![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This doesn't seem to be a stub. Is it OK to remove the stub notice?
I added the "unreferenced" tag because there's a lot of interesting material in this article, but no discernable reliable source for any of it. It has an additional urgency for Wikipedia in that some editors are identifying themselves as genderqueer, making a properly-sourced article even more useful. (Indeed, that's how I find my way here — attempting to determine an acceptable third-person pronoun for one so identified.)
I found the following when I checked on the two current external links:
Once solid sources are obtained, it might be a good idea to add some specific links to pages that provide source material, perhaps using footnotes in a References section. This is true of (and needed by) articles in general, not just this one. Thanks for any assistance on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Malise 01:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I put the unreferenced and uncited tags back. I also believe in the potential of this article (like all articles it can be stronger). However, there are certain points I'd be interested to see explored and backed-up. I know from my own searching that it's hard to find much scholarly information on queer identities, so this article may be a long work in progress. At the very least though, can't we work on reducing the amount of "some people" in the entry. Rugadh 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking through the category structure under LGBT and have been really confused by the organization. I suppose this has to do broadly with editors adding whichever category makes the most sense to them. My question though is what are the most helpful categories to list genderqueer under? Keeping in mind that wikipedia (usually) prefers adding the most specific categories possible [1]. I have the same question about most of the trans related entries but that's a discussion for another talk page. - Rugadh 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"utilized mainly by white, middle and upper-class Americans who were born female or are otherwise on the FtM"
If anyone could find a source for this, that would be great. But I believe "Americans" should be taken out. 142.161.119.119 06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
please dont delete my edits based on how i wrote them, cus i wrote them in the same style: some people believe BLAH. if you disagree, provide a counterpoint in the spirit of wikipedia.
I changed back your line change because 1)natural is a loaded term and mildly POV 2) there are some species which are naturally transgendered (certain frog species can mutate sexes etc etc) and 3) the idea of natural doesn't apply to all the people mentioned (for instance communism opposed homosexuality and transgenderedism based mostly on an idea of it being bougeroise, not necessarly against nature). SiberioS 04:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
1)POV is allowed as long as its cited reasonably and its not the article itself
2)uh humans are not physically transgendered, so its up to opinion whether they can be psychologically. and i you wanna add that stuff about the frog go ahead, just dont delete what i put in because of your own POV.
3)sure, i never said it was the only opposition to it. its just the main one. Urthogie 06:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Gender is an intangible concept, that may be based on physical traits. Physical traits however, like biological sex does not neccesarily determine gender. Logically humans can not be physically gendered, because physical traits are not the only element to determining gender. For example if a human is born into intersexuality, but their culture used something like eye color to determine gender, that would not make their biological sex relevent to their transgendered identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.106.108 ( talk) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to "disapprove of such mixing or consider it unnatural" as an attempt to cover both views. There are definitely some groups that consider it unnatural, but there are also groups that disapprove, without commenting on it's naturalness. It'd be good to cite actual statements by people/organizations, tho. -- Mairi 05:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
This location has proven to be increasingly genderqueer unfriendly. Androgynes are considered, by the site definition, to be people who act or dress androgynously and discussion of androgyne/genderqueer as an identity is treated with hostility by the members and the administrators. An alternative site, developed specifically for genderqueer issues (called "non-binary" on the alternative) is http://www.whatisgender.net/forum/index.php Taineyah ( talk) 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One can make any specific claims but (in my experience) I have been treated quite well for being "genderqueer". but then again there my be other factors at work. It's not fair to say one country is more "excepting" as a whole, as a country is not just the level of nationalism, it does not define the standard set for the communities and cultures within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.210.207 ( talk) 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Several of the words under "Related gender terminology" are things I have NEVER heard of before, and the internet agrees: Word: #Google hits Supragender: 199 Megagender: 45 Incrediqueer: 7 Inqueerable: 5
Moreover, aren't "polygender" and "multigender" the same thing?? I feel like there's a lot of BS in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.242.171 ( talk) 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: Some people see "genderqueer" as a more consciously politicized version of the term androgyne, popularized by Androgyne Online, which is linked below. Androgynes are also people who identify as both man and woman, or as neither. "Androgyne" is synonymous to the more cumbersome "non-binary gender variant" or to "intergendered".[citation needed]
Since when is "androgyne" a synonym for NBGV? It's a special case of NBGV. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex subject:
Hope this helps. I'll try to fix the original paragraph. David-Sarah Hopwood ( talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with these, but in the native American context, despite what it sounds like, "two-spirit" just means "transsexual" rather than identifying as both genders, in my experience. i.e. a male-boded two-spirit person will say they identify as a woman Orlando098 ( talk) 06:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has been tagged WP:OR for 2 years, and WP:FACT for 1 year. I have removed all the unsourced material from the text. I will be looking at the lead on three points: there are no sources, it no longer reflects the content, it is original research. Please do not restore material without WP:RS. If the material is restored, I will be adding another tag to the article WP:ESSAY. Mish ( talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Third sentence: "They may wish to have none, some, or all features of the opposite sex."
