![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Some comments in the above RM disfavored "non-binary" because
WP:NOUN says nouns are "normally preferred" to other parts of speech. In light of that, isn't the current adjectival title "genderqueer" also (equally) problematic? If not, why not? None of the people who invoked NOUN against "non-binary" proposed to move the page to a
nounal title like "genderqueer gender", and I'd like to understand the logic: is that just an omission, should a future RM consider "genderqueer gender" or "genderqueer genders" as an option?
(Procedural note: I didn't put this as a subsection of the RM because I don't think anything else should be added as an option to that RM at this late date, and I also don't think this question should be denied the possibility of being answered if the RM gets closed; instead, I am asking with an eye towards the options any eventual future RM, next year or later, might consider.)
-sche (
talk)
19:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Re BarrelProof/CorbieVreccan/Mathglot: I quite disagree that "it is natural" to use non-binary in math or computer science; see my comment here. So precision is not an issue here. At absolute best - and just to be clear this is very much a contrived example - I could see some property of a number where what is known about it in base 2 is different than other bases, so you might end up with a sentence like "Number X was proven to be a normal number in base 2 in 2008, but whether it is normal in non-binary is currently unknown." Almost any other situation, you'd just specify the actual base you're talking about; "this memory dump is presented in hexadecimal format" or the like. SnowFire ( talk) 16:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh buddy y'all been through a lot on this talk page. Thanks for all the effort.
Small thing -- the caption for the non-binary flag calls it a "Non-binary pride pride flag." Why is "pride" repeated? Is it a typo or is it intentional?
The Genderqueer flag caption is "Genderqueer pride flag" without the repeated "pride" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3001:11E:2000:F990:C947:D562:4817 ( talk) 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
"Non-binary gender, also known as genderqueer..." A noun phrase cannot also be known as an adjective. Kaldari ( talk) 04:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed Bigender from the second paragraph of the lead in this edit, because bigender is a binary gender. This was reverted by Pfhorrest ( talk · contribs) with the summary: "bigender is no more a binary gender than bisexual is a binary orientation". That seems like a pretty confused rationale to me.
First of all, bigender is in fact a binary gender; the very word itself, made up of bi- (two, binary, dual) plus -gender shows it. Bigender is not genderfluid; it's bi-gender. Agender is non-binary; it's no genders, thus agender is on the non-binary spectrum. Tri-gender is non-binary (it's three); pangender is non-binary (it's many). Bigender, though, is two genders; it's binary.
The bigender article does not say that "bigender is a non-binary gender", it says that it's exactly two genders, boldfacing it three different ways in the first sentence to make sure you get it. It says that it is "typically understood" to mean M and F, but doesn't have to, but it is always two, and contrasts it with genderfluid. But the lead of this article currently includes "bigender" as a "non-binary gender". This should be changed. Mathglot ( talk) 07:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
There are enough comments here by editors who I trust, that I won't be pursuing this approach in the article further. I do want to make two points, though: first, about (some) bigender people, and secondly, a response to Rab's sources (thanks for finding those) in case it helps formulate any additions/changes regarding bigender in the article going forward (just "if" we do; I'm not necessarily pushing for any changes at this point).
I see why you (collectively) argue for bigender as non-binary; if I'm reading you correctly, it's that they've not accepted the gender binary, and therefore are somewhere else on the spectrum of identity other than binary, ergo, non-binary. (There may be other reasons in there, too; but that's the main thrust I'm seeing.) I can accept that, which is why I won't push further. Here is my new point, however:
If we decide to add sources about bigender to the article, I would request that we find better ones than these two. As far as reliability, I certainly trust NCTE; so if they make a clear statement about it somewhere, that's good enough for me. Wording in legislative actions could be added as supporting info, especially to verify article content that talked about laws that were passed, but I would not like to see the wording of any bills used for statements about what bigender (or any gender identity) actually means. I realize they have experts (maybe even the NCTE) advising them, but in the end, there are political pressures behind the scene that we don't know about (and money), and I just don't trust politicians to write dispassionately and accurately about such topics.
Thanks to all who responded. Mathglot ( talk) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Category:Genderqueer has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.
Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. -- Devin Kira Murphy ( talk) 03:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
We would like to add a new section on challenges individuals come across in healthcare and the need for affirmative practices. New information will include availability and access to primary care and highlights from current APA guidelines Aoka222 ( talk) 21:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Instructor Dorie Apollonio, can you explain why students from your Health policy class have collectively made over 100 edits to this page within a 90-minute period, including numerous back-and-forth self-reverts by multiple students? User:Helaine (Wiki Ed), can you please monitor and/or respond if the instructor doesn't? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Shalor, can you please watch as well in case Helaine isn't available? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 08:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello! We would also like to add a short section on media representation of non-binary individuals/celebrities. I've worked on it in my sandbox, would it be okay for me to add this to the article? Aoka222 ( talk) 20:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
References
In the History section, the first paragraph currently starts out like this: "Anthropologists such as April Scarlett Callis believe that the traditional binary system of sexual identity can be traced to the 19th century when sexuality was first medicalized." I'm not clear on why that paragraph is relevant to this article. The article as a whole is about people who have nonbinary genders; that paragraph seems to me to be about the history of how sexual orientation has been categorized, which seems to me to be a very different topic. I was tempted to just delete that first paragraph under History, but it looks like this page has been pretty contentious in various ways, so I figured I should ask before attempting to make any changes here. Elysdir ( talk) 08:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
"Historians like David Halperin argue that by the mid-20th century it became normative for laypeople in the U.S. to label individuals as either heterosexual or homosexual, though other historians like John Boswell argue that the concepts the words refer to have existed for centuries."
Historians like David Halperin argue that by the mid-20th century it became normative for laypeople in the U.S. to label individuals as either heterosexual or homosexual,[34][40] while other historians like John Boswell argue that the concepts the words refer to have existed for centuries.[41]does not connect itself to the topic of this article. From the sentences which are right before it, it seems like it would be possible to expand or reword it so as to connect it to the topic, but someone should do that. (Perhaps I'll try to wp:sofixit or remove it later...) -sche ( talk) 05:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned about the second sentence in the lead: "Genderqueer is an earlier term with the same meaning, originating from queer zines of the 1980s." It elides the nuanced differences between genderqueer and nonbinary. A number of sources contradict the claim that genderqueer is merely an outdated synonym for nonbinary. I provide some examples below.
Considering that genderqueer people often consult sources on the internet to establish their identity (Budge 2016, 462), it is especially important that the information in this Wikipedia entry be accurate. MtCicero ( talk) 06:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Genderqueer is an older term (originating from queer zines of the 1980s) sometimes used with the same meaning.) -sche ( talk) 22:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
In a contradictory environment simultaneously welcoming and hostile, transgender activists staked their own claims to queer politics. We argued that sexual orientation was not the only significant way to differ from heteronormativity—that homo, hetero, and bi in fact all depended on similar understandings of "man" and "woman," which trans problematized. People with trans identities could describe themselves as men and women, too—or resist binary categorization altogether—but in doing either they queered the dominant relationship of sexed body and gendered subject. We drew a distinction between "orientation queers" and "gender queers." Tellingly, gender queer, necessary for naming the minoritized/marginalized position of difference within queer cultural formations more generally, has stuck around as a useful term; orientation queer, naming queer's unstated norm, has seemed redundant in most contexts and has not survived to the same extent. |
sources specifically spelling out that "genderqueer [sometimes or always] means something different from non-binary" would be most helpful- which implies there aren't any yet, and the large majority of sources do treat the two terms as the same, so we are bound to do so as well per WP:DUE. And I note that Equivamp changed it back to "the same". Here are some sources illustrating this: These two books treat them as equivalent in their titles, [2] [3] and this article in Slate does as well, stating,
Genderqueer, along with the somewhat newer and less politicized term nonbinary, are umbrella terms intended...This academic review article states,
The umbrella terms for such genders are ‘genderqueer’ or ‘non-binary’ genders.Here is another such review article that treats the two terms as exactly equivalent. Here is another academic article that does the same. And another. You get the idea. There are essentially no reliable sources that treat genderqueer as a subset of non-binary, or as only partially overlapping.
I suggest to add Innate bisexuality(as defined by freud), since this handles actually about genderfluidity before the concept of genderfluidity existed. (Copy from /info/en/?search=Talk:Innate_bisexuality#Innate_bisexuality_should_be_merged_with_gender_fluidity%2C_not_bisexuality)
As explained in Introducing Freud [1], the "innate bisexuality" is the bisexual and bigender state of a child between 0 and 2 years when it unconsciously converges to the decision that it is either a boy or a girl and is sexually attracted to men, women or both (father or mother).
