This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Google books for one gives over 650 different publications that use the term independent of the works of Judith Butler. Of course she is mentioned and discussed, as the creator of the theory. And anyone who has had passing exposure to the field of Yet merging this very important part of contemporary gender studies discourse into the initial theorist's biographical page is not a good solution. Adding information and fixing whatever problems this article has, is the better way to go.
It is community practice to have a different standard of notability for specialized academics than say, politicians or football teams. Again, anyone with passing knowledge of contemporary gender studies, and even undergraduate social sciences, knows about gender performativity. Notability is clear.--Cerejota (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"The performative acts which Butler is discussing she names to be performative and within the larger social, unseen world, they exist within performativity."
Possibly I am just dense but I have no idea what this is trying to say, besides "performative!" 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I had problems reading that sentence too, but I think the part before the "and" just means that Butler calls performative acts "performative". Yeah, I guess the sentence should be rephrased. Go ahead, native speakers! -- UKoch (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I removed the sentence on the ground that it makes no bloody sense at all. If it's supposed to mean something, I suggest it be rewritten with a general audience in mind. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Can someone that has actually completed a humanities degree please rewrite this article?
I know these ideas are sometimes complex but presumably someone understands the subject enough to provide a coherent explanation. This article is written like a first draft of an essay written for lit theory 101 on an iphone, while riding a bus. I didn't understand anything. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: No move; User:BDD has offered to resolve this issue through a merge, which should hopefully get all the relevant content to the best title. Cúchullaint/c 15:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Gender performativity → Gender performance – "Performativity" isn't a real word; it's a neologism that does not appear in any of the 5 dictionaries I've checked. And as the article itself says, Butler never "differentiate[s] clearly between notions of performativity and performance, even when pressed to define a clear division". Ergo, per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use actual English, not weird pseudo-English that no one knows but a few gender studies students. Note that this is not replacing Butler's term with an alternative, it's selecting Butler's own real-English term over her confusing, odd one. The logic in the well-regarded essay WP:Use plain English is also clearly applicable here, as is WP:MOS's basic advice to use plain language. Many links to this article are [[Gender performativity|gender performance]] piped links. The redir gender performance did not exist until I created it a few minutes ago. The absence of such an obvious redir for so long is also a hint that, as someone suggested at the top of Talk:Gender performativity, this topic may not even be notable to begin with, but I'll leave that for others to decide. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þContrib. 02:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment I am not sure if the change works here since this is about a specific term a person coined and saying that she coined gender performance would not be accurate. This is not a general article about how people of a certain gender perform it is about a specific term.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
That's a good point. If the article is about a specific term coined by Butler, we shouldn't move it. But look up at the first comment on this page—if this is a general feminist concept we're discussing, then I agree with SMcCandlish's critiques of the unnecessary neologism "performativity." The article as it stands still describes the coinage more than the concept, though, so I'd lean towards opposing. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
support The term is a neologism, and has not entered either standard English or lit crit or gender studies. The general concept has great notability. A paragraph about Butler's use of a variant term can be added, to the article, if any thinks they can write it understandably. Sometimes we do use the specific vocabulary of a group even when it seems incomprehensible, or contradicts the standard meaning of the words, but only when it is firmly established. This isn't. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Just as a note, there's been a merge proposal that would combine this article with a few others that has been open since November. The discussion is just me agreeing with the proposal, but I'll probably carry out in the next day or two (note that merging is a much less formal process than RMs or deletion discussions). --BDD (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.