Isn't the phrase "opposite sex" a bit meaningless in the context this article? Especially with regard to intersex genderqueer people.
Maybe replace it with something like "They may wish to have none, some, or all features of femininity, masculinity, or both", or simply deleting? My version may still be too gender binary, so perhaps someone can improve it. sorsoup ( talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that 98.222.56.231 has now changed this sentance, taking away the phrase "opposite sex". The new version looks to me like it makes more sense. sorsoup ( talk) 09:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The article used the terms "man" and "woman" in reference to gender identities. This is incorrect (man and woman are sexes), and inconsistent with the article on Gender Identity. I have replaced the terms with "male" and "female", respectively. Burbble ( talk) 17:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the opposite is true - for example a male-bodied person who is transsexual identifies as a woman (whether or not they have had surgery and hormones yet). Male and female seem to be the more uncontroversial, biological, terms, man and woman more complicated. Orlando098 ( talk) 06:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Kaberett changed all references to genderqueers to genderqueer people or person or something similar. The edit summary was: "Replaced "genderqueers" with "genderqueer people" throughout, to remove the linguistic tension between "genderqueers" and "cisgender people" and to bring the article into line with suggested usage for e.g. "homosexuals" vs "homosexual people"." I'm not an expert on this issue, but I don't see any support for calling homosexuals homosexual people or for calling cissexuals cissexual people, or, more pointedly here, for calling genderqueers genderqueer people. On a commonsense level, which, of course, isn't always the yardstick, a homosexual is a person unless we are referring to homosexual animals. Does Kaberett's edit make sense to anyone?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry about all of the double-posting, but, well, have a list of style guides etc:
I have been unable to find any style guides that assert that "homosexuals" is an acceptable form, let alone a preferred one, in professional or otherwise encyclopaedic writing. Given all of the above, I think it is reasonable to apply the same principle to "genderqueer". Kaberett ( talk) 16:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In this reversion, I removed the material because it's unclear if it's sourced to the books already mentioned. I didn't want to just add a {{ Citation needed}} tag, since it would be ambiguous as to which part of the information the citation was needed for, so I reverted it for now. I suspect the information is accurate, so if it can be confirmed by someone other than the IP that statements to that effect are in the relevant books, or if another source can be found, it makes sense to put the information back in. – RobinHood70 talk 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the genderqueer pride flag (described here)
[2] well known enough to be worth inclusion? I have seen it used multiple places on the internet.
Since this flag was put up several months ago (look at edit history as entry is unsigned), an editor has decided that it deserves a prominent place in the article and created an entire section to the flag. The only source for all of this information - even assuming it warrants inclusion in the article - is an unreliable source (a website that appears to be published by a single person). See here. Of course, the article isn't well-sourced as it is, but at least keeping new information sourced should be a priority.
I'd like to hear from others about the content, not just about the source issue, but also about whether it merits inclusion in the first place.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd vote for inclusion. The flag is quite new, but so are genderqueer symbols and terminology generally. I've seen the flag used by several sites and some craftspeople are starting to make genderqueer pride items using the three colors. There should be a caveat that the flag is new and use is growing but not yet established. The source is the site mentioned, which is run by a single individual, Marilyn Roxie, but widely used as a reference within the genderqueer community. Judithavory ( talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The flag above has since been updated with the white stripe moved to the middle. [3] I have seen it used on various blogs and queer sites, as well as in craft items. 99.122.227.46 ( talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Since there's been no discussion regarding the "merge" tag that was added here yesterday by User:Dbachmann, I'm not really sure what motivates the proposal; however, Dbachmann's note when adding the tag - "same topic" - is not really correct in my view, since "queer" with respect to gender identity (or presentation) is a substantially different issue than "queer" with respect to sexual orientation (or practices). Personally, I think a separate article on the topic is probably justified. -- thanks, bonze blayk ( talk) 13:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, 'queer' and 'genderqueer' are two different topics and the articles shouldn't be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.151.156 ( talk) 01:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Don't merge. These two terms are used very differently, queer being all-encompassing and often referring to sexual orientation and genderqueer referring specifically to gender. Avory ( talk) 13:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Genderqueer is NOT the same as queer! I am both queer and genderqueer. One is a sexual orientation, the other is a gender identity. 99.122.227.38 ( talk) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't merge, it would be an absolutely stupid idea to do so. 109.76.237.228 ( talk) 21:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I assume any attempt by me to change this sentence that's been here for quite some time will be quickly reverted, I'll post here first instead.
