Talk:Non-binary gender

Non-binary section

As seen here, here, here and here, Molasar (talk · contribs) keeps adding a Non-binary section to the article and androgyne.0catch.com as a source. As seen with those links, I reverted because the section is not needed and is poorly sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Other Genders: Androgyne, Genderqueer, Non-Binary Gender Variant source appears to fall under WP:Self-published. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Update Created a Definitions and identity section; no need for a section for each term or an individual section for any of those terms. Also deleted the aforementioned non-binary material, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• How do I participate in this discussion? -- Molasar (talk · contribs) 20:32, 21 January 2016 (EST)

Molasar (talk · contribs), you participate the way you just did. You make your case in this section, and sign your post. But do keep in mind what I stated above. Androgyne.0catch.com is not a WP:Reliable source. And the other one appears to be a WP:Self-published violation. Also, there is no need for a separate section for "non-binary"; definitions can be covered in the Definitions and identity section, and "non-binary" is already covered by the "genderqueer" definition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• So, we just click on "edit" and type stuff into here manually? At least I read about the four-tilda TimeStamp.  :)

• I am androgyne and have always disliked the term genderqueer, but am quite cool with non-binary. It's just annoying to get no recognition for being one of the very first to use its original form, "non-binary gender variant" since, at the time of its coining, genderqueer had already become rather oppressive.

• Another point: why has no one mentioned the term "undifferentiated," which pre-figures neutrois and agender? Undifferentiated was a term created by androgyny researcher and theorist Sandra Bem to describe persons who scored low on her scale of femininity and her scale of masculinity, while androgynous was her description for persons who scored high on her scale of femininity and her scale of masculinity. -- Molasar (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Molasar: I'm familiar with the Bem Sex-Role Inventory you are referring to. But I believe that is significantly different from what this page is talking about. The gender identities described on this page are self-assigned, independent of any stereotypically masculine, feminine, or neutral traits that a test such as Bem's might categorize. "Undifferentiated" is not a self-descriptor a non-binary-identified person would be likely to use (though anything is possible). Funcrunch (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Funcrunch: said "Undifferentiated" is not a self-descriptor a non-binary-identified person would be likely to use -- but only because media, queer studies, LGBT studies, Wikipedia, etc. have not provided exposure for the term. Had someone posited "green cantaloupe" as a synonym for nonbinary on Wikipedia and it stuck for a year, I'll bet some folks would start referring themselves as green cantaloupe. I mean, is it any weirder than neutrois, which was coined by one person at a long-dead website? Molasar (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

My point is that "undifferentiated" is a term created by a cisgender person to describe the personality of people matching an arbitrary set of characteristics that she came up with. Neutrois, in contrast, is a term created by a non-binary-identified person to describe themself, and other non-binary people adopted that signifier for themselves. It's not a matter of how "weird" or uncommon the term is; the issue is self-determination of gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-interesting factoid: the full name of my gender as of April 13th 2016 (2 days ago – no matter how much I feel like I got to the bottom, I always discover new things about myself) is → cado(maveriqueflux/endoneutrois surgemigender • [nonpuerflux/endoproxvir • nonpuellaflux/endojuxera] molligemigender shuffler)-quasicance[boy • girl]-condicend[schrodi]pangender* impri/muto/aero/absor/ludo/imperi/amorgender/attrafluid argogender/genderblur fluidflux ← (* meaning condi([schrodi]pangender • [schrodi]antipangender), that is, I'm conditionally every gender possible to me, and also their polar opposites, genders known as antigenders that mostly just exist for the sake of not being the referenced gender), which is a really mouthful way to say "something close to neutrois and maverique but not quite, also really fluid on context, to the point of being a gender sponge for anyone with any non-closed gender identity / I'm neutral and universal – neutrois-antimaverique – yet also singular, autonomous and self-determined – maverique-antineutrois – because I want to opt-in all identities possible to me, since, at least in theory, I feel like I can equally relate to a degree to every other human gender-wise, but to the point that I've become my own separate, exquisite and misunderstood kind of person in the process".

