Talk:Non-binary/Archive 3

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. If this article needs to be renamed, then please take note of the instructions in the page linked above. (closed by a page mover)  What's in your palette? Paine  06:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Genderqueer → Non-binary genderNon-binary gender – Genderqueer is a controversial title for this page, possibly because of inclusion of the word queer, or because it is only one of a number of possible non-binary gender identities. Using a neutral descriptor such as "non-binary" may not be supported by a larger number of reliable references (per previous talk page discussions), however it may reduce that controversy and provide for the better selection of appropriate page content. Non-binary gender is currently one of a number of redirect pages pointing to Genderqueer. Alternative page names may be better than Non-binary gender. Trankuility (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This page at its current title is nonsense because genderqueer does not have the "catch-all" meaning it is, rather uniquely, claimed to have in this Wikipedia article, but the general structure would be reasonable if it were at Trankuility's preferred title. Critically, in getting away from any one specific identity label, it removes the structural issue around people of many indigenous genders being bizarrely stuffed into a very modern Western (and even quite niche/specific among Western non-binary people) title they would be extremely unlikely to actually identify as. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

"indigenous genders"? What does that mean? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is used to refer to gender identities such as two-spirit, which have a vague indigenous background. It is used because "third gender" may not be an accurate definition in some cultures. Such genders are listed in Category:Third gender, though. ~Mable (chat) 14:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• On the fence: Genderqueer is the WP:Common name. Like I noted in the #Tags section above, it is indeed an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, as made clear by many reliable sources. And like stated in a previous discussion about this (now seen at Talk:Genderqueer/Archive 2#Please move Genderqueer back to Gender fluid), we should not be moving Wikipedia articles from their common titles because of what some people find offensive. I don't even think a WP:Precise argument works in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • On what evidence do you claim it is the common name? "Non-binary" is far more common unless you're reading teenage blogs from 1996. Your own linked search doesn't even support that argument: it has a few people saying that they like it as an umbrella term, a few people saying that they use other words as umbrella terms, and a few people saying that some people use it as an umbrella term. It's not offensive - it's just really bizarrely wrong in this context. In the sense that it's not actually a term that the vast majority of groups in this article would identify with, it's like walking up to somebody and saying "you're a mountain" - they're not going to be offended, they're just going to think you're really weird, and it's a very strange thing to do in people's biographical articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

On what evidence? The literature, and what was discussed in the #Changing the title on the basis that "non-binary" is now the more common term section above. I can cite a number of sources noting that genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities. What sources can you cite stating or indicating that "non-binary is far more common unless you're reading teenage blogs from 1996"? My search supports the argument that genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, and it supports the argument that non-binary is nowhere close to being the WP:Common name. When it comes to your claim that the search "has a few people saying that they like it as an umbrella term," etc., I note that only a few sources have an "while others see genderqueer as an umbrella term that encompasses all of those possible genders" aspect; other sources straight up state that it is an umbrella term. The rest of what you stated is pure opinion. On Wikipedia, it's best to argue with sources in debates like this. So on that note, some sources do make clear that genderqueer is used in two different ways. For example, this 2015 The Fenway Guide to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health source, from ACP Press, page 360, states, "[Genderqueer] is generally used in two ways: 1) as an umbrella term that includes all people whose gender varies from the norm, akin to the use of the word queer to refer to all sexual orientations different from the norm (heterosexual); or 2) to describe a subset of individuals who are born biologically female, but feel their gender identity is neither female or male."

