Talk:Non-binary/Archive 5

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 to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 18:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Genderqueer → Non-binary gender identitiesNon-binary gender identities – I want to preface this with this discussion has been had previously, and a number of those contributions have good points. I believe that trends have shifted towards the usage of non-binary/nonbinary vs. genderqueer in the last few years, and it's time to update the terminology that Wikipedia uses. I will attempt to prove that "Non-binary/nonbinary" is the WP:COMMONNAME using not only applicable Google trends, but also with legal precedent and major LGBT organizations' glossaries. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 01:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that Google Ngrams is not entirely useful in this case. Its data collection only goes up to 2008, a year when most states didn't even recognize same-sex marriage. In fact, a comparison to Google Trends shows that the terms "non-binary/nonbinary" only began to gain popularity in 2014, after the scope of Ngrams. Thus, I will look at patterns in Google Trends and Scholar instead.

The Google Trends graph for Genderqueer vs. Non-binary vs. Nonbinary shows that the terms "non-binary" and "nonbinary" combined have been more popular than the term "genderqueer" since approx. January 2016, and the term "nonbinary" alone has been more popular than "genderqueer" since February 2017. This graph also shows a preference towards "nonbinary" vs. "non-binary."

Now, I am aware that the term "non-binary" is used in other contexts, so I created a Trends graph of some of the most common non-gender related terms that appear alongside nonbinary. Note that the top 24/25 related queries for the search term "non-binary" are related to gender, and the one that isn't doesn't even show on the graph. I believe that this shows that the vast majority of uses of the term "non-binary" are in relation to the gender identity, but just to be cautious, I included the term "gender" alongside my search terms for the rest of my trend research.

Google Scholar stats:

These stats show a relatively even number of books/articles that use either term published in any time, but a notable trend towards "non-binary/nonbinary" in the past few years, with almost 50% more results in the last year.

A search for the terms in a NewsBank news database search (apologies as the link may be behind a paywall; I'm trying to take advantage of my library's research capabilities) produces 2382 results for "Genderqueer AND gender" and 8060 results for "Non-binary OR nonbinary AND gender." I'm unsure how to find the number of results for a Google News search or I'd include that as well.

Within the past year, with a few exceptions, US states and other regions have passed laws and regulations related to the legal documentation of non-binary people. These government bodies use either exclusively "non-binary/nonbinary" or mention "genderqueer" as an identity that an applicant might or might not identify as:

California, October 2017: "The bill would authorize a change of gender in the court judgment to female, male, or nonbinary." ... "An option ... would allow intersex people, like transgender and nonbinary people" ... "Nonbinary is an umbrella term for people with gender identities that fall somewhere outside of the traditional conceptions of strictly either female or male. People with nonbinary gender identities may or may not identify as ... genderqueer."^[7]

Oregon, April 2017: "An Oregon circuit court issued an order stating that a particular individual's sex is non-binary"^[8]

Washington D.C., June 2017: "To permit applicants for a District driver's license, learner's permit, or identification card to designate their gender as 'nonbinary.'^[9]

Washington State, January 2018: "[X is] A gender that is not exclusively male or female, including, but not limited to, intersex, agender, amalgagender, androgynous, bigender, demigender, female-to-male, genderfluid, genderqueer, male-to-female, neutrois, nonbinary, pangender, third sex, transgender, transsexual, Two Spirit, and unspecified."^[10]

New Jersey, proposed: "request for a change in gender to (female, male, or undesignated/nonbinary)"^[11]

Australia, 2015? :"The X category refers to any person who does not exclusively identify as either male or female, i.e. a person of a non-binary gender."^[12]

Ontario, May 2018: "You may request a change to your sex designation to F (female), M(male), or X (non-binary)"^[13]

A number of LGBT organizations have either glossaries or handouts that define LGBT-related terms. These definitions have a lot of variance, but they tend to either use terms like "gender-expansive," identify "non-binary/nonbinary" as an umbrella term, or note that "genderqueer" is a specific term that infividual people may identify as:Trans media watch uses "non-binary"^[14] GLAAD uses "non-binary and/or genderqueer"^[15] HRC uses "gender-expansive" as an umbrella term and "genderqueer" as a more niche definition.^[16] Stonewall considers "non-binary" an umbrella term.^[17] PFLAG identifies "gender expansive" as the umbrella term and notes that while "genderqueer" may be used as an umbrella term, it "should only be used when self-identifying or quoting someone who self-identifies as genderqueer."^[18] TSER identifies "non-binary/nonbinary" as the preferred umbrella term among the community.^[19] So does The Trevor Project.^[20]

I've also taken the time to cite some examples of the discussion of "queer" as a contentious term.^[21][22][22] Not everybody rejects this term, but those who do do so vehemently, as it has been and is still used as a slur by some people.

