Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderfuck

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 8 August 2023 (Fix Linter errors. More needed. Leaving font tags for bots.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Tyrenius 01:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genderfuck[edit]

Genderfuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note this nomination is being submitted by me out on behalf of User:87.127.44.154, who posted that rationale on the talk page, here. I have no opinion on the deletion. --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has pages that link to it, but it completely lacks references and the overall notability of the phrase is debatable. AR Argon 10:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is well known in queer circles, has a distinctly different meaning to genderqueer and has many many references (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genderfuck#Sources_and_informing_of_my_intention_to_clean_up_this_page_.28maybe.29 for some links...). The article obviously is sourced, even if you don't use the links given on the talk page, there are two books from 2000 (!) which apparently use the term. This isn't a new term... (Yes I am a new member, I'm over it, why aren't you?) 12:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfaaaaa (talk • contribs) — Wtfaaaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - couldn't that list be interpreted as a personal attack on the people in question? There are no references to prove what does appear to be nonsense at the moment. Lradrama 13:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll remove them for now. Even if it's not BLP-violating, it's certainly OR without citations, and as a side note, I've just discovered not to Google "genderfuck" at work. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 13:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I personally don't actually like the term, but it is an established and notable term in its own right. I get the impression that someone has merely looked at the title, seen an obscenity and decided that they wanted it gone. Hopefully this AfD will prompt someone to put some effort into referencing and expanding the article, and the list of links on its talk page should provide a start in that process. --AliceJMarkham 13:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary - references won't help. This is a neologism and doesn't belong. MarkBul 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per the following:
  1. WP:NEO - We are not a dictionary. "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities."
  2. WP:NEO is clear on reliable sources for neologisms; a book on How I Became Queer and one non-peer reviewed theory do not constitute reliable sources
  3. WP:OR - as noted by others, this is original research.
/Blaxthos 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons stated above. This is unsourced, and even if it were, appears to be little more than a dicdef/neologism. If it is significantly synonymous with Genderqueer as the nominator posits, then a redirect (or perhaps slight merge) may be warranted. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above: WP:NEO. (Removing my comment per information below) Eusebeus 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this article is sourced, those of you failing to notice this may be directed to the section marked "Sources". The concept is not simply restricted to an obscure subculture, but is widely used in the scholarly literature. Skomorokh incite 17:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above comments. Sourcing and notability are irrelevant - this is a dicdef neologism, so doesn't belong on WP. EyeSereneTALK 17:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a real identity. The article needs to be expanded, yes, but it's as legimiate as genderqueer and third gender. Kolindigo 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing sources added that lend credibility that this is a recognized term perhaps worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Removal of original research and an addition of more historical perspectives will improve this well beyond a dictionary definition. Here's a potential source for more historical info. There's scores of Google hits, so this is totally expandable. (Apparently Perth has a Genderfuck Day[1]?) — Scientizzle 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have heard of this term outside of Wikipedia and the article has references and sources. Can be expanded further beyond a dictionary definition. -- Roleplayer 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article could use more work, but enough sources have now been provided to show that the term has been discussed in the scholarly literature. The article goes beyond a dictionary definition, and the term is not particularly new; I've added a source that dates it to the 1970s. Note that it is not at all the same as genderqueer, and equating the two would be original research. —Celithemis 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominator is completely wrong, genderfuck is not a synonym for "genderqueer", ("with a profanity used simply for shock value" or not), it is a notable, well defined, concept in wide use in the real world. This article deserves expansion, not deletion. Pete.Hurd 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, the term "genderfuck" appears in the academic literature, see for example:
    • Glick, E. (2000) Sex Positive: Feminism, Queer Theory, and the Politics of Transgression, Feminist Review 64:19-45.
    • Reich, J.L. (1992) Genderfuck: the law of the dildo. Discourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture 15:112-27.
    • Coviello, P. (2007) review of "World Enough Sex and Time in Recent Queer Studies", GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 13:387-401.
    • Altman, D. (1996). Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalization of Gay Identities. Social Text 48:77-94.
    • Collier, R (1996) “Coming together?”: Post-heterosexuality, masculine crisis and the new men's movement. Feminist Legal Studies 4:3-48.
