Talk:Non-binary/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

List of typical features that make someone identify as non-binary

As per title: can you add some examples of features that make people identify as non-binary?

In the article it reads that non-binary mixes features from both sexes, but it doesn't describe or provide examples of what those are.

Thank you Cmwoodie (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just gonna jump in here to say that perhaps "experiences of non-binary identities" would likely be a better title; it may not have been your intention, but it needs to be made clear that the only thing that really makes someone non-binary is, uh, identifying as non-binary. There are some shared experiences, but these don't constitute the identity, and nor does a set preference for one's personal presentation, clothing or pronouns. (I'd also argue that "mixing features from both sexes" isn't even quite to the point - as someone who's non-binary myself, I'd say my identity mixes male features with agender ones. Not a smidgen of female in there, in my experience.)

And this may just be my exposure to it, but "typical features that make someone non-binary" sounds just way too familiar to the kind of "I'm properly transgender Unlike Yourself" separatist garbage I've seen a worrying uptick in throughout these past few years.

Of course, it would be valid to discuss that itself, but typical features is a section I feel would fall apart at the slightest touch, y'know? Apologies if this sounds like rambling garbage - I wanted to drop my two cents in. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cmwoodie:, I don't see anywhere in the article where it describes non-binary as a "mixing features from both sexes". Good thing, too, because that wouldn't be accurate. From a scientific viewpoint, no one knows why someone identifies as non-binary. As far as "features": as it's something internal, there isn't anything that "makes" you non-binary, other than your say-so. You might be thinking of gender expression, and imagining you could extrapolate from someone's expression and guess that they might be non-binary, but that would be just a guess. You can't use someone's expression as a "feature" to label them non-binary; it just doesn't work that way. Also agree with Ineffablebookkeeper's reply to you.

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Regardless whether you consider something completely subjective or not, that's not how we decide how to title an article; that comes from article title policy. Per WP:PRECISE, "experiences of..." is no more needed here as part of the title, than "experiences of womanhood" would be needed instead of the title "Woman". (It's not a perfect analogy, as "woman" predates any notions of gender identity as apart from sex, but I assume you can see my point.) If you want to propose a different title, then see WP:MOVE and follow the procedures listed at WP:RM#CM. Just be aware that this page has had numerous contested moves, the last of which resulted in a move, and imho is very unlikely to be renamed again any time soon. Mathglot (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot - I think you might have misread? My understanding was that "what makes someone non-binary" was being suggested as a section header for within the article, rather than the title itself, hence my suggestion. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, Aha; I may well have. I was going by your: "..would likely be a better title" wording. If you meant, "section header", then you can forget what I said regarding article titles. As a section header, it isn't clear to me what it means, and I wouldn't know what I would expect to read in a section by that name. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more: "the only thing that really makes someone non-binary is, uh, identifying as non-binary". So: no typical features. :-) Laurier (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is impossible since there is no "objective" definition, experience, or basis for non-binary gender or people. It's people saying they are. There is no evidence to suggest what non-binary people "feel" within themselves is anything different from what people normally considered cisgendered "feel", and scientific research into how human brains function show that most examined brains exist between the two extremes of male and female, meaning non-binary brains are the majority. This article discusses a topic which has no other basis than people saying "I'm going to say I am." Which is their right, of course, but it is a topic without any definition or basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.177.230 (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop deleting opinions which agree with your definition 100% but happen to disagree with your value system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.177.230 (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020

The page erroneous states that I "claim" to have coined genderqueer. In fact, this didn't originate with me but was documented by Wiktionary and was pointed out to me (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genderqueer "First known appearance in print was in 1995 in a newsletter by Riki Wilchins.[1]") I don't believe I have echoed this claim in print or publicly. Historian Transgender Susan Styker had told me that the term predates me, but I have never been able to locate that reference.

Please change "Riki Anne Wilchins is often associated with the word and claims to have coined it" to "According to Wikstionary, Riki Wilchins is credited with the first use of 'genderqueer' in print."

Otherwise I sound like Dr Evil's father, going around claiming to have invented the question mark "-}

Thank you. -- Riki Rikiwilchins (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Why did you write that you coined it in this article? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

And also, [here]! Laurier (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Gender Census Survey graph - does it reflect the survey accurately? Are all respondents non-binary?

The article currently includes a graph stating that 77.5% of non-binary individuals prefer to be referred to by the singular they pronoun, but having look at the survey, I'm not entirely sure if this is a fully accurate description of what the survey said. It is true that the survey is primarily aimed at quote "people whose genders are not adequately described, expressed or encompassed by the restrictive gender binary" but it also takes careful consideration to not refer to all of its respondents as non-binary.

This survey also included respondents who do not self-describe as non-binary. Respondents also included binary trans people, gender nonconforming people (an umbrella term which can include cisgendered people who may be feminine men and masculine women), people who are currently questioning their gender and do not know how they identify, etc. In fact, a third of respondents did not self-describe as non-binary.

