Talk:Non-binary/Archive 7

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)

@Aoka222: Thank you for asking in advance!
I think your potential addition is a wonderful idea! However, it is recommended you provide one additional source before adding it to the article. Additionally, and this is super important, please be sure to provide a citation for every individual you list that identifies as nonbinary. This is to ensure the article complies with WP:BLP.
It also may be relevant to point out that Ruby Rose does not identify as nonbinary, but instead as Genderfluid.^[