Talk:Postgenderism

Is this perhaps an unencyclopedic neologism? Only 26 Google hits, some of them Wikipedia itself. The article has only one significant contributor. Andrewa 05:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of Postgender reveals more hits, including referrences to academic conferences, as well as cultural and religious aspects. I will suggest that this entry be given more time to attract more attention and other contributors. Moreover, in the context of it being a potential neologism, I wonder if you can suggest another term that enscapsulates this sentiment and burgeoning cultural tendency? gdvorsky 09:42, 9 February 2006 (EST)

That sounds to me like a yes as to whether it is a neologism. Are the inventor of the term? Or did you get it from somewhere else? Where? I'm sorry if this sounds confrontational, but both of the external links currently cited in the article are broken. Andrewa 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed the external links. A quick peak at the URLs would have revealed syntax errors. I would advise that you read those links, particularly the second one, which shows the term being used in context. As for the origin of the term, "postgender" has been used for decades, both in the feminist movement and in the futurist context; that it is advocated by some groups, namely transhumanists, indicate to me that it's fair and appropriate to infer a cultural imperative, i.e. that the "ism" is valid. Moreover, it's a term used in academia, regardless of what Google says. I hardly think that a Google search justifies whether or not a term should be defined in Wikipedia. gdvorsky 16:05, 9 February 2006 (EST)