Transgender is also an umbrella term, and we note that in the lead of the Transgender article. It's a term used in ways that many disagree with, even as a term to cover all non-binary gender identities (as some sources in the search above show), but we are not here to placate people who disagree with how these terms are used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your own sources don't support the assertion that it's a catch-all term that is either uncontested or commonly used: they merely demonstrate, often in language that states that it is their personal opinion only, that if the word is used, it can have that meaning - a usage that (as is common to all of the books you've cited) peaked about a decade ago. ("This word has two different uses" in a definitions section does not equal "this is the common umbrella term for this concept"). The far more common use in book sources, not only overall but especially in remotely recent times, is "non-binary", something which Google Books (or any assessment of any literature of any kind) make incredibly obvious, but is less easy to sum up in a snappy link because it has uses in contexts beyond as identity label. It isn't about placating those who disagree, it's about having an article that doesn't plainly misunderstand the language - the version as of this morning was the Wikipedia equivalent of Steve Buscemi going "how do you do, fellow kids?". The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

My own sources state that it's an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities. An umbrella term is a catch-all term. Stating that genderqueer is an umbrella term is not a personal opinion; it's a fact. The only one of us who is going by personal opinions is you. I am arguing with sources and with a Wikipedia rule (the WP:Common name policy); you are not. You are arguing with emotion only, and that is not how Wikipedia works. You stated, "The far more common use in book sources, not only overall but especially in remotely recent times, is 'non-binary', something which Google Books (or any assessment of any literature of any kind) make incredibly obvious, but is less easy to sum up in a snappy link because it has uses in contexts beyond as identity label." And yet you cannot demonstrate that with sources. In other words, it's a false claim. Your argument of "plainly misunderstand the language" is your opinion. When a variety of scholarly sources state that genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, then it is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities. That is not a misuse of language. And even if the article title is changed, the lead will still include "genderqueer" as an alternative name per the WP:Alternative name policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I would like to note that saying something is a "false claim" because the person making it states it is difficult to prove is not exactly fair. You can't prove that the claim is false either because of it. I would like to see somekind of back-up of this claim, though... :s ~Mable (chat) 20:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

From what I see, it is a false claim that "the far more common use in book sources, not only overall but especially in remotely recent times, is 'non-binary', something which Google Books (or any assessment of any literature of any kind) make incredibly obvious." The Drover's Wife cited Google Books, and it is false that Google Books supports "non-binary" as the more common term. If anything, it supports genderqueer and genderfluid as far more common terms for non-binary identities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - pretty clearly an inaccurate title as it currently is. Note that WP:COMMONNAME also advises against "ambiguous or inaccurate names", which this clearly is. Frickeg (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Frickeg, when a variety of scholarly sources state that genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities, how does that make genderqueer an inaccurate title? Language is usually not binary; it is often fluid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur with The Drover's Wife's analysis of the sources. Let me go into detail by examining just the first page of your search. #1 says "others see genderqueer as an umbrella source", indicating it is in dispute. #2 calls it an umbrella term for "a wide range of genders" - not all non-binary genders. #3 wants genderqueer to be "an umbrella term for all those who queer their gender" - indicating it is not that currently. #4 calls it "an umbrella term used by some people" (my emphasis), again indicating its non-universality. #5, #6, #7 and #8 broadly support your contention. #9 is also kind of supportive, but qualifies it ("genderqueer can encompass a variety" etc., implying it doesn't always). #10 calls it a term "used by some people". In short, your sources actually support the idea that the term "genderqueer" is, at the very least, ambiguous and disputed. Frickeg (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Frickeg (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume you will check back here if you want to read replies), thanks for engaging me on this. Like I noted above, "Transgender is also an umbrella term, and we note that in the lead of the Transgender article. It's a term used in ways that many disagree with, even as a term to cover all non-binary gender identities (as some sources in the search above show), but we are not here to placate people who disagree with how these terms are used." That not everyone/every source sees transgender as an umbrella term does not mean we should not outright call it one in the Transgender article. Similarly, that not everyone/every source sees genderqueer as an umbrella term does not mean we should not treat it as one. Your "a wide range of genders" argument is what I view as semantics; by that, I mean that the same is stated of transgender -- that it is an umbrella term for a wide range of genders. For example, this 2011 The Limits of Gendered Citizenship: Contexts and Complexities source, from Routledge, page 15, states, "Transgender is an umbrella term covering a very wide range of social positions and identities, including cross-dressers, transsexuals, androgynes, intersexes (people born with a mixture of male and female physiological characteristics), drag queens and kings, third gender people, and other 'gender complex' people." And this 2014 Sex, Politics and Society: The Regulations of Sexuality Since 1800 source, from Routledge, page 404, states, "Transgender became an umbrella term for a wide range of gender variant and gender complex people." The wording "wide range" is clearly being used in an "all" way. Like genderqueer, transgender is also simply called an umbrella term for non-binary genders. In no case, when it comes to the Transgender article, do we need the source to state "all." The same should apply to the Genderqueer article. Umbrella term already covers "all" in cases like these anyway. If I saw the term genderqueer mentioned as controversial or as significantly disputed in the sources you analyzed, or other reliable sources, my opinion on this matter would be different. Looking at as much literature as I can on this topic, including media sources, I see that the literature shows that the terms genderqueer, genderfluid and transgender are the top three terms when it comes to a term that covers all non-binary gender identities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support neutral ugh – I honestly don't know the sources well, but I do know that "non-binary" is definitely much more common in the public these days. I've been on the fence with this one for a while, as I have difficulty determining common name, but if anything, this is actually the umbrella term "genderqueer" falls under. I definitely prefer the non-binary title. ~Mable (chat) 13:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