Is it appropriate then for the graph and article to suggest that all of the respondents were non-binary? 77.5% of respondents did indicate that they/them is their preferred pronoun, but is it accurate to state that 77.5% of non-binary people indicated that when one in three respondents did not describe themselves as non-binary?

I'm asking this on the talk page because I don't know the answer to these questions and I'm interested in what other editors think. Does the raw data of the survey make it possible to find out what percent of self-described non-binary people prefer they/them? If not, should the entire pronouns and titles sub-section be rewritten to instead cite secondary sources which mention that many non-binary individuals prefer to be referred to by they/them (rather than trying to find an exact number?)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking closely at it, the article doesn't specifically say that exact percentage of nonbinary people use they/them (any survey has statistical error anyway). The general proportions that it states/implies does accord with what the source itself states, though: Is there a pronoun that every nonbinary person is happy with? – No. The closest we have to a standard is singular they, and it’s important for journalists and anyone else with a style guide to allow it. Steadily over the last few years about 1 in 5 are not into singular they, and 9% of us don’t like he, she or they pronouns. The source treats the data basically as the article does. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The current wording of the article is appropriate, but the title and subcaption of the graph are, at least in my opinion, not currently accurate. It uses the same statistics as the survey, but titles and captions it as a graph showing the most popular pronouns among non-binary people, when the survey isn't necessarily of non-binary people. Personally, I think the best course of action would be to keep the text (and hopefully expand it with more sources about the usage of the singular they by non-binary people) but remove the graph on the right. Of course, we can still cite the survey (at least for now, it is user-generated content but it's currently the best we have).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The quote I gave treats the graph data as applying to nonbinary people as a group, including specific percentages, as does our picture caption. So if the source treats it that way, so can we. I think the graph is worth keeping. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding historical cultural recognition of non-binary genders under “History”

We could include a short summary of historical (and in some cases current) non-binary identities such as Hijra, ancient Egypt’s understanding of three genders, and the various Two-Spirit genders. Aryore (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Governmental systems and non-binary

The topic of the prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities - as well as the subject of places like schools and bathrooms - should be brought about. What political advances have made to accommodate non-binary people in these places? What controversy is there? What are some major supporting voices in favor of these actions? This article feels somewhat incomplete without an analysis of these pressing issues. If they were mentioned, I've missed them and I'm pretty sure I read the whole article. Holdonspirit (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Holdonspirit, I think that could be a relevant topic. It looks like your account is autoconfirmed, meaning that you should be able to edit this article, so I encourage you to go right ahead, be bold, and add a summary of the topic to the article. The important part will be to find enough reliable sources on the material you introduce that you can establish that it belongs in an encyclopedic summary of the idea of non-binary genders. One tricky issue will be giving due weight to whatever you add; it's usually not neutral to have a "controversies" section in an article that's about an identity, so my suggestion would be to add this under the "discrimination" section, or introduce a section on relevant landmark policies or something like this. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Lack of a neutral prospective

This article definitely lacks the neutrality that a page should have in order to fit in this website, in fact there are no mentions about criticism made by who sustain that non-binary gender is not a real thing; that's also highlighted by a lack of cited scientific studies on the subject that prove/dismiss the presence of gender-nonconforming behaviors in humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVD668 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

DVD668, I think that the information in this article is (for the most part) well-sourced and neutral. Wikipedia gives due weight, meaning that it "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I think that's what you're suggesting that this article doesn't do. I see that your account is new - if you're here to build an encyclopedia, please feel free to suggest some constructive and reliable sources/additions right here on the talk page, or come back and add them yourself once your account is autoconfirmed! warmly, ezlev. talk 22:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure adding criticism towards non-binary is a good idea.

Because most sources I find that criticize non-binary are honestly bigoted also I doubt that any mainstream scholar would waste their time to criticize this since it’s not important nor is it and also non-binary is a thing you can’t prove or disprove. CycoMa (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree with both talk and CycoMa. Laurier (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia; it's not a space for unscientific arguments that nonbinary people don't exist. People's identities are not a matter for debate, and the inclusion of unscientific content and what is likely to be unfounded transphobia, because let's be honest here, it is, will be removed. Do not add it. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The arguments against the idea of nonbinary are not always unscientific. The point is made that gender is based on biology, not on one's personal feelings about how they identify. There's a historical precedent for both binary and nonbinary views on gender (and many other views on gender), with each being promoted in different cultures at different times in different contexts to different degrees. Refusing to acknowledge this except to dismiss it as bigotry is worrying. One's personal feelings about how they identify is something psychological that cannot be proven or disproven objectively, anymore than concepts like God or romantic love can be proven or disproven objectively. Articles shouldn't take a stance on these things except that they're ideas that emerge in culture and are held by some individuals and not others. Presenting it as otherwise clearly taking a point-of-view instead of presenting multiple perspectives neutrally. This applies to ideas that are generally considered debunked. For an example, the Christ Myth theory is not generally taken seriously by historians but is objectively included in the article. It says the theory is largely considered debunked, but still presents the point-of-view of the scholars who oppose the historicity of Jesus. It also fairly neutrally presents the figure of Jesus and lets readers draw their own conclusions and motivations like bigotry against Christians are not presented as the motivation for presenting the Christ Myth theory. The nonbinary article currently only acknowledges other viewpoints as discrimination that leads to suicide. While this is a point-of-view that should be included in the article, it is not the only point-of-view (or even the point-of-view of all nonbinary people) and is like writing in the article on Jesus that the Christ Myth theory never has any historical basis, that it's only promoted by antitheists for the sole purpose of causing Christians to lose faith. That just wouldn't be objective and does not acknowledge the historians, however few, who generally criticize the idea. I'm not going to hang around here arguing back-and-forth as I know this is a losing battle, as it's clear that despite the claims of neutrality, this is one of those times when Wikipedia as a point-of-view that they wish to promote. But I think someone should challenge it if only once, and perhaps other people have more energy than I do to continue arguing for neutrality on Wikipedia.Lynchenberg (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

