Jump to content

Talk:Non-binary/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:03, 5 October 2022 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Non-binary gender) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 5โ†Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Xenogenders

As per discussion on Talk:Xenogender, I've created an entry here under Non-binary_gender#Terms,_definitions,_and_identities. I'm not entirely sure how to make the xenogender page redirect to the xenogender blurb here though, WP:Redirect is a little confusing to me. Additionally, any more WP:RS sources for this section would be beneficial, as I'm not entirely sure the second source is 100% suitable. hopolapopola โ— ๐Ÿ“ฉ โ— ๐Ÿ“ 15:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hopolapopola do you think these sources are WP:RS? Tazuco (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Tazuco this one seems alright, lgbtqnation has a clear editorial team, although this article is new - not sure how recency would come into play. this source doesn't seem as reliable, but it does cite at least one study that may be relevant w.r.t gender microlabels becoming more prevalent (which xenogenders would fall under). would love to hear from other editors too if they think one or both sources are good! hopolapopola โ— ๐Ÿ“ฉ โ— ๐Ÿ“ 00:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
further to my previous comment, I did some reading at Talk:Non-binary_gender/Archive_8#About_the_xenogender and previously an editor took issue with this source but i believe it'd be fine to show this is a thing that exists alongside this source that explains what it really is. Assuming the lgbtqnation article is Reliable enough, I would argue that this set of sources should be enough to satisfy notability - it shows that "real" sources are picking up on what already existed on less reliable places like fandom wikis and tumblrs. hopolapopola โ— ๐Ÿ“ฉ โ— ๐Ÿ“ 02:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

The last sentence: "In the United States there are no explicit laws to protect non-binary people from discrimination, however it is illegal for an employer to require employees to conform to sex stereotypes.[79]" What does that even mean? We are very confused about this. Needs heavy clarification. 174.255.68.7 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC) 174.255.68.7 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think it means exactly what it says? The plain reading is clear to me, can you help us figure out what it means to you? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!โš“ 20:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I changed "sex" to "gender" and added a wikilink to gender stereotypes; does that help? Funcrunch (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah the wikilink helps a bit I think. The confusion resulted from the listed reference not providing any clarity either; we couldn't see how this sentence was contrived from it, but let's ignore that. Does it mean a manager cannot force, say, a secretary to wear a dress? If so it should read "an employer cannot require employees to conform, or otherwise behave in, manners that relate to their respective gender and its stereotypes". 72.93.206.32 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Related, I made this change which provides a link to Title VII. RoxySaunders (talk ยท contribs) 03:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)