What sources support non-binary definitely being much more common than genderqueer in the public these days? A case for that was attempted in the #Changing the title on the basis that "non-binary" is now the more common term section above...to no avail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I've supported this for a long time, as I stated in the earlier discussion. I'm one of many non-binary people who does not identify as genderqueer, and I am tired of being wikilawyered by people who insist they understand this concept better than I do. Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:Wikilawyering is about misusing our rules. Following our rules appropriately is not wikilawyering. And as for identity, one could state that unless it is known that editors following the rules do not identify as genderqueer, it should not be assumed that they do not identify as such. Remember that one can identify as male or female and still be genderqueer, and that the LGBT community's opinions on matters such as this are diverse. There is no one right answer. Furthermore, one does not have to be the topic, or have personally experienced the topic, to fully understand the topic, which is clear by any number of scholarly fields. You are tired of Wikipedia's rules being enforced on matters such as these. I am tired of WP:Activism driving our LGBT articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I've alerted WikiProject LGBT studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Flyer22. SSTflyer 16:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just noting that Flyer22 indicated 'on the fence', not 'oppose'. Trankuility (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I'll remain on the fence since I don't want my vote to be solely based on what offends certain people, and since I'm not sure that I want to oppose the move either...given that a number non-binary people dislike the term genderqueer. Note: I'll alert editors at WP:Sociology, WP:Gender studies and the WP:Common name policy to weigh in on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you're giving this some wider audience: I really want to see more input. ~Mable (chat) 20:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OK then, oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. SSTflyer 16:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Google Scholar searches show an increasing number of articles for nonbinary gender (5730 in my last check) and a higher but older and more U.S.-centric number of articles for genderqueer (7850). The distribution and dated character of genderqueer articles highlight, in my view, limitations already discussed over the past year here, and earlier in the archives. Changing the name will permit inclusion of more comprehensive material that currently does not fit here, helping to globalize the article and include legal and human rights developments. As Flyer22 points out, the article will need to continue to mention alternative names in the lede if this change proceeds. Trankuility (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at that search, I question your "increasing number of articles for nonbinary gender" argument. In the case of those sources, non-binary gender is used side by side with the terms genderqueer, genderfluid, or gender-nonconforming, or it's used in passing, or it's used in a third gender context. What I'm seeing on Google Books and on Google Scholar is not enough to state that nonbinary or non-binary gender is as common, or close to as common, as genderqueer. One of those sources on Google Scholar is this 2015 "Sex and gender diversity among transgender persons in Ontario, Canada: results from a respondent-driven sampling survey" source, which states, "Genderqueer people (variously referred to as gender fluid, gender nonconforming, or nonbinary)." It uses genderqueer as the common name. Indeed, the literature shows that the terms genderqueer, genderfluid and transgender are the top three terms when it comes to a term that covers all non-binary gender identities. And since genderqueer is an umbrella term for all non-binary genders, I do not see how this article is limited with regard to the non-binary aspect, except for keeping out detail that is better left to the Transgender, Third gender and Gender variance articles. So as for globalizing, this is not the Third gender article, and I fear that it will become as bloated as that article if it is retitled "Non-binary gender." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your own definition states, and I quote, "for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌identities which are thus outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity". This includes all of these things that you're now trying to distinguish because they don't make sense in being grouped as "genderqueer"; indeed, the reason we're having this argument at all is because another editor was using your definition to tag intersex people as genderqueer. Either your definition is wrong, or the article intrinsically has a globalising problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Bloat is a straw man argument, and a non-sequitur. It remains to be seen if it might happen here. Where it does, it is within all of our abilities to do something about it, rather than merely complain about it. Trankuility (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that what The Drover's Wife refers to as "my own definition" is the article's definition. The Drover's Wife, I don't understand what you mean by "This includes all of these things that you're now trying to distinguish because they don't make sense in being grouped as 'genderqueer'." As for the reason we're having this discussion, we're having it because Trankuility proposed that the article be moved and you disagree with the article title based on your personal opinions, not on what the literature actually states. This article does not state that intersex people are genderqueer, but, obviously, there are intersex people who identify as genderqueer. An editor misusing the term genderqueer is no reason to move this article.