If I lived before Tumblr / in an alternative reality with no equivalent community, I'd likely just identify as neutrois (and it did happen: I once didn't really have a name for maverique, so my cadogender was really just cadoneutrois), and the term undifferentiated would mean nothing to me as I feel really strongly about actually having a [really colorful and volatile] gender (plenty of neutrois people are comgender as opposed to identifying under a non-gender). Neutrois to me isn't about not being masculine and feminine, which is super binary in ideology as it assumes these identities as the sole possibilities (they aren't) and mutual opposites (they aren't), it is about being conflicted between pangender and antipangender – every other identity possible balances each other out so that your inner sense of gender is neutral towards every other kind of human identity. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Srtª PiriLimPomPom: This may not be the proper place to discuss this, as we already have enough issue defining "agender" through reliable sources, but I'd like to know where you heard some of the terms you describe. I've heard interesting gender-defining terminology in my life, but never have I seen an identity turned into a formula, and color me impressed. I'm fascinated, could you post a link? ~Mable (chat) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Might be useful: http://mogai-lexicon.tumblr.com http://pastebin.com/VKuXFvqk http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Genderfluid#List_of_specific_kinds_of_genderfluid_identities_and_experiences http://nonbinary.org/wiki/Pangender http://pt-br.identidades.wikia.com/wiki/Neutrois (Brazilian source on my particular understanding of neutrois) https://esgibthope.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/qa-why-am-i-transgender/ (this explains why I use an identity with very dim chances of scientific validation within my lifetime). Please message me if you are confused about individual terms, prefixes and suffixes. I had many full, complex explanations in both English and Portuguese of how they play into my identity, but my Facebook account (where I wrote these) was just shut down through reports based on the real name policy. I have serious doubts if my profile will be returned, and I'm being defamated by some angry online mobs within my country's activist community while this happens. (It started with actual oppression vs "fake oppression" discourse drama, and me calling out sex worker exclusionary feminist views while I'm not welcomed by most DFAB folks and trans women to speak on the behalf of "their" movement/ideology.) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This all is fine – thank you for sharing these links. I don't believe this is the proper place to actually discuss any of this, but that's alright. ~Mable (chat) 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am not a well-learned Wiki editor. I usually just copy and paste the markup tags relevant to the stuff I want to add in. -- Molasar (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2016‎

Molasar, I see. Thanks for taking the time to finally reply. Above on this talk page, there are discussions about preferring "non-binary" to "genderqueer." If you look on Google Books for sources that discuss "non-binary" by using the term non-binary, you can add something to the Definitions and identity section from those sources. That is, if they are WP:Reliable. Same goes for a media source. Read WP:Reliable for what I mean about what Wikipedia considers reliable. My main objection, other than sources, is that we shouldn't have all these different sections for the same topic. A Definitions section suffices for discussion of the topic under different terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genderqueer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120425081046/http://www.glbtq.com:80/social-sciences/genderqueer.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/genderqueer.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141024234412/http://encompassnetwork.org.uk/uploads/LGBTQ-Needs-Assesmentabsolutelyfinal.pdf to http://encompassnetwork.org.uk/uploads/LGBTQ-Needs-Assesmentabsolutelyfinal.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110408181824/http://www.nlgja.org:80/resources/stylebook_english.html to http://www.nlgja.org/resources/stylebook_english.html#T

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Tags

This article is an ungodly mess as it stands, and while I could normally care less about Wikipedia's gender theory articles, it's creating BLP issues when uninformed editors rely on it to apply to individual articles. The lead section is simply not true - it's a bizarre series of half-truths from someone who's only partly understood the topic - a bit like what happens if you run an English sentence run through three languages in Google Translate. And that has led to problems with, for example, intersex people being tagged in genderqueer categories because it's so badly worded.

