sportsperson's article notable or just dispensable trivia (even if sourced, which it is)? Some users keep removing it for no (valid) reason at all, hence my "putting down of the wikifoot", so to speak.

I am of the opinion it should remain, this may be one of those cases where one's bigotry (speaking of Mr. Berizzo) gets the best of them and then they think "Oops, i screwed up big time", and then they have compose their speech by saying (in this case) "No, i have nothing against homosexual people" or "No, i did not say that". I might be wrong in this analysis, but bottom line is that i think section should remain, if it needs rewording is another matter.

Attentively, thank you very much in advance from Portugal --Quite A Character (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ideally, you would begin a discussion at Talk:Eduardo Berizzo. In brief here, I question whether the translation of the second quote is accurate. (What "note" is referred to?) Other than that, what you apparently have is a public figure who allegedly said something and then denied saying it. The Telegraph is reliable, but was it covered in any other media? If not, it may not be noteworthy. If it was, then it probably is noteworthy. (By the way, please try to avoid using needlessly inflammatory edit summaries like this one. This is a content dispute, not vandalism.) Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)