Talk:Non-binary/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please move Genderqueer back to Gender fluid

The title says it in a nut shell. I'm a guy in my 50's and for most of my life the term "queer" has had pain and suffering attached to it. I know people try and say its a way for the LGBT community to take ownership of the word and thereby remove the sting from it. Not for me, and I would imagine not for a lot of other people. To me, queer and genderqueer are too much "in your face" kinds of words. I know my request will probably fall on deaf ears but I needed to speak my piece. -- Mike 2602:306:372B:C939:649F:3F32:AA43:7FB1 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Genderfluid is a nonbinary gender identity which is not synonymous with genderqueer. Genderqueer people encompass a variety of gender identities, including genderfluid. As to reactions to the term "queer", Wikipedia includes articles based on notability, even if the subject is controversial or offensive to a lot of people. Funcrunch (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if we could find a less pejorative term. I came to this page because I was looking for information on Asexuality and Agender identity. Perhaps "Non-binary gender identity" may be the appropriate term with "Genderqueer" being redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.44.190 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion regarding merging Agender into this page. As for asexuality, I would see that as a separate category entirely, as sexual orientation is distinct from gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

+1 to what Funcrunch said above that genderqueer is a broad category that includes the subcategory genderfluid and hence it makes sense that the page is [[genderqueer]] and not [[genderfluid]]. As to offensiveness... considering that the younger genderqueer people I know self-identify with that label, and considering also the existence and use of phrases like queer studies, I imagine it must be a generational issue if older people find the term offensive. Of course, older people's offendedness is not less valid, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose moving the page to non-binary gender or non-binary genders. -sche (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if the page title were moved to non-binary gender (instead of redirecting to genderqueer as it does now), the term genderqueer still needs to be included in the article as that term is in widespread use. Funcrunch (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, genderqueer should definitely continue to be mentioned even if the article is retitled.
@Flyer22: Regarding this edit-summary comment, would "masculine and feminine" be better than "male and female"? My issue with "man and woman" was just that adjectives sound better in that slot than nouns. -sche (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, "masculine" and "feminine" are not so much gender identities as they are behaviors. Maybe word it as "a catch-all category for gender identities that extend beyond masculine and feminine gender norms"? Leaving it as "a catch-all category for gender identities that extend beyond masculine and feminine" does not fit as well to me since genderqueer identities are largely a mix of masculine and feminine traits. The only problem I had with "man and woman" is that they don't explicitly cover boys and girls. People usually consider "man and woman" to refer to adults. If WP:Slash didn't exist, I would suggest wording it as "a catch-all category for gender identities other than boy/man and girl/woman." Also, like I stated in a similar recent discussion (now a resolved matter), I would want "masculine" and "feminine" linked if it were not for WP:SEAOFBLUE. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Then again, we could word it as "a catch-all category for gender identities other than boy and man and girl and woman" if all the "and" uses don't seem too distracting. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Why would it be necessary to distinguish "boy" and "girl" from "man" and "woman" in this article (particularly in the lead)? -sche (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. "Boy," "girl," "man" and "woman" are the standard gender identities. Those who do not identify as these gender identities are technically genderqueer, even if they do not identify with the term genderqueer. I stated, "People usually consider 'man and woman' to refer to adults." Do you doubt that -- the adult aspect -- to be the case? Or is it that you doubt that many children are genderqueer? In the Man and Woman articles, respectively, we are clear that these two terms can refer to children, but we are also clear that these two terms especially refer to adults. If using "man and woman" as though those are the only standard gender identities and that they automatically cover boys and girls does not bother you, which it seemingly does not, that's fine; I was simply noting that it bothers me because I do not find it very accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Re "Those who do not identify as these gender identities are technically genderqueer, even if they do not identify with the term genderqueer" - I believe it would be safer to say that such people are nonbinary even if they do not explicitly identify with that term. That is a less controversial term than genderqueer, without any of the historical baggage the word queer carries. As I stated above, many people do identify as genderqueer so the term still belongs in the encyclopedia, but perhaps genderqueer should redirect to non-binary gender rather than the other way around. Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Re "the standard gender identities": To the best of my knowledge, "man" and "woman" are the binary gender identities, and "boy" and "girl" are age-specific forms of them. (I've studied the gender systems of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and while references may speak of societies with cis male, cis female, trans male and trans female statuses as having four genders — and societies with male, female and two androgynous or otherwise genderqueer statuses are also spoken of in this way — I can't think of any which speak of a society of boys, girls, men and women as having four genders.) Since age is not major topic of this article, I think it would be confusing to distinguish the age-specific forms in the lead. However, the body of the [[transgender]] article has snippets about how children may show and/or realize their transgenderness at an early age, so perhaps it'd be appropriate to incorporate something similar into the body of this article.