Trankuility, I can't see "bloat" as a straw man argument since it seems you want to add a bunch of stuff to this article that is better suited for other articles and since we do not need a WP:Redundant fork. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You stated "So as for globalizing, this is not the Third gender article" except that the way you've defined genderqueer is "for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌identities which are thus outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity" - a term so broad it includes everything outside the binary, including indigenous genders, and intersex people who identify as neither male or female (without further reference to their gender identity). The user who was adding it to articles about intersex people wasn't wrong about the article - he was just following the definition, creating an absurd situation where he was adding it to articles of people with absolutely no evidence they actually identified as genderqueer. You seem to be trying to run with this moving definition where you're defining it as "for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌identities which are thus outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity" [except gender identities that are all of these things that Flyer22 Reborn doesn't think fall within that definition] - and that doesn't make any sense. Either it is a catch-all term with the definition that you claim it has, and it includes intersex people like the case that started this discussion and indigenous genders with absolutely no evidence that anyone of said gender has ever identified in that way - or it doesn't, and your argument is wrong. Which is it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You keep stating "my definition" and "the way [I've] defined genderqueer." And once again, I reiterate that you are referring to how the article currently defines the topic. It is not truly my definition. And on Wikipedia, I follow the sources for definitions. As for the way the first sentence of the lead is worded, that can be fixed if it is truly causing problems for other articles. But I don't think many people would take "—‌identities which are thus outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity" to mean that we are referring to intersex people. Intersex is not simply an identity. This article, however, is about gender identities. As for your interpretation of what I seem to be doing, you are wrong. When it comes to what genderqueer is, I've pointed to sources; you have not. You have repeatedly given your personal opinion about what you think makes sense and what does not when it comes to defining the word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)`

This is the way you've defined the subject - you've continually cited sources that don't support your claims, and sources which are in nearly every case dated as well. And that throws the whole article in knots because trying to apply it to a wide variety of usages it doesn't have, and other editors have responded with an abundance of sources demonstrating that "nonbinary gender" is the commonly used language for what this article is about. (If you want to completely rewrite this article so it is about genderqueer people, and move most of the content to an article on non-binary identities as opposed to moving this existing article, you won't get any objections from me.)