I find the sentence "Some genderqueer people[6][7] also identify as transgender, and may or may not wish for physical modification or hormones to suit their preferred expression" to be quite odd, since by all definitions of Transgender I've ever seen (including wikipedias), Genderqueer is always already included. It's not really something you choose to identify as, it's a descriptive term of one's identity (sort of like Genderqueer really). It's not that I doubt that it's true that some people like to exclude themselves from the Transgender-umbrella (I believe all groups under it actually do), but it just seems somewhat irrelevant to an encyclopedia. I doubt we have "Some homosexual people identify as LGBT..." written on the page on Homosexuality for example.
I'm not quite sure what was really intended by that part of the sentence either, the sources don't really mention it, and it could probably be removed without any loss to the article. -- 83.227.65.49 ( talk) 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Should these two terms be in two separate articles? Emma dusepo ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no information on the following topic. What is attraction to genderqueer called? And are there subvarieties? I ask because the following applies to me.
- I'm attracted to biological females, both cisgender and genderqueer/non-binary gender, but more to the latter. - Personality-wise, I'm far more attracted to genderqueer of female birth.
So basically, I'm primarily attracted to genderqueer females. Is there a name for having a technical heterosexual attraction but preferring a more queer type of the opposite sex? If so, is there any information about this topic? MVillani1985 ( talk) 01:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the section Gender pronouns has little or nothing to do with pronouns:
In that paragraph
I've
<span id=...
tag so any existing links to the section will still work-- Thnidu ( talk) 02:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Has there been any scientific studies of the biology behind genderqueer people (assuming it's more than just a cultural phenomenon)? I would like to add them to the article if so, I haven't been able to find any yet. As human biology is not black and white, I would like to state here I believe genderqueer is a legitimate biological human condition. -- Alexedits ( talk) 05:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Genderqueer is an umbrella term for various nonbinary gender identities, or a standalone term for a nonbinary gender; both uses are completely legitimate. Being genderqueer is not a biological condition. You are correct that human biology is not black and white, but the term you may be looking for is intersex, which refers to biological sex and physical characteristics. To answer your first question, I highly doubt that there are any studies on the subject. Genderqueerness is usually if not always dismissed as a case of "gender identity disorder." Still, worth looking into. -- Quamobrem ( talk) 07:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I just chopped out a paragraph declaring that gender-neutral pronouns are "very appropriate" for general use. While I would use them for someone who asked, they are a relatively new invention as far as modern English goes and not really part of the language. If I saw or heard one of those pronouns without the label "gender-neutral pronoun," I would be confused. -- Brilliand 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Uncommon =/= inappropriate. Unfortunately there is very little research about nonbinary gender, at least as far as I'm aware, and most if not all knowledge of neutral pronouns is spread by word of mouth through queer communities and networks. Quamobrem ( talk) 08:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering if the several mentions of Gopi Shankar should be removed. Gopi Shankar is a founder of Srishti, an organization in Madurai, a city of about 1 million people in Tamil Nadu. This organization has a website and has been mentioned in a couple of articles in Indian newspapers (including on the newspaper websites). But it seems that the thing for which the organization is most notable is getting itself and Gopi Shankar mentioned in various Wikipedia articles, such as this one. 98.229.131.247 ( talk) 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think Pangender and Genderqueer cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. I'm neutral as to which term is the better for a merged article, though it seems that Genderqueer is the more developed article and may also be the more common term. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
While there may be one or two genderqueer people (who are actually dysphoric, mind you) out there who identify as a male woman or female man, this language implies that an individual is of a binary gender with a non-traditional gender expression and does not belong in an article about non-binary transgendered people. If someone is a man who dresses and acts in a traditionally female manner, that does not make him a woman or a genderqueer person. It makes him a man who dresses and acts in a traditionally female manner. If whoever wrote this intended to say 'a person of the male sex who is female-gendered', the term you're looking for is trans woman, which once again does not belong in an article about nonbinary people because it is a binary gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.172 ( talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The study cited in this section reports discrimination as perceived. It is a survey of subjects, not a set of findings. Avocats ( talk) 03:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