There are many gender identities that do not lie within the gender binary. Many of these people in the groups that have been merged into this article do not identify as genderqueer. It is absolutely not an overarching category in the way that it is described here - it should be one of the identities mentioned in the list. It really ought to either be at something like Non-binary gender identities because there is no guarantee that anyone in the "catch-all" list actually does identify as genderqueer, or refined to actually being about people who identify as genderqueer. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, The Drover's Wife, I reverted you. The reasons were clear: WP:Drive-by tagging and WP:Overtagging. Even now, I do not see that the tags you restored are justified. And if there is WP:Consensus to remove them, they will be removed. You stated the article is "creating BLP issues when uninformed editors rely on it to apply to individual articles". How so? You stated that "The lead section is simply not true". How so? We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state...with WP:Due weight, not the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors. You object to genderqueer being an "overreaching category," but it is indeed an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, as made clear by many reliable sources. It is also the WP:Common name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, the article has all the issues that are tagged. I didn't just throw a bunch on for fun.

• It is inaccurate, because it mashes together many groups of people who would not identify as genderqueer in a very odd way
• It is confusing for related reasons, as it doesn't explain the topic well at all, and it can't identify how it relates to all the unrelated identities
• It definitely does not represent a worldwide view of the subject, because there is zero evidence for people with non-binary indigenous genders that predate the concept by thousands of years identifying as "genderqueer"
• It is unfocused: it refers a whole bunch of non-binary identities in an article about a very specific non-binary identity and has the others mashed about all over the place
• It is outdated, because the usage the author is fixated on, to the extent that it was ever used in any significant way, is a solid decade old, as are all the sources being cited to support this weird definition The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You've provided no proof for any of those assertions. As indicated in the #Requested move 4 June 2016, you are arguing purely from emotion. As for a worldwide view, do see that Template:Globalize states, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." This article is about the term and concept "genderqueer"; it is not about "people with non-binary indigenous genders that predate the concept by thousands of years identifying as 'genderqueer'." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For the situation of "globalize" specifically, I think it is important to note that this article primarily refers to a western topic: genderqueer or non-binary gender identities could be seen as the modern western form of third gender, which is an entirely different topic. I'm vastly simplifying, of course, and I haven't done much research. I just wanted to make clear that third genders or indigenous gender identities are indeed outside the scope of this article. ~Mable (chat) 20:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Third gender is not only about indigenous identities, the page also includes discussion of biology and recognition in Australia, Germany and New Zealand. Your arguments do, however, highlight that this article should not just be "about the term and concept "genderqueer"". The western material in Third gender may not currently belong there, but it might belong here if the article name properly reflects a diversity of non-binary gender identities. Trankuility (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Trankuility, like I stated to you in the #Requested move 4 June 2016 section below, "Since genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary genders, I do not see how this article is limited with regard to the non-binary aspect, except for keeping out detail that is better left to the Transgender, Third gender and Gender variance articles. So as for globalizing, this is not the Third gender article, and I fear that it will become as bloated as that article if it is retitled 'Non-binary gender'."

The Drover's Wife, you were reverted twice on those tags. Once by me, and once by No such user. Per that and above, there is clearly no consensus for them. You should not be enforcing these tags. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You are presently a party of one in the face of what is becoming a fair list of editors disagreeing with the current state of this article, several who have expressed that they have had concerns about the article for some time and been scared of engaging. The only "consensus" you have that that the article shouldn't be tagged is that, for some reason, you're really passionately invested in what is your personal unique interpretation of this topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Editors disagreeing with the title of this article is not the same as "editors disagreeing with the current state of this article"; you are the only one arguing for the current WP:Overtagging, and without any valid justification. I see no editors that have stated "they have had concerns about the article for some time and been scared of engaging." As for being "passionately invested in [...] personal unique interpretation of this topic," no, that's you; I've already made that clear. I'm not the one voting one way or the other. You are, and with nothing but personal opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have certainly had concerns about the article for some time, as I previously noted, but I haven't been "scared" of engaging, just weary of it. But the topic of this article is an issue that affects my actual daily life, so if I have legitimate objections to its content then I don't have the privilege of simply ignoring it. If that makes me run afoul of your interpretation of WP:ACTIVISM - despite other editors agreeing with me on the sources favoring different titling or wording - so be it. Funcrunch (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2016