What RS evidence is there that "gender is based on biology"? I haven't seen any. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's one such study showing the historical background of the point of view that gender is based on biological sex. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.359.9143&rep=rep1&type=pdf You could find many, many more if you care to look. This was the norm in Western culture until recently when differing views became more prominent, which is why it's been controversial in recent years. That very controversy is proof that there's been conflicting viewpoints. To be clear, I'm not advocating we say definitively "gender is based on biological sex" anymore than we definitively say "gender has nothing to do with biological sex." Obviously throughout history and through different cultures there have been a variety of views, and a lot of them don't even strictly fit into that strict gender-is-all-biological/gender-is-all-psychological binary. I'm simply advocating advocating we say, "Some people take this view, and this is why. Some people take that view, and this is why. Some people take a middle view, or a completely different view, and that's why." Right now, the article seems to take the one view and define any opposing view as bigotry. Like I said, I'm not going to argue this forever because I do think this is one of those cases where Wikipedia is interested in promoting a particular point of view. At the very least, any opposing viewpoint should not be defined only as simply bigotry.Lynchenberg (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m just gonna say this gender and sex aren’t the same thing bruh. You claiming gender is based on biology shows you are confused on the subject. CycoMa (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't made a claim either way and I'm not interested in arguing which claim (if any) is actually correct. I've just acknowledged the bias in the article.Lynchenberg (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The article does not contain the word "bigotry". The body of the article does not contain the string "biological sex". The article makes no claims about psychological bases of gender. The article says nothing about the history of nonbinary identities before 1992. As far as I can tell nothing written in this talk page section has any connection to the page, and this discussion is probably not even on WP:TALK#TOPIC. What specific changes is anybody here proposing to the article? - Astrophobe (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay dude like I have said to you sex and gender are two different things. Gender is not binary because it varies from culture.

But, sex is a binary tho. So we aren’t technically going against your views. CycoMa (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - just jumping on here, it's not actually as binary as many think. This seems to be a good introduction to less-binary sex categories in human beings.

(I'll also add here - this is a really good exploration of the fact that transgender people, including nonbinary people, are not a new concept, in case anyone wants a read of it.)

@Lynchenberg: - no idea why you're dragging faith into this, unless, as I think I can surmise, your view is that being nonbinary is a personal belief, rather than a sociological reality. If that is the case, I'd suggest everyone on this Talk page just give up on arguing that point, as to be honest, it's just nonsense. Yes, not all nonbinary people think the same, as amazingly, we're not a cabal who all know each other - but I've got no time for arguing what being nonbinary actually *is* with someone who comes across plainly uninterested in budging on their, and I have to say this, kind of blinkered and bigoted points. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m just gonna say this I have a hard time trusting sources like that because most of them are political and they only really think about humans.

Which sex is obviously isn’t exclusively a human thing. CycoMa (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That massivesci.com source is inaccurate, as is common with pop-sci. Chromosomal anomalies like that are not 3rd, etc. sexes, any more than trisomy 21 means that homo sapiens doesn't have have 46 chromosomes, and variations in anatomy or hormones do not matter in defining biological sex and do not make it a "spectrum". The basis for being non-binary is the sex-gender distinction. Sex is defined biologically by the gametes an organism produces. All this is covered in this article, one of very many on this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like this discussion has hit the boundaries of WP:NOTFORUM. I would encourage anyone who seeks consensus to somehow improve the article to create a new talk page section. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be possible to include non-bigoted and reasonable criticism of the non-binary perspective, after all, as a newly developed concept it should be subject to the usual scientific testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.73.115 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC) (Please sign your comment with 4 tildes.)

Sure there are some scholars out there who criticize the concept but, most of them are part of hate groups or only express their opinions on social media like Twitter.

It’s just hard to find reliable sources that criticize groups like this because our society has changed to be more accepting of groups like this. CycoMa (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To add on to CycoMa, unless you can find a reliable source that we can use, this is a moot discussion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Deadnaming

The term is not used here. I'm not sure what section it belongs in.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it really needs to be included here; Deadnaming is an article of its own accord and anyway, it would fit better on the Discrimination against non-binary people article. Tvcameraop (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If you say so. I brought it up because it was the main subject of Amy Dickinson's column yesterday.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)