Innate bisexuality is also the idea that the other sex or gender and the attraction to the other gender or same remains in the unconscious for the rest of your life and that one may develop psychosis due to a conflict between the unconscious identity and desire and the conscious manifestation of opposite identity or desire.
I am sure that this can be improved by people who have read more about Freud than the graphic introduction. Jringoot ( talk) 06:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-binary gender has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lachlan Watson, 2001, American, Actor 108.54.192.254 ( talk) 23:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Inscrutable diatribe by now indeffed user
|
---|
circular logic or self-evident restatements, all supported by WP:SYNTH at best. You need to write a direct simple sentence with a ref that directly supports the conclusion - User: DMacks With regards to WP:SYNTH = "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources..." /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material I only added 1 source, so how is it possible I synthesized sources? - the other indication of source is there only to show verification of the author being relevant to Gender Studies, that is all I used of that source, so it isn't possible that SYNTH is applicable c.f. "French & Italian Languages and Literature - Todd W. Reeser". University of Pittsburgh. www.frenchanditalian.pitt.edu. - "..2013-2018 Director of the Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Program at the University of Pittsburgh..." - accessed 2020-03-13 I see how "Circular argument" - fallacy in argumentation is the petitio principii (“begging of the question”), in which the speaker presupposes that the audience accepts a thesis that actually is contested by them, even implicitly https://www.britannica.com/topic/circular-argument is true at viewing of the passage with 13:50, 13 March 2020 included because the sentence refutes the existence of gender fluidity the concept - in that by stating << gender fluidity is the same >> as << gender >> which is because the source shows "gender fluidity is usually taken as exceptional when in reality it is omnipresent" so that the contradiction identified by DMacks stems from "exceptional" : "omnipresent" - in that "exceptional" would indicate not very common, and "omnipresent" would indicate ubiquitous - which is tantamount to stating the notion of fluidity is an error because gender fluidity is only actually inherently already present in ideas of gender, and is no different These things indicate that DMacks has identified the passage was made flawed by my addition, but I didn't write the earlier sentence... i.e. "You need to write a direct simple sentence with a ref that directly supports the conclusion" Is true as a criticism, because I didn't make the necessary effort to integrate the sentence to the existing content, which is attributable to conditions in my environment at the time preventing accurate processing cognitively is my reasoning on the matter thanks, Diametakomisi ( talk) 20:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
reversion @ 22:56, 13 March 2020With respect to User: Crossroads @ 22:56, 13 March 2020:
(User: Diametakomisi bolded the quote of User:Crossroads, I concluded after the following response that I didn't word the passage correctly, so decided to re-add the content re-worded, since the question by Crossroads is answered by the source, shown at the foot of this section) The source (Hines, Sally; Taylor, Matthew (2018). Is Gender Fluid?: A primer for the 21st century Thames & Hudson, 18 October 2018. p. 8th (no page numbers shown). ISBN 0500774382) shows the following (which I've critically appraised, in addition to, identifying the relevant source material that I took the information from to add to the article - that shows the content isn't "off-topic" i.e "(not about those who identify as genderfluid)"):
obviously the factual accuracy of the statement that "an increasingly large group of people say that gender is not hard-wired" (being either true or not true), the suggestion "hard-wired" isn't true because humans don't contain wires (which suggest a kind of weakness of description of the fact of neurons and synapses (viz. cognitive network; analogous (for example, as atomic time has superceded digital time which has superceded analogue time, perhaps) to computer networks) being the actual referent in the text, and so, the use of the analogy wiring (indicating maybe something like, since people are robot like creatures (perhaps a reference to the argument from design, in the mind of one or both of the authors, I am, and other readers are expected to accept the limited explanation of hard-wiring being in any way true of an explanation of the species
seems to suggest, that, although the subject is gender, the word given "sexes", is used to express that differences biologically identified identify gender i.e. the authors have taken here sex as the identifier of gender, is a contradiction into the passage, (because there is such a word as "gender", and << sex >> is defined as a thing which occurs in course to reproduction as in sexual intercourse, I don't really agree that sex is possible at all as a description for gender differences - i.e. the criteria of an individual sex: M/F is an error of definition generally, independently of accepting any necessary definition of gender fluidity being more separate from the position of biological observation as to the presence of different genitalia - because, monks and nuns are very distinctly two different groups (i.e. nunneries and monasteries) so, how it is possible in the text to take "sexes" + "physical" & "physiological" as being so "tightly coupled" (i.e. Licklider) to gender as two descriptions (I ask rhetorically). The use of the word "clear-cut" with "as we might think" really does suggest, operations transgender (which is a confusion actually, and might just be better expressed as, "clearly-defined"), especially since "-cut" + "mutable" is (surely the suggestion) mutilation (and so perhaps an attempt to "silence the critics" (being the same thing as being made mute) c.f. Silencing Critics: Why and How Presidents Restrict Media Freedom in Democracies Marisa Kellam, Elizabeth A. Stein - July 26, 2015 (Volume: 49 issue: 1, page(s): 36-77) @ "silencing critics" being something akin to The Silence of the Lambs ( Thomas Harris) @ "silence the critics" is the suggestion I'm making, I suppose, to be true)