An IP address user insists on adding the Tamil language term for genderqueer to the lead sentence. They reverted my removal of it, stating "The Specific Tamil Term is a only regional term available for the Genderqueer people in Tamil Nadu, The queer culture here is more than 6000 years old". I still don't think it's appropriate to include it so early in the article. There surely are lots of countries with longstanding queer culture but it's rather jarring to the reader to randomly include foreign language terms in the first sentence, especially when the rest of the article hardly mentions Tamil Nadu at all! Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 14:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Closing discussion initiated by sockpuppet of banned user. Binksternet ( talk) 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The term 'gender fluidity' redirects here. I don't see a criticism section, in fact even no critical views at all. Certainly the concept itself is controversial. -- Freisinniger Demokrat ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Oppose Merge There's no other spot on here for discussion on merge or don't merge, so here will have to do. Oppose. It seems everyone and their 10th illegitimate cousin has to have their own definition of what they are or what they feel sexuality-wise. This topic has crept well away from actual sexual preference and into one's physiological sex, identity or non-identity therewith, personal preference, desire, and mixes thereof. It thus makes no sense to combine anything in this topic, as someone surely will protest. If you mix genderqueer and pansexual, as here, someone will come along with a reason to bifurcate them again. It might be a good reason, or pure sophistry, but they will, and in keeping with the Zeitgeist of today, they'll be accommodated. Thus, pragmatism requires we keep this topic wholly uncombined. Cesium 133 ( talk) 06:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Some editors are continually adding references to the mention of Gopi Shankar in the "Gender Terms" and "Out Genderqueer People" sections, and are continually erasing any discussion on the talk page questioning why this is being done. I don't think it's appropriate to add so many references for this one particular person, and it's definitely not appropriate to erase discussion from the talk page. But I'm not sure what the solution is since these edits are usually made by IP users with few other edits. Funcrunch ( talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed regarding a person who wants to take their draft of an Agender article to WP:Mainspace; see Talk:Agender#Development of definition. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. I would contact WP:LGBT about this, and I might still do so, but I think that alerting the WP:Watchers of the Genderqueer article/talk page to this matter is sufficient enough for now...and that the matter is perhaps likelier to get responses by being acknowledged here at this talk page. Besides commenting on this Agender matter there in that Agender discussion, I've also commented that some of these articles should be merged; see Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal if you have not already seen it. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
A different person created the article, and it now has a WP:AfD concerning it; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@
Flyer22: And there is a representative image? No.
The flag might be representative, if not, please see
WP:LEADIMAGE: Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.
FDMS 4
18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Trankuility, why did you make these changes, which moved the text away from distinguishing between sex and gender? You removed "Sex can be summarized as male, female, or intersex," and you changed "Neutrois people may be assigned either male or female at birth, and can also be intersex." to "Neutrois people may be assigned any classification at birth."
Regarding the "male, female, or intersex" part, if one goes by the sex and gender distinction, and sees being intersex as a separate category, then that statement is true. Perhaps your changes relate to something I stated at the Transsexualism article? Like I stated in this discussion there near the bottom of that talk page, "Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter, though the sex and gender distinction exists and third gender/genderqueer matters are usually formulated in gender terms (boy/man; girl/woman)... ...I'll grant you that I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article)." As you can see, Alison also weighed in on the matter, and agreed with my comment.
Regarding the "any classification at birth" part, that's not too accurate. Sex assignment, as is also clear by the Sex assignment article, is almost always about labeling a child male or female, and attributing the gender categories of "boy" or "girl" to go along with that. In rare cases, the child is identified as intersex; but even when identified as intersex...the child is usually raised as a boy or as a girl. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm glad that we're broadly in agreement. A core issue for me is whether or not this article, which is about non binary gender identities, is the best place for a discussion on what makes particular biologies "sexes". I feel that the current text makes the key point: that identification as neutrois is unrelated to birth assignment. We have a point of difference regarding your assertion about transgender people necessarily not being a third sex (I'm excluding that "brain sex" theory which is a local maximum phenomenon, failing to account of research on brain plasticity, and research identifying similar brain differences in lesbians and gay men). The Norrie case in the Australian High Court, for example, found that a post-surgical, non-binary trans person has non-specific sex. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any legal jurisdiction that actually distinguishes between sex and gender, and most general readers will similarly not grasp the difference between sex and gender. I don't think that general reader expectation is a good reason for inserting a simplistic and fallacious summary of sex as male/female/intersex. Trankuility ( talk) 02:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Flyer22: Do you have a source for that X-gender stuff? Japanese sources work too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
-sche, regarding this edit, I don't think that the X-gender section should be in the Legal status section if it's not a legal matter; that's partly what I stated above. Perhaps we should remove the section since CDjanegirl ( talk · contribs) has not yet showed up to expand it. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This doesn't seem to be a stub. Is it OK to remove the stub notice?
