Template talk:Gender and sexual identities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Untitled thread[edit]

You have homosexuality in there twice. Atom 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This template makes me feel uneasy. For one, it distinguishes certain intersex conditions as being different sexes and not describing different conditions; are you going to list all intersex conditions as being different sexes? Is this even an appropriate and correct usage? How are you defining "sex", here, in your categorization? By the sexual identity article, listing sexes doesn't seem to be part of sexual identities, something which relates to sexual orientation; even that article notes that the term's usage isn't quite clear and unambiguous. Listing various topics relating to gender then, by use of the primary definition on that article, would thus be incorrect. The overall impression one gets is that the template is quite confused. Dysprosia 08:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that on his talk page. I think that this template still needs alot of thought and work. My impression is that the emphasis was on getting a template out there, and working out the details of what ought to be on it later. If I had a clear picture of what its purpose was, I could be more constructive in suggesting how it could be changed.

From looking at it, we start with "sexual orientations". I suppose that could be useful, but it puts Anthrosexuality and pansexuality, which are essentially the same thing, on this list, even though are lower in incidence, as is asexuality. "queer" isn't a sexual orientation, it is terminology that used by a portion of people who either are, or identify as homosexual.

There are a list of the sexes. Which most people are familiar with as male and female. There are intersex peoples, but again this is a low incidence in the population, and yet intersex, and unusual (low incidence) variations of male and female are listed. SO, this reference might be good for someone in biology, or in certain areas of medicine, but not really a reference that most people would use. It would be good material for a wikipedia article on intersexuality, or a template just for intersexuality related articles.

The Gender category throws in some of the other terms. I can see how these would be useful in certain gender related articles, such as "transgenderism". I'm not sure people who saw value to this category would get use out of the other categories.

In "other" category: homosexuality and transgender is listed, even though both were previously listed. Polyamory is listed, and so need for "polyamorous", but polygamy, polyandry and polygyny aren't listed. If they were, I am not sure how they would relate to the other categories.

I think the approach of a templte in search of articles that had some marginal relationship is probably not the best. A better aproach would be to identify a series of related articles, and then list terminology they have in common, and/or pointing to one another in a template (a brief, small template).

So far the "STD/STI" template comes the closest to fitting the bill on this. The "Sex" template is too expansive and non specific.

Atom 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Template Title[edit]

I have concerns about the template title. The various aneuploidies (and gonadal dysgenesis) listed for "sexes" have little to do with "sexual identity". Or, if you want to keep the title, it is more appropriate to replace the "sexes" section with male and female. Of course, even then, the title should be "Human sexual identities". TedTalk/Contributions 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sexes[edit]

I see no reason to have the various chromosomal variations that cause male vs. female in a template for Sexual Identities. If there are no objections, I will replace them with Female, Male, Man, Woman, Intersexuality. Those articles may or may not refer to the various chromosomal abnormalities. TedTalk/Contributions 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem. Although the chromosomal differences may have intrerest for some people (biologist/scientists) I don't see that being useful to the majority of readers. Atom 12:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

who cares this is an encyclopedia, it should be useful scientifically and biologically, not to the majority of readers which it think would actually find this much for interesting, as for male and female as opposed to man and women, the male/female people got quite pissed off at me when i added it to male and female saying i was being human-centric, total bull in my opinion. i thought it was important to include sexual identities male and female are that they dont have anything to do with sex (intercourse) but do have to do with sex (whats between your legs).Qrc2006 08:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are right about male/female not being included. TedTalk/Contributions 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the sexes should be Female, Male and Intersex.
Female(xo), Female(xx), Female(xxx), Female(xy) are all females with female internal reproductive organs and female external genitalia.
Male(xx), Male(xxy), Male(xy), Male(xyy) are all males with male internal reproductive organs and male external genitalia.
Turner syndrome, Swyer syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome cause hypogonadism at puberty requiring hormone treatment for the development of pubertal secondary sex characteristics and are usually infertile (though some may be able to have children using assisted reproductive technology).
In Trisomy X syndrome and XYY syndrome, gonadal function and fertility is normal.
I do not think this sexual identities template should be attached to any of the articles on the above syndromes. Sexual identity problems are not characteristic of these syndromes and the articles about them should not imply that they are by including this template.
I can attest that ambiguity of body is deeply entwined with my sense of sexual identity, but I can't speak for anyone else. It's a topic on which I don't think I can objectively write. Jack Hare 07:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
An Intersex(xo/xy) is an intersex (some xo/xy mosaics are female, some are male, and some are intersex depending on the mosaicism).
Male and female are sexes. Man and woman, like boy and girl are developmental stages of human males and females, not sexes.
Panda411 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The only remaining problem appears to be male/female vs man/woman. What I see is that "sexes" is not really appropriate for this template. As Qrc2006 points out, it is not sex that matters, but how individuals indentify themselves (gender). I will go about correcting the template. TedTalk/Contributions 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Gender identity is not the same as sexual identity. The two articles on the subjects propose completely different ideas. Dysprosia 11:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the "Gender identities" section contains male, female, and intersex? These are biological states and, for example, many intersex traits are tested prenatally and/or via preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Gender identities don't become apparent from around age 3 years. Nsw2042 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