I would like to briefly state that I suggested the title "Nonbinary gender identities" partially in order to clear up confusion about WP:Content forking with the Third Gender article. However, a name change would not inherently create a content fork, as their contents currently and will still address two separate things: one is a modern western gender identity, and the other is a historical term and a way to describe non-western cultures' gender expansive practices. I would advise creating start-level articles for "genderqueer" and "agender" after the move, as one was the most common term for many years and the other has recently gained legal recognition in Oregon. I volunteer to write them, but their existence is not particularly relevant to the current discussion. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 01:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This Rfc may be tainted. User Hologramvin (talk · contribs) who opened section #Separate Article For Nonbinary above, appears to have canvassed user Mooeena (talk · contribs) off-wiki, and is actively seeking other supporters there. Please contact me via e-mail for details. Mooeena, you have the option of a graceful exit here by withdrawing your Rfc, and requesting an uninvolved editor to open one in your stead. If you choose to keep it open, be aware that it might get shut down for procedural reasons, but I am not an admin and have no ability to do that. Afaict, there's nothing wrong with the statement of the Rfc per se (other than its being a trifle long, but okay). However, it would be better to have an open discussion about this that follows the Rfc guideline, and starting off by rounding up a posse off-wiki, is not the way to go. Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • For full transparency, I did see a post on Hologramvin (talk · contribs)'s Twitter about this page, but I assure you that I was not asked to participate in this discussion by them in any way. I decided that I wanted to pursue this subject independently and then I contacted them to let them know that I would be opening up a discussion for the Wikipedia page that they had mentioned. If any canvassing did happen, it was after we had that conversation. I would be happy to show receipts of our conversation to an admin if they would like to see them, but I hope it won't become an issue. I have a documented interest in improving articles about underrepresented minorities, and this is just another one of those articles. I intend to stay mostly out of this discussion save for if somebody asks for clarification on my proposal, but I hope that my research stands for itself regardless.Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 05:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  I hope it won't become an issue either, but now I can't help but wonder. I accepted your representation above, including your bona fides, and I wasn't planning coming back here to comment, other than possibly on the interpretation of statistical data. However, in light of more recent events, now I feel I must. Following Hologramvin's tweet requesting assistance at this discussion, you replied on 2 June, requesting a link. At some point after my post above appeared, you secured your account to make your tweets inaccessible except to followers, including the ones previously visible to all, where you interact with Hologramvin. If this was a coincidental move having nothing to do with this Rfc, then the timing of it was unfortunate.