I added the "unreferenced" tag because there's a lot of interesting material in this article, but no discernable reliable source for any of it. It has an additional urgency for Wikipedia in that some editors are identifying themselves as genderqueer, making a properly-sourced article even more useful. (Indeed, that's how I find my way here — attempting to determine an acceptable third-person pronoun for one so identified.)
I found the following when I checked on the two current external links:
Once solid sources are obtained, it might be a good idea to add some specific links to pages that provide source material, perhaps using footnotes in a References section. This is true of (and needed by) articles in general, not just this one. Thanks for any assistance on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Malise 01:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I put the unreferenced and uncited tags back. I also believe in the potential of this article (like all articles it can be stronger). However, there are certain points I'd be interested to see explored and backed-up. I know from my own searching that it's hard to find much scholarly information on queer identities, so this article may be a long work in progress. At the very least though, can't we work on reducing the amount of "some people" in the entry. Rugadh 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been looking through the category structure under LGBT and have been really confused by the organization. I suppose this has to do broadly with editors adding whichever category makes the most sense to them. My question though is what are the most helpful categories to list genderqueer under? Keeping in mind that wikipedia (usually) prefers adding the most specific categories possible [1]. I have the same question about most of the trans related entries but that's a discussion for another talk page. - Rugadh 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
"utilized mainly by white, middle and upper-class Americans who were born female or are otherwise on the FtM"
If anyone could find a source for this, that would be great. But I believe "Americans" should be taken out. 142.161.119.119 06:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
please dont delete my edits based on how i wrote them, cus i wrote them in the same style: some people believe BLAH. if you disagree, provide a counterpoint in the spirit of wikipedia.
I changed back your line change because 1)natural is a loaded term and mildly POV 2) there are some species which are naturally transgendered (certain frog species can mutate sexes etc etc) and 3) the idea of natural doesn't apply to all the people mentioned (for instance communism opposed homosexuality and transgenderedism based mostly on an idea of it being bougeroise, not necessarly against nature). SiberioS 04:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
1)POV is allowed as long as its cited reasonably and its not the article itself
2)uh humans are not physically transgendered, so its up to opinion whether they can be psychologically. and i you wanna add that stuff about the frog go ahead, just dont delete what i put in because of your own POV.
3)sure, i never said it was the only opposition to it. its just the main one. Urthogie 06:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Gender is an intangible concept, that may be based on physical traits. Physical traits however, like biological sex does not neccesarily determine gender. Logically humans can not be physically gendered, because physical traits are not the only element to determining gender. For example if a human is born into intersexuality, but their culture used something like eye color to determine gender, that would not make their biological sex relevent to their transgendered identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.106.108 ( talk) 06:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to "disapprove of such mixing or consider it unnatural" as an attempt to cover both views. There are definitely some groups that consider it unnatural, but there are also groups that disapprove, without commenting on it's naturalness. It'd be good to cite actual statements by people/organizations, tho. -- Mairi 05:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
This location has proven to be increasingly genderqueer unfriendly. Androgynes are considered, by the site definition, to be people who act or dress androgynously and discussion of androgyne/genderqueer as an identity is treated with hostility by the members and the administrators. An alternative site, developed specifically for genderqueer issues (called "non-binary" on the alternative) is http://www.whatisgender.net/forum/index.php Taineyah ( talk) 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One can make any specific claims but (in my experience) I have been treated quite well for being "genderqueer". but then again there my be other factors at work. It's not fair to say one country is more "excepting" as a whole, as a country is not just the level of nationalism, it does not define the standard set for the communities and cultures within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.210.207 ( talk) 12:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Several of the words under "Related gender terminology" are things I have NEVER heard of before, and the internet agrees: Word: #Google hits Supragender: 199 Megagender: 45 Incrediqueer: 7 Inqueerable: 5
Moreover, aren't "polygender" and "multigender" the same thing?? I feel like there's a lot of BS in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.7.242.171 ( talk) 08:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: Some people see "genderqueer" as a more consciously politicized version of the term androgyne, popularized by Androgyne Online, which is linked below. Androgynes are also people who identify as both man and woman, or as neither. "Androgyne" is synonymous to the more cumbersome "non-binary gender variant" or to "intergendered".[citation needed]
Since when is "androgyne" a synonym for NBGV? It's a special case of NBGV. At the risk of oversimplifying a complex subject:
Hope this helps. I'll try to fix the original paragraph. David-Sarah Hopwood ( talk) 02:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with these, but in the native American context, despite what it sounds like, "two-spirit" just means "transsexual" rather than identifying as both genders, in my experience. i.e. a male-boded two-spirit person will say they identify as a woman Orlando098 ( talk) 06:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has been tagged WP:OR for 2 years, and WP:FACT for 1 year. I have removed all the unsourced material from the text. I will be looking at the lead on three points: there are no sources, it no longer reflects the content, it is original research. Please do not restore material without WP:RS. If the material is restored, I will be adding another tag to the article WP:ESSAY. Mish ( talk) 09:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Third sentence: "They may wish to have none, some, or all features of the opposite sex."