Genderqueer → Non-binary gender – Genderqueer is a controversial title for this page, possibly because of inclusion of the word queer, or because it is only one of a number of possible non-binary gender identities. Using a neutral descriptor such as "non-binary" may not be supported by a larger number of reliable references (per previous talk page discussions), however it may reduce that controversy and provide for the better selection of appropriate page content. Non-binary gender is currently one of a number of redirect pages pointing to Genderqueer. Alternative page names may be better than Non-binary gender. Trankuility (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This page at its current title is nonsense because genderqueer does not have the "catch-all" meaning it is, rather uniquely, claimed to have in this Wikipedia article, but the general structure would be reasonable if it were at Trankuility's preferred title. Critically, in getting away from any one specific identity label, it removes the structural issue around people of many indigenous genders being bizarrely stuffed into a very modern Western (and even quite niche/specific among Western non-binary people) title they would be extremely unlikely to actually identify as. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• On the fence: Genderqueer is the WP:Common name. Like I noted in the #Tags section above, it is indeed an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, as made clear by many reliable sources. And like stated in a previous discussion about this (now seen at Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 2#Please move Genderqueer back to Gender fluid), we should not be moving Wikipedia articles from their common titles because of what some people find offensive. I don't even think a WP:Precise argument works in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • On what evidence do you claim it is the common name? "Non-binary" is far more common unless you're reading teenage blogs from 1996. Your own linked search doesn't even support that argument: it has a few people saying that they like it as an umbrella term, a few people saying that they use other words as umbrella terms, and a few people saying that some people use it as an umbrella term. It's not offensive - it's just really bizarrely wrong in this context. In the sense that it's not actually a term that the vast majority of groups in this article would identify with, it's like walking up to somebody and saying "you're a mountain" - they're not going to be offended, they're just going to think you're really weird, and it's a very strange thing to do in people's biographical articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

On what evidence? The literature, and what was discussed in the #Changing the title on the basis that "non-binary" is now the more common term section above. I can cite a number of sources noting that genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities. What sources can you cite stating or indicating that "non-binary is far more common unless you're reading teenage blogs from 1996"? My search supports the argument that genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, and it supports the argument that non-binary is nowhere close to being the WP:Common name. When it comes to your claim that the search "has a few people saying that they like it as an umbrella term," etc., I note that only a few sources have an "while others see genderqueer as an umbrella term that encompasses all of those possible genders" aspect; other sources straight up state that it is an umbrella term. The rest of what you stated is pure opinion. On Wikipedia, it's best to argue with sources in debates like this. So on that note, some sources do make clear that genderqueer is used in two different ways. For example, this 2015 The Fenway Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health source, from ACP Press, page 360, states, "[Genderqueer] is generally used in two ways: 1) as an umbrella term that includes all people whose gender varies from the norm, akin to the use of the word queer to refer to all sexual orientations different from the norm (heterosexual); or 2) to describe a subset of individuals who are born biologically female, but feel their gender identity is neither female or male."