  On the flip side, when I referred to a "taint" in my earlier post, I was talking about the Rfc itself, and not about you or your actions. As far as I can see from reading the canvassing guideline, if there was any inappropriate actions relating to canvassing, it was on the part of Holomgramvin (i.e., campaigning, stealth canvassing, possibly votestacking), but none of those apply to you. Additionally, there's nothing in the guideline about the responsibilities of someone who's the target of canvassing, probably intentionally so; and afaict you're in the clear as far as editor behavior. The worst I can see happening, is that your vote might not count, and even that is at the discretion of the closer. Let's see how it goes, and if we need the opinion of some NPOV gurus re canvassing technicalities, we know where to find them. Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  I feel uncomfortable with people on the internet being able to read all of my personal Twitter, as it has my real name and identifiable details about myself. I will gladly show the relevant tweets to any admin that requests it, but I hope you can respect my privacy and protection of details about myself irellevent to this discussion.Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 13:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  Doxxing is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you have concerns about your privacy, check out WP:Changing username and WP:Clean start. There may be other solutions, but these are two that I know about. Mathglot (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you!Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A WP:Clean start is not to be used lightly. It is very clear that one taking on a clean start should not edit the topics they did before. Their account should reflect behavior that does not tie them to their previous account (at least not in an obvuous way). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's WP:Canvassing and WP:Meatpuppetry because you were brought here by a post on Twitter. It's not like Hologramvin's post on Twitter is neutral. If I express concern to my Twitter followers about something on Wikipedia, and they all flock here to address it, that is WP:Canvassing and WP:Meatpuppetry. It's WP:Meatpuppetry in the sense of "promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute." I meant to warn Hologramvin about WP:Meatpuppetry. So I also support closing this move discussion as tainted and as not abiding by Wikipedia's rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to "Non-binary gender identiies" per nom OR "Non-binary gender" per previous discussions. See the previous attempts for some good explanations. "Non-binary" is a much better "catch-all" term for the many varieties of non-binary genders. "Genderqueer" is a somewhat controversial term, both for including the word "queer", and in that it sorta only kinda refers to a few of the many non-binary gender identities - many non-binary folks don't identify as "genderqueer", per se, but a larger majority of "genderqueer" folks identify as non-binary. "Non-binary gender" might be the better choice, WP:POVNAMING-wise. Also, "non-binary" is probably the most common term for this stuff to be used, and has really overtaken "genderqueer" in terms of popularity (and neutrality). Like, other pages (like Legal recognition or Discrimination) literally use "non-binary" to refer to this exact page in their own titles. In the words of Trankuility, "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." That just about sums it up. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OR, alternatively, support move to "Genderqueer and non-binary gender" or something of the like. Maybe this would be the best course of action, given the arguments presented by the Oppose/Support people. We've done moves like this before, and we might want to do it here. (Otherwise, this chain of requested moves would presumably never end, in either direction.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Proposal - how about Queer gender identities if we're looking for umbrella terms. Or, based off of MOGAI, Minority genders. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• This article's name also depends on all readers of all alignments including "straight", knowing fully what the word "queer" means. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As a genderqueer person I absolutely have heard the argument about non-binary and genderqueer but I think it is much like the argument about gay and homosexual. My biggest question I would ask to someone who actually thought they were different would be to tell me what genderqueer is. Other than objecting to a word can someone take the time to fully explain what they think the difference is?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Rainbowofpeace, there is no difference. See below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:Common name/reliable sources thus far. At this point, the repeated move proposals based on supposed offensiveness and faulty Google statistics is bordering on WP:Disruptive. It's similar to WP:Forum shopping in the sense that a few editors are trying time after time until they get the answer they want. Although "non-binary" has gained traction in the last few years in the trans community, there is absolutely no proof that "a larger majority of 'genderqueer' folks identify as non-binary" rather than as genderqueer. Further, we don't give in to appease the side that has less support in the literature. We follow the literature with WP:Due weight. There also are few or no sources to support the alternative name suggestions. Mooeena is a newish user who has been WP:Canvassed here. Mooeena talks about Google Trends showing "trends have shifted towards the usage of non-binary/nonbinary vs. genderqueer in the last few years." I challenge this as being truthful. This is because the vast majority of the "non-binary"/"nonbinary" sources are not about gender or humans at all. It's also the case that the term "genderqueer" received the most attention in the last few years, with its entry into dictionaries and the like. Google Ngram still shows "genderqueer" as the leader. So does this Google Trends link pointed to in the 2017 previous move discussion. Notice that it compares "non-binary gender" to "genderqueer." It doesn't go on "non-binary" without the gender aspect attached to the term. And here's why: See above, where Mathglot stated, "Another complicating factor is in the data gathering. Interpreting search counts, trends, ngrams, and other data can be tricky. [The analysis that nonbinary is more common than genderqueer] is flawed, because you have plenty of 'non-binary algorithms' but no 'genderqueer algorithms'. (Well, there is one example of the latter on the internet!) And if you look at what's happening to the curves in that graph, genderqueer shot up from nowhere starting around 1992, whereas non-binary has lost ground in that same period. In fact, if you look at the top ten words following the term non-binary in Google books, they are: (codes, BCH, and, data, code, block, variables, symbols, case, numbers) none of which are about people. This is just to point out that comparing these counts and data can be trickier than one would imagine at first blush." And I stated pretty much the same thing just last year, by noting that "If we look at genderqueer on Google Books, we get a lot of sources for it, with a number of them using genderfluid or similar as a synonym or as a subset of the term genderqueer. When we look at non-binary on Google Books, we get far less uses of the term with regard to gender. The term non-binary gender is more useful than non-binary when it comes to researching gender in the literature, but that term is so often used with regard to third gender identities." And this is the case even when using quotation marks around the terms per WP:SET#Notability. I know that Mooeena mentioned a personalized trends graph, which Mooeena believes shows that "the vast majority of uses of the term 'non-binary' are in relation to the gender identity," but actually looking at the sources shows this to not be true, at least in the case of Google Books sources. Mooeena brought up legal sources, but look at the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article. Often, "X" or a similar designation is used, not the term "non-binary." It's mainly the news sources using the term "non-binary" for ease when explaining legal aspects. Even sources Mooeena cited show the X designation. And we already have the Legal recognition of non-binary gender article specifically for legal cases. It should not influence this article. Mooeena brought up LGBT sources, but, as we can see in the 2016 previous move discussion, a number of LGBT sources support "genderqueer."

