Talk:Genderfuck

opinion

before you revert me yet again, notice what i added to back it up. what wrong with what i have now? Urthogie 04:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this page really nessisary? Isn't it just genderqueer with obsanity tacked onto it for "shock value"? Arcuras 19:29, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

"Genderqueer" with what? Anyway, genderqueer does not necessarily go with shock value, and neither does "genderfuck" go necessarily with obscenity. (If that is what you meant.) Besides, why not have the page? -- AlexR 22:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was refering to the "fuck" suffix of the term "Genderfuck"... from the text of the current genderfuck article, the term (and a majority of the article) seems to simply mirror genderqueer, being no more then a variance of terminology. If I'm wrong on this, then this article needs to be significantly expanded to emphasize this difference, otherwise the term is simply "genderqueer" reworded in such a way to ensure it obtains the reader's/listener's notice. Arcuras 22:41, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the article is somewhat improvable, and unfortunately I am not close enough to the relevant group to be able to improve it. I am positively certain, though, that both are two related, but different concepts. Actually, that is quite obvious from the articles, if one bothers to read them - genderfuck is first and foremost a "gender performance", genderqueer an identity. Theoretically, you don't have to be genderqueer to do genderfuck, although those who do genderfuck consciously probably are. Anyway, there is no reason for the merger, not even with the article as it currently stands. -- AlexR 14:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is related to genderqueer, and there is some overlap, but it would be inaccurate to enclose it there. If I can, I'll expand on this - there are different histories to genderqueer and genderfuck.

Agreed that genderqueer and genderfuck have unique but similiar histories; I'm not an expert but my exerience is that genderfuck was coined first and speaks to "fucking" with concepts of gender unintentionally or purposefully usually as an external manifestation whereas genderqueer speaks to a broader movement to cast aside gender norms and male-female restrictions of explaning, defining and enforcing gender and societal roles. Benjiboi 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Stub category

After recent arguments about which stub category this belongs in 9and I agree with AlexR that the ones previously given are far from accurate), I have changed this to fashion-stub. My argument for this is that Genderfuck is a deliberate fashion or style choice, albeit a deliberately provocative one. If anything, it's most easily comparable with the deliberate public wearing of bondage and fetish gear during the punk era of the late 1970s. Grutness|^hello? 06:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fashion stub? Come on... do we really have to pidgen hole every article into specific stub categories? This artile is to fashion as an improv group would be to fashion. Yes, fashion does have a part of it, but it's not the whole piece. Genderfucking is a direct challange of gender stereotypes, cultural stereotypes, and societal roles, and it achieves this thrugh various methods, unique to whomever is fucking with it.

These individuals are rebelling against labels. Ironically, that's exactly what people are trying to apply to them here. Arcuras 07:29, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think there is now an appropriate stub-category (LGBT-stub); I've changed it accordingly

Lectonar 12:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Annie Lennox?

There is no mention of genderfuck or anything related that I can find in the article on Annie Lennox, nor is there (obviously) any reference in this page. Perhaps it's obvious to some, but it seems much less obvious than other performers listed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.27.232 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed - before someone is 'claimed' for this absurdly irrelevant article, perhaps some citation of them identifying/being identified with this term should be provided. Izzard, for example, calls himself an 'executive" or "action" transvestite - a witty term unlike this article's puerile version. How about deleting the whole thing? Malick78 09:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree on boths counts. Genderfuck is a well-know term in the queer perfomance and activist communities, both Izzard and Lennox fit the label for their purposeful blurring of gender norms, as do other pop Brit icons like Boy George, David bowie's Ziggy Stardust and countless others. The article should be improved to represent the nuances of gender bending and reinterpreting gender roles and allow that an articst might not lablel themself a gender outlaw, a genderfucker or androgynous hero but that hardly means they aren't doing it. Benjiboi 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiablility, not truth (see WP:VERIFY). If it is not verifiable, then it should not be included. I've removed from the "famous" list those people whose articles do not mention "genderfuck" since their inclusion as "famous genderfuckers" is unsupported and uncited. Doctormatt 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that reasoning is flawed. It sould like if I edit those articles with some vaguery "some think Aniie Lennox is a genderfucker" then they would be included. I wonder if deleting examples is premature as this is a newer concept and needs expanding and research but hack away if you must. Benjiboi 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. I am in no way suggesting that "some think Annie Lennox is a genderfucker" is acceptable as a sourced claim. What do you suggest as a citation requirement for this list? It seems to me that there are two options: a citation right next to each entry in the list, or a citation somewhere in the linked article. The former method is cumbersome and redundant if the citation is in the linked article already, so I think the latter method is generally better for lists on Wikipedia. This also puts the burden of citation on the editors of the linked-to article, and not on those who edit this article. By the way, I am not "hacking" away: I edited the list to be consistent with WP policy. By paying strict attention to WP guidelines, we might be able to help articles grow into strong and effective ones, as opposed to creating, messy, unsourced, unencyclopedic trash. Doctormatt 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. To me, it seems you're determined to remove anything from this article that doesn't meet a standard that should be reserved for articles that are more developed. This is a stub class article and I find your edits more harmful than helpful. The article needs expanding not removal of any idea that doesn't meet a strict WP standard no matter how technically correct. I'm finding it hard to see your edits as constructive rather than disruptive.

