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)

No criticism section?

I think there should be a section in this article where readers can read criticisms that have been made of the assertion that gender is not a binary. I have read on this talk page some views that roughly approximate to: "We should not do this because you can't just invalidate someone's identity". Apart from the fact this argument is disconnected from considerations of objective reality, it fails even on its own terms because in asserting a non-binary nature of gender, or equivalently by negating the existence of a gender binary, you are equally invalidating those that identify with male or female as part of a gender binary. Therefore there should be a neutral discussion of this dispute that presents both sides in a fair way.

As far as I can tell there is no consensus on this in the scientific literature, and as readers will be aware it is a highly controversial and politically sensitive subject. Therefore I am concerned that editors of this page may be biased towards promoting only one narrative, and not seeking to present things from a neutral point of view. 84.211.61.187 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ll be honest with I have issues with the concept of non-binary itself. But, I don’t know any mainstream academics criticizing so no criticism section.

The only scholars I have seen who criticize it are bigots.CycoMa (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you consider that only those you perceive to be of good moral standing should be cited in an encyclopedia? We might as well just delete every article on anything that ever happened, was thought, or was discovered throughout most of history then, as the original sources will certainly not have shared our moralities. 84.211.61.187 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's often the case that some editors only look for and include sources that already affirm their views, but if you think there is significant criticism of the concept in the academic literature, you'd probably need to provide those sources for anyone to do anything about it. Just saying that there's a problem in vague terms is probably not very helpful. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested reading is Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism"_section, on why even if there is valid criticism of a subject (which I don't think there is here) it should be incorporated into the article in a sensible fashion, not given its own section. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to include a section dedicated to criticism of a concept (as in fact that essay accepts), and it is often done. I don't think that this article is a good candidate for such a section though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Here’s the thing about criticism sections. The reason articles like Christianity gets a criticism section and an article like lesbian doesn’t get a criticism section is because mainstream scholars know it’s wrong to criticize minorities. (Whether or not they are for or against that group.)

Richard Dawkins for example heavily criticizes religion, yet he lost a award over his comments against trans people.

I’m sorry but, many mainstream scholars know if they criticized certain minority groups their reputations would be ruined.CycoMa (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest the reason Christianity has a criticism section and lesbian does not is more because "Christianity" describes a set of ideas, which can be criticized, and "lesbian" generally describes a set of persons. I note that Christian does not have a criticism section. Taking my argument forward, while "non-binary" is associated with a set of persons that believe in the truth of this concept and identify themselves in such a way, "non-binary" is also (principally, I would argue) an idea: the assertion that gender is not a binary. So there should be somewhere that people can read criticisms of this (in my personal view: new and profound assertion), just like they can read criticisms of any religion on Wikipedia, including ones adhered to by persecuted minorities. 84.211.61.187 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There's too much WP:FORUMing going on here. Unless you have WP:Reliable sources to suggest and discuss, there is no point to this. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we add a Criticism section to the man article as well? 172.58.139.48 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what changes you are suggesting to this page. You can open a discussion about the man page at Talk:man. This page is for discussing changes to the article Non-binary gender. Discussions about what happens at the man page aren't germane here -- the reason for that is explained at WP:OTHERCONTENT. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Per their edit summary, I believe they were making a reductio ad absurdum joke. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Change lead to include non-binary people who may partly identify with binary genders

For example: someone could identify as both male AND female, or identify as a binary and something else, or only partly identify as a binary. These are all valid non-binary identities. I feel like it should be reworded to something along the lines of "not strictly male or female". I'm not very good at finding good and reliable sources (if anyone has any tips, please let me know!) but some terms to look into are demigender, genderfluid, and bigender, some of which are mentioned in the article. PeanutButterPopcorn (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you have a point, there are non-binary individuals who identify as males or females.CycoMa (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph of the current lead covers this pretty well already: "Non-binary people may identify as having two or more genders (being bigender or trigender);[5][6] having no gender (agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree); moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity (genderfluid);[7] being third gender or other-gendered (a category that includes those who do not place a name to their gender).[8]" Funcrunch (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it I think the lead is a little too narrow. I mean people who are demiboy, bigender, or agender are classified as non-binary.