In any case, all of this seems like another reason to continue to use adjectives, which don't raise age issues. :-p To address the good point that many genderqueer identities are a mix of masculine and feminine, perhaps we could use wording like Wiktionary's: "not exclusively male or female" or "not exclusively masculine or feminine". -sche (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Re moving the page: looking at the relative commonness of genderqueer vs non-binary gender in Google Books' Ngram viewer, it seems genderqueer is so much more common than non-binary gender that the latter doesn't show up in the ngram, and COCA's paltry data (just one datum) is consistent with this: 1 hit for "genderqueer" and no relevant hits for "non-binary". (BNC has no relevant data.) Google Scholar returns 254 works for "non-binary gender", but many of them seemingly don't actually use the term; for "genderqueer" it returns over a thousand works. That would suggest to me that genderqueer should actually stay the title. On the other hand, "non-binary" is more simply descriptive, and is probably also clearer for an uninitiated audience, who might assume "genderqueer" included sexuality (because of how "queer" has historically been used). (Raw Google web hit counts are not reliable.) Hmm... -sche (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Funcrunch, I'm not sure about moving this article's title because of possible offensiveness. That is not I how generally edit Wikipedia. It is also not how I think Wikipedia should generally be edited. I do take offensiveness into account with regard to my Wikipedia editing, but that is usually based on WP:Offensive material. We should keep that guideline, WP:Common name, WP:POV title and WP:Precise in mind with regard to moving this article's title.

-sche, I was not speaking of four genders when stating "man," boy," "girl" and "woman"; I was speaking of gender identities. All of those are gender identities. You mentioned age-related, but "man" and "woman" are just as much age-related as "boy" and "girl" are; I've been clear why I generally do not like using "man and woman" to refer to boys and girls. You disagree with that take. But either way, I have not been pressing for the "a catch-all category for gender identities other than boy/man and girl/woman" or the "a catch-all category for gender identities other than boy and man and girl and woman" wordings. I suggested the "a catch-all category for gender identities that extend beyond masculine and feminine gender norms" wording. What is your issue with that suggestion? I still think we should not go with the "other than male and female" wording, per what I stated in the edit summary you cited above. I would be fine with your "a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing that the page title be moved because of possible offensiveness. As I responded to the OP on this section, notability is the criterion that matters. I was proposing that non-binary is probably a better "umbrella term" than genderqueer for people who do not identify with either of the prevailing binary genders. And as -sche pointed out, some new to the topic might easily confuse the "queer" in genderqueer with sexual orientation, which is the "baggage" I was referring to. Non-binary has no such history and less potential for confusion. Regardless, as -sche points out, genderqueer is probably in more general use currently, even if some non-binary people don't use or even hate that term. Funcrunch (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen genderqueer be used for people who are questioning their gender, or not quite fully at one end, like bi-curious for sexual orientations more than I've seen it used as a catch-all. Non-binary would make a better catch-all and I've seen it used that way more often. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, +1 from me to the proposed wording "a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine". Funcrunch (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK; I have changed the wording to "a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine". -sche (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-binary

I dislike the term genderqueer. Please change it to non-binary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.254.147 (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a valid topic for continuing discussion (it was touched on in the section above). Many genderqueer people see being genderqueer as an identity unto itself, and not a catch-all/umbrella term. Non-binary is probably a better umbrella term to use, especially when it comes to making a list of notable people, many of whom do not explicitly use the word "genderqueer" to describe themselves even if they identify as something other than exclusively male or female. We should still have an article or subsection with the word genderqueer, however, as I commented in the section above, since it is a notable term. Funcrunch (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. 71.161.254.147 (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Since this page seems to treat genderqueer and non-binary as synonyms, and consensus from this page and List of people with non-binary gender identities seems to be that non-binary is the less offensive and more broadly applicable of the two, is there any reason we can't make this switch? Absternr (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we've actually reached consensus on that yet, per the discussions earlier on this talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Upon closer reading it looks like the major sticking point is the relative commonness of the two terms. That is an important consideration, but it seems like a search engine comparison of "non-binary gender" vs. "genderqueer" isn't a particularly fair measure since the term "non-binary" can be used outside of the phrase "non-binary gender" in this context. Anyway, +1 to the idea of switching to non-binary for clarity and precision, but keeping an explanation of the term genderqueer somewhere on the page. Absternr (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Non-binary identity vs gender roles