But, if the article persists with your definition by calling this subject this title, we're left with the knots that logic ties us in. It is inarguable that the intersex person who does not identify as either male or female falls within your definition of "genderqueer" regardless of what they identify as, or that every indigenous gender that falls outside of a Western gender binary is "genderqueer" according to your definition, despite the total absence of evidence of it ever being used in relation to those groups. These things don't make sense. You seem to even acknowledge that they don't make sense in your comments above. But you wrote the definition, and you're the one insisting that it has that usage. Where do you go with that?

Let me rephrase: is a person of an indigenous gender that does not fit within a Western gender binary "genderqueer" or not? If yes, this article has globalising problems because it's applying an extremely US-centric concept in contexts that it has never been applied in reliable sources. If no, the definition of the article is wrong. This is where the naming issue comes in: if you want to have an article defined in as broad terms as this, it is completely non-contentious to use "non-binary gender" because it's a descriptor: all it is referring to is people with a gender outside the gender binary, and it does not presume any sort of identity beyond that. On the other hand, if you're going to use "genderqueer" and the definition you've given genderqueer here, it throws up all sorts of necessary logical knots that none of the sources you've tried to use here address. (This is where the difference between "some people have used this word in this way" and "this is the common name for a very broad concept" is absolutely crucial, and where this article is falling into a myriad of definitional messes.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that "this is the way [I've] defined the subject" is false. Your claim that "[I've]" continually cited sources that don't support [my] claims" is false, seeing as I stated that there are a variety of reliable sources noting that genderqueer is an umbrella term for non-binary genders, and the sources I've pointed to, which are not dated in the least (especially given that genderqueer and similar terms are all relatively recent), support that. Your clam that "other editors have responded with an abundance of sources demonstrating that 'nonbinary gender' is the commonly used language for what this article is about" is false. Other statements in your latest comment are false, and your arguments do not make sense to me. So I am pretty much done replying to you on this matter, except for the overtagging issue above; that overtagging will be removed, whether I have to start a WP:RfC on the matter or not. This move proposal is a form of WP:Activism, and I despise activism editing. It's a move discussion that is similar to Talk:Gay pride#Proposal: Move to "LGBT pride" (a WP:Permalink is here). And, as noted, I certainly will not be supporting this move. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your contempt shows, Flyer22 Reborn, and in my view it doesn't do justice to you nor to the discussion here. This process is open and democratic, and I hope people will feel able to respond without being scared or browbeaten.

For issues of currency, a Google News check reports about 11,900 results for "nonbinary", and about 10,900 results for "genderqueer". That is more for nonbinary, less for genderqueer; I checked the first couple of pages for relevance and all were relevant to gender.