I've stated before that the term genderqueer specifically covers non-binary history, issues, and explicitly all of the other identities mentioned in the article. It is the term most often noted as the umbrella term for all of these gender identities. Here are the sources I pointed to in the 2017 discussion.

Where are all of the academic sources using the term non-binary or non-binary gender to cover all of the history, language, etc. for western gender identities that fall outside of the gender binary? I'm not seeing many. All this talk about Google Trends, and yet, except for the Google Scholar sources that happen to use the term "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" to address genderqueer and nonconformity issues, especially childhood gender nonconformity, there is scant academic usage for non-binary or non-binary gender when compared to the wealth that the term genderqueer has. A number of those Google Scholar sources are using "genderqueer" interchangeably or alongside "non-binary," "non-binary gender" and/or "gender nonconforming." Also note the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on the term genderqueer and its history. That encyclopedia does not have a "Non-binary" or "Non-binary gender" entry. For dictionary sources, "genderqueer" also prevails with regard to gender. The most academic material there is for "non-binary" material that actually is about gender, and is not about gender nonconformity as a whole, mixes in third gender material, which obviously already has a Wikipedia article. If we want to cover the supposed non-neutral-ness of the term genderqueer, we do that by locating reliable sources stating as much and covering it in the article, not by overriding our WP:Common name policy. The most that I would support is renaming the article "Genderfluid" or "Genderqueer and non-binary." But "genderfluid" isn't used as an umbrella term as much as "genderqueer" is, and it's sometimes used as subset of "genderqueer." And "Genderqueer or non-binary" and "Genderqueer and non-binary" are long-winded and suggest a difference, when sources overwhelming treat the two as synonyms or list "non-binary" under "genderqueer," for western gender identities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

When using both Google Scholar and searching Google Books with merely the term "nonbinary" (no hyphen) only one result on the first page of Google Books was not about trans-ness or gender. I looked through the next several pages of results and it seemed only one or two of the other results were about coding. I feel your implied claim that when searching "nonbinary" that most of the searches involve programming and not gender is disingenuous.