Transgender is also an umbrella term, and we note that in the lead of the Transgender article. It's a term used in ways that many disagree with, even as a term to cover all non-binary gender identities (as some sources in the search above show), but we are not here to placate people who disagree with how these terms are used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your own sources don't support the assertion that it's a catch-all term that is either uncontested or commonly used: they merely demonstrate, often in language that states that it is their personal opinion only, that if the word is used, it can have that meaning - a usage that (as is common to all of the books you've cited) peaked about a decade ago. ("This word has two different uses" in a definitions section does not equal "this is the common umbrella term for this concept"). The far more common use in book sources, not only overall but especially in remotely recent times, is "non-binary", something which Google Books (or any assessment of any literature of any kind) make incredibly obvious, but is less easy to sum up in a snappy link because it has uses in contexts beyond as identity label. It isn't about placating those who disagree, it's about having an article that doesn't plainly misunderstand the language - the version as of this morning was the Wikipedia equivalent of Steve Buscemi going "how do you do, fellow kids?". The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My own sources state that it's an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities. An umbrella term is a catch-all term. Stating that genderqueer is an umbrella term is not a personal opinion; it's a fact. The only one of us who is going by personal opinions is you. I am arguing with sources and with a Wikipedia rule (the WP:Common name policy); you are not. You are arguing with emotion only, and that is not how Wikipedia works. You stated, "The far more common use in book sources, not only overall but especially in remotely recent times, is 'non-binary', something which Google Books (or any assessment of any literature of any kind) make incredibly obvious, but is less easy to sum up in a snappy link because it has uses in contexts beyond as identity label." And yet you cannot demonstrate that with sources. In other words, it's a false claim. Your argument of "plainly misunderstand the language" is your opinion. When a variety of scholarly sources state that genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, then it is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities. That is not a misuse of language. And even if the article title is changed, the lead will still include "genderqueer" as an alternative name per the WP:Alternative name policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to note that saying something is a "false claim" because the person making it states it is difficult to prove is not exactly fair. You can't prove that the claim is false either because of it. I would like to see somekind of back-up of this claim, though... :s ~Mable (chat) 20:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I see, it is a false claim that "the far more common use in book sources, not only overall but especially in remotely recent times, is 'non-binary', something which Google Books (or any assessment of any literature of any kind) make incredibly obvious." The Drover's Wife cited Google Books, and it is false that Google Books supports "non-binary" as the more common term. If anything, it supports genderqueer and genderfluid as far more common terms for non-binary identities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - pretty clearly an inaccurate title as it currently is. Note that WP:COMMONNAME also advises against "ambiguous or inaccurate names", which this clearly is. Frickeg (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Frickeg, when a variety of scholarly sources state that genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, how does that make genderqueer an inaccurate title? Language is usually not binary; it is often fluid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with The Drover's Wife's analysis of the sources. Let me go into detail by examining just the first page of your search. #1 says "others see genderqueer as an umbrella source", indicating it is in dispute. #2 calls it an umbrella term for "a wide range of genders" - not all non-binary genders. #3 wants genderqueer to be "an umbrella term for all those who queer their gender" - indicating it is not that currently. #4 calls it "an umbrella term used by some people" (my emphasis), again indicating its non-universality. #5, #6, #7 and #8 broadly support your contention. #9 is also kind of supportive, but qualifies it ("genderqueer can encompass a variety" etc., implying it doesn't always). #10 calls it a term "used by some people". In short, your sources actually support the idea that the term "genderqueer" is, at the very least, ambiguous and disputed. Frickeg (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Frickeg (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), thanks for engaging me on this. Like I noted above, "Transgender is also an umbrella term, and we note that in the lead of the Transgender article. It's a term used in ways that many disagree with, even as a term to cover all non-binary gender identities (as some sources in the search above show), but we are not here to placate people who disagree with how these terms are used." That not everyone/every source sees transgender as an umbrella term does not mean we should not outright call it one in the Transgender article. Similarly, that not everyone/every source sees genderqueer as an umbrella term does not mean we should not treat it as one. Your "a wide range of genders" argument is what I view as semantics; by that, I mean that the same is stated of transgender -- that it is an umbrella term for a wide range of genders. For example, this 2011 The Limits of Gendered Citizenship: Contexts and Complexities source, from Routledge, page 15, states, "Transgender is an umbrella term covering a very wide range of social positions and identities, including cross-dressers, transsexuals, androgynes, intersexes (people born with a mixture of male and female physiological characteristics), drag queens and kings, third gender people, and other 'gender complex' people." And this 2014 Sex, Politics and Society: The Regulations of Sexuality Since 1800 source, from Routledge, page 404, states, "Transgender became an umbrella term for a wide range of gender variant and gender complex people." The wording "wide range" is clearly being used in an "all" way. Like genderqueer, transgender is also simply called an umbrella term for non-binary genders. In no case, when it comes to the Transgender article, do we need the source to state "all." The same should apply to the Genderqueer article. Umbrella term already covers "all" in cases like these anyway. If I saw the term genderqueer mentioned as controversial or as significantly disputed in the sources you analyzed, or other reliable sources, my opinion on this matter would be different. Looking at as much literature as I can on this topic, including media sources, I see that the literature shows that the terms genderqueer, genderfluid and transgender are the top three terms when it comes to a term that covers all non-binary gender identities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I honestly don't know the sources well, but I do know that "non-binary" is definitely much more common in the public these days. I've been on the fence with this one for a while, as I have difficulty determining common name, but if anything, this is actually the umbrella term "genderqueer" falls under. I definitely prefer the non-binary title. ~Mable (chat) 13:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What sources support non-binary definitely being much more common than genderqueer in the public these days? A case for that was attempted in the #Changing the title on the basis that "non-binary" is now the more common term section above...to no avail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I've supported this for a long time, as I stated in the earlier discussion. I'm one of many non-binary people who does not identify as genderqueer, and I am tired of being wikilawyered by people who insist they understand this concept better than I do. Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikilawyering is about misusing our rules. Following our rules appropriately is not wikilawyering. And as for identity, 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. You are tired of Wikipedia's rules being enforced on matters such as these. I am tired of WP:Activism driving our LGBT articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've alerted WikiProject LGBT studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Flyer22. SSTflyer 16:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just noting that Flyer22 indicated 'on the fence', not 'oppose'. Trankuility (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I'll remain on the fence since I don't want my vote to be solely based on what offends certain people, and since I'm not sure that I want to oppose the move either...given that a number non-binary people dislike the term genderqueer. Note: I'll alert editors at WP:Sociology, WP:Gender studies and the WP:Common name policy to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you're giving this some wider audience: I really want to see more input. ~Mable (chat) 20:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Google Scholar searches show an increasing number of articles for nonbinary gender (5730 in my last check) and a higher but older and more U.S.-centric number of articles for genderqueer (7850). The distribution and dated character of genderqueer articles highlight, in my view, limitations already discussed over the past year here, and earlier in the archives. Changing the name will permit inclusion of more comprehensive material that currently does not fit here, helping to globalize the article and include legal and human rights developments. As Flyer22 points out, the article will need to continue to mention alternative names in the lede if this change proceeds. Trankuility (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at that search, I question your "increasing number of articles for nonbinary gender" argument. In the case of those sources, non-binary gender is used side by side with the terms genderqueer, genderfluid, or gender-nonconforming, or it's used in passing, or it's used in a third gender context. What I'm seeing on Google Books and on Google Scholar is not enough to state that nonbinary or non-binary gender is as common, or close to as common, as genderqueer. One of those sources on Google Scholar is this 2015 "Sex and gender diversity among transgender persons in Ontario, Canada: results from a respondent-driven sampling survey" source, which states, "Genderqueer people (variously referred to as gender fluid, gender nonconforming, or nonbinary)." It uses genderqueer as the common name. Indeed, the literature shows that the terms genderqueer, genderfluid and transgender are the top three terms when it comes to a term that covers all non-binary gender identities. And since genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary genders, I do not see how this article is limited with regard to the non-binary aspect, except for keeping out detail that is better left to the Transgender, Third gender and Gender variance articles. So as for globalizing, this is not the Third gender article, and I fear that it will become as bloated as that article if it is retitled "Non-binary gender." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your own definition states, and I quote, "for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌identities which are thus outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity". This includes all of these things that you're now trying to distinguish because they don't make sense in being grouped as "genderqueer"; indeed, the reason we're having this argument at all is because another editor was using your definition to tag intersex people as genderqueer. Either your definition is wrong, or the article intrinsically has a globalising problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bloat is a straw man argument, and a non-sequitur. It remains to be seen if it might happen here. Where it does, it is within all of our abilities to do something about it, rather than merely complain about it. Trankuility (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that what The Drover's Wife refers to as "my own definition" is the article's definition. The Drover's Wife, I don't understand what you mean by "This includes all of these things that you're now trying to distinguish because they don't make sense in being grouped as 'genderqueer'." As for the reason we're having this discussion, we're having it because Trankuility proposed that the article be moved and you disagree with the article title based on your personal opinions, not on what the literature actually states. This article does not state that intersex people are genderqueer, but, obviously, there are intersex people who identify as genderqueer. An editor misusing the term genderqueer is no reason to move this article.

