Jump to content

Talk:Non-binary gender

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 4 June 2016 (→‎Requested move 4 June 2016). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, [[Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride/|]].Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride articles

Changing the title on the basis that "non-binary" is now the more common term

Looking at the available data in several countries, it appears that the term "non-binary" is now more widespread than "genderqueer". Sources include The Guardian My life as a non-binary transgender teacher – and why I’m still closeted, We’re all a bit non-binary inside. So why do we segregate by gender? Greater transgender visibility hasn't helped nonbinary people – like me popularised by people like DarkMatter (spoken word), Jack Monroe and others. Bustle (magazine) have published 12 Questions About Non-Binary Gender Identity You've Been Afraid To Ask, And Real Answers.

The Scottish Transgender Alliance have reported almost 900 survey responses in a UK non-binary survey with related press coverage, such as I can wake up as male or female. Or neither: Young Scot raises awareness of non-binary gender identity in the Daily Record (Scotland). A UK Parliamentary inquiry looked at Law and transgender equality, including employment issues examined in September 2015, including non-binary gender identity. Trans Media Watch has produced an extensive guide to non-binary gender identities.

In Australia, an alliance of organizations has called for the redefinition of the Australian 'X' sex and gender classification to mean "non-binary", these include the National LGBTI Health Alliance, Organisation Intersex International Australia and Transgender Victoria.

Related Wikipedia articles include List of people with non-binary gender identities and Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons. The latter cites 10 Myths About Non-Binary People It’s Time to Unlearn] at Everyday Feminism.

These citations give more specific support to the term "non-binary" than many of the citations for the article on genderqueer as it currently exists. For example, at least 6 of the current 25 citations list lexicons or articles summarizing multiple different labels. Trankuility (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've supported using "non-binary" as an umbrella term in preference to "genderqueer" every time this topic has been raised, which it has been multiple times as can be seen on this talk page and archives. Would be good to get more voices weighing in because it seems like the same handful of people (myself included) are normally the only ones talking about this. Funcrunch (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On Google Scholar, 109 articles use "genderqueer person" and 335 use "genderqueer people", while 8 use "non-binary person" and 44 use "non-binary people", so I don't think commonality is a reason for moving the page ("genderqueer" seems to still be more common by an order of magnitude). However, "non-binary" does have the advantage that its meaning is clear even at first glance. And a few (older) people have said they dislike the "queer" in "genderqueer". I'm not persuaded that the article needs to be moved, though. If it is moved, it should continue to mention both terms in bold in the lead. -sche (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Google Scholar search for "non-binary gender" just gave me approximately 393 responses. (Edited for encapsulated query) Trankuility (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 2#Please move Genderqueer back to Gender fluid for previous commentary. From what I see, the terms genderqueer and genderfluid are still more common than using the term non-binary for a fluid or deviating gender, both in common discourse and WP:Reliable sources. So I don't support a move to Non-binary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be appropriate to start a separate page then, utilizing the references cited above and more. Those kinds of actions by notable organizations and individuals are not being represented here. Trankuility (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If our coverage of the topic of non-binary gender / genderqueerness is incomplete, please expand this article which covers that topic. Splitting the synonyms onto two separate pages would be redundant forking, and doing so in response to the lack of support for a move to your preferred title could easily be seen as POV forking. -sche (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that position, -sche. It seems to me that enlarging this page by renaming it 'non-binary' would enable the inclusion of that material, but the scope of the article as it is, with the current title, seems more appropriate as is, some basic information about terminology debates. A page on 'non-binary' would be able to explore some of the substantive issues about legal recognition. It might, perhaps, overlap more with Third gender than 'Genderqueer', but those arguments, too, have been rehearsed here before. Trankuility (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trankuility, such a split would be a WP:Content fork violation; I'd be against it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page title has been discussed for years; would someone please formally open a WP:RM so that we can settle it one way or another? No such user (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against framing culturally specific gender-identifying people together with trans people who arise in a binary gender system, whether binary or not. Even the term 'third gender' has colonialist connotations.
Genderqueer is an early 1990s Western thing, nonbinary a 2005 Western thing, for DMAB people asserting a difference from cis men and trans women, and DFAB people asserting a difference from cis women and trans men, you can't say it encompasses genders from BEFORE the creation of a cis gay man/trans woman and cis lesbian/trans man distinction (equivalent to 19th century Western bisexuals/Uranians/inverts). There is a lot of political and identity friction between travestis and nonbinary trans people in Brazil, for example. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is that "queer" is a slur and, as such, the umbrella term "Genderqueer" is controversial within the nonbinary community. Not all non-binary people are comfortable using a slur for self-indentification, and certainly not in this format, which misguides non-LGBT individuals to use an anti-LGBT slur to describe non-binary people. Generally, this is respected among people within the community, and while some still self-ID this way, non-binary is used as an umbrella term because no one is uncomfortable with it being applied to them, and at any rate, non-LGBT people should never, ever use the word because it is a slur. I understand that there are more sources that use "Genderqueer" because it has a longer history of use, but certainly that doesn't override the fact that this is an article about a community that is no longer comfortable with a slur being applied to all of them. It's an issue of respect. We use the title "Trans Woman" for that page, and the use of a space in that term also has a much shorter history than when it was written without a space. There is no difference.Eximago (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel uncomfortable with "genderqueer", but MOS:IDENTITY is pretty clear on this one: "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources." There are other examples where the "proper" title isn't the "preferred" title by the subject group, such as with Jews, which a number of Jewish people find offensive to some degree, describing it as a "slur". ~Mable (chat) 08:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eximago (talk · contribs), as you likely know, the term queer is embraced by many within the LGBT community these days, as is clear by the Queer article and the fact that various LGBT studies are called "queer studies." That stated, I understand your objection, and this article might be titled Non-binary or Genderfluid in the future (the near future or significantly later). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally oppose to using genderfluid as a synonym (or a "more common name") of non-binary/genderqueer, but I have not actually read the literature. It seems odd that an article that covers agender (and to some extend third gender) would be titled "Genderfluid". I will mostly stay out of this discussion, though ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 16:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While some people distinguish the term genderqueer from genderfluid, I noted above that the terms genderqueer and genderfluid are still more common than using the term non-binary for a fluid or deviating gender, both in common discourse and WP:Reliable sources. In the literature, genderfluid is usually commonly used as a synonym for genderqueer, not as merely a subset of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are usually defined the same way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to that logic, wouldn't the agender section have to be moved to another article if "Genderfluid" were to be used as the common name? I find it hard to imagine that agender is described as a subset of genderfluid. That being said, as long as the article title doesn't change to "Genderfluid", I don't see this being an issue. ~Mable (chat) 16:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it'd need to be moved. Yes, genderfluid is listed as a subset of genderqueer often enough by the literature, but the terms are also often enough used as synonyms. You apparently define the term genderfluid differently than genderqueer. That is not a surprise. As is reported on by scholars in this 2014 Trans Activism in Canada source, page 128, "everyone has a different definition of what trans or genderqueer or gender fluid means." In what way do you distinguish the terms genderfluid and genderqueer? We don't create separate articles to cover each different definition, not usually anyway. Like WP:POV fork states, "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." While the Bigender, Pangender and Trigender articles are not necessarily POV forks, I don't see why they should be separate articles (especially the latter two). I and others argued this before; see Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal. I found the opposition to merging the articles to be wholly weak, and I am likely to propose another merge in the near future. That stated, the Bigender article has been expanded since that aforementioned merge discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The expansion of the Bigender article is the only reason I stated "especially the latter two." The Trigender article is full of WP:Original research, so it falls under WP:TNT. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the discussion is becoming off-topic, but for the record: I agree that it is odd that we have article on pangender and trigender while this article here still needs so much expansion and improvement. Pangender being only one paragraph, could easily be merged.

Back to the topic at hand, when I look at the word "genderfluid" and notice the "fluid" part, I immediately assume somekind of "fluidity" in gender, hence why it seems odd to me from an instinctive level to define agender as a subset of genderfluidity. It is definitely true that these definitions are all still very fluid (pun intended): many people still read various different things into these words. I suggest we put this argument to rest for a year or two and then see how the sources deal with this. I can only imagine that as more people start talking about non-binary topics, terminology will become clearer.

If we are worried about Wikipedia affecting this process, I suppose I could suggest this article to be renamed "gender identities outside of the gender binary". This may be somewhat overkill, though. I am somewhat worried that people will adopt the language used by Wikipedia, honestly, which is why I care about the title of this article. ~Mable (chat) 18:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "Gender identities outside of the gender binary" is a little long. I'd prefer "Non-binary" or "Non-binary gender identity" to that; these two options would also be safer than "Genderfluid." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the organic changes that have taken place on List of people with non-binary gender identities are interesting to note in the context of this discussion. While imperfect, framing the page as about "non-binary gender identities" has enabled the inclusion of additional people who don't identify as genderqueer, and also the inclusion of people with third gender identities - all of whom appear to belong to Indigenous or non-Western cultures. To me, this highlights what are arbitrary distinctions between articles on different constructions of non-binary gender identities. I would welcome the renaming of this page as "Non-binary gender identities" or similar, as suggested above, and a review of the relationship between this page and the one on "third gender" Trankuility (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Merging agender and other non-binary articles

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Merging agender and other non-binary articles. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

WP:RM

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:Wikilawyering is about misusing our rules. Following our rules 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)[reply]
I've alerted WikiProject LGBT studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-binary_gender&oldid=723710757"