For reasons stated at the Gender and Sex and gender distinction articles (articles we have both edited); it's clear that many, likely most, people make no distinction between biological sex and gender, though a lot of us (including myself) do (or generally do). Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
And, yes, like the Gender identity article states (supported by WP:Reliable sources), gender identity is usually solid by age 3 (though it was clearly forming before then). Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I shifted Intersex and Hermaphrodite to "See also", rather than "Gender identities". Incidentally, I've never edited Sex and gender distinction Nsw2042 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
That's fine to me. And, oops, I've been seeing you around at various biological sex/gender articles that I confused you as already having edited the Sex and gender distinction article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and no worries. I thought I should give a few citations: International Intersex Forum (see third forum statement on identification documents), United Nations Free & Equal campaign fact sheet "LGBT Rights: Frequently Asked Questions Fact sheet LGBT Rights: Frequently Asked Questions (via UN Free & Equal) and LGBT rights in Australia section: Discrimination protections Nsw2042 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
My point about "male" and "female" in this case is that many sources consider the "male" and "female" categories to be gender identities; those same sources obviously wouldn't be opposed to calling "male" and "female" sex categories either. Think of how, under or beside the Gender listing on certain forms, the sex categories "male" and female" are given as options to select instead of "man" and "woman"; one additional reason for that is obviously that some such forms pertain to boys and girls as well and that, as such, not all males are men, and not all females are women. To reiterate, it seems that the sex and gender distinction isn't the prevalent view, even among some scholarly fields other than the ones pertaining to feminism, and therefore it would not be best to remove "male" and "female" from the "Gender identities" section. The intersex category, though, is different because (from what I know) most people who are intersex identify as male or female, and there usually is not an intersex option to check off on a form. So I don't mind much that you removed the intersex listing from the "Gender identities" section, but someone else might, and that person or someone else might add it back. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I get that, and that's why I didn't move "female" and "male". The article on intersex makes it clear that intersex is a matter of biology, and there's data there (and in the citations above) that show that intersex isn't itself defined as a "gender identity". Alternate verifiable sources would need to justify inclusion, if they exist (so long as they are not given undue weight). Nsw2042 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point. Though, and not that you were suggesting this, the citations wouldn't go on this template (that's not proper); they'd need to go in the Intersex article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Added top/bottom to 'other'[edit]

See Top and bottom in sex and BDSM (talk) Sai Emrys ¿? 06:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... that "other" line is getting quite full ...[edit]

... and I'm really wondering when it was that "pimp", "Geesha girl", "porn star", "prostitute", and "sex offender" became sexual identities. I'm not interested in arguing over whether they might be seen or might be interpreted as sexual identities (which claims smell rather strongly of OR). All I ask is some authoritative references that, for example, pimps (or even some pimps) feel that their involvement in the sex industry is not merely what they do for money but fundamentally woven into their sexuality and personal identity.

These are all very bold claims that require bold evidence; and the claim that "sex offender", in particular, constitutes a sexual identity is on the border between the extraordinary and the bizarre. I'll accept the claims if the evidence is provided, but only if. --7Kim (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • On review of the history, these items appear to have been added by an unknown editor who struck once, never to be seen again. I feel justified in summarily removing them. If anyone has arguments to advance for them, they can be restored. --7Kim (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed. I also removed Homosexuality and transgender, because the page does not refer to a sexual identity but a differentiation of two different concepts -- important, certainly, but this is not the place for it. I moved Same gender loving from "Other" to "Sexual Orientations". I removed "Celibacy" from "Sexual orientations", because to the extent that it can be interpreted as a sexual orientation it is indistinguishable from and redundant with asexuality, and to the extent that it is distinct from asexuality, it is not a sexual orientation (or identity) but a particular sexual practice not specific to any orientation or sexual identity. If anyone feels a need to restore what I have removed, please feel free. --7Kim (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Technosexuality[edit]

I've removed 'Technosexuality' from the template, and also intend to remove 'Same Gender Loving'. Technosexuality seems analogous to metrosexual, which isn't on the list. If anything, it's a fetish, and description '1' on the page doesn't even go that far. The other descriptors are words for people that: - Do not experience sexual attraction - Are sexually attracted to the same sex - Are sexually attracted to the opposite sex - Are attracted to people of either sex as well as to people with a non-binary gender identity.