Last year's discussion on naming has been archived since this Requested Move was proposed. Some of the links given highlight a use of "non-binary gender" which, qualitatively, is completely lacking in uses of "genderqueer". To recap, the Scottish Transgender Alliance have reported almost 900 survey responses in a UK non-binary survey with related press coverage, such as I can wake up as male or female. Or neither: Young Scot raises awareness of non-binary gender identity in the Daily Record (Scotland). A UK Parliamentary inquiry looked at Law and transgender equality, including employment issues examined in September 2015, including non-binary gender identity. The UK Trans Media Watch has produced an extensive guide to non-binary gender identities. In Australia, an alliance of organizations has called for the redefinition of the Australian 'X' sex and gender classification to mean "non-binary", these include the National LGBTI Health Alliance, Organisation Intersex International Australia and Transgender Victoria. Activism? If not for the governmental uses, I might possibly agree with that. Trankuility (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Contempt is a strong word. The wrong word. It's not contempt; it's annoyance. And that annoyance comes from having things falsely claimed about me, or attributed to me, and editors arguing things without at all attempting to source their claims. As for activism, there are definitely activism arguments here in this thread; EvergreenFir's post below speaks volumes about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You used the word "despise". From Merriam-Webster: "1: to look down on with contempt or aversion <despised the weak>". Trankuility (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I've made it clear various times that I despise activism editing. Editors know this from my former user page and comments I've made at Wikipedia talk pages. And I do mean any kind of activism editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, about that. I'm not clear what "activism" goals are being pursued by this proposed name change. Perhaps you could explain? Trankuility (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Genderqueer is the COMMONNAME when looking at page view statistics and various sources. Despite comments above, genderqueer is an umbrella term (see , ) and are all these related terms are part of the transgender umbrella (). Genderqueer and nonbinary were added to Merriam-Websters (, ) and the OED added genderqueer () but not nonbinary in the sense of a gender identity (). GLAAD, an authority on LGBTQ language usage, does not define nonbinary, but does define genderqueer (). Same with this UC Berkley resource (). That language defining sources seem to favor genderqueer over nonbinary leads me to believe genderqueer is the more popular/common term for the gender identity. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use that term. I see a number of arguments above about globalisation, contention, etc. that are asserted without sources. Understandably some people choose one identity label over another, but we can address issues of contention in the article provided it's sourced well. The contention itself does not warrant a page move. Those claiming nonbinary is more common now have failed to adequately support their claims with sources or evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Well said. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's just one event, but does the recent Oregon ruling (which specifically uses the term "non-binary") have any impact on this? :p ~Mable (chat) 17:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  Good question. The ruling does appear to be precedent-setting for the U.S. Funcrunch (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support move per WP:AT's provisions on avoiding problematicness as well as its provisions on commonality. I previously opposed a move, but "non-binary"+"gender" (adding "gender" to filter out most hits for other senses of "non-binary") gets slightly more hits (4600) than "genderqueer"+"gender" (4460), and although "genderqueer" gets slightly more hits (1280) than "non-binary" (1100) if the searches are restricted to uses since 2015, it's clear that both names are common names. "Non-binary" is a transparent description; its synonym "genderqueer" is untransparent, might be ambiguous, and is considered offensive (vulgar?) by some people. WP:AT says "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best[. ...] Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. [...] Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." -sche (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

-sche, I appreciate you weighing in. When one looks to source this topic, almost all of the reliable sources use the terms genderqueer, genderfluid or transgender. And like I told Trankuility above, "Looking at that search, I question your 'increasing number of articles for nonbinary gender' argument. In the case of those sources, non-binary gender is used side by side with the terms genderqueer, genderfluid, or gender-nonconforming, or it's used in passing, or it's used in a third gender context. What I'm seeing on Google Books and on Google Scholar is not enough to state that nonbinary or non-binary gender is as common, or close to as common, as genderqueer." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

EvergreenFir's argument above also shows what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you're very good at telling people things, Flyer22 Reborn, but you didn't respond to my question about "activism", and nor did you respond to the data from Google News, as it contradicts your preference. Trankuility (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I ignored your activism question because the activism is clear, and is highlighted by EvergreenFir's argument. In addition to activism being clear in this section, it was also addressed in the #Tags section above, where one editor relayed that their primary reasoning for issues regarding this article is based on personal issues. There was nothing to address when it comes to your Google News argument. Not only is it not a strong argument, there's also the fact that articles like these are not built on news articles. Scholarly articles are what we should look to. I ignore when I see no need to respond, or that it's better if I ignore the comment, and especially if I see that the argument will continue in a cycle of disagreement that will waste hours of my time. My preference is that we follow Wikipedia's rules and don't let personal issues rule the decisions we make for Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If I may come in for a second, in this case, the activism refers to wanting to "change" a common name of something (in this case, "genderqueer", where "queer" has a large amount of connotations both positive and negative) into something a group of people find more comfortable. The title of this article does impact the world outside of Wikipedia, and wanting something to change for personal reasons can be referred to as activism. I think that was the kind of answer Trankuility wanted to get, as opposed to a vague "activism [is] clear in this section". ~Mable (chat) 10:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct, Maplestrip. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This "activism" does no more than manage the issues detailed in the proposal, and in the arguments by -sche, including the rationale from WP:COMMONNAME per commonality of multiple terms, and problematic terms. Regarding sources, my view is that all reliable sources should be considered, not simply academic articles. No higher standard applies. Trankuility (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My reasons for supporting the move are not primarily "based on personal issues," but they are indeed influenced by my personal experience, as your opinion is influenced by yours, Flyer22. No one can claim absolute neutrality here, and disagreeing with you on the sources doesn't mean we're not "following the rules." Just saying that you believe that "scholarly" sources are more relevant to this page than news articles is questionable. On what basis do you make this claim? Funcrunch (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No one can claim absolute neutrality here? On what basis do you make that claim? In what way do you think I am biased on this matter? My only preference for genderqueer, or genderfluid for that matter, is that these terms are the common terms in reliable sources. Despite that preference, I have not yet voted "oppose," and that reasoning (as noted above; my "18:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)" post) is based on being sympathetic toward those who dislike the term genderqueer. That alone is reason enough for me to be upset with myself.