    Pete.Hurd 21:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination is based on false premises, namely that the article is "patent nonsense" and that "genderfuck" is a synonym for "genderqueer." Otto4711 21:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Genderfuck" is not nonsense. I am living proof and find that the consideration for removal of this article is offensive. 17:26, 30 August 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.24.2 (talk)
  • Keep or merge - the rationale provided by User:87.127.44.154 is factually inaccurate. If they have sources showing Genderqueer and Genderfuck to be synonymous they should provide them. It is totally incorrect to say that the article is non-notable (Pete.Hurd has provided a sampling of the academic work that includes the term) - the article does need more sourcing and some clean-up but they are not grounds for deletion. I do think it would be better if it were merged into Genderqueer a large article such as Gender identity or gender role--Cailil talk 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, Genderqueer and Genderfuck are totally different concepts and ought not to be merged. Pete.Hurd 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I got into a bit of a muddle at the end of my comment. Basically I think Genderfuck needs to be expanded with sources now or to be brought into a parent article until there are enough sources to expand beyond a stub. But there is no reason to delete it--Cailil talk 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The two terms are not identical, although there does appear to be a bit of overlap. Genderqueer is an identity, genderfuck is action to shake up peoples ideas of gender identity (Performance art, for example). So genderfuck (action) may impact genderqueer (object). There are more than enough references, especially Peter Hurd's, to establish that it's not a neologism and that it's notable. And it is not a naughty version of genderqueer. As in most AfD debates, the article needs work, but that is not a reason to delete. — Becksguy 23:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rationale for nomination is faulty, as the two terms do not seem to be synonymous, going by previous comments here. Also, FWIW, if geographical spread of usage is anything to go by, genderfuck is the more widely known term (I live in New Zealand, and have heard the term several times - I had to look up genderqueer, since I had not come across the term before). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense with profanity (ex. "Fuck" is a profanity). NHRHS2010 Talk 12:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Compare the article with WP:NONSENSE, it's not "nonsense". Also note that Wikipedia is not censored, it's an encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sideline Question. Can someone point me towards wiki's policy on editing by a high school student who (based on the fact that they won't finish high school until 2010) is presumably underaged and who may therefore not be legally allowed to access the content that they are commenting on? --AliceJMarkham 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not a citizen of the US (and so forgive my ignorance on this topic), but is it really illegal for highschool students to read the word "fuck" in that country? Pete.Hurd 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it is not. - auburnpilot talk 15:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We try to avoid discriminating against people merely because of their age (or indeed for any reason). There are teenagers more mature than adults, and as AuburnPilot points out, there is no law against reading profanities in the United States. With regards to the policy on age, I can think of at least one administrator in the past who has been 16 or younger. I can't find any specific policy on young editors, but this may be of interest. --Dreaded Walrus t c 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for clarifying that. I had assumed that in the USA, children wouldn't be allowed to access adult subject matter such as transgender information. --AliceJMarkham 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, transgender information is not adult subject matter IMHO. Many children and young people identify as transgender or present aspects of transgenderism. - Montréalais 20:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pete Hurd above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletefuck This articlefuck is a neofuckologism. Wikipedia is a not a fuckslang dicfucktionary. I am no expert on LGBT studies, but we are not teaching people how to talk like a Fuckcockney chimney sweep. --Pixelface 18:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fail to see how my gender expression is teaching people to swear. Kolindigo 18:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you all know that IPs can't do an AfD, right? This should be closed. --David Shankbone 18:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated by Dreaded Walrus, not an IP. --Pixelface 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was nominated by me on behalf of the IP. All I did was create the page. If IPs aren't allowed to nominate articles for deletion, then accept my apologies, as I was not aware of such a rule. --Dreaded Walrus t c 18:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, you did the right thing. This is a procedural nomination--they happen all the time. IPs simply cannot create new pages so, by default, can't properly AfD nom an article, but they can participate in every other part of the deletion process as any non-admin editor. — Scientizzle 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pete.Hurd, Grutness, Becksguy above. DuncanHill 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletefuck per Pixelface.  