Talk:Non-binary gender

Section title: Out genderqueer people

Title makes it feel like it is to be a comprehensive list, and would the fact that we know they are genderqueer already show they are out, i propose changing the title to "notable genderqueer people" or "genderqueer celebritys"

Androgyne != non-binary gender variant

Note: Some people see "genderqueer" as a more consciously politicized version of the term androgyne, popularized by Androgyne Online, which is linked below. Androgynes are also people who identify as both man and woman, or as neither. "Androgyne" is synonymous to the more cumbersome "non-binary gender variant" or to "intergendered".[citation needed]

Since when is "androgyne" a synonym for NBGV? It's a special case of NBGV. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex subject:

• non-binary gender variant: any gender variant other than "male" and "female", including but not limited to "androgyne", "bi-gender", "neutrois", "genderless", etc.
• genderqueer: approximately, a policiticized term for NBGV, but intended to be inclusive of hangers-on (no offense intended -- you're quite welcome to hang on) even if they identify as male or female
• androgyne: intermediate between male and female (as a gender identity)
• bi-gender (or bigender): having two gender identities (this is not necessarily exclusive with the other categories). Can be generalized to tri-gender, multi-gender, etc.
• two-spirit: in modern usage, an approximate synonym for bi-gender, but with Native American historical context.

Hope this helps. I'll try to fix the original paragraph. David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with these, but in the native American context, despite what it sounds like, "two-spirit" just means "transsexual" rather than identifying as both genders, in my experience. i.e. a male-boded two-spirit person will say they identify as a woman Orlando098 (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stub

This doesn't seem to be a stub. Is it OK to remove the stub notice?

I removed the stub notice, as I agree that it's no longer a stub. --Mairi 04:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

yo

please dont delete my edits based on how i wrote them, cus i wrote them in the same style: some people believe BLAH. if you disagree, provide a counterpoint in the spirit of wikipedia.

Yo, I'm deleting your edits because they're not cited, and they're bordering on injecting a pov. Just throwing "Some people" this is not a way to legitimize personal opinions. (I) Most newspapers, and most tv news networks (with the exception of FOX-NEWS) do not accept just saying "Some people" as a citation. "Some people" believe the sky isn't blue, doesn't mean it goes into the wikipedia entry about the sky. "Some people" think Hillary Clinton is a feminazi, but you wouldn't put that is her entry. "Some people" think Bush is a "facist", but you wouldn't put that in his profile It's way too loose of a citation. If you want to say "most traditional religious groups subscribe to a ridgid male/female system", thats fine, becuase thats a specific, identifiable group.SiberioS 06:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

fine, ill say anti-feminists.

I'm reverting your changes. Why? Because anti-feminists have nothing to do with anything mentioned in the article. How is genderqueer, a transgender term, or the abscence of gender, have anything to do with feminism? Some feminists are rabidly anti-transgendered, and are decidedly in the camp of you're only a woman if you are born one. As such I'm reverting.SiberioS 06:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I may add, that I see no reason for adding the bit about the unabomber. MANY people have problems with so called political correctness, and its not limited to the unabomber. It includes various right wing conservatives, libertarians, and some left leaning people.SiberioS 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• i think the problem here is that you think its just the status quo/societies that are against this. i have a lot of free-thinking friends who reject some aspects of society and religion but also reject this.Urthogie 12:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So? Your friends don't form a coherent category. Like I mentioned before, alot of people think alot of things, you can't just start throwing in opinions left and right just because one person said it. Otherwise we would have commentary from everyone on every different wikipedia subject (every time a celebrity spoke about the Iraq war we would have to add their name, everytime a politician spoke about ANY subject we would have to add it to the wikipedia topic of the same name etc). Theres a reasonable cutoff for this. For instance, if the Pope talks about contraception, its probably a valid thing to mention in the topic of the same name as the perspective of a religious leader who represents (theoretically) some 1 billion people is pretty relevent. Same with someone like Pat Robertson, or some other person in an influential position in society.SiberioS 02:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed back your line change because 1)natural is a loaded term and mildly POV 2) there are some species which are naturally transgendered (certain frog species can mutate sexes etc etc) and 3) the idea of natural doesn't apply to all the people mentioned (for instance communism opposed homosexuality and transgenderedism based mostly on an idea of it being bougeroise, not necessarly against nature).SiberioS 04:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1)POV is allowed as long as its cited reasonably and its not the article itself 2)uh humans are not physically transgendered, so its up to opinion whether they can be psychologically. and i you wanna add that stuff about the frog go ahead, just dont delete what i put in because of your own POV.