Is that all non-binary is to everyone? Gender roles? At least with transsexuals there is physical dysphoria. Shouldn't we be fighting gender roles? So, if a woman isn't a stereotype, she's nonbinary? Wouldn't it be much easier if we just went by sex, and not gender, if that's the case? It's counterproductive. What's wrong with, "If you have a penis, you're male, and if you have a vagina, you're female, and if you have any dysphoria about this, you're trans", regardless of stereotypes? Trans is completely legitimate, but non-binary? Why can't people express themselves any way they choose, without all of this BS? By the way, I've always felt similar to non-binary, though it's difficult to explain. I HATE gender roles though. I see identity (the way I recognize myself and my body) as different from roles and preferences. I'm very egalitarian, and I know that there are butches and tomboys and women who just aren't stereotypes, though still cis. What is non-binary? Explain it in a way that is separate from social roles. My identity is Other and I use the "they" pronoun. It just feels right. But I don't want to be setting things back for men and women and equality. I don't want to escape from my biological sex, when I could be truly trying to make the world better by championing freedom. I don't want to distance myself if I could be representing my biological sex through my achievements. And yet there is a weird feeling about my identity. It's like I know I am Other-gendered, regardless of roles or the toys I played with growing up or whatever BS that shouldn't exist in the 21st century. Is there any proof to back this up, that someone could truly be Other, without conflating it with roles and other nonsense? 71.161.254.147 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum so I don't want to get deeply into this topic unless it specifically relates to editing the page. But I need to correct a misconception you have. Many non-binary people, including myself, do experience physical dysphoria with our primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. Just as with binary trans people, some of us pursue hormone treatment and/or surgery, and some do not. Funcrunch (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What about non-binary people who don't feel physical dysphoria? Is it about roles? I'd just like to know what it really is. 71.161.254.147 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's an article that may be helpful. Funcrunch (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

But is it about roles? Would non-binary (without physical dysphoria) exist if gender roles didn't exist? I'm not against non-binary folks, I just want to know more. Wikipedia is supposed to provide information and knowledge, so I'm not really making this into a forum by asking questions, am I? Is it neurological? Identity is different from roles, right? I just don't see myself as a gender, and I'm also Autistic. Are there any sources that are scientific that can explain the difference between social roles and identity? 71.161.254.147 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It just seems like dangerous territory, so it needs to be clarified. I mean, I just don't want every girl who likes stereotypically "masculine" things to think they're non-binary, for example. Girls can like, act like, and do whatever they like, and be whoever they are in personality and whatnot. Also, would non-binary people have equal distribution of birth sexes, if it weren't for social factors skewing the results? For instance, there seems to be a lot more females by birth who claim to be non-binary. Is that true? Are there really more females by birth than males by birth who are NB, as well as people of color? Does this have more to do with people wanting to escape roles and perceptions that are culturally restrictive, or do those social factors just get in the way of census results? 71.161.254.147 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Cultural bias and the arbitrary scope of this article

User:Flyer22 didn't like the tag I added about cultural bias, but the response made to that removal illustrates a point about that cultural bias:in my view, a suggested lack of reliable sources from non-English speaking cultures is not a reflection of a lack of reliable sources, but rather a cultural bias apparent in this article that treats non-binary genders in English speaking countries as somehow unique, and unlike third genders in other cultures. On this basis, I think this article should be merged with Third gender. Trankuility (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I should add that this is an outcome of some thought about the almost entirely monocultural nature of the List_of_people_with_non-binary_gender_identities. Trankuility (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your tag (with a followup note here and here). As you saw, my point was that Template:Globalize states, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." And on that note, my point was that the topic of genderqueer is not widespread. That is, unless we consider the topic of third gender, which is an aspect of genderqueer and is widespread.

As for your proposal to merge the Genderqueer article with the Third gender article, I oppose since these two topics, while partially overlapping, are distinct. Flyer22 (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my position that this is a form of cultural bias, to say that only non-binary identities exist in my culture, and there is no evidence in other cultures. Additionally, numerous Globalize tags exist for different regions, for a reason; they are not the same. Trankuility (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Technically, though, you added Template:globalize/Eng (which is essentially the same as Template:Globalize). Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We cover the topic as the reliable sources cover them. Do you have sources that are not currently being used? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, a mixture of notable English language sources and ones that would be notable but for language differences. For example, sad news regarding a Turkish non-binary sex worker activist of international renown has been widely circulated recently. Ordek is frequently quoted in international news about Turkey, and a Google search for Kemal Ördek, a proper name, turns up "about 387,000 results". The top results definitely relate to the same person. Trankuility (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In case anyone still thinks Ördek is not notable, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also commented on the case in a media release yesterday. The omission of Ördek from Wikipedia is also a matter of cultural bias towards English language sources. Trankuility (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Protection from repeated vandalism

Is it possible to get permanent semi-protection for this page? It has been a very frequent target for vandals. Funcrunch (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I got no response, I figured out myself how to request protection from the appropriate noticeboard. This page now has pending changes protection. Funcrunch (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Nonbinary vs. Genderqueer

There's a lot to say about this subject, so I'll try to keep it short: nonbinary and genderqueer are not the same thing.

Nonbinary is a gender that is outside the gender binary (not male or female) while genderqueer is exactly what it sounds like: a gender that is queer.

I'd also like to say that queer is a slur used against LGBTQIA+ people.

I propose that nonbinary be the official title of this wikipedia article.

Note: I am a nonbinary person. People who are not nonbinary should not be deciding what language to use to define us; so if you are not nonbinary please do not try and decide which terms are wrong and/or offensive and which are not. That is up to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.63.170 (talk • contribs)

I recommend you read the above section, "Changing the title on the basis that 'non-binary' is now the more common term". I believe the resulting consensus is basically to wait and see which term becomes more popular, but that it currently seems that "genderqueer" is still the more commonly used term. ~Mable (chat) 17:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)