Talk:Gender binary

No more redirect

I thought I would briefly justify breaking the redirect of this page to "third gender" remembering this page has never been anything but a redirect before.

The gender binary is neither the same as third gender nor its opposite. While "third gender" refers to a person, the gender binary is a n anthropological system of large groups of people. In order to understand genderqueers, drag queens, and the application of intersexuality, the gender binary is a central point of interest. Everyone cisgendered person obeys the gender binary daily and a genderqueer person battles it daily. --Ephilei 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment--the content on this page mentions gender binary in passing, saying that women bear children, and the generalization that all known societies follow it in some way, but the rest of the page is all about refuting the concept. Which is odd considering that gender binary is the norm (i.e. there are males and females, and they do differ biologically, and most societies have defined different standard roles beyond the biological ones). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am7146 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced emphasis, therefore neutrality in question

The "No more redirect" discussion comment above identifies this page as having previously existed only as a redirect to "third gender." I suspect that may largely be the legacy reason that the content of this page -- keeping in mind that the title/subject is "Gender binary" -- features an unbalanced and inappropriate emphasis on content that is technically outside of or alternative to the page's title/subject.

Bias is especially evident in the current list of "External links," which links to content that refutes this page's subject rather than to content that relates to it.

This page's neutrality is further compromised by the narrow definition of the subject. Biological and evolutionary aspects of the subject are not covered, giving way to an emphasis on cultural and societal aspects (defined as a way to "divide and organize people," "means of bringing order").

TheSlush (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Although you are astutely noticing that this article could well use a lot more details and elaboration, i would say that it is not really a case of non-neutral point of view, but rather simply a case of an article which is Not Quite Fully Developed Yet. The parts presented (so far) seem (to me) somewhat neutral, and i agree with you that it would be excellent to add more references and summaries of other aspects of the topic you mentioned, such as biology and genetics, comparison of humans to other species, and so forth. Do you have any good reference materials where you could glean some helpful summaries of facts? If you add more elaborations to this article (perhaps you feel it needs some kind of 'balance'?) then i think it would be a tremendous improvement. Thanks! Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 19:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the links to a new discussion thread. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation

The article uses a lot of false information with no references. The statement "Every known society has used the gender binary to divide and organize people, though the ways this happen differ among societies" is inaccurate, assuming, as the article thus far implies, that gender binary includes only those systems in which gender is defined as strictly male or female. Noble Hikari (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

External links

• Gender Crash! Intersection of Boston's Queer, Transgender, and Gender Queer Communities Resources, Rants, and Information for Everyone!
• Alt.Support.Intergendered
• United Genders of the Universe a genderqueer organization
• Androgyne Online
• Gender is Not Binary: Queering the Gender of Social Networking and Beyond Support, resources, safe space, and activism around expanding gender inclusiveness on and off the World Wide Web.

I've removed these links as they don't seem to conform to WP:EL, they may make good sources but links are held to a much higher standard. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Adjective

"Binary" is an adjective. Shouldn't "gender binary" also function as an adjective? Unfree (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

it's also a noun. --24.61.191.94 (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced

This article needs to be rewritten using reliable sources. If this can't be done, it should be deleted. —Ashley Y 09:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gender expression sentence

Removed sentance "Transsexuals have a unique place in relation to the gender binary because their gender expression transitions from one side of the gender binary to the other.", it's quite clearly nonsensical.

Gender role or expression: Characteristics in personality, appearance, and behavior that in a given culture and historical period are designated as masculine or feminine (that is, more typical of the male or female social role) (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). While most individuals present socially in clearly masculine or feminine gender roles, some people present in an alternative gender role such as genderqueer or specifically transgender. All people tend to incorporate both masculine and feminine characteristics in their gender expression in varying ways and to varying degrees (Bockting, 2008).

> WPATH SOC v7

Gender Expression External manifestation of one's gender identity, usually expressed through "masculine," "feminine" or gender-variant behavior, clothing, haircut, voice or body characteristics. Typically, transgender people seek to make their gender expression match their gender identity, rather than their birth-assigned sex.

> http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/03/21/gender-expression-is-not-gender-identity/

0x2020 (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

0x2020: Please, as a new editor, keep in mind the goal of improving Wikipedia articles, and not just deleting material you think does not make sense, OK? When you come across something you don't think is properly supported, please add a Template:Citation needed tag on it...