3)sure, i never said it was the only opposition to it. its just the main one. Urthogie 06:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"humans are not physically transgendered". Have you ever heard of intersexuality? Just a thought. -Hapsiainen 16:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Gender is an intangible concept, that may be based on physical traits. Physical traits however, like biological sex does not neccesarily determine gender. Logically humans can not be physically gendered, because physical traits are not the only element to determining gender. For example if a human is born into intersexuality, but their culture used something like eye color to determine gender, that would not make their biological sex relevent to their transgendered identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.106.108 (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• • ive heard of it..but most of these genderqueers are actually physically gendered at birth and psychologically dont identify. intersexuality is the exception, not the rule.Urthogie 20:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, so? Intersexexist, even if they are "the exception". You can't go around saying, for instance, in an article about humans that everyone always pops out male or female. That would be factually incorrect. There ARE more, and its COMPLETELY natural, if by natural you mean the definition that no tampering with genes or other such modifications by another human occured. And whats with this barb about my POV, when you keep rewriting things to include your friends POV (like THATS a citable source), insisting that because "some people" disagree that you can inject stuff about how unnatural it is. Like I told you from the get go you can't do vague citings to justify injecting your own point of view. It's not that hard to find some recognizable figure (a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell) with a quote decrying transgendered people or attempts at attacking gender constructs. A cite from one of them would have satisfied me, but you insisted on injecting your own and unverifiable sources.User:SiberioS

I've changed it to "disapprove of such mixing or consider it unnatural" as an attempt to cover both views. There are definitely some groups that consider it unnatural, but there are also groups that disapprove, without commenting on it's naturalness. It'd be good to cite actual statements by people/organizations, tho. --Mairi 05:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources needed

I added the "unreferenced" tag because there's a lot of interesting material in this article, but no discernable reliable source for any of it. It has an additional urgency for Wikipedia in that some editors are identifying themselves as genderqueer, making a properly-sourced article even more useful. (Indeed, that's how I find my way here — attempting to determine an acceptable third-person pronoun for one so identified.)

I found the following when I checked on the two current external links:

• Androgyne Online responded with a "HTTP Server Error 503: No available server to handle this request". Its current Alexa rank is 16,402, making it a promising source if it can be made to work.
• GenderQueer Revolution, on the other hand, is a working site, but seems to be only a year old and doesn't even have an Alexa rank — not promising as a reliable source (by WP definitions).

Once solid sources are obtained, it might be a good idea to add some specific links to pages that provide source material, perhaps using footnotes in a References section. This is true of (and needed by) articles in general, not just this one. Thanks for any assistance on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Androgyne Online is working now, as far as I can tell. Also, it may be easier to use a Gender-neutral pronoun when talking about any Genderqueer editors.

--Malise 01:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the unreferenced and uncited tags back. I also believe in the potential of this article (like all articles it can be stronger). However, there are certain points I'd be interested to see explored and backed-up. I know from my own searching that it's hard to find much scholarly information on queer identities, so this article may be a long work in progress. At the very least though, can't we work on reducing the amount of "some people" in the entry. Rugadh 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I've been looking through the category structure under LGBT and have been really confused by the organization. I suppose this has to do broadly with editors adding whichever category makes the most sense to them. My question though is what are the most helpful categories to list genderqueer under? Keeping in mind that wikipedia (usually) prefers adding the most specific categories possible [1]. I have the same question about most of the trans related entries but that's a discussion for another talk page. - Rugadh 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement of gender-neutral pronouns

I just chopped out a paragraph declaring that gender-neutral pronouns are "very appropriate" for general use. While I would use them for someone who asked, they are a relatively new invention as far as modern English goes and not really part of the language. If I saw or heard one of those pronouns without the label "gender-neutral pronoun," I would be confused. --Brilliand 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful here, though, to find some research or perhaps an article about anyone trying to assimilate gender-neutral pronouns into the vernacular, or the percentage of people who are aware the pronouns exist. From personal experience I know that a rapidly growing number of people are not only aware but using pronouns and educating others about them. Thendbegins 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncommon =/= inappropriate. Unfortunately there is very little research about nonbinary gender, at least as far as I'm aware, and most if not all knowledge of neutral pronouns is spread by word of mouth through queer communities and networks. Quamobrem (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So Americans make up most of the genderqueers?