Isn't the phrase "opposite sex" a bit meaningless in the context this article? Especially with regard to intersex genderqueer people.
Maybe replace it with something like "They may wish to have none, some, or all features of femininity, masculinity, or both", or simply deleting? My version may still be too gender binary, so perhaps someone can improve it. sorsoup ( talk) 00:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that 98.222.56.231 has now changed this sentance, taking away the phrase "opposite sex". The new version looks to me like it makes more sense. sorsoup ( talk) 09:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The article used the terms "man" and "woman" in reference to gender identities. This is incorrect (man and woman are sexes), and inconsistent with the article on Gender Identity. I have replaced the terms with "male" and "female", respectively. Burbble ( talk) 17:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the opposite is true - for example a male-bodied person who is transsexual identifies as a woman (whether or not they have had surgery and hormones yet). Male and female seem to be the more uncontroversial, biological, terms, man and woman more complicated. Orlando098 ( talk) 06:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Kaberett changed all references to genderqueers to genderqueer people or person or something similar. The edit summary was: "Replaced "genderqueers" with "genderqueer people" throughout, to remove the linguistic tension between "genderqueers" and "cisgender people" and to bring the article into line with suggested usage for e.g. "homosexuals" vs "homosexual people"." I'm not an expert on this issue, but I don't see any support for calling homosexuals homosexual people or for calling cissexuals cissexual people, or, more pointedly here, for calling genderqueers genderqueer people. On a commonsense level, which, of course, isn't always the yardstick, a homosexual is a person unless we are referring to homosexual animals. Does Kaberett's edit make sense to anyone?-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry about all of the double-posting, but, well, have a list of style guides etc:
I have been unable to find any style guides that assert that "homosexuals" is an acceptable form, let alone a preferred one, in professional or otherwise encyclopaedic writing. Given all of the above, I think it is reasonable to apply the same principle to "genderqueer". Kaberett ( talk) 16:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
In this reversion, I removed the material because it's unclear if it's sourced to the books already mentioned. I didn't want to just add a {{ Citation needed}} tag, since it would be ambiguous as to which part of the information the citation was needed for, so I reverted it for now. I suspect the information is accurate, so if it can be confirmed by someone other than the IP that statements to that effect are in the relevant books, or if another source can be found, it makes sense to put the information back in. – RobinHood70 talk 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the genderqueer pride flag (described here)
[2] well known enough to be worth inclusion? I have seen it used multiple places on the internet.
Since this flag was put up several months ago (look at edit history as entry is unsigned), an editor has decided that it deserves a prominent place in the article and created an entire section to the flag. The only source for all of this information - even assuming it warrants inclusion in the article - is an unreliable source (a website that appears to be published by a single person). See here. Of course, the article isn't well-sourced as it is, but at least keeping new information sourced should be a priority.
I'd like to hear from others about the content, not just about the source issue, but also about whether it merits inclusion in the first place.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 15:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd vote for inclusion. The flag is quite new, but so are genderqueer symbols and terminology generally. I've seen the flag used by several sites and some craftspeople are starting to make genderqueer pride items using the three colors. There should be a caveat that the flag is new and use is growing but not yet established. The source is the site mentioned, which is run by a single individual, Marilyn Roxie, but widely used as a reference within the genderqueer community. Judithavory ( talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The flag above has since been updated with the white stripe moved to the middle. [3] I have seen it used on various blogs and queer sites, as well as in craft items. 99.122.227.46 ( talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Since there's been no discussion regarding the "merge" tag that was added here yesterday by User:Dbachmann, I'm not really sure what motivates the proposal; however, Dbachmann's note when adding the tag - "same topic" - is not really correct in my view, since "queer" with respect to gender identity (or presentation) is a substantially different issue than "queer" with respect to sexual orientation (or practices). Personally, I think a separate article on the topic is probably justified. -- thanks, bonze blayk ( talk) 13:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, 'queer' and 'genderqueer' are two different topics and the articles shouldn't be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.151.156 ( talk) 01:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Don't merge. These two terms are used very differently, queer being all-encompassing and often referring to sexual orientation and genderqueer referring specifically to gender. Avory ( talk) 13:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Genderqueer is NOT the same as queer! I am both queer and genderqueer. One is a sexual orientation, the other is a gender identity. 99.122.227.38 ( talk) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't merge, it would be an absolutely stupid idea to do so. 109.76.237.228 ( talk) 21:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Since I assume any attempt by me to change this sentence that's been here for quite some time will be quickly reverted, I'll post here first instead.