Diametakomisi ( talk) 18:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (< --- after signature user Diametakomisi added a linking url @ "tightly coupled" which is meant to show the close association of the words meanings to each other as two things are tightly coupled to each other as stated by Licklider, because "much of the above comment was incomprehensible" @ Crossroads 19:14, 19 March 2020, Diametakomisi ( talk) 19:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (< --- after signature user Diametakomisi added a copy of the source information to this section with a linking url Diametakomisi ( talk) 20:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC))
Diametakomisi, first of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I cannot determine what your native language is (Greek, perhaps? Διαμετακόμιση = "transit") but you have to be able to discuss with other users here in English in a way that is sufficiently understandable that a coherent discussion can be held. While Crossroads is doing a valiant job in responding to the best of his ability, I feel that a lot of your comments are both difficult to understand and respond to, as well as not appropriate for a Talk page. Discussions of vocabulary terms which you seem either to misunderstand ("hard-wired" has nothing to do with wires) or are irrelevant, unhelpful, or confused ("mutable" / "mutation" / "mutilated") and I am inclined to collapse this entire discussion per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM as unhelpful to the improvement of the article. If I speak a language that can help you elucidate your point, I will do so; but as things stand now, I don't believe this discussion should continue any further in its present form. Sorry, but this is a volunteer project, and we can't tie up the time of volunteer editors on a discussion that is clearly going nowhere. Maybe you can contribute better at another Wikipedia, like Greek Wikipedia, if that is your language, or some other one, if it is not. Mathglot ( talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC) |
Collapsed gobbledygook by user now indeffed for CIR, per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot ( talk) 02:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Area for genderfae, genderfauna and genderflora should be added. Idotrytohelp ( talk) 17:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've just edited the section on Legal Recognition - and it struck me that, with the sentence talking about the legal recognition of the first indeterminate sex person in Australia, this might *actually* be describing an intersex person instead.
The definition between intersex and non-binary is important; I'm non-binary myself, but intersex people are those determined to have neither entirely male or entirely female genitalia at birth.
It's important to note that for decades, these people were operated on to give them the "right" genitalia very quickly after birth, in some cases decisions having been made on the basis that raising a girl would be "easier".
Intersex people have a wide variety of gender identities, and it's not an area of trans rights I've ever been well-knowledged on myself, but the distinction between a medical condition (not making any arguments about how much a medical condition dysphoria is) that marks one as 'other' and a gender identity seems important. I'm surprised it hasn't been included here yet. Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Astrophobe in their most recent edit that we are reaching MOS:LEADCLUTTER with the number of alternatives names & abbreviations in the lead. It's already linked in the article, so perhaps we just need the "(also spelled nonbinary)" in the lead. Thoughts? Tvcameraop ( talk) 17:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
(or abbreviated as enby). Hyphenation or not is immaterial, and we can explain the Non-binary == NB == enby later in the article. Lead is looking super cluttered as of this edit. Folly Mox ( talk) 08:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Even the book title evolved over the time of writing as the word genderqueer became more accepted and utilised as another umbrella term for those outside of the gender binary—and was consequently included in the title., as well as the sources I pointed to here. Crossroads -talk- 02:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Right now the lead says "Non-binary identities can fall under the transgender umbrella", making it sound like this is the exception rather than the rule. I think it would better reflect reality and the sources (which often assume that all non-binary identities are transgender) if we changed "can" to "often" or "typically" or "generally". Thoughts? Kaldari ( talk) 04:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Pangender redirects here but this article doesn’t explain what it is! Raquel Baranow ( talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The Valencia flag has the wrong colors and needs to be removed as the non binary flag has black on the bottom not green and the purple and white need to switch places — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:BC82:2300:7DB6:7474:E27F:9704 ( talk) 18:20, 27 November 2020 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Some comments in the above RM disfavored "non-binary" because
WP:NOUN says nouns are "normally preferred" to other parts of speech. In light of that, isn't the current adjectival title "genderqueer" also (equally) problematic? If not, why not? None of the people who invoked NOUN against "non-binary" proposed to move the page to a
nounal title like "genderqueer gender", and I'd like to understand the logic: is that just an omission, should a future RM consider "genderqueer gender" or "genderqueer genders" as an option?