"utilized mainly by white, middle and upper-class Americans who were born female or are otherwise on the FtM"

If anyone could find a source for this, that would be great. But I believe "Americans" should be taken out. 142.161.119.119 06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Susan's Place Androgyne Talk

This location has proven to be increasingly genderqueer unfriendly. Androgynes are considered, by the site definition, to be people who act or dress androgynously and discussion of androgyne/genderqueer as an identity is treated with hostility by the members and the administrators. An alternative site, developed specifically for genderqueer issues (called "non-binary" on the alternative) is http://www.whatisgender.net/forum/index.php Taineyah (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

According to what wikipedia is not, neither of the links belong. When reverting the insertion of one, I inadvertantly re-added the other. That has been fixed now, and neither is in the article anymore. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

One can make any specific claims but (in my experience) I have been treated quite well for being "genderqueer". but then again there my be other factors at work. It's not fair to say one country is more "excepting" as a whole, as a country is not just the level of nationalism, it does not define the standard set for the communities and cultures within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.210.207 (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Gender Identity

The article used the terms "man" and "woman" in reference to gender identities. This is incorrect (man and woman are sexes), and inconsistent with the article on Gender Identity. I have replaced the terms with "male" and "female", respectively. Burbble (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the opposite is true - for example a male-bodied person who is transsexual identifies as a woman (whether or not they have had surgery and hormones yet). Male and female seem to be the more uncontroversial, biological, terms, man and woman more complicated. Orlando098 (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Orlando098. "Male" and "female" have always been words which describe sex, "man" and "woman" describe gender. I have reverted the article to "man" and "woman". - Go check the sociological definitions before you revert my edit please. (Dragonhelmuk (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Perplexed by this. I (and other trans* people I have had this discussion with) are comfortable that "male" and "female" are primarily adjectives, and "man" and "woman" are primarily nouns. I've not been able to find any sociological definitions contradicting this. Pointers, please? Kaberett (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually occurring terms?!

Several of the words under "Related gender terminology" are things I have NEVER heard of before, and the internet agrees: Word: #Google hits Supragender: 199 Megagender: 45 Incrediqueer: 7 Inqueerable: 5

Moreover, aren't "polygender" and "multigender" the same thing?? I feel like there's a lot of BS in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.242.171 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material

This article has been tagged WP:OR for 2 years, and WP:FACT for 1 year. I have removed all the unsourced material from the text. I will be looking at the lead on three points: there are no sources, it no longer reflects the content, it is original research. Please do not restore material without WP:RS. If the material is restored, I will be adding another tag to the article WP:ESSAY. Mish (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Opposite Sex"

Third sentence: "They may wish to have none, some, or all features of the opposite sex."

Isn't the phrase "opposite sex" a bit meaningless in the context this article? Especially with regard to intersex genderqueer people.

Maybe replace it with something like "They may wish to have none, some, or all features of femininity, masculinity, or both", or simply deleting? My version may still be too gender binary, so perhaps someone can improve it. sorsoup (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that 98.222.56.231 has now changed this sentance, taking away the phrase "opposite sex". The new version looks to me like it makes more sense. sorsoup (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's been changed already, but "opposite sex" doesn't lose any meaning in the context of this article. An individual's sex is determined by their physical characteristics. Gender, on the other hand, is a psychological concept. Whether or not somebody is "genderqueer" or "intergender" doesn't have any impact on their sex. 98.242.242.207 (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposite sex is meaningless for an intersex person, and in fact is meaningless except as a very sloppy figure of speech, period. Snapdragonfly (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pride Flag

Is the genderqueer pride flag (described here) [2] well known enough to be worth inclusion? I have seen it used multiple places on the internet.

Since this flag was put up several months ago (look at edit history as entry is unsigned), an editor has decided that it deserves a prominent place in the article and created an entire section to the flag. The only source for all of this information - even assuming it warrants inclusion in the article - is an unreliable source (a website that appears to be published by a single person). See here. Of course, the article isn't well-sourced as it is, but at least keeping new information sourced should be a priority.

I'd like to hear from others about the content, not just about the source issue, but also about whether it merits inclusion in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote for inclusion. The flag is quite new, but so are genderqueer symbols and terminology generally. I've seen the flag used by several sites and some craftspeople are starting to make genderqueer pride items using the three colors. There should be a caveat that the flag is new and use is growing but not yet established. The source is the site mentioned, which is run by a single individual, Marilyn Roxie, but widely used as a reference within the genderqueer community. Judithavory (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The flag above has since been updated with the white stripe moved to the middle. [3] I have seen it used on various blogs and queer sites, as well as in craft items. 99.122.227.46 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Genderqueer and Gender fluid

Should these two terms be in two separate articles? Emma dusepo (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say so. In my opinion, they are not the same thing. Gender fluid is definitely a specific phenomenon. 209.134.115.5 (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. While I don't identify as either, my understanding is that "Genderqueer" implies a relatively fixed, non-binary identity; whereas "Gender fluid" implies...well...a fluid identity which may or may not include gender binary identities. I should add, though, that at the moment, this article is on the small side, and there are various problems already identified with what's there. Splitting it may only compound those problems and end up getting both articles stubbed or deleted. – RobinHood70 ^talk 17:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Gender fluid is one form of genderqueer or a sub-category. However they are different concepts in that one definately covers the other and they are not synonymous.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Genderqueer people