I find the sentence "Some genderqueer people[6][7] also identify as transgender, and may or may not wish for physical modification or hormones to suit their preferred expression" to be quite odd, since by all definitions of Transgender I've ever seen (including wikipedias), Genderqueer is always already included. It's not really something you choose to identify as, it's a descriptive term of one's identity (sort of like Genderqueer really). It's not that I doubt that it's true that some people like to exclude themselves from the Transgender-umbrella (I believe all groups under it actually do), but it just seems somewhat irrelevant to an encyclopedia. I doubt we have "Some homosexual people identify as LGBT..." written on the page on Homosexuality for example.
I'm not quite sure what was really intended by that part of the sentence either, the sources don't really mention it, and it could probably be removed without any loss to the article. -- 83.227.65.49 ( talk) 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Should these two terms be in two separate articles? Emma dusepo ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no information on the following topic. What is attraction to genderqueer called? And are there subvarieties? I ask because the following applies to me.
- I'm attracted to biological females, both cisgender and genderqueer/non-binary gender, but more to the latter. - Personality-wise, I'm far more attracted to genderqueer of female birth.
So basically, I'm primarily attracted to genderqueer females. Is there a name for having a technical heterosexual attraction but preferring a more queer type of the opposite sex? If so, is there any information about this topic? MVillani1985 ( talk) 01:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The third paragraph in the section Gender pronouns has little or nothing to do with pronouns:
In that paragraph
I've
<span id=...
tag so any existing links to the section will still work-- Thnidu ( talk) 02:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Has there been any scientific studies of the biology behind genderqueer people (assuming it's more than just a cultural phenomenon)? I would like to add them to the article if so, I haven't been able to find any yet. As human biology is not black and white, I would like to state here I believe genderqueer is a legitimate biological human condition. -- Alexedits ( talk) 05:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Genderqueer is an umbrella term for various nonbinary gender identities, or a standalone term for a nonbinary gender; both uses are completely legitimate. Being genderqueer is not a biological condition. You are correct that human biology is not black and white, but the term you may be looking for is intersex, which refers to biological sex and physical characteristics. To answer your first question, I highly doubt that there are any studies on the subject. Genderqueerness is usually if not always dismissed as a case of "gender identity disorder." Still, worth looking into. -- Quamobrem ( talk) 07:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I just chopped out a paragraph declaring that gender-neutral pronouns are "very appropriate" for general use. While I would use them for someone who asked, they are a relatively new invention as far as modern English goes and not really part of the language. If I saw or heard one of those pronouns without the label "gender-neutral pronoun," I would be confused. -- Brilliand 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Uncommon =/= inappropriate. Unfortunately there is very little research about nonbinary gender, at least as far as I'm aware, and most if not all knowledge of neutral pronouns is spread by word of mouth through queer communities and networks. Quamobrem ( talk) 08:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering if the several mentions of Gopi Shankar should be removed. Gopi Shankar is a founder of Srishti, an organization in Madurai, a city of about 1 million people in Tamil Nadu. This organization has a website and has been mentioned in a couple of articles in Indian newspapers (including on the newspaper websites). But it seems that the thing for which the organization is most notable is getting itself and Gopi Shankar mentioned in various Wikipedia articles, such as this one. 98.229.131.247 ( talk) 17:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think Pangender and Genderqueer cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are about things, not words, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. I'm neutral as to which term is the better for a merged article, though it seems that Genderqueer is the more developed article and may also be the more common term. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
While there may be one or two genderqueer people (who are actually dysphoric, mind you) out there who identify as a male woman or female man, this language implies that an individual is of a binary gender with a non-traditional gender expression and does not belong in an article about non-binary transgendered people. If someone is a man who dresses and acts in a traditionally female manner, that does not make him a woman or a genderqueer person. It makes him a man who dresses and acts in a traditionally female manner. If whoever wrote this intended to say 'a person of the male sex who is female-gendered', the term you're looking for is trans woman, which once again does not belong in an article about nonbinary people because it is a binary gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.217.172 ( talk) 23:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The study cited in this section reports discrimination as perceived. It is a survey of subjects, not a set of findings. Avocats ( talk) 03:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