(Procedural note: I didn't put this as a subsection of the RM because I don't think anything else should be added as an option to that RM at this late date, and I also don't think this question should be denied the possibility of being answered if the RM gets closed; instead, I am asking with an eye towards the options any eventual future RM, next year or later, might consider.)
-sche (
talk)
19:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Re BarrelProof/CorbieVreccan/Mathglot: I quite disagree that "it is natural" to use non-binary in math or computer science; see my comment here. So precision is not an issue here. At absolute best - and just to be clear this is very much a contrived example - I could see some property of a number where what is known about it in base 2 is different than other bases, so you might end up with a sentence like "Number X was proven to be a normal number in base 2 in 2008, but whether it is normal in non-binary is currently unknown." Almost any other situation, you'd just specify the actual base you're talking about; "this memory dump is presented in hexadecimal format" or the like. SnowFire ( talk) 16:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh buddy y'all been through a lot on this talk page. Thanks for all the effort.
Small thing -- the caption for the non-binary flag calls it a "Non-binary pride pride flag." Why is "pride" repeated? Is it a typo or is it intentional?
The Genderqueer flag caption is "Genderqueer pride flag" without the repeated "pride" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3001:11E:2000:F990:C947:D562:4817 ( talk) 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
"Non-binary gender, also known as genderqueer..." A noun phrase cannot also be known as an adjective. Kaldari ( talk) 04:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I removed Bigender from the second paragraph of the lead in this edit, because bigender is a binary gender. This was reverted by Pfhorrest ( talk · contribs) with the summary: "bigender is no more a binary gender than bisexual is a binary orientation". That seems like a pretty confused rationale to me.
First of all, bigender is in fact a binary gender; the very word itself, made up of bi- (two, binary, dual) plus -gender shows it. Bigender is not genderfluid; it's bi-gender. Agender is non-binary; it's no genders, thus agender is on the non-binary spectrum. Tri-gender is non-binary (it's three); pangender is non-binary (it's many). Bigender, though, is two genders; it's binary.
The bigender article does not say that "bigender is a non-binary gender", it says that it's exactly two genders, boldfacing it three different ways in the first sentence to make sure you get it. It says that it is "typically understood" to mean M and F, but doesn't have to, but it is always two, and contrasts it with genderfluid. But the lead of this article currently includes "bigender" as a "non-binary gender". This should be changed. Mathglot ( talk) 07:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
There are enough comments here by editors who I trust, that I won't be pursuing this approach in the article further. I do want to make two points, though: first, about (some) bigender people, and secondly, a response to Rab's sources (thanks for finding those) in case it helps formulate any additions/changes regarding bigender in the article going forward (just "if" we do; I'm not necessarily pushing for any changes at this point).
I see why you (collectively) argue for bigender as non-binary; if I'm reading you correctly, it's that they've not accepted the gender binary, and therefore are somewhere else on the spectrum of identity other than binary, ergo, non-binary. (There may be other reasons in there, too; but that's the main thrust I'm seeing.) I can accept that, which is why I won't push further. Here is my new point, however:
If we decide to add sources about bigender to the article, I would request that we find better ones than these two. As far as reliability, I certainly trust NCTE; so if they make a clear statement about it somewhere, that's good enough for me. Wording in legislative actions could be added as supporting info, especially to verify article content that talked about laws that were passed, but I would not like to see the wording of any bills used for statements about what bigender (or any gender identity) actually means. I realize they have experts (maybe even the NCTE) advising them, but in the end, there are political pressures behind the scene that we don't know about (and money), and I just don't trust politicians to write dispassionately and accurately about such topics.
Thanks to all who responded. Mathglot ( talk) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Category:Genderqueer has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.
Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. -- Devin Kira Murphy ( talk) 03:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
We would like to add a new section on challenges individuals come across in healthcare and the need for affirmative practices. New information will include availability and access to primary care and highlights from current APA guidelines Aoka222 ( talk) 21:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Instructor Dorie Apollonio, can you explain why students from your Health policy class have collectively made over 100 edits to this page within a 90-minute period, including numerous back-and-forth self-reverts by multiple students? User:Helaine (Wiki Ed), can you please monitor and/or respond if the instructor doesn't? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 07:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Shalor, can you please watch as well in case Helaine isn't available? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 08:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello! We would also like to add a short section on media representation of non-binary individuals/celebrities. I've worked on it in my sandbox, would it be okay for me to add this to the article? Aoka222 ( talk) 20:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
References
In the History section, the first paragraph currently starts out like this: "Anthropologists such as April Scarlett Callis believe that the traditional binary system of sexual identity can be traced to the 19th century when sexuality was first medicalized." I'm not clear on why that paragraph is relevant to this article. The article as a whole is about people who have nonbinary genders; that paragraph seems to me to be about the history of how sexual orientation has been categorized, which seems to me to be a very different topic. I was tempted to just delete that first paragraph under History, but it looks like this page has been pretty contentious in various ways, so I figured I should ask before attempting to make any changes here. Elysdir ( talk) 08:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
"Historians like David Halperin argue that by the mid-20th century it became normative for laypeople in the U.S. to label individuals as either heterosexual or homosexual, though other historians like John Boswell argue that the concepts the words refer to have existed for centuries."
Historians like David Halperin argue that by the mid-20th century it became normative for laypeople in the U.S. to label individuals as either heterosexual or homosexual,[34][40] while other historians like John Boswell argue that the concepts the words refer to have existed for centuries.[41]does not connect itself to the topic of this article. From the sentences which are right before it, it seems like it would be possible to expand or reword it so as to connect it to the topic, but someone should do that. (Perhaps I'll try to wp:sofixit or remove it later...) -sche ( talk) 05:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I am concerned about the second sentence in the lead: "Genderqueer is an earlier term with the same meaning, originating from queer zines of the 1980s." It elides the nuanced differences between genderqueer and nonbinary. A number of sources contradict the claim that genderqueer is merely an outdated synonym for nonbinary. I provide some examples below.
Considering that genderqueer people often consult sources on the internet to establish their identity (Budge 2016, 462), it is especially important that the information in this Wikipedia entry be accurate. MtCicero ( talk) 06:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Genderqueer is an older term (originating from queer zines of the 1980s) sometimes used with the same meaning.) -sche ( talk) 22:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
In a contradictory environment simultaneously welcoming and hostile, transgender activists staked their own claims to queer politics. We argued that sexual orientation was not the only significant way to differ from heteronormativity—that homo, hetero, and bi in fact all depended on similar understandings of "man" and "woman," which trans problematized. People with trans identities could describe themselves as men and women, too—or resist binary categorization altogether—but in doing either they queered the dominant relationship of sexed body and gendered subject. We drew a distinction between "orientation queers" and "gender queers." Tellingly, gender queer, necessary for naming the minoritized/marginalized position of difference within queer cultural formations more generally, has stuck around as a useful term; orientation queer, naming queer's unstated norm, has seemed redundant in most contexts and has not survived to the same extent. |
sources specifically spelling out that "genderqueer [sometimes or always] means something different from non-binary" would be most helpful- which implies there aren't any yet, and the large majority of sources do treat the two terms as the same, so we are bound to do so as well per WP:DUE. And I note that Equivamp changed it back to "the same". Here are some sources illustrating this: These two books treat them as equivalent in their titles, [2] [3] and this article in Slate does as well, stating,
Genderqueer, along with the somewhat newer and less politicized term nonbinary, are umbrella terms intended...This academic review article states,
The umbrella terms for such genders are ‘genderqueer’ or ‘non-binary’ genders.Here is another such review article that treats the two terms as exactly equivalent. Here is another academic article that does the same. And another. You get the idea. There are essentially no reliable sources that treat genderqueer as a subset of non-binary, or as only partially overlapping.
I suggest to add Innate bisexuality(as defined by freud), since this handles actually about genderfluidity before the concept of genderfluidity existed. (Copy from /info/en/?search=Talk:Innate_bisexuality#Innate_bisexuality_should_be_merged_with_gender_fluidity%2C_not_bisexuality)
As explained in Introducing Freud [1], the "innate bisexuality" is the bisexual and bigender state of a child between 0 and 2 years when it unconsciously converges to the decision that it is either a boy or a girl and is sexually attracted to men, women or both (father or mother).