User:Kaberett changed all references to genderqueers to genderqueer people or person or something similar. The edit summary was: "Replaced "genderqueers" with "genderqueer people" throughout, to remove the linguistic tension between "genderqueers" and "cisgender people" and to bring the article into line with suggested usage for e.g. "homosexuals" vs "homosexual people"." I'm not an expert on this issue, but I don't see any support for calling homosexuals homosexual people or for calling cissexuals cissexual people, or, more pointedly here, for calling genderqueers genderqueer people. On a commonsense level, which, of course, isn't always the yardstick, a homosexual is a person unless we are referring to homosexual animals. Does Kaberett's edit make sense to anyone?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the intent, in that it's considered by some that "Jews" is a little more casual or less-encyclopaedic than "Jewish people". Still, we have an entire article dedicated to Jews, so obviously it's not a big concern. I think perhaps it was the same idea here...sort of along the lines of people-first language, except "people of genderqueerness" would sound really dumb. ;) Personally, I'm ambivalent about the change...I don't think it really added anything to the article, but it does harmonize it with the "transgender and cisgender people" used (albeit only once) early in the article, so I didn't see any need to revert it. – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it jarring. I'd rather change "transgender and cisgender people" to "transgenders and cisgenders" and lose the "people". Actually, for Jews, I think it's not so much less encyclopedic (which, in my view, is a euphemism for pompous), as "Jew" has often been used as an epithet, and to some it sounds harsh. I'm still in favor of using the word "Jew", but I understand the issue better. I don't think that sort of thing applies here. Usually, when someone wants to use an epithet for homosexual, they don't use the word "homosexual". There are plenty of other offensive words to use.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No opinion on "genderqueer", but the usage note in The American Heritage Dictionary's entry for "homosexual" has some relevance to the broader topic. Rivertorch (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct, and it says that a homosexual is a "homosexual person". So, if one says "homosexual person", one would really be saying a "homosexual person person". Heh.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Clever! And pine trees are really pine tree trees and poker games are really poker game games. Heh. Rivertorch (talk) 04:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In the source you cited, the adjectival definition was given precedence, and the noun form is *explicitly flagged as offensive*. I really, really don't think that it's appropriate to joke about offensive language when it says _right there_ that "homosexual person" is preferable to "homosexual". Kaberett (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The source defines the noun homosexual as a "homosexual person". It flags a "usage problem" for the use of the word homosexual, but only in the sense of using the word instead of alternatives like gay and lesbian. It does not say it's preferable to use the phrase "homosexual person".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun [...] It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally..." in my view implies pretty clearly that "a homosexual person" is preferable to "a homosexual", if only as the lesser of two evils. I do not understand why you think this is ambiguous. Kaberett (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm running off to lectures now, but note that a) those of the references and external sources I've been able to check all refer to genderqueer *people* (i.e. use "genderqueer" as an adjective), and b) (anecdata ahoy!) none of the people in the (international) genderqueer and trans* communities I'm in call themselves "a genderqueer" (and in fact we tend to think it's offensive). "Transgenders" is also something that we "find jarring", on a personal rather than a theoretical level. I understand that you are probably (collectively) engaging in good faith, but I'd like to point out that the way you are choosing to approach this conversation - including flippant remarks about pine trees and so on - is actually pretty hurtful. Kaberett (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(I have replied to this here.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were offended, but, from my perspective, there was nothing offensive in my comment or Rivertorch's comments. Just had to do with English, not with the subject itself. I was saying only that "homosexual person" is redundant.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I stated that I believe you to be engaging in good faith, i.e. to be unaware that aspects of your comment were hurtful. To clarify: "homosexual person" is redundant only if you are using "homosexual" in a way that is flagged as objectionable (please note that there is some evidence that using "homosexuals" has a measurable impact on opinions about queer people). I assumed - clearly erroneously - that style guides and usage studies would be familiar to people paying close attention to articles in this subject area. I further assumed an understanding that flippant comparisons between marginalised groups and inanimate objects, (and indeed shifting the focus from marginalised groups to an unrelated subject) are at best in poor taste - the more so when you appear to be using the comparison to argue in favour of language usage that is widely regarded as derogatory or objectionable. I made the second assumption because this approach is the general consensus in most other spaces where I engage in this kind of discussion - mea culpa. I do however feel that you are not assuming good faith on my part (e.g. reiterating that you do not feel earlier comments were offensive, rather than asking me to clarify my views) and would appreciate reassurance on that front if we are to continue this conversation. Kaberett (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry about all of the double-posting, but, well, have a list of style guides etc:

1. GLAAD explicitly states that "transgender" is an adjective, not a noun, and use as a noun is flagged as problematic; it discourages any usage of "homosexual"
2. NLGJA discourages any usage of "homosexual", lists "gay" as an adjective, and flags "transgender" as an adjective
3. Guardian & Observer Style Guide makes no use of "homosexual" except as part of a phrase, where it is disparaged, and explicitly states that "gay" should be used as an adjective, not a noun
4. TransMediaWatch flags "transgender" as an adjective
5. Homosexuality refers pretty consistently to "homosexual people", "gay, lesbian and bisexual women" etc
6. Avert routinely refers to "gay people"

I have been unable to find any style guides that assert that "homosexuals" is an acceptable form, let alone a preferred one, in professional or otherwise encyclopaedic writing. Given all of the above, I think it is reasonable to apply the same principle to "genderqueer". Kaberett (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Different communities have varying sensitivities to issues like this (e.g., the aforementioned Jews, who often use the word themselves), and even people within those communities have differing opinions (e.g., I, as a gay man, see no difference at all between "homosexuals" and "homosexual people", though I find either usage to be overly clinical and bordering on obsolete), but in the end, I think it's appropriate to respect the most common usage within any given community. The question is, what's the most common usage in the genderqueer community? If I Google "genderqueers", I get about 20,100 hits. If I Google "genderqueer people", I get about 23,000 hits. So that's not terribly conclusive. If I Google both together, I get 1,610 hits, including topic-sensitive sites such as T-Vox. This suggests that both are in common usage, sometimes even together.

Perhaps, then, the appropriate usage would be to start with the more formal "genderqueer people", but where that wording bogs the article down, switch to "genderqueers"? That's how I would approach it, but I'm not really part of the GQ community. I'll ask in a GQ forum I contribute to occasionally and see what the reaction is like there and if anyone there can provide some good resources that would support either as preferable or not. – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking a community. Obviously I don't - and can't - speak for all trans people, but I have received explicit support for them [eta: my views] as stated here from two independent groups I participate in, and implicit support from the UK-based non-binary-gender advocacy group I help to organise (not gonna name it because I don't want to link my online handle to my meatspace name).

In response to your other points, I feel it is worth bearing in mind that (1) in-group language usage might be different to that which is appropriate in an encyclopaedic setting, particularly in the context of language that has a history of being used in a derogatory fashion. (2) Google results are indeed inconclusive, not least because without knowing the context of the usage patterns of each phrase the numbers aren't very helpful. (My feeling after skimming the first two pages of results in each case is that "genderqueers" tends to be used in a more objectifying sense, or by people just starting to question their assigned gender, whereas "genderqueer people" seems to be used in more respectful or academic discussions.) (3) the T-vox article is a near-direct port from the article here, and I have good reason to believe that it has not necessarily been closely checked by the T-vox admins.

And finally, while I am throwing links at people: page 78 of this document produced by GIRES uses people-first language when discussing gender variance; this document from The Gender Trust refers to "intersex people" as well as "transgender people"; ditto the EHRC. What I seek to demonstrate with all this is that it is absolutely inappropriate to alter the language of the article to read "cisgenders and transgenders", as was suggested upthread, and as such - all else aside - the linguistic tension I identified in my initial edit summary would remain in place if the article were reverted to read "genderqueers". Kaberett (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The links to GLAAD, etc., were helpful, thanks. I think there are two issues here. One is that gay people prefer not to be called homosexuals, but gays or lesbians. That doesn't mean that "homosexual persons" is okay with gays. On the other hand, for reasons I won't probe, transgender persons don't like the term transgender as a noun and prefer transgender persons. I'm satisfied with Kaberett's explanations and sources. I withdraw my objections to the changes. What I might do also is add a couple of those sources to the article at the first use of the phrase "genderqueer persons" so anyone later will be less likely to question it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Of four responses so far in the thread I created (which it would do no good to link to as the site is membership-only), one has said it's really not worth worrying about, the other three have all said that "genderqueers" is either preferable or at least appropriate (along the lines of using "caucasians", for example). To this point, however, all have been personal opinions with no reference to anything resembling authoritative sources of any kind.