So saying

” Non-binary (also spelled nonbinary) or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female‍”

Needs fixing. CycoMa (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

May we could change it to something like non-binary is a umbrella term for gender identities that identify outside the gender binary would be better. CycoMa (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The current lead sentence reads: "Non-binary (also spelled nonbinary) or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female‍—identities that are outside the gender binary." With that and the second paragraph of the lead I quoted upthread, I think the lead is already inclusive of identities that are partly or sometimes male or female. Though perhaps changing "neither male nor female" to "not exclusively male or female" would be more precise. Funcrunch (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t saying neither male or female is problematic. There are non-binary individuals who identify as both male and female so I think it’s need a slight tweak. CycoMa (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Identifying as male and female is still not identifying as male, or as female - hence, outside the gender binary. This wording is in accord with the sources given, which we should be following. I agree with Funcrunch that the remainder of the lead explains it more anyway. The problem with adding "not exclusively" is that it actually confuses - people will wonder what it means since, after all, aren't most men and women not "exclusively" male-stereotypical or female-stereotypical in their personality? But stating that the identities are neither male nor female and outside the gender binary keeps the focus on categories of gender identity, where it belongs, rather than seeming to shift into degrees of general personality/other gendered traits, which can confuse. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the lead used to say (until this April) "is a spectrum of gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍", which was clearer with that qualifying adverb. But how do reliable sources define it? A lead should summarize the body, and a body which follows RS in including e.g. bigender people does need to be reflected in the lead, but RS could guide us in how to go about that. -sche (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to describe this in other than negative terms?

I came to this page trying to improve my understanding, but find that an article that describes its subject in terms of what is it not (ie, "identities that are neither...," "some non-binary individuals do not consider themselves...," "Non-binary gender identities are not associated with...,"Being non-binary is not the same as...," and so forth) is not really clarify anything for me. Little if anything makes plain what non-binary is rather than what it is not. Is there a way to write this article the way I had expected, or does the subject matter itself present a challenge there? I do want to understand, and ask with respect. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Count Robert of Paris, Well the subject is somewhat defined by what it isn't. In the simplest: non-binary folks are simple those who are neither male nor female. That encompasses a very wide range. As the article points out, its an umbrella term that encompasses many different identities. I feel like the lead does an okay job of summarizing that, but it could probably use revision. Any wording suggestions appreciated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, not a problem. There are many things defined by what they aren't. See for example nonverbal communication, non-governmental organization, and non-penetrative sex ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 02:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Trimton Apologies but those seem like possibly poor analogies. nonverbal communication actually does define the subject by what it is as well as what it is not. Specifically the article notes that nonverbal communication is eye contact, is body language, is posture, is gesture and even platforms such as social context and distance. So despite the name including a negation, the definition is replete with positive characteristics. non-governmental organization likewise includes a substantial amount of positive definition of subject matter - for example they are "organizations which are independent of government." Subjects matter becomes much clearer and easier to understand when defined positively and any article can benefit from additional clarity. There actually is one, lonely positive definition at the beginning of the article, namely that non-binary is an umbrella term for several different gender identities, and that's probably a good jumping off point to anyone wanting to make the article more immediately informative to readers.MacThulu

the noun for non-binary

I hope this question isn't ignorant but is there a noun that non-binary people may prefer. ie an equivalent to man/woman ? I realise that the pronoun "they" can sometimes be preferred to she/he but I am unsure on nouns ? Is this dealt with in this article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally, one just says "non-binary person", or just "person" if non-binary-ness isn't an important distinction. Colloquially, some nonbinary people use the term "enby" where others might use "man" or "woman". The article mentions "enby" as abbreviation for "nonbinary" but doesn't mention it being used to mean "an individual nonbinary person", which is a somewhat different usage. It's a subtle difference of syntax, but an important one. I might take a further look at the sources we're citing and see if we're correctly representing how they use the term, as it's not quite consistent with my anecdotal experience. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

add language Dutch (Nederlands): https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derde_geslacht Ln.sukr.aM (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: inter-language links are stored in WikiData. Elizium23 (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