And typically, in response to a revert such as I performed, you should bring up the topic for discussion in Talk to achieve consensus before persisting with your editing goal, in conformity with the recommendations for WP:BRD - the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" Cycle.

Please note: In your latest edit here, you also deleted the sentence:

In the contemporary West, transgender people break the gender binary in the form of genderqueer, drag queens, and drag kings.

First, I think both of these statements are poorly phrased, and should probably also have direct citations provided to support. The statement above should probably use the word "violate" rather than "break"... but I think it's not a remarkable claim at all, though I would add genderfluid and perhaps also bigender to the list?

Second, regarding the statement you deleted because it is "nonsensical" -

"Transsexuals have a unique place in relation to the gender binary because their gender expression transitions from one side of the gender binary to the other."

There are problems with this formulation, because:

1) Some transsexuals do not fit into the type described in the statement because they express their core gender identity with unyielding determination from the earliest age people begin to distinguish between sexes and gendered behavior commonly expected in a given society of people of that sex; at the age of three, a MtF transsexual girl may make statements such as "I'm a girl!", refuse all gender-typical boy play even under threat of punishment, etc. This type of transsexual - a "primary transsexual", in the terminology used before analyses of transsexualism became somewhat more nuanced - never alter their gender expression. For a WP:RS memoir written by such a person, see Dylan Scholinski's The Last Time I Wore a Dress

2) On the other hand, the average late-transitioning transsexual, who transitions after the age of 30, has spent most of their life striving to fit into the gender roles and modes of expression which are deemed socially acceptable by society - as you quote from Bockting: "most individuals present socially in clearly masculine or feminine gender roles". That is the core of the concept of the gender binary - most people fit into it with a minimum of discomfort, and many of those "normal people" feel exquisitely uncomfortable when confronted with a person who does not; these gendered behaviors are typically enforced rather strictly in most subcultures observed in Western society, moreso for boys, men, and women than for girls, in whom "tomboyism" is normally judged tolerable... when they are young.

However, when finally embarking on the very challenging path of transition to the "other sex", transsexuals fairly frequently alter their gender expression in a radical and highly dramatic way; this is especially true for some MtF transsexual persons.

Frequently people who have lived as men for over 50 years, and expressed themselves as VERY masculine persons, pursuing occupations typically associated with male gender roles in the military or technical careers, switch to hyperfeminine modes of expression as they transition and seek Sex reassignment therapy, baffling their families and peers, and indeed, many researchers (see the article on Blanchard's transsexualism typology, which IMHO is wrong, but not wholly misbegotten? As a marvelous example, there's the memoir by the brilliant writer and prominent economist Deirdre McCloskey - Crossing: A Memoir. A quotation from the Amazon review will give you the idea of how a person "transitions from one side of the gender binary to the other":

Donald was a macho academic who dominated every discussion, viewing conversation as an exercise in one-upmanship. As he surgically altered his appearance and began to take estrogen on the road to "The Operation," he found himself relating to people in a more conventionally female way: listening to others, considering feelings. "The hormones are working, he thought at first. Or was it merely that the real person could now stand up?... Biology or core identity?" There are no final answers to such questions, but McCloskey poses them with sensitivity and insight.

To sum up: this statement needs to be qualified in order to be more precise, but it's hardly "nonsensical". This variety of dramatic transition to very feminine gender expression is, by the way, part of the reason radical feminists (and certain queer theorists along with some others) object furiously to trans women who "reinforce the gender binary".

Regarding your link to Gender Expression Is Not Gender Identity blog post, it's clearly WP:SPS, I'm not quite sure why you're providing it... I understand what Ms. Reed is saying... although it's falling into TL;DR territory, and though I agree with much of what she says, my own experience is different? (Which is typical with the nuanced and often idiosyncratic understanding of gender expressed by sophisticated trans folk, IMO. FWIW, I'm a trans woman - a late transitioning pre-op MtF transsexual, to be specific? )

PS: Regarding GLAAD:

Although GLAAD's propaganda is often mooted as a "Reliable Source", the fact is that GLAAD is a essentially a private 501(c)3 non-profit social-action organization seeking to attain "media influence" (admittedly, with great success in many mainstream publications), and its publications are really just WP:SPS opinion if you analyze their organizational staffing (zero experts, and especially zero when it comes to transgender issues) and sourcing they provide for the claims they make in position statements on "proper treatment of GLBT issue and persons in media" - again, zero. And how many citations do we find in their media reference guide? Zero.

