Talk:Non-binary/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 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 ● 📩 ● 📝 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 ● 📩 ● 📝 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 ● 📩 ● 📝 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!}⚓ 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 · contribs) 03:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

Change

Non-binary[a] or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female‍

to

Non-binary[a] or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither man nor woman

because male and female aren't gender identities, they're sexes. Man and woman are gender identities. 2601:204:C784:40A0:8EC0:D0CB:FC32:A424 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources on Gender identity, the terms "male" and "female" are also used for gender identities, not only for sexes. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should get the definition right?

Earlier I pointed out the inconsistencies in the article arising from the second sentence of the lead, and I’m glad to see that Astrophobe came to my support, but let’s move on. There is a much more important error staring us in the face in the first sentence of the lead:

"Non-binary . . . is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female" is simply wrong. The error lies in the word "neither", which is extracted from reference, no 2, whilst ignoring the qualifications which follow it. Reference 2 states: "Some people have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders." This is a good definition, and it is quite clear that each of these examples is a separate case. So the statement that some people have a gender which is neither male nor female is true, but so are the statements that some people have a gender that is both male and female at one time, or as different genders at different times. Each of these examples has parity, and our lead has to reflect this..What it should say is ". . . gender identities that are not exclusively male or female".

Alternatively, we could adopt Stonewall’s definition:

Non-binary: An umbrella term for people whose gender identity doesn’t sit comfortably with ‘man’ or ‘woman’. Non-binary identities are varied and can include people who identify with some aspects of binary identities, while others reject them entirely.

Although unfortunately this uses ‘man’ or ‘woman’ when it should say ‘male’ or ‘female’. Brymor (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Brymor - How about "Non-binary . . . is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither solely male nor solely female" (emphasis added to show change) EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Tazuco (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that the an old version of the page used "not exclusively masculine or feminine‍" rather than "neither male nor female‍". There has been some discussion about how exactly to phrase this on the talk page, but nothing that I can recall which focused very directly on the possible confusion between "not at all either male or female" and "not exactly male and also not exactly female". - Astrophobe (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, done. Thank you Astrophobe for pointing out the better wording in the old version, which I have restored. Brymor (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Undone. Doesn't match the given source (which happens to use male/female, among other things). Also, these dyadic negative expressions (neither A nor B, not exclusively A or B, not at all either A or B) aren't all equivalent. And in any case, should be a reflection of the body, where this should be worked out first, and then properly summarized. Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, I reread the sources and I think they support EvergreenFir's suggestion, which I prefer to the masculine/feminine version. Can we use that? I'd prefer it not to include the links to male and female, as the articles are specifically about sex. I'd be ok with just having this in the lead, as it's of the "basic facts" type discussed at MOS:LEAD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah; until and unless we can improve the lead sections of male and female, those links won't help our readers. But I do prefer "man and woman" over "male and female" over "masculine and feminine", in that order, since the concepts of "exclusively masculine" and "exclusively feminine" gender seem far too restrictive for real world identities as "men" and "women". Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers: I could live with EvergreenFir's suggestion, but I do find "neither solely" a bit of a mouthful - "not exclusively" is clearer, and is supported both by the old version, and reference 2. Brymor (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I do slightly prefer "not exclusively" to "neither solely ... nor solely". I prefer the unlinked male/female to masculine/feminine. I'm undecided on Newimpartial's man/woman, and I'm not sure what the full text would look like if we use those terms. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

My view on man/woman is that these terms are more biological than male/female, but even if I'm wrong, we can't use man/woman because all the references use male/female (essentially Mathglot's objection to masculine/feminine). So adopting "not exclusively" and "male/female" the full text would read: "Non-binary or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are not exclusively male or female —‌ identities that are outside the gender binary." (With the links removed from male and female.) "identities that are outside the gender binary" is a bit odd, but it is a quote from reference 2, so is probably ok.Brymor (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I like "solely" more than "exclusively". It's shorter and flows better I think. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do the edit, then. Brymor (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with solely, as long as we use the shorter construction of Brymor's edit: is an umbrella term for gender identities that are not solely male or female. I plan on making the edit soonish if no one else gets to it or objects. I'm worried this might have dropped off Mathglot's radar so here's a ping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes, I'd be fine with your version (@19:56). The "why" in Brymor's question below is slightly o/t here imho; however, since you asked, it's basically because this is such a contentious article within a contentious topic area, and people can get intense about a comma or a verb tense; I didn't want to reword, in order not to inflame the situation with even more options. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot: My original proposal was to use the words male and female (see above), but I was put off by the links to those pages, which are too biological, as pointed out by Firefangledfeathers. So instead of reverting, why didn't you just change masculine/feminine to male/female? The error in the existing text has to be corrected. Brymor (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)