On what basis do I make the claim that scholarly sources are more relevant? I thought I was clear about that: We cannot build a Wikipedia article about non-binary gender identities based on news sources. And with the recent ruling mentioned above, of course news hits for "non-binary gender" have increased; that is a WP:Recentism matter. We cannot build a Wikipedia article on those sources. Well, not a good one anyway. If this were a news article, or if we were talking about building a "Media" section in the article, it would be different. But this is supposed to be an article about a scholarly topic. And when it comes to the type of sources we should be using for this topic, non-binary and non-binary gender are rarely used. For the vast majority of sources used for this article, if we are not focusing on the media, the terms genderqueer, genderfluid or transgender will be used. And on top of that, genderqueer will still be in the lead as the alternative name...per the WP:Alternative name policy. So arguments to move this article have not been convincing to me, or enlightened me on why the move is necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required, not necessarily academic. My analysis of Google News preceded the recent news from Oregon. Trankuility (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere did I state that we cannot use news articles. I stated that we do not build scholarly topics on news articles. And this is a scholarly topic. Really, in what way can we build a comprehensive article on this topic based on mostly news sources? How exactly would we avoid this article mostly being about news stories? And I've already been clear about how I feel about your Google News analysis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Support move – but without the hyphen: Nonbinary gender. I do not have a dog in this fight. Nonbinary will soon be a third choice on driver's licenses in Oregon.^[1] Nonbinary is going to be more mainstream. No doubt it will spread nationwide as it already has around the world. Genderqueer is a dated term that is confusing. Per our article titling policy genderqueer is not a natural title. It can be jarring to some readers; it is vulgar to others; can be confusing; is rooted in slurs of the 1950s. Our comments here (this is a request for comments) are supposed to be succinct. In order to remain neutral we should avoid direct response to other commenters and we should keep our comments on task.

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Support move or use both terms

Even a brief search of scholarly articles as well as contemporary discussion shows that this terminology is contentious. Google Scholar reports more articles using the term :"genderqueer" than "non-binary gender," but most articles use one or the other, suggesting that they are not synonyms:

non-binary gender: 4620

genderqueer: 8110

genderqueer -nonbinary: 7810

nonbinary gender -genderqueer: 5130

"non-binary" gender -genderqueer: 4020

"nonbinary" gender -genderqueer: 1200

"non binary" gender -genderqueer: 4020

There were also 710 hits on "non binary" vs genderqueer in Google Scholar.

In a general Google search of non binary" vs genderqueer, there were 261,000 results. Here are selected notes from the top 4 results (other than this Wikipedia article):

The Non-Binary vs. Genderqueer Quandary

"In short, genderqueer is often non-binary (except for in the case of referring to expression / performance exclusively), but not all non-binary identified people may consider themselves genderqueer for a variety of reasons, which I will discuss."^[1]

Genderqueer - Nonbinary.org

"Some nonbinary people reject the term genderqueer as an umbrella term. The word "queer" is still actively used as a pejorative and hate speech in many regions. One reason why the word "genderqueer" shouldn't be used too broadly as an umbrella term is because it is painful to many of the people to which it would apply, survivors of hate crimes, who don't want to be called by that word. Umbrella terms such as "gender nonconforming," "gender variant," and "nonbinary" are more compassionate and respectful to survivors."^[2]