In particular, Ln.sukr.aM, nl:derde geslacht is considered at present to be analogous to the English Wikipedia page Third gender. If you go to Third gender and click on Nederlands in the language tab, you will be taken to nl:derde geslacht. If you believe that is wrong, it can be changed in the corresponding wikidata entry, as Elizium23 mentions. But that would require some discussion, since it looks like derde geslacht literally just means "third gender", so it would be surprising if it should instead correspond to this page. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out :) I'll see if we should get something like a "niet binair geslacht" page going on the Dutch Wikipedia. Ln.sukr.aM (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There already is a redirect-page for nl:Non-binair; it redirects to nl:Genderqueer at the moment, but that could be changed of course. And yes, the Dutch do call this 'non-binair', not 'niet binair'. That is almost the same as on the English language Wikipedia, where Genderqueer redirects to Non-binary gender. I don't think it's actually 100% a synonym, but that's a different discussion. Laurier (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

New demographic information

There's a lot of new demographic information about American enbies at https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/nonbinary-lgbtq-adults-us/. Nosferattus (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Frankly some of the framing of this survey is pretty starkly at odds with the balance of reliable sources. Our article says in the lead (and repeats in various ways throughout) that "Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella", which definitely accords with my reading of the bulk of reliable sources. That directly contradicts their finding that "A greater percentage of nonbinary LGBTQ adults are cisgender rather than transgender." I think this will actually be tough to work into the page, which is kind of amazing given that it looks like it should be such a high quality data source. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what definitions of "transgender" and "cisgender" they are using, as they clearly don't align with the typical definitions and the explanation given in the paper (in footnote #2) is more confusing than enlightening. I emailed the study authors to ask for clarification. In the meantime, we can just skip the information related to "transgender" and "cisgender". Nosferattus (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at the methodology, it looks like they asked all participants the question "Do you currently describe yourself as man, woman, or transgender?" with no other options. This is separate from the gender identity question which does include "non-binary" as an option. So it looks like anyone who currently describes themself as "man" or "woman" (when given no explicitly non-binary options) and were also AMAB or AFAB, respectively, were classified as "cisgender" (which seems like a rather awkward and artificial definition of cisgender). Nosferattus (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I was troubled by that framing as well. I know some non-binary people identify as neither transgender nor cisgender. But a cisgender person by definition has a gender identity that aligns with their assigned sex, so I'm not sure how or why a non-binary person would identify as cis. Maybe the researchers or respondents were confusing gender presentation with gender identity? Funcrunch (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling (protected from edit)

Not sure this talk page is appropriate placement, but there's a misspelling at the end of the Definitions and Identity section. It says: "Transfeminine is a term for any person, binary or non-binary, who was assigned male at birth and has a predominantly feminine gender identity or presentation; transmasculine is the equivalent term for someone who was assigned female at birth and has a predominantly msaculine gender identity or presentation" -- masculine is misspelled at the end.

Also, not a major editing point, but the article includes two very similar statements in the intro and then in the Definitions and Identity section. In the first paragraph, it says: "Another term for non-binary is enby (from the abbreviation 'NB').[4]" and the second paragraph under Definitions and Identity states "Some people use enby (from the letters 'NB') as a short form of non-binary.[19][20]". The first note is likely sufficient.

Wondamike7 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; the typo has been fixed. The repetition you mention is how articles are supposed to be written; the WP:LEAD summarizes the body of the article and is not to contain information not found there. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

‘Please add the following sentence after the sentence on being gender fluid in the intro to the page “Non-binary can also be used to describe non-binaryflux where you fluctuate between non-binary and a binary gender (male or female). 81.174.156.236 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Portal bar in See Also section

Please see the documentation for Template:Portal bar which specifically says "This template does not belong in the "See also" section"

It would be better to use the regular Template:Portal instead if you want to keep it in the See also section. If you want to use the Portal bar it would be better to move it down to the bottom of the article with the Navboxes.

I would have fixed this myself already if the article was not locked. -- 109.78.204.92 (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)