Gruefuck  20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize if anyone was offended by my comment, but it was actually a self-conscious effort to "fuck with" or play with traditional notions of voting within articles for deletion discussions. I want to ridicule and destroy the whole cosmology of restrictive voting patterns and voter identification. I don't know if you're familiar with the term deletefuck, but deletefuck is generally an intentional attempt to present a confusing suggestion during deletion discussion which contributes to dismantling the perception of a "voting binary." Deletefuck implies not only the instigation of confusion for the sake of breaking down the binary, but also leaving more fluid room to be self-expressive and self-explorative with less expectations of a norm and more room to play via being radically honest. I suppose the word fuck belongs in the fucking article, but to use the word fuck in any discussions of the fucking article would be really fucking inappropriate. I'm really fucking sorry I used the word fuck so many fucking times. It shows really poor fucking taste to use the word fuck in any fucking discussion of this fucking article. I would not want any of the fucking readers of the Genderfuck article to be fucking offended by my fucking comments. Fucking thank you for your fucking time. --Pixelface 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We get it. There's no need to keep mocking it. Kolindigo 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could stand to hear a little more. Mainly because it's humourous, you silly sausage Kolindigo. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I originally removed the prod to this article, because it really is a distinct gender from genderqueer. A genderqueer does not wish to be defined as male or female but doesn't care what other people think. A genderfuck deliberately tries to screw with people's mind regarding their gender, and that's a hell of a difference. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Pete.Hurd and others. It's a valid, notable term. Youandtheguys 22:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It is a valid term that has cites in the literature dating back to 1992. Also, it is very distinct from genderqueer as Dev920 explains above. It might need revision, but the article itself is totally good. Justbecca 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The only reasons for this deletion are the profanity (which is not an issue), the notability (which has been systematically demonstrated), and sheer animus towards the subject matter (please, you're only discrediting yourself; Wikipedia does not base decisions on mockery). - Montréalais 00:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with those who think that the only reason to delete would be the profanity -- I can see why someone coming across this term might think "Genderfuck? Come on, someone made that up." And, well, someone did - but it was at least 30 years ago, and the concept has apparently entered academic and queer literature. Maybe not a word I use every day ("Wow, Bob, that pink tie is a real genderfuck!"), but definitely sufficiently notable and well-sourced for Wikipedia. --TheOtherBob 01:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Other et al. Not so new, around since at least 1990. Bearian 01:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Montréalais and TheOtherBob Kelly holden 02:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After a cursory look at the article, all it would really need are inline cites. There are sources there. -Jéskéfuck (v^_^v Kacheekfuck!), 03:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)~[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If anything Genderqueer is the neologism. It's just counterintuitive that a standardized version of something would be shocking and have the word "fuck" in it. Not to mention that "Genderqueer" takes away from the active principle of "Genderfucking." At first I was thinking that Genderfuck should only be deleted if it remains as a subsection under Genderqueer, assuming the tamer, similar entry to be right and better one. But after reading the comments and thinking about it I feel the opposite. The word Genderfuck is older and more culturally prevalent. The two articles definitely belong together in some fashion. But not with genderfuck obliterated just because it has a naughty word in it that some people are uncomfortable with. Genderfuck and genderfucking is what this thing is. It had no name, understanding or definition of consequence before it was Genderfuck. "Genderqueer" intimated as the preferred and refined nomenclature for academic and historical interests of the phenomenon may be appropriate. But it's still Genderfucking, and always has been since its inception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.224.160 (talk • contribs) — 74.230.224.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment "Genderfuck" is an effort, is that right? "Fucking" with people's notions already has a name: mindfuck. Shall we coin a new word for every variation of mindfuck? Jobfuck? Richfuck? Statusfuck? Netfuck? Wikifuck? Where does it stop? I'm not trying to mock this "effort"...or whatever it is, but it would be great if this article had more sources with URLs that anyone could read and verify. Notice I did not suggest the article should be deleted. What's the difference between Genderfuck and Gender bender? What's the difference between Genderfuck and androgyny? Is Genderfuck a noun? Is it a verb? Is it an ideology? Is it a social or cultural movement? I notice that all but one of the references are from 1992 and later, which is the year that The Crying Game came out. --Pixelface 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The difference between "genderqueer" and this term can be found here at this university site. →Lwalt ♦ talk 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but we could go the other way, too. Surprise