Trankuility, I can't see "bloat" as a straw man argument since it seems you want to add a bunch of stuff to this article that is better suited for other articles and since we do not need a WP:Redundant fork. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You stated "So as for globalizing, this is not the Third gender article" except that the way you've defined genderqueer is "for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌identities which are thus outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity" - a term so broad it includes everything outside the binary, including indigenous genders, and intersex people who identify as neither male or female (without further reference to their gender identity). The user who was adding it to articles about intersex people wasn't wrong about the article - he was just following the definition, creating an absurd situation where he was adding it to articles of people with absolutely no evidence they actually identified as genderqueer. You seem to be trying to run with this moving definition where you're defining it as "for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌identities which are thus outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity" [except gender identities that are all of these things that Flyer22 Reborn doesn't think fall within that definition] - and that doesn't make any sense. Either it is a catch-all term with the definition that you claim it has, and it includes intersex people like the case that started this discussion and indigenous genders with absolutely no evidence that anyone of said gender has ever identified in that way - or it doesn't, and your argument is wrong. Which is it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You keep stating "my definition" and "the way [I've] defined genderqueer." And once again, I reiterate that you are referring to how the article currently defines the topic. It is not truly my definition. And on Wikipedia, I follow the sources for definitions. As for the way the first sentence of the lead is worded, that can be fixed if it is truly causing problems for other articles. But I don't think many people would take "—‌identities which are thus outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity" to mean that we are referring to intersex people. Intersex is not simply an identity. This article, however, is about gender identities. As for your interpretation of what I seem to be doing, you are wrong. When it comes to what genderqueer is, I've pointed to sources; you have not. You have repeatedly given your personal opinion about what you think makes sense and what does not when it comes to defining the word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)`