The LGBT wikiproject writes:

"The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful."

An article in its genesis needs more help for a general reader to relate to it not less. Annie Lennox, David Bowie and pop music icons are a good resource point for general readers to be able to understand what the article is talking about. The [Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence] are certainly genderfuckers so even if the resource has not yet been unearthered hardly means the very suggestion should be enpunged. This article is now five sentences thanks to your diligent effort. Benjiboi 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the WP guidelines are not applicable to articles in their genesis. Quoting myself, "By paying strict attention to WP guidelines, we might be able to help articles grow into strong and effective ones, as opposed to creating, messy, unsourced, unencyclopedic trash.". I think it is more important that one sets a proper tone/structure/etc. for other editors - I think we should worry about the "general reader" only after an article is properly up on its feet. Anyway, if you are having such a hard time finding well-sourced material for this article, perhaps there are other problems besides my editing. Doctormatt 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think WP guidelines are applicable to newer articles but also think that using your "strict" rules are disruptive to other editors. Although you may be technically correct that nothing should appear in the article that can't be verified I think this is a good example letting editors express ideas unfettered by seemingly restrictive rules. To me, this seems like a bullying tactic - if you don't strictly obey the letter of the law your contributions will be erased. By it's nature WP is not a machine but an organic process and it seems unfair to require every editor to only write encyclopedic facts. Even though, I hope, our goals are to improve articles our styles seem vastly different. I would rather encourage other editors to contribute and then (gently) correct as needed. Have Annie Lennox listed as an example as a genderfucker, to me, seemed fine at least for now. I certainly think her artistry is seen as such even if it has yet to be labelled exactly that way that we can reference. Instead you've removed that helpful piece of knowledge. As a little experiment, why not try adding two sentences for every one you want to get rid of? As this article is only five sentences right now you could effective double or triple its content rather quickly. If that idea seems too much then I kindly suggest there are many articles that need trimming and even have other editors looking for review help to remove "unencyclopedic trash." As for "having such a hard time finding well-sourced material" a quick book search [1] pulls 137 references. To me it seems the problem is not finding the material but allowing it to grow rather than being pulled by the roots. Benjiboi 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, man, why don't you just start adding some of that great material to the article (the first complaint above is from January!)? Nobody is stopping you, and if it is well cited (and perhaps even if it isn't - we're not machines after all) it should not be removed. Cheers, Doctormatt 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my timing doesn't work for you, I'm also disturbed that it seems as though any edit to this article will be met with swift judgement as that seems against the spirit of cooperation that WP relies on. Here's hoping that a spirit of collaboration and encouragement will continue to grow so that WP can represent a worldwide body ogf knowledge. Benjiboi 19:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really glad to see you've made an edit of the article - your timing is fantastic! That's the stuff! Cheers, Doctormatt 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Snarky and sarcastic comments seem equally unhelpful. Benjiboi 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not being snarky and/or sarcastic - I don't have time for that. I am honestly very, very glad that you have taken enough interest in this article to edit it - at least one of us (yes, you!) has actually done something to improve the article. Kudos! Cheers, Doctormatt 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources and informing of my intention to clean up this page (maybe)

Anyway, if I get the chance, I'll clean up this page. Some of the sources I will be using include,

• http://genderfuck.net/genderfuck.htm
• http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=genderfuck
• http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=genderfuck
• http://www.audioterrorist.com/genderfuck/genderfuck/genderfuck_the_history.html (and links from this page)
• http://www.audioterrorist.com/genderfuck/genderfuck/Genderfuck_Text.html

I'll also have a look around the local library for books on the matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Real name

Seriously...is "Genderfuck" the actual name of this concept? I mean, it sounds sort of lay-man to me. It's even got a cuss built right into it, and I don't know the formal name for anything that has a cuss in it. Surely there must be a better, more formal name for this concept than simply "Genderfuck"? I mean, would you really flip through an encyclopedia under G and find the word Genderfuck in it? I think not... 24.15.53.225 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you would if the encyclopedia was comprehensive. The article indeed needs work but the concept is literally about "fucking" with gender concepts. Benjiboi 11:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for AFD

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is patent nonsense. It is a repetition of "genderqueer" with a profanity used simply for shock value. If it is a valid term, it is not sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopaedia; and WP is not a dictionary. The article is unsourced and no evidence is provided for the claims made. 87.127.44.154 10:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)