is a type of mindfuck, after all, as is magic. The question isn't whether we could develop concepts like statusfuck, netfuck, wikifuck etc. The question is whether the larger culture, or some subset thereof, has done so, and whether reliable sources have discussed them. I think the article answers the other questions you posed (though if it doesn't, it can be improved). I'm not sure I agree with your theory about The Crying Game, but even if it came from that my views would not be affected. A concept that's been around for 15 years isn't a neologism, after all. --TheOtherBob 20:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point is that "mindfuck" is slang and it gets used a lot, but we don't have an article for it because Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. We don't even have an article for the slang term "fucking with." Any word derived from that phrase is also slang. The reason that neologisms are to be avoided in articles is because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and people may have different meanings for the word. That's evident from this discussion. One person says Genderfuck is an action, another uses it as a noun referring to a person, and another person says it's their gender expression. And one person says that Genderfucking "is what this thing is." Meredith Stepp said "Nurturing butches to be sensitive, vulnerable, deferential, while empowering femmes to be strong, outspoken and unyielding is true “genderfuck,” from which all men and women can benefit."[2] WP:NEO says "Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well" Are any of these examples of genderfuck? Ted Levine in Silence of the Lambs? Jason Mewes in Clerks 2? Sean Young in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective? Julia Sweeney and her character Pat? Is Courtney Act a "genderfuck" or a "gender illusionist"? Was Annie Jones a genderfuck or a bearded lady...or both? Is RuPaul a genderfuck or just a drag queen? Was Marilyn Manson genderfucking people with the cover of Mechanical Animals or was he being a genderfuck, or a genderfucker, or none of the above? Are these genderfuck films: The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, Boys Don't Cry (film), Ed Wood (film), Hedwig and the Angry Inch, To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar, Victor/Victoria -- or are they transgender films? Does Velvet Goldmine have genderfucking in it or is it just about glam rock? Is the German word "Sie" or the word "Hir" a genderfuck? Is gender-neutral language a genderfuck way of speaking? The article lacks a clear definition. Were Ziggy Stardust and Aladdin Sane genderfucks or just bisexual characters? Is a transwoman or a transgendered person or transexual genderfucking with you? Is the concept of genderfuck related to Intersexuality? Is Cheryl Chase a genderfucker or just an intersexual? Is Eddie Izzard genderfucking with people or is he just a cross-dresser? What about transvestites? Is genderfuck a belief system? Is it an attempt to fool or trick people? Confuse people? Destroy preconceptions? Is it an attempt to create an alternate word for "shemale", which many find offensive? And if so, will genderfuck eventually become an pejorative too, like so many other alternate words for terms of disparagement? Is it a form of activism? WP:NOT#DICT says "it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas". I don't think this article does that -- as seen by the confusion over the word Genderqueer in this discussion. Does Genderfuck appear in any dictionary? WP:NEO says neologisms may be used widely or within certain communities. And "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)." --Pixelface 00:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I should probably respond briefly - but instead will respond long-windedly. If I understand your points and questions:
      1. Genderfuck is slang, and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's not slang - I know it sounds like slang because it includes the word "fuck," but in fact it's a term of art in an academic community. In other words, genderfuck is the appropriate, accepted term for a certain idea -- not a slang term therefor.
      2. It could mean a lot of things. Sure...and some of the examples cited might fall within the concept. Indeed, there's a great question of whether Eddie Izzard is an example of a genderfuck, or something else entirely. But a concept whose edges remain ragged is still a concept. Ask this - let's say there were thousands of journal articles written seeking to decide whether genderfuck included the things you cited. Let's say there were constant debates, even heated ones. Would that be an argument for or against notability and inclusion? There's a significant debate regarding the concept of post-modernism. Should we delete that?
      3. Is it a form of activism? Not that I know of - it's a concept used in academic and queer literature. Some people in social movements likely make use of it, just as some people use protest.
      4. Is it another word for shemale? I...I don't even know how to respond to that. No. It's not.
      5. Is it a belief system? I'm not sure where you get that idea - it's not a belief system, and nothing I've seen suggests that it would be. It's also not a goat, a plane, a gerand, or an oyster. (In short, the concept is explained in the article, and suggesting other things that the term could mean...but doesn't...in no way negates that.)
      6. It doesn't appear in mainstream dictionaries. Well, first, it's a concept rather than a term - so the better question is whether it appears in mainstream encyclopedias. But regardless, no, it doesn't. Such is Wikipedia - including ideas that smaller, more constrained encyclopedias don't have space for.
      7. It's too new. It's somewhere between 15 and 40 years old, appears in verifiable, reliable sources, etc. - all these things have been discussed.