This is the way you've defined the subject - you've continually cited sources that don't support your claims, and sources which are in nearly every case dated as well. And that throws the whole article in knots because trying to apply it to a wide variety of usages it doesn't have, and other editors have responded with an abundance of sources demonstrating that "nonbinary gender" is the commonly used language for what this article is about. (If you want to completely rewrite this article so it is about genderqueer people, and move most of the content to an article on non-binary identities as opposed to moving this existing article, you won't get any objections from me.)

But, if the article persists with your definition by calling this subject this title, we're left with the knots that logic ties us in. It is inarguable that the intersex person who does not identify as either male or female falls within your definition of "genderqueer" regardless of what they identify as, or that every indigenous gender that falls outside of a Western gender binary is "genderqueer" according to your definition, despite the total absence of evidence of it ever being used in relation to those groups. These things don't make sense. You seem to even acknowledge that they don't make sense in your comments above. But you wrote the definition, and you're the one insisting that it has that usage. Where do you go with that?

Let me rephrase: is a person of an indigenous gender that does not fit within a Western gender binary "genderqueer" or not? If yes, this article has globalising problems because it's applying an extremely US-centric concept in contexts that it has never been applied in reliable sources. If no, the definition of the article is wrong. This is where the naming issue comes in: if you want to have an article defined in as broad terms as this, it is completely non-contentious to use "non-binary gender" because it's a descriptor: all it is referring to is people with a gender outside the gender binary, and it does not presume any sort of identity beyond that. On the other hand, if you're going to use "genderqueer" and the definition you've given genderqueer here, it throws up all sorts of necessary logical knots that none of the sources you've tried to use here address. (This is where the difference between "some people have used this word in this way" and "this is the common name for a very broad concept" is absolutely crucial, and where this article is falling into a myriad of definitional messes.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Genderqueer is the COMMONNAME when looking at page view statistics and various sources. Despite comments above, genderqueer is an umbrella term (see [1], [2]) and are all these related terms are part of the transgender umbrella ([3]). Genderqueer and nonbinary were added to Merriam-Websters ([4], [5]) and the OED added genderqueer ([6]) but not nonbinary in the sense of a gender identity ([7]). GLAAD, an authority on LGBTQ language usage, does not define nonbinary, but does define genderqueer ([8]). Same with this UC Berkley resource ([9]). That language defining sources seem to favor genderqueer over nonbinary leads me to believe genderqueer is the more popular/common term for the gender identity. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use that term. I see a number of arguments above about globalisation, contention, etc. that are asserted without sources. Understandably some people choose one identity label over another, but we can address issues of contention in the article provided it's sourced well. The contention itself does not warrant a page move. Those claiming nonbinary is more common now have failed to adequately support their claims with sources or evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)