Innate bisexuality is also the idea that the other sex or gender and the attraction to the other gender or same remains in the unconscious for the rest of your life and that one may develop psychosis due to a conflict between the unconscious identity and desire and the conscious manifestation of opposite identity or desire.
I am sure that this can be improved by people who have read more about Freud than the graphic introduction. Jringoot ( talk) 06:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Non-binary gender has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lachlan Watson, 2001, American, Actor 108.54.192.254 ( talk) 23:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Inscrutable diatribe by now indeffed user
|
---|
circular logic or self-evident restatements, all supported by WP:SYNTH at best. You need to write a direct simple sentence with a ref that directly supports the conclusion - User: DMacks With regards to WP:SYNTH = "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources..." /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material I only added 1 source, so how is it possible I synthesized sources? - the other indication of source is there only to show verification of the author being relevant to Gender Studies, that is all I used of that source, so it isn't possible that SYNTH is applicable c.f. "French & Italian Languages and Literature - Todd W. Reeser". University of Pittsburgh. www.frenchanditalian.pitt.edu. - "..2013-2018 Director of the Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Program at the University of Pittsburgh..." - accessed 2020-03-13 I see how "Circular argument" - fallacy in argumentation is the petitio principii (“begging of the question”), in which the speaker presupposes that the audience accepts a thesis that actually is contested by them, even implicitly https://www.britannica.com/topic/circular-argument is true at viewing of the passage with 13:50, 13 March 2020 included because the sentence refutes the existence of gender fluidity the concept - in that by stating << gender fluidity is the same >> as << gender >> which is because the source shows "gender fluidity is usually taken as exceptional when in reality it is omnipresent" so that the contradiction identified by DMacks stems from "exceptional" : "omnipresent" - in that "exceptional" would indicate not very common, and "omnipresent" would indicate ubiquitous - which is tantamount to stating the notion of fluidity is an error because gender fluidity is only actually inherently already present in ideas of gender, and is no different These things indicate that DMacks has identified the passage was made flawed by my addition, but I didn't write the earlier sentence... i.e. "You need to write a direct simple sentence with a ref that directly supports the conclusion" Is true as a criticism, because I didn't make the necessary effort to integrate the sentence to the existing content, which is attributable to conditions in my environment at the time preventing accurate processing cognitively is my reasoning on the matter thanks, Diametakomisi ( talk) 20:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
reversion @ 22:56, 13 March 2020With respect to User: Crossroads @ 22:56, 13 March 2020:
(User: Diametakomisi bolded the quote of User:Crossroads, I concluded after the following response that I didn't word the passage correctly, so decided to re-add the content re-worded, since the question by Crossroads is answered by the source, shown at the foot of this section) The source (Hines, Sally; Taylor, Matthew (2018). Is Gender Fluid?: A primer for the 21st century Thames & Hudson, 18 October 2018. p. 8th (no page numbers shown). ISBN 0500774382) shows the following (which I've critically appraised, in addition to, identifying the relevant source material that I took the information from to add to the article - that shows the content isn't "off-topic" i.e "(not about those who identify as genderfluid)"):
obviously the factual accuracy of the statement that "an increasingly large group of people say that gender is not hard-wired" (being either true or not true), the suggestion "hard-wired" isn't true because humans don't contain wires (which suggest a kind of weakness of description of the fact of neurons and synapses (viz. cognitive network; analogous (for example, as atomic time has superceded digital time which has superceded analogue time, perhaps) to computer networks) being the actual referent in the text, and so, the use of the analogy wiring (indicating maybe something like, since people are robot like creatures (perhaps a reference to the argument from design, in the mind of one or both of the authors, I am, and other readers are expected to accept the limited explanation of hard-wiring being in any way true of an explanation of the species
seems to suggest, that, although the subject is gender, the word given "sexes", is used to express that differences biologically identified identify gender i.e. the authors have taken here sex as the identifier of gender, is a contradiction into the passage, (because there is such a word as "gender", and << sex >> is defined as a thing which occurs in course to reproduction as in sexual intercourse, I don't really agree that sex is possible at all as a description for gender differences - i.e. the criteria of an individual sex: M/F is an error of definition generally, independently of accepting any necessary definition of gender fluidity being more separate from the position of biological observation as to the presence of different genitalia - because, monks and nuns are very distinctly two different groups (i.e. nunneries and monasteries) so, how it is possible in the text to take "sexes" + "physical" & "physiological" as being so "tightly coupled" (i.e. Licklider) to gender as two descriptions (I ask rhetorically). The use of the word "clear-cut" with "as we might think" really does suggest, operations transgender (which is a confusion actually, and might just be better expressed as, "clearly-defined"), especially since "-cut" + "mutable" is (surely the suggestion) mutilation (and so perhaps an attempt to "silence the critics" (being the same thing as being made mute) c.f. Silencing Critics: Why and How Presidents Restrict Media Freedom in Democracies Marisa Kellam, Elizabeth A. Stein - July 26, 2015 (Volume: 49 issue: 1, page(s): 36-77) @ "silencing critics" being something akin to The Silence of the Lambs ( Thomas Harris) @ "silence the critics" is the suggestion I'm making, I suppose, to be true)