      8. We can't include a concept until a mainstream tertiary source includes it, lest we include original research. Hardly - reporting on the existence of a concept in multiple reliable sources isn't original research. Wikipedia is not limited to copying the work of more established tertiary sources -- it can report based on reliable primary or secondary sources as well. Here the reporting is based on reliable journals and other secondary sources - that hardly seems objectionable. ---TheOtherBob 16:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In addition to the response by the previous author, here's a list of books that mentions this term.
  • Merge to Gender bending while I totally disagree with the reasons provided by the IP for this AFD I have after reflection realized that this page should be merged into Gender bending. This journal article considers them to be synonymous [3]. Although I think there is a subtle difference, there is a significant amount of common ground between the two terms. Enough IMO for a merger. As it stands both WP articles are stubs, but if Genderfuck was merged into Gender bending both would be expanded a future section teasing out the differences or subtleties in the terms would also help improve WP--Cailil talk 01:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I disagree. No merge with genderqueer (and even "gender bender" for that matter, which is a person transgresses the traditional roles of a male and female through androgynous behavior), since these terms have different meanings and take on different contexts. Genderqueer refers to a person who takes on the gender identity of neither male nor female or take on an identity that combines the genders -- that is, identifies with a unitary (i.e., no one way to be identified as a male or female), rather than a binary (male/female) gender system). Genderfuck, on the other hand (in one definition that I've found), has more to do with gender performance, presentation or roleplaying -- that is, playing with or against traditional gender identities, playing with or against the expected role of a gender in a society. Here's an example - a man, who takes on the identity of a woman, engages in sexual relations with a woman who identifies as a female in the last paragraph on the page from the book, Body Talk: Philosophical Reflects on Sex and Gender by Jacqueline N. Zita (Columbia University Press). According to the book, a person who identifies as a "genderfuck" is not interested in passing as or becoming the other gender. To merge the "genderqueer" article with this article is to confuse the reader into thinking that both terms mean nearly the same thing -- for example, suggesting that a person who identifies as a genderqueer is roleplaying, which is apparently not the case. I don't know a lot about the subculture in which these terms are used, but many plenty of academic and scholarly works are available on this subject in the psychology, sociology and social science disciplines. →Lwalt ♦ talk 01:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I in fact agree that there is a difference between Genderqueer and Genderfuck. My position is this: Gender bending and genderfuck cover a similar area and maybe one topic. Take the two lead lines, which are pretty accurate summaries of the academic material on the terms: Genderfuck is a self-conscious effort to "fuck with" or play with traditional notions of gender identity, gender roles, and gender presentation and Gender bender is an informal term used to refer to a person who actively transgresses, or "bends," expected gender roles. There is a difference but genderfuck & gender bending are very very similar areas. I agree that genderqueer is something totally different but these two are not so different. Certainly in Europe Gender bending is the term that's used, genderfucking has yet to be established critically over here. I can only see the two terms benefitting from the merger (but then I am a mergist)--Cailil talk 23:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others, particularly Pixelface. --Dreaded Walrus t c 09:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable term, article includes references. Seemingly the term offends some, but that's no reason to delete. Jeffpw 10:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -Genderfuck is an act of consciously engaging in the dismantling of the gender binary, Genderqueer is an identity categorey, and gender bending refers to changing the boundaries of gender, not erasing them. None of the terms in use, whether or not we personally use them or like them, can be struck from legitimate discourse-- scholarly, or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missbuncie (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC) — Missbuncie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. I can see a little concern that it's more Wiktionary territory; but it's definitely been expanded enough to be more than just a definition. Maybe still slightly to essay-ish, but that's jsut regular editing. LotLE×talk 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, the word is definitely a notable one (see this glossary) and recognized in psychology studies regarding gender issues. The difference between "genderqueer" and this term can be found here at this university site. Although the word is offensive to some, the article should be kept and cleaned up, with reliable sources of course. →Lwalt ♦ talk 23:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to me that genderqueer is an identity and genderfuck is a concept, and definitely not nonsense.TJLink 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. not nonsense...not original research...and not unreferenced as claimed by nom. --emerson7 | Talk 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am the user who originally proposed this as an AFD. Thank you to Dreaded Walrus for completing the process. I hope my original thoughts, quoted at the top by Dreaded Walrus, count's