Genderqueer versus Non-binary [x-posted] : genderqueer - Reddit

On this genderqueer subreddit, there is consensus that "genderqueer" is making a more actively political statement of identification and solidarity with a group, where as "non binary" is more simply descriptive.^[3]

University of Wisconsin‑Madison Trans, Genderqueer, and Queer Terms Glossary

"Genderqueer: An umbrella term for people whose gender identity is outside of, not included within, or beyond the binary of female and male; 2) Gender non-conformity through expression, behavior, social roles, and/or identity; See also Fluid, Non-Binary."

"Non-Binary: Describes a gender identity that is neither female nor male; 2) Gender identities that are outside of or beyond two traditional concepts of male or female. See also: Genderqueer, Fluid, Polygender."

"Queer: An umbrella term representative of the vast matrix of identities outside of the gender normative and heterosexual or monogamous majority. Reclaimed after a history of pejorative use, starting in the 1980s; 2) An umbrella term denoting a lack of normalcy in terms of one’s sexuality, gender, or political ideologies in direct relation to sex, sexuality, and gender."^[4]

My point in bringing up these less-scholarly references is that this is a vocabulary actively evolving and debated by the community to whom it applies. There is also a clear distinction in many references I examined between personal gender identity vs. identification and solidarity with a larger group. The claim that there is any single "catch all" term for all the gender identities included in the lead is misleading. At most, the text could read "Genderqueer is one of several terms which may be used to describe gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine," but to be honest I think this article should be split to distinguish between the political, activist, solidarity concept and the self-identification concept, or at least these two different concepts should be explicitly distinguished in the article.

Edalton (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Edalton, you stated "but most articles use one or the other, suggesting that they are not synonyms"; I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that they are not synonyms when sources usually define "genderqueer" and "non-binary gender" the same way or outright state or imply that they are synonyms. This includes the sources you listed above. As you seemingly know, those sources do not pass as WP:Reliable sources, especially the Reddit post. Well, the "University of Wisconsin‑Madison Trans, Genderqueer, and Queer Terms Glossary" source possibly passes. As for your argument that "The claim that there is any single 'catch all' term for all the gender identities included in the lead is misleading.", that's not what the lead states. And the lead stating "Genderqueer is one of several terms" would earn us a Template:Which from a WP:Drive by editor right at the word "several." This article is currently titled "Genderqueer". That term is an umbrella term; so the lead calls it "a catch-all term," which is the same as stating "umbrella term." Really, the lead should state "umbrella term" in place of "catch-all," just like the Transgender article notes that "transgender" is an umbrella term. Like I noted above in this section, "transgender" is also used as an umbrella term for all non-binary gender identities; that some people disagree with that does not stop us from noting its umbrella term aspect in the lead. In that lead, we briefly note the different ways the term is used. Doing that is standard for Wikipedia articles about terms. Have a look at the Atheism article for another example. The lower part of our articles are where we are supposed to address terminological differences and/or disputes in-depth. That's what the Transgender and Genderqueer articles do. Per WP:Content fork, we do not split the articles into multiple articles just to cover the terminological differences and/or disputes; we cover it all in one article. If a sub-article is truly needed, that's another matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Unnecessarily specific. The only way "non-binary gender" can be identified is if "binary gender" is first identified. The title, then, already promotes a certain view by marking it as either a rejection or opposition of the concept of "binary gender". Such a thing would hardly be less controversial. Also, it's a somewhat poor adjective/noun in common usage and seems unlikely to catch on. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed is artificially specific, but worst it defines via a negative. The ambiguity of the current title matches the ambiguity of the topic. Defining something broad by what it is not is as a rule a very poor way to communicate - it uses nuance that may be well understood by the encultured, but not for others. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.