In my opinion, GLAAD's publications should be assessed as WP:SPS and regarded with the same scrutiny as other media/organizations such as (for example) the conservative Accuracy in Media organization: worthy of note, but not as reference resources.

GEE! Look what I just found! Check it out! - Download the Corporate Brochure (PDF) - GLAAD - "Let GLAAD be your marketing vehicle for brand visibility to the LGBT community! The buying power of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender consumers is projected to be $743 billion" WHAT? !!!

GLAAD - media watchdog... or "marketing vehicle"? Which is it? Seriously.

For an example of the "why?":

Trans women - specifically, a significant minority of transsexuals, among them, myself? - are prone to become extraordinarily ticked off by the impostures and pretensions to authoritative wisdom of GLAAD; for example, in the page you draw from above - GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Transgender Glossary Of Terms -

"When describing transgender people, please use the correct term or terms to describe their gender identity. For example, a person who is born male and transitions to become female is a transgender woman, whereas a person who is born female and transitions to become male is a transgender man."

Wrong. How wrong? Well, they're managing to contradict their earlier recommendation under their definition of "Transgender"! -

"Use the descriptive term (transgender, transsexual, cross-dresser, FTM or MTF) preferred by the individual."

This might be viewed merely as a pet peeve, and in some ways it is... but GLAAD similarly offends self-identified "trannies" by lecturing them against the use of the word! They're not good on transgender issues... almost all transgender folks feel this way about them. And on their insistence that "transgendered" is "grammatically incorrect" - "it is grammatically incorrect to turn transgender into a participle, as it is an adjective, not a verb, and only verbs can be used as participles by adding an "-ed" suffix.", they've formally adopted a completely indefensible position. ??? (See my Talk comment in another article - referencing comments by a linguist ... here).

— thanks! ... - bonze blayk (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The gender binary is largely a western construct

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=544:beyond-binary-definitions-of-gender-acknowledging-the-third-gender-in-africa&catid=59:gender-issues-discussion-papers&Itemid=267 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_systems#Non-Western_gender_systems

It's pretty fucking racist to state otherwise, Bonze blayk.

That's not an argument based on Reliable Sources - see WP:RS - that's just an insult. See WP:PA: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

That said, please look again at the Wikipedia article you're citing, Gender systems. Under non-Western gender systems, do you see China? No. Do you see Japan? No. Those cultures traditionally had rigidly-enforced binary gender systems, and they are definitively "non-Western" cultures, since they successfully resisted European Imperialism and the Christian cultural baggage that came along with it for a long, long time.

So the "gender binary" is not "largely a Western construct"; even in those cultures where there is a so-called "Third Gender", the roles there typically involve (or involved) male-bodied persons who assumed roles associated with women in some way. There were some notable exceptions to this, for example the androgynous male Xanith of Oman, who comprise a distinct gender category, but generally the "gender binary" has governed role expectations - where men are men and assume "men's roles", women are women and assume "women's roles", and in a number of cultures there have been special classes of "men living as women", or fairly commonly, a small number of shamans assuming a very special kind of transvestic/androgynous spiritual role.

For example see the description of the Hijra from that article: "Their status in society is neither male nor female, neither man nor woman. When hijras are asked whether or not they are male or female, most often they respond with comments like “We hijras are like women”, demonstrating their place in culture. Hijras walk, gesture, speak, and use facial expressions more common to women in India. They even take feminine names as part of their gender transformation." - "We hijras are like women".

Meanwhile, some cultures, notably some among the North American Indian tribes, allowed for a broader range of behaviors for persons who were perceived as being "Two-Spirit" people.

The article as it stands is doing OK with dealing with the diversity of cultural standards regarding the "gender binary"; it could really use citations to support the statements made here, but overall, it doesn't appear really "bad". Adding an ill-founded global condemnation of "Western Culture" as the source of the gender binary is not going to improve it.