Diametakomisi ( talk) 18:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (< --- after signature user Diametakomisi added a linking url @ "tightly coupled" which is meant to show the close association of the words meanings to each other as two things are tightly coupled to each other as stated by Licklider, because "much of the above comment was incomprehensible" @ Crossroads 19:14, 19 March 2020, Diametakomisi ( talk) 19:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (< --- after signature user Diametakomisi added a copy of the source information to this section with a linking url Diametakomisi ( talk) 20:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC))
Diametakomisi, first of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I cannot determine what your native language is (Greek, perhaps? Διαμετακόμιση = "transit") but you have to be able to discuss with other users here in English in a way that is sufficiently understandable that a coherent discussion can be held. While Crossroads is doing a valiant job in responding to the best of his ability, I feel that a lot of your comments are both difficult to understand and respond to, as well as not appropriate for a Talk page. Discussions of vocabulary terms which you seem either to misunderstand ("hard-wired" has nothing to do with wires) or are irrelevant, unhelpful, or confused ("mutable" / "mutation" / "mutilated") and I am inclined to collapse this entire discussion per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM as unhelpful to the improvement of the article. If I speak a language that can help you elucidate your point, I will do so; but as things stand now, I don't believe this discussion should continue any further in its present form. Sorry, but this is a volunteer project, and we can't tie up the time of volunteer editors on a discussion that is clearly going nowhere. Maybe you can contribute better at another Wikipedia, like Greek Wikipedia, if that is your language, or some other one, if it is not. Mathglot ( talk) 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC) |
Collapsed gobbledygook by user now indeffed for CIR, per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. Mathglot ( talk) 02:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Area for genderfae, genderfauna and genderflora should be added. Idotrytohelp ( talk) 17:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've just edited the section on Legal Recognition - and it struck me that, with the sentence talking about the legal recognition of the first indeterminate sex person in Australia, this might *actually* be describing an intersex person instead.
The definition between intersex and non-binary is important; I'm non-binary myself, but intersex people are those determined to have neither entirely male or entirely female genitalia at birth.
It's important to note that for decades, these people were operated on to give them the "right" genitalia very quickly after birth, in some cases decisions having been made on the basis that raising a girl would be "easier".
Intersex people have a wide variety of gender identities, and it's not an area of trans rights I've ever been well-knowledged on myself, but the distinction between a medical condition (not making any arguments about how much a medical condition dysphoria is) that marks one as 'other' and a gender identity seems important. I'm surprised it hasn't been included here yet. Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Astrophobe in their most recent edit that we are reaching MOS:LEADCLUTTER with the number of alternatives names & abbreviations in the lead. It's already linked in the article, so perhaps we just need the "(also spelled nonbinary)" in the lead. Thoughts? Tvcameraop ( talk) 17:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
(or abbreviated as enby). Hyphenation or not is immaterial, and we can explain the Non-binary == NB == enby later in the article. Lead is looking super cluttered as of this edit. Folly Mox ( talk) 08:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Even the book title evolved over the time of writing as the word genderqueer became more accepted and utilised as another umbrella term for those outside of the gender binary—and was consequently included in the title., as well as the sources I pointed to here. Crossroads -talk- 02:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Right now the lead says "Non-binary identities can fall under the transgender umbrella", making it sound like this is the exception rather than the rule. I think it would better reflect reality and the sources (which often assume that all non-binary identities are transgender) if we changed "can" to "often" or "typically" or "generally". Thoughts? Kaldari ( talk) 04:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Pangender redirects here but this article doesn’t explain what it is! Raquel Baranow ( talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The Valencia flag has the wrong colors and needs to be removed as the non binary flag has black on the bottom not green and the purple and white need to switch places — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:BC82:2300:7DB6:7474:E27F:9704 ( talk) 18:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)