Same gender loving is likewise inappropriate because it is a nonce-term. If we are going to include synonyms and slang, then the template will quickly become useless. Leoniceno (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthrosexuality[edit]

if the other template is locked with anthrosexual on it, this one should include it too for uniformal purposes. Reverting back, please provide a reason for why it shouldn't be on.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The other template is locked because you were edit warring, for which you were blocked. I'm not going to revert further until the AfD has ended, but your hostile attitude and approach to editing aren't winning you any friends. Fireplace (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do'h! Wrong template![edit]

Sorry ... carry on with your day. Dybryd (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion[edit]

I'm going to return the template to the structure it had before User0529 moved things around. I'm sorry, but the one word "cleanup" is not an adequate explanation for grossly changing the template's conceptual organisation. If User0529 would care to describe the new organisation that was intended, I'm certain we can probably reach a consensus. Who knows, e may actually have a better idea than I do. --7Kim (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Also, I moved Evening people to the "Other" line; the content of the article gives no strong indication whether "evening people" is an internally affirmed identity or an externally applied characterisation. --7Kim (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me to have all of the gender identities under one grouping (like the sexual identities are), but if that is an issue then i won't contest the revert. User529 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm fixing the "Evening people" with a wikilink to "Hijra". ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please include "Queer Heterosexual" in the appropriate place (preferably in gender identities)[edit]

Please include Queer heterosexual at the appropriate place. (59.180.139.63 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

"Sexual identity" versus "sexual orientation identity"[edit]

sexual orientation identity = identity based on sexual orientation: homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, etc.
sexual identity = identity based on sex: physically or biologically male, female, intersex, transsexual, etc.
gender identity = identity based on gender: socially male, female, in-between, gender-free, transgender, etc.


The fist sentence or paragraph of these articles is very clear on the differences. So as not to erase page histories, I have not renamed the template page nor its talk page. Only the box titles have been corrected. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the template links to gender identity and sexual identity. I also think it should link to sexual orientation identity. The examples that were given (Asexual · Bisexual · Ex-gay · Heterosexual · Homosexual · Pansexual · Polyamorous · Pomosexual · Banjee · Gay · Lesbian · Queer · Same gender loving · Non-heterosexual) all seem to be sexual orientation identities, not sexual identities. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition of Bigender to Third sex / Third gender[edit]

I initially made the edit, then realized I didn't discuss the change here. I'd like to add Bigender to Third sex/Third gender category. I believe it qualifies. Please advise. MisterBixby (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been no response to this. I will add bigender to the template MisterBixby (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to avoid making a new section, I'd rather just explain my edit. It was simple really, just added a link to Ex-ex-gays, as a subset of ex-gays -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Girlfags and Guydykes[edit]

What about Girlfags and Guydykes? If no one objects, I'll include them in this template as gender identities. --RedZiz (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I object per the kitchen sink principle, if we include these it seems we should likely include all manner of neologistic terms that are cropping up. As a high profile template it would seem we should be more judicious. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand your objection. Well, I was too eager to contribute so the text is already there - you may revert it, if you regard the change as unbearable. But, before this I want to point out: (i) the term 'pomosexual' is relatively new as well, and not more a neologism as 'guydyke' or 'girlfag' is. Nevertheless, it remains (ii) there are people who identify as 'gay woman' or 'lesbian man' (iii) for this template, I could not find something like a 'declaration of purpose'. Therefore I am not known the profile of this template.
Have a good day. --RedZiz (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sworn virgins[edit]

It says in the Sworn virgin article that there are "fewer than 100 sworn virgins in the world", according to National Geographic, while the article Albanian sworn virgins (sworn virgins are confined to Albania and nearby areas) states "Currently there are fewer than forty sworn virgins left in Albania, and a few in neighboring countries" and they are dying out. This seems to me to be a really, really marginal community. I propose to d delete it from the template, any objections? Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Genderfuck?[edit]

"Genderfuck" seems (at least according to the article) be a political position rather than an identity. It is "the conscious effort to mock... traditional notions of gender identity... Often, parody and exaggeration are used to transgress gender roles, usually to expose them as artificial...". This is political/social theater rather than an inner identity, as confirmed later: "Genderfuck is a politics of identity stemming from the identity politics movements.... The term dates [to] an article by Christopher Lonc... Lonc wrote 'I want to criticize and poke fun at the roles of women and of men too.... I want to ridicule and destroy the whole cosmology of restrictive sex roles and sexual identification.'"

This is political theatre and is no more an identity than being a member of the Capitol Steps or the Bread and Puppet Theatre and so forth is an identity. For this reason I've removed the entry. Herostratus (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this remain separate template - discussion on Template talk:LGBT[edit]

There is a discussion on Template talk:LGBT#What to do about merger of Template:Gender and sexual identities into LGBT about whether this template should continue as a separate template, or be subsumed into {{LGBT}}. This was prompted because a recent edit copied most of this template into LGBT, so the question is whether to complete the merge, or to take the content back out of that template. If you are interested, please contribute on that template's talk page. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Futanari[edit]

Forgive me if I'm wrong but is Futanari really a gender identity. It seems from the article to be more of a trait of Japanese art.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)