And sigh just looking over the article you link, which is hosted on a for-profit market intelligence enterprise (and thus not adequate for as an WP:RS or even as an WP:SPS on the subject? The page you link is decorated with rotating self-advertisements: "Products & services formulated to complement today's rapid operating pace - Click here for CAI's tailored research offerings." And how good is their "research" here? Well, notably, there's the statement "There were traditional third-gender roles in African aboriginal tribes such as the Mbo people of Zaire and amongst the palace and harem guards of the Arabs and Chinese." Well, the "third-gender role" of Chinese eunuchs was that of traditional male-gendered slaves who were docked in order to ensure that they were 1) less aggressive and 2) incapable of producing offspring, and thus more reliable and trustworthy servants to elite classes. Not a "third gender", thank you; just neutered men.

Sincerely, - bonze blayk (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I just thought that I should add a link to my edit that provoked this controversy to clarify the substance of the matter - "this is edit warring - don't do it - discuss changes first, because this is just plain wrong". - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is absurd

The only reason this idea ever came about was to promote the homosexual lifestyle. It's articles like this that make wikipedia a laughing stock. Is there also gender trinarism? Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.60.139 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually the gender binary usually has nothing to do with homosexuality and there is also no homosexual lifestyle. Not all gay people live the same way.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's nice, I'm going to get a mug with your post written on it so that every morning I can have a nice good laugh at your expense. Your point is completely moot and a vain attempt to start an argument. 66.234.60.139 (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Gender binary is about sex and gender it has more to do with whether you are male or female and has NOTHING I repeat NOTHING to do with your sexual orientation. On the homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual people are just as veried as everyone else. I don't see anyone going around and saying to a deaf person they are living the deaf lifestyle. You want to know why? Because there is one. Name a few traits of said gay lifestyle. What does every gay and lesbian person have in common other than their attraction to the same gender? Name one thing. NOTHING. So stop harassing the people on this page.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I could name a few traits that constitute the homosexual lifestyle, but that's getting off the subject at hand and any discussion would probably just devolve into name calling anyway. So, the point I was trying to make, is that while the concept itself has nothing to do with homosexuality, the concept can be used to justify its existence. That's why it's in the gay section of wikipedia and not the biology section. I'm just perplexed as to why we only created two socially constructed sexes. Why not 3 or even 6? It would be gender sexism. 24.215.169.241 (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is clearly a joke of the sort perpetrated by sociologists on their equally unintelligent readership.

E.g. "The term gender binary describes the system in which a society splits people into male and female gender roles... Gender role is one aspect of a gender binary."

Anyone with the most basic grounding in language, logic, science, mathematics, or even just a clear understanding of language, will immediately recognise this as an attempt to define two concepts each in terms of the other. A logical nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.100.102 (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Can homosexuals be gender binary?

I'm not sure I understand this. Are homosexuals who identify with one gender exclusively, regardless of their birth gender, gender binary? Are their homosexuals who switch between playing both the female and male role, as their mood sees fits? Are their bisexual women who play the male role with women and the female role with men? (and similarly for gay men) Bostoner (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bostoner, good questions. It can be difficult for a lot of people to really get their heads around the whole concept. I'll answer your questions individually, to the best of my ability, but I still recommend doing your own research if you'd like to learn more:

A) Yes, homosexuals who identify with one gender, no matter their birth gender, could be considered "gender binary". But the gender binary isn't an adjective to describe a person, really, but a noun to describe a gender system and how it's used in society. But yes, a homosexual who identifies as a man or a woman is only a man or woman, not both. Their orientation does not in anyway affect their personal gender or gender identity. That's bolded because it's pretty important to know.

B) Their are homosexuals who switch between "playing" both masculine and feminine rolls. Their are also heterosexuals who do this. For these people, though, it's probably best to use the terms androphile and gynephile, as those refer to who they're attracted to, and not their own gender, which might change. These people often identify with the term genderfluid. Also, they're not necessarily "playing" any roles, they may simply fill different roles at different times.

C) This question is a bit more specific, but can basically be answered with "yes". Their are thousands of people and they probably do whatever they see fit. Being around men might make a genderfluid or genderqueer person feel more feminine, and vice versa.

Mellothumb (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a talk page people, keep it moving. 69.121.144.8 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)