Hologramvin (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This link shows the search of "nonbinary" (no hyphen) on Google Books. Once we get past page 2, we see that there are hardly any more uses of the term with regard to gender. And stuff like "Genderqueer: Androgyny, Atypical Gender Role, Audre Lorde Project, Bigender, Discrimination Towards Non-Binary Gender Persons, Fantasia Fair, Femme Co" quite clearly says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." Whether or not most of those other sources past page 3 are about coding, which is just me repeating what Mathglot indicated, they are not about gender. As seen with this link, it's even worse for "nonbinary" when we do what WP:SET#Notability suggests and add the quotation marks around the term. If we look on Google Scholar at "nonbinary" (no hyphen), it shows a bunch of code results. Same goes for using quotation marks around the term. So tell me again how the implication is disingenuous. There is no implication. It just is what it is. Like I stated before (both in the 2017 move discussion and above), one gets better results when searching "non-binary gender" or "nonbinary gender," but those sources are not as rich as the genderqueer ones (taking the time to cover all of the history, language, etc. for western gender identities that fall outside of the gender binary), and enough of them use "genderqueer" interchangeably or alongside "non-binary," "non-binary gender" and/or "gender nonconforming," and are also about third gender identities, which has its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:Precision. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I think "nonbinary gender" sees wider colloquial use but "genderqueer" is the more used term in reliable sources at this time. --Equivamp - talk 01:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support as the article is about a catch-all/umbrella term for gender identities outside of the gender binary, Non-binary is a term that seems to be only used as a catch-all term, while Genderqueer is a term most commonly used as a gender identity itself.(like Agender, etc) Thespündragon 14:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thespündragon, the way you are distinguishing makes no sense and is not supported by sources. And where are the reliable sources showing that "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" covers all of the terms noted in this article? And I mean specifically noting that each of these terms are covered by it? I've done my part times over with sources. Why isn't your opinion based on any of our rules? I advise the closer to rightfully ignore WP:ILIKEIT votes like yours. Since you are a new editor, I do cut you some slack on that, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that Genderqueer is a specific gender identity that is a sub-branch of Non-Binary does not appear to be supported by sources. Can you please tell me what Genderqueer is and what exactly makes it different from non-binary?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Tainted RfC. I would say I oppose, primarily because I think Flyer's argument about sources is a sound one, but I cannot in good conscience !vote in an RfC that has been advertised on social media. I will say this much more: in looking over the history of this talk page, there appears not to be consensus in favor of moving the page. If, in the wake of the off-wiki canvassing, this RfC is allowed to run its course, I trust that whoever closes it will look carefully for SPAs and new users and discount whatever they bring to the table. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• As others said, this Request seems to be tainted by procedural irregularity (from the opposite direction as another tainted RFC on a trans-related topic I see on my watchlist—and, like there, the best idea is probably to procedurally close this, wait a few weeks, and open a clean RFC/RM). I do think the article should be moved, partly because "non-binary" is the more COMMONNAME, as I said last year: "A Google Scholar search (where hit counts are much more reliable and checkable than raw web searches) restricted to articles published since 2016 finds more articles using "non-binary" gender than "genderqueer" gender (the same is true for a search restricted to articles published since the start of 2017) [...]. All the news coverage I've seen has used "non-binary", as do the court decisions and California's proposed law recognizing non-binary people, although Google News (which unfortunately doesn't seem to give a way to count hits when restricting a search by date) shows that some articles still use "genderqueer". (A fraction of Scholar and News articles use both terms.) Since COMMONNAME is no longer an unequivocal argument for the current title (and indeed seems to support a move), perhaps a new RM is in order, or perhaps we should wait for the trendline to grow longer", which it has over the last year. As an aside, some users in the past suggested that if this article were renamed it would be unclear how to distinguish it from "Third gender", but that is a red herring, because this article correctly notes that "genderqueer", in the broad umbrella sense this article explicitly introduces itself as using, is synonymous with "non-binary", so any overlap or confusion should already exist (and, apparently, has not caused us any actual problems so far). -sche (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Per what I've argued before and above, there is no proof whatsoever that "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" is the more common term. All of the logical Google avenues -- whether we are looking past the sources talking about codes instead of people, or looking at Google Ngram or Google Trends -- indicate that "genderqueer" is the common name. The vast majority of academic sources certainly do. The argument regarding Google Scholar is flawed because (besides the code aspect) the Google Scholar sources that happen to use the term "non-binary" or "non-binary gender" are often using those terms to address gender variance as a whole, and especially childhood gender nonconformity, not the specific topic that the Genderqueer article is addressing. We obviously already have a Gender variance article. Some of those sources are also using "genderqueer" interchangeably or alongside "non-binary," "non-binary gender" and/or "gender nonconforming." People can see all of this by actually examining/reading the sources. The argument about laws is flawed per the fact that many or most of those laws don't actually use the term "non-binary." They use the term "X" or similar. It's more so the news sources using the term "non-binary" to explain "X" and similar, and those news sources are mainly focused on laws only. They are not focused on the history of the term, the different terms that fall under it, or the behaviors. And we already have a Wikipedia article for those laws. This article is not it. And I stand by my third gender argument. Anyone is free to see what I argued about that and why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Support My experience is in the UK and I accept things might be different elsewhere. I frequently hear people referring to themselves as non-binary but very rarely Genderqueer and if they do invariably they see it as a subset of non-binary. Non-binary is the overarching and common term in use - that should make it COMMONNAME. I'm not much impressed by claims about whats used in WP:RS in this case, generally I feel they are written by self appointed experts looking in with no real understanding of the importance of terms or media organisations using the more attention grabbing term. I am impressed by the list of examples where authorities have used non-binary, these show current and likely future dominance of this term. I would like to state that I was unaware of this move discussion until I stumbled on it earlier today and that I have not been canvassed. Furthermore you will see from my editing history LGBT issues are not my normal area. Lyndaship (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Lyndaship, whether you came here by way of canvassing or not, you are arguing based on personal experience...for which no proof exists. Above, in the move request template, we can see that the template states, in part, "Please base arguments on article title policy." So you discounting that policy, which WP:Common name is a part of, is why your vote should be discounted. The WP:Common name policy is based on what the preponderance of reliable sources state, not on personal experiences. And move requests are not based on "likely future dominance of [a] term." I'm disappointed not only by this move request having been tainted due to canvassing, but also due to the poor arguments for a move. So if this article is moved based on a head count, which goes against the WP:Consensus policy, or based on the personal experience reasons, I will take it to WP:Move review. The closer (TonyBallioni) who actually took the time to look at the evidence I provided in the 2017 move request had it right. And I don't see that much of anything has changed since then. So I'm not even up for a new move request, which would result in me (and others) arguing the same thing as before yet again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll let the closer form their own opinion about which votes are valid. Lyndaship (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Lyndaship I ask you what exactly is genderqueer if it is a specific form of non-binary? Many people say it's a specific gender identity and not a catch all but no one can tell me what it specifically is and what makes it different that Non-binary gender identities in general.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Two comments about some flawed analysis above concerning various Google search queries, and interpretation of the results:

1. All Google Trends searches are completely irrelevant to this Rfc. WP:COMMONNAME requires article titles to be based on independent, reliable English-language sources. Google trends is unrelated to published sources; it highlights the latest changes in user searches; i.e., it is based on data that anyone can enter—namely, your search query, and it privileges recent changes in search and leaves out most of recorded history. Trends says nothing about what sources are available, how many, or in what proportion; it only tracks search queries. This is entirely unrelated to the requirements of WP:COMMONNAME.
2. There's a lot of misinformation above about what Google Scholar is or isn't saying. So rather than explain it, let's just list the top results for "nonbinary" and you can figure out the ratio of results having to do with nonbinary gender, compared to other nonbinary subjects:

Finally, your tabular Scholar data is flawed because you executed the wrong search, including in your "nonbinary" column, results which had both genderqueer as well as nonbinary in them. The correct search shows 7,580 results for nonbinary alone, not 14,600.

So can we dispense with the irrelevant Trends data, and the data-free analyses about Scholar data? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Just realizing and crediting Flyer22 Reborn for covering most of this ground already, in her 19:35, 6 June comment above. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• My !vote: I'm loathe to cast a vote at all in what I view as a Tainted Rfc in order not to encourage anything but a procedural close due to canvassing. Otoh, I do have an opinion about the merits. So let me finesse that situation this way: I hope the close is procedural, in which case, I cast no vote. But if it isn't, then my choice is to be registered as an Oppose because there is no data whatever showing that genderqueer nonbinary has met the WP:COMMONNAME criterion of a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. In fact, the reverse is demonstrably the case, as been amply demonstrated above. Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot, by "no data whatever showing that genderqueer has met the WP:COMMONNAME," don't you mean "no data whatesoever showing that 'non-binary' or 'non-binary gender' has met the WP:COMMONNAME"? I've demonstrated that "genderqueer" is the common name for the topic in reliable sources. As for Google analyses, yes, they can be faulty; this is why WP:Google hits uses caution on the matter. But that faultiness aspect doesn't stop Google analyses from being used in move requests (and in deletion discussions). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, lol; yes, of course I meant that! Thanks for pointing out my error! Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Two main reasons. First, this request does appear tainted per WP:CANVAS. I am seeing personal opinions and other WP:OR touted as equally valid to strong sourcing, evidence of inexperienced users drawn by the canvasing. Second, I performed an analysis of my own using an powerful academic database associated with a major national library that produces cleaner, more carefully organized results than google scholar in an attempt to determine frequency of terminology. The search is specifically limited to strong, peer reviewed sources and academically accredited books. My results are as follows:

• There is no indication from the academic sources I found indicating "genderqueer" is offensive. Several sources clearly show individuals using it self-referentially and it is also used in recent scientific papers.
• A search of the term "genderqueer" finds 131 results, dated no earlier than 2004 and used as recently as 2018. The term is specific to social sciences and psychology, unlike "nonbinary" which is a broadly used term well outside the subject matter (see below).

• Any searching for "non-binary" or "nonbinary" alone is problematic because it is too vague. The terms are used extensively in science to refer to almost any situation where there are more than two results, especially when there may have been an initial impression of only two results. It's predominately used in journals about Computer Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Physics and Astronomy based on my initial search. To combat this I added the search term "gender identity" to both.

• A search for (nonbinary OR non-binary + "gender identity") yields just 69 results, with the earliest paper dated 2014.

• The number of results per year for both terms has increased each year, with 22 for "genderqueer" and 19 for "nonbinary" in 2017. The "genderqueer" was consistently more frequent each year.
  Legitimus (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far from persuaded that the current concise well recognised simple title is worse than the longer more complicated proposed title. Queer is very well understood, non-binary less so. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2018 (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.