On a personal note, I find the repetition of the word "person" or "people" in the article to be distracting, but as I said above, I have no particular feelings about it either way apart from that. If anything notable develops in the off-wiki thread, I'll post back here, but otherwise, I'm calling it as "no clear evidence for or against, so leave it however the greatest number of editors are happy with", which, unless I've missed something, means leaving it as it is. – RobinHood70 ^talk 01:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow you, but, as I've already said, I'm withdrawing my objection to the use of the phrase "genderqueer people", and I've added two of Kaberett's sources to the article that help a little to justify the addition of the word "people". As far as the repetition goes, if one starts with the premise that the use of genderqueer as a noun is offensive, which I'm accepting at this point, then the word person or people must be repeated to avoid the offensive use.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it...I think we're all pretty much on the same page at this point. – RobinHood70 ^talk 02:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reversion - October 2011

In this reversion, I removed the material because it's unclear if it's sourced to the books already mentioned. I didn't want to just add a {{Citation needed}} tag, since it would be ambiguous as to which part of the information the citation was needed for, so I reverted it for now. I suspect the information is accurate, so if it can be confirmed by someone other than the IP that statements to that effect are in the relevant books, or if another source can be found, it makes sense to put the information back in. – RobinHood70 ^talk 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of proposal to merge Genderqueer article into Queer article

Since there's been no discussion regarding the "merge" tag that was added here yesterday by User:Dbachmann, I'm not really sure what motivates the proposal; however, Dbachmann's note when adding the tag - "same topic" - is not really correct in my view, since "queer" with respect to gender identity (or presentation) is a substantially different issue than "queer" with respect to sexual orientation (or practices). Personally, I think a separate article on the topic is probably justified. -- thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, 'queer' and 'genderqueer' are two different topics and the articles shouldn't be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.151.156 (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Don't merge. These two terms are used very differently, queer being all-encompassing and often referring to sexual orientation and genderqueer referring specifically to gender. Avory (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Genderqueer is NOT the same as queer! I am both queer and genderqueer. One is a sexual orientation, the other is a gender identity. 99.122.227.38 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't merge, it would be an absolutely stupid idea to do so. 109.76.237.228 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Transgender

Since I assume any attempt by me to change this sentence that's been here for quite some time will be quickly reverted, I'll post here first instead.

I find the sentence "Some genderqueer people[6][7] also identify as transgender, and may or may not wish for physical modification or hormones to suit their preferred expression" to be quite odd, since by all definitions of Transgender I've ever seen (including wikipedias), Genderqueer is always already included. It's not really something you choose to identify as, it's a descriptive term of one's identity (sort of like Genderqueer really). It's not that I doubt that it's true that some people like to exclude themselves from the Transgender-umbrella (I believe all groups under it actually do), but it just seems somewhat irrelevant to an encyclopedia. I doubt we have "Some homosexual people identify as LGBT..." written on the page on Homosexuality for example.

I'm not quite sure what was really intended by that part of the sentence either, the sources don't really mention it, and it could probably be removed without any loss to the article. --83.227.65.49 (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

There's no information on the following topic. What is attraction to genderqueer called? And are there subvarieties? I ask because the following applies to me.

- I'm attracted to biological females, both cisgender and genderqueer/non-binary gender, but more to the latter. - Personality-wise, I'm far more attracted to genderqueer of female birth.

So basically, I'm primarily attracted to genderqueer females. Is there a name for having a technical heterosexual attraction but preferring a more queer type of the opposite sex? If so, is there any information about this topic? MVillani1985 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is sometimes called ambiphilia or skoliosexuality. Kila Onasi^(talk) 18:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Gender pronouns

The third paragraph in the section Gender pronouns has little or nothing to do with pronouns:

In July 2012, Gopi Shankar, a gender activist and a student at The American College in Madurai coined the regional terms for genderqueer people in Tamil during Asia's first Genderqueer Pride Parade, Gopi said apart from male and female, there are more than 20 types of genders, such as transwoman, transmen, androgynous, pangender and trigender etc. and ancient India refer it as Trithiya prakirthi.

In that paragraph

1. The last "sentence" – and ancient India refer it as Trithiya prakirthi –
   • isn't a sentence
   • doesn't make sense
   • misspells the Sanskrit term "Tritiya-Prakriti" (तृतीय प्रकृति tṛtīya prakṛti), most of whose top Google hits seem to be to the same book:
     Tritiya-Prakriti : people of the third sex : understanding homosexuality, transgender identity, and intersex conditions through Hinduism, Amara Das Wilhelm, 2005 (Worldcat).
2. Terms ("transwoman, transmen, androgynous, pangender, trigender", as well as "man, woman, female, male", etc.) are not pronouns ("he, she, her(s), his, it(s), our(s), ze", etc.).
3. The paragraph is lifted in its entirety from Third gender#India (last para. of the section).