as a delete - otherwise please count this as a delete. Reading through the comments on here I now realise my original thinking was wrong. However, while coming to the conclusion that my reasoning was wrong, my view that this should be deleted remains. The reason I beleived Genderfuck and Genderqueer were the same is because the article isn't sufficiently clear as to what it means. It is written in a pseudo-academic language which would confuse most readers who were not already familiar with LGBT/Gender issues. It also contained a list (which has been removed as a result of this discussion) of "Famous Genderfuckers" - including those who had articles on WP deleted because they were not notable. The phrase may be well known in a minority community; but it isn't a widespread community language. How can it be? It can't be used on mainstream television or radio programmes and most newspapers wouldn't use it other than in specific features looking at LGBT issues - so the phrase has no chance of moving into mainstream language. So it will remain a minority community phrase - and looking at the comments above and the edit history of the article, it is clear that the minority community is itself in somewhat of a confused position when asked for a straightforward definition of what it is. I am also concerned about the inclusion (see above) of this discussion on an LGBT/Gender Issues section of Wikipedia. I have seen other AFD discussions cross-referenced on specialist project group areas; but they merely list the articles for discussion and send people here. The LGBT/Gender Issues project goes further and re-creates an editable discussion of all tagged articles in a separate place. Surely that should not be allowed. This is the place for AFD discussions and all editors who wish to take part can do so here. Tagging articles on a specific subject so that editors can make their views known in another place is surely using WP to create a form of meatpuppet? I know there is a lot of "votes" here for "keep" - but AFD is not a numerical vote. I hope the confusion shown by "keep" advocates as to the meaning of Genderfuck and the arguments put forward by those in favour of deletion will enable the administrator to come to a "delete" decision.

87.127.44.154 06:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • By that logic, though, the article for fuck should be deleted - since it can't be used on television. The standards for inclusion in Wikipedia are not, as you suggest, that the concept be well-known and often-used in mainstream culture. Indeed, check out concepts like semiotics or the theory of post-humanism. Neither of these enjoys what might be called mainstream use...I can't walk up to someone on the street and say "I'd like to discuss the theory of post-humanism with you, but am afraid that we may have difficulty because of the semiotics involved" and expect them to know what I'm talking about. So are they concepts that we should not include here, for lack of mainstream use? Quite the opposite - we include them in the encyclopedia because if someone walks up to you on the street and says those things, you can look them up here! We're cataloging human knowledge (even if that knowledge is primarily within a minority community), not television. As to the confusion about the meaning of the term, I'm afraid I don't give that argument much weight. If the article is unclear on certain points, it should be improved. If the concept itself is unsettled, such fact should be reported on. Neither suggests deletion. --TheOtherBob 16:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment I forgot to add that a lot is spoken of "academic sources" and "academic publications" in this debate. What are these academic publications? The name is given but no link - are they merely student dissertations? If so I wonder how this constitutes reliable independent sources. The links given don't amount to much if you try to follow them to determine the validity of the source. 87.127.44.154 06:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the article and the article. I'm not sure what you're looking for there -- links to internet versions of the sources? If so, someone may be able to help -- but Google and the library are your friends. As to your guess that they might be student dissertations, that does not seem correct. Just to go in order, Dennis Altman is a professor at La Trobe Univ. in Australia, Peter Coviello is a professor at Bowdoin, and Elisa Glick is a professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. (I'm not going to go all the way down the list, but you get the point.)--TheOtherBob 16:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep - cites some sources but still does not seem like a notable article... Tiddly-Tom 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, well sourced, clearly not a neologism. The fact that it is a "minority community phrase" is a ridiculous reason to delete it. You say most readers aren't familiar with LGBT/gender issues? Well isn't it great that they can learn about them on wikipedia? --BelovedFreak 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Personal Experience as a primary source

1. I personally used this term, and provided many "genderfuck" experiences as a club / disco dancer in the early 1990's. We would, for example, intentionally go out in leather muscle wear, and full face drag makeup. the express purpose was to assault the senses of those onlookers. Another would be for example, comabt fatigues, weapons and red high heels.... etc... this was intentional as a way of not showing our "personal orientation" but as a method of performance art, showmanship and "shock value" for the various clubs.

2. Would the term "clusterfuck" not be allowed as slang? I think anyone would agree that this is a true term and definable statement. As would many other terms such as "SNAFU" "JAFO" and others. --CodySteed 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genderfuck&oldid=1169344912"