An IP address user insists on adding the Tamil language term for genderqueer to the lead sentence. They reverted my removal of it, stating "The Specific Tamil Term is a only regional term available for the Genderqueer people in Tamil Nadu, The queer culture here is more than 6000 years old". I still don't think it's appropriate to include it so early in the article. There surely are lots of countries with longstanding queer culture but it's rather jarring to the reader to randomly include foreign language terms in the first sentence, especially when the rest of the article hardly mentions Tamil Nadu at all! Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 14:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Closing discussion initiated by sockpuppet of banned user. Binksternet ( talk) 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The term 'gender fluidity' redirects here. I don't see a criticism section, in fact even no critical views at all. Certainly the concept itself is controversial. -- Freisinniger Demokrat ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Oppose Merge There's no other spot on here for discussion on merge or don't merge, so here will have to do. Oppose. It seems everyone and their 10th illegitimate cousin has to have their own definition of what they are or what they feel sexuality-wise. This topic has crept well away from actual sexual preference and into one's physiological sex, identity or non-identity therewith, personal preference, desire, and mixes thereof. It thus makes no sense to combine anything in this topic, as someone surely will protest. If you mix genderqueer and pansexual, as here, someone will come along with a reason to bifurcate them again. It might be a good reason, or pure sophistry, but they will, and in keeping with the Zeitgeist of today, they'll be accommodated. Thus, pragmatism requires we keep this topic wholly uncombined. Cesium 133 ( talk) 06:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Some editors are continually adding references to the mention of Gopi Shankar in the "Gender Terms" and "Out Genderqueer People" sections, and are continually erasing any discussion on the talk page questioning why this is being done. I don't think it's appropriate to add so many references for this one particular person, and it's definitely not appropriate to erase discussion from the talk page. But I'm not sure what the solution is since these edits are usually made by IP users with few other edits. Funcrunch ( talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed regarding a person who wants to take their draft of an Agender article to WP:Mainspace; see Talk:Agender#Development of definition. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. I would contact WP:LGBT about this, and I might still do so, but I think that alerting the WP:Watchers of the Genderqueer article/talk page to this matter is sufficient enough for now...and that the matter is perhaps likelier to get responses by being acknowledged here at this talk page. Besides commenting on this Agender matter there in that Agender discussion, I've also commented that some of these articles should be merged; see Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 1#Merge proposal if you have not already seen it. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
A different person created the article, and it now has a WP:AfD concerning it; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agender. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@
Flyer22: And there is a representative image? No.
The flag might be representative, if not, please see
WP:LEADIMAGE: Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic.
FDMS 4
18:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Trankuility, why did you make these changes, which moved the text away from distinguishing between sex and gender? You removed "Sex can be summarized as male, female, or intersex," and you changed "Neutrois people may be assigned either male or female at birth, and can also be intersex." to "Neutrois people may be assigned any classification at birth."
Regarding the "male, female, or intersex" part, if one goes by the sex and gender distinction, and sees being intersex as a separate category, then that statement is true. Perhaps your changes relate to something I stated at the Transsexualism article? Like I stated in this discussion there near the bottom of that talk page, "Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter, though the sex and gender distinction exists and third gender/genderqueer matters are usually formulated in gender terms (boy/man; girl/woman)... ...I'll grant you that I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article)." As you can see, Alison also weighed in on the matter, and agreed with my comment.
Regarding the "any classification at birth" part, that's not too accurate. Sex assignment, as is also clear by the Sex assignment article, is almost always about labeling a child male or female, and attributing the gender categories of "boy" or "girl" to go along with that. In rare cases, the child is identified as intersex; but even when identified as intersex...the child is usually raised as a boy or as a girl. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm glad that we're broadly in agreement. A core issue for me is whether or not this article, which is about non binary gender identities, is the best place for a discussion on what makes particular biologies "sexes". I feel that the current text makes the key point: that identification as neutrois is unrelated to birth assignment. We have a point of difference regarding your assertion about transgender people necessarily not being a third sex (I'm excluding that "brain sex" theory which is a local maximum phenomenon, failing to account of research on brain plasticity, and research identifying similar brain differences in lesbians and gay men). The Norrie case in the Australian High Court, for example, found that a post-surgical, non-binary trans person has non-specific sex. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any legal jurisdiction that actually distinguishes between sex and gender, and most general readers will similarly not grasp the difference between sex and gender. I don't think that general reader expectation is a good reason for inserting a simplistic and fallacious summary of sex as male/female/intersex. Trankuility ( talk) 02:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Flyer22: Do you have a source for that X-gender stuff? Japanese sources work too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
-sche, regarding this edit, I don't think that the X-gender section should be in the Legal status section if it's not a legal matter; that's partly what I stated above. Perhaps we should remove the section since CDjanegirl ( talk · contribs) has not yet showed up to expand it. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)