I've

1. deleted that last sentence fragment
2. retitled the section "Gender terms", inserting a <span id=... tag so any existing links to the section will still work
3. added a reference to the section Third gender#India

--Thnidu (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Has there been any scientific studies of the biology behind genderqueer people (assuming it's more than just a cultural phenomenon)? I would like to add them to the article if so, I haven't been able to find any yet. As human biology is not black and white, I would like to state here I believe genderqueer is a legitimate biological human condition. --Alexedits (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Genderqueer is an umbrella term for various nonbinary gender identities, or a standalone term for a nonbinary gender; both uses are completely legitimate. Being genderqueer is not a biological condition. You are correct that human biology is not black and white, but the term you may be looking for is intersex, which refers to biological sex and physical characteristics. To answer your first question, I highly doubt that there are any studies on the subject. Genderqueerness is usually if not always dismissed as a case of "gender identity disorder." Still, worth looking into. -- Quamobrem (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Gopi Shankar

I am wondering if the several mentions of Gopi Shankar should be removed. Gopi Shankar is a founder of Srishti, an organization in Madurai, a city of about 1 million people in Tamil Nadu. This organization has a website and has been mentioned in a couple of articles in Indian newspapers (including on the newspaper websites). But it seems that the thing for which the organization is most notable is getting itself and Gopi Shankar mentioned in various Wikipedia articles, such as this one. 98.229.131.247 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering about this myself. Numerous editors (mostly IPs?) have been repeatedly adding more references and external links to Gopi Shankar on this page, as if this person is a major authority on genderqueer identities. It seems unbalancing... Funcrunch (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think Pangender and Genderqueer cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. I'm neutral as to which term is the better for a merged article, though it seems that Genderqueer is the more developed article and may also be the more common term. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Don't Merge At most being Pangender is only one form of Genderqueer and they ARE NOT synonynms. I vote against merging.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The article pangender says that they are virtually synonymous. Having slightly different meanings doesn't necessarily warrant a separate article, either, especially when the pangender article is so undeveloped. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the pangender article to be closer to its actual meaning.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, don't merge. Genderqueer and pangender are not synonymous. If anything, the definition of pangender should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.224.242 (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Insomesia (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support merge As it stands Pangender has practically no content. Bigender and Trigender would also be good merge candidates. --April Arcus (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The opposers would do better to actually explain how pangender actually differs from genderqueer, and preferably expand that article with references to that effect, than to assert "they are not synonymous" and then walk away. The one-sentence article at Pangender does not do any service to the reader. Actually, none of the articles (Bigender and Trigender) quoted by April Arcus does not do any job in explaining the concept and how it differs from related ones. Furthermore, we're dealing with subtle issues of human feelings and senses, which cannot be simply put into boxes: 'J. is a genderqueer' -- 'No, she's rather a bigender' -- 'you mean xe? Nah, xe's pangenderous' . The readers would be better served with one more comprehensive article dealing with terminology, than with scattered stubs. That is to say, I support the merge. No such user (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

They are not synonymous in that "genderqueer" is its own identity as well as an umbrella term covering all non-binary genders. It is not the same as actually being all genders.

• Oppose merge and expand Pangender. Equivamp - talk 12:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And who claims they're synonymous? Wikipedia articles are about topics, not about words (Wiktionary is over there); This article (genderqueer) covers the topic about multi- and trans-gender persons reasonably well (albeit stubby), but pangender and bigender articles are two sentences each and serve little or no purpose. The natural way how the encyclopedia is supposed to grow is described in Wikipedia:Summary style: " The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. This does not go on forever: very long articles would cause problems and should be split.". Wikipedia is a work in progress, indeed, but nobody claims that those articles should be merged forever. But so far, nobody has been bothered to expand them beyond WP:DICDEF, so I see their separateness as a disservice to the reader (and in this case, being rather ignorant but curious about the topic, I see myself as a reader rather as an editor). No such user (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that I implied pretty strongly in my initial proposal that the two were synonymous. While that was mistaken, NSU has provided an important way to look at the issue: the two concepts cover the same ground to such an extent that there should be a single, well-developed article that covers pangender, bigender, trigender, etc. It seems that this article would be the place for that. Only when the content covering the concept of pangender is well developed enough to be its own article would it make sense to split. Until then, we'd only be spreading the knowledge too thin. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Pangender is only one form of Genderqueer along with bigender, agender, genderfluid and various other forms. It does not mean the same thing.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, but as you say, it's a kind of genderqueer, so it wouldn't be out of place to talk about it here. What would an expanded "pangender" article look like? Considering how short the existing stub is, why wouldn't it be inappropriate to incubate such an article here and spin it back out as its own article once it acquires enough substance to stand on its own? --April Arcus (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Genderqueer and Pangender have significant differences in meaning and usage. Genderqueer has more political connotations (in the same way that 'queer' does, besides being a gender identification). It's also much more commonly used than pangender. Both are terms used in connection with non-binary gender, so if there were any kind of merger, it should be to an article that covers discusses non-binary gender overall, without being tied to a particular identification. Although it may seem as though genderqueer is that article, the problem is that many non-binary people simply do not identify as genderqueer, and would object to that conflation. (I have no particular axe to grind here; I do identify as genderqueer, but I object strongly to oversimplifying other people's identities.) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that analysis is that this article already says in the intro that genderqueer is the non-binary gender catchall term. The conflation that you say others would object to has been a stable part of this article for several years now. I think we'd be putting beans in our ears if we anticipated an objection from non-present readers/editors who may or may not actually object to comprehensive coverage in a single article, particularly if the nuance you've described is addressed in article space. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the claim that genderqueer is a catch-all term for non-binary gender is plainly wrong. So that's not a problem with my analysis; it's a problem with the genderqueer article (which I may have a look at fixing). But the relevant point is, a merger with pangender would be making it worse. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

After looking at this cluster of articles a bit more, I'd be inclined to make Gender_variance the "article that covers discusses non-binary gender overall". --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you define as genderqueer? I was always taught that it is a coverall for gender not on the binary. Also just because a word has political connotations does not mean it is not the proper word. Gay had political connotations compared to homosexual and Lesbian was created with feminist connotations.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Rainbowofpeace -- I meant that I personally identify (reflexive verb) as genderqueer. Sorry if that was unclear. On the issue of political connotations, your examples don't seem to support your point; for example, if there were a proposal to merge articles about specific sexualities into the Queer article, I'd oppose it for similar reasons (and I doubt that would even be proposed) --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As it's already been said, genderqueer is a poor umbrella term (I don't use it and I know very few non-binary people who do unless they ID specifically s genderqueer). Perhaps a better way to have all the pages as one would to be to have merge them into Non-binary or Non-binary gender (at this time, both pages redirect here). Equivamp - talk 12:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender_variance seems like it would be a bad merge destination since it is not narrowly focused on non-binary identities in the way that Genderqueer is. --April Arcus (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

How someone identifies does not determine what something is. And by the way the non-politically charged versions of gay and lesbian were homosexual. Queer just happened to be more politically charged. Genderqueer however is not Queer in that sense. Genderqueer was originally constructed to refer to those in the transgender community who didn't identify as transmen or transwomen.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Which would include pangender and bigender people, right? We have a small proliferation of stub articles on various non-binary identities. Why would it not be a good idea to consolidate them into a comprehensive article here, with redirects? —April Arcus (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Since, as far as I can make out, Pangender is just a single gender identity, and Genderqueer is an umbrella term for those outside the binary. It comes to either following the official precedent or wiki policy. Do we make a separate article for every single gender identity, or lump them all into the article covering the umbrella term. While I support the latter, there must be a similar situation in which this was approached and resolved. --Sgtlion (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I spend a lot of time online having discussions with non-binary people and am non-binary myself. That is the most neutral and broad term for people who are under the wider transgender banner, but do not identify as just, or entirely, men or women. Some people do use genderqueer as an equivalent, but some people dislike it and think it sounds too political, or don't like the "reclaiming an insult" aspect to it. So, I'd say that all people who use the label genderqueer about themselves would agree they are also non-binary, but the opposite doesn't necessarily apply. The term "pangender" is much less common and, I would say, would be one label under the broader one of being non-binary (or genderqueer)that a small minority of people would apply to themselves. Orlando098 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per other oppose comments, they are not the same and genderqueer is the more common term anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• support per No such user. A huge number of dicdef stubs does disservice to the topic and our readers. (and per Daira Hopwood the rename seems like a good idea as well.)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. April Arcus contacted me about this merge proposal back in August, but, after seeing two more recent comments pop on my WP:Watchlist regarding this matter, I decided to go ahead and weigh in. I meant to weigh in earlier, but kept putting the matter aside. The editor No such user has summed up this matter well: Merging these two articles isn't about these two terms being the same thing; it's about the fact that one of them (Genderqueer) is an umbrella term article and the other (Pangender) is a tiny stub article about an aspect of the former and that should therefore be (and already is) covered in that former article. For that same reason, the Bigender article should be merged with the umbrella article as well. Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that while they are not the same thing, Pangender does not warrant its own article, and should be included in its own sub-section within Genderqueer, along with Bigender, as it falls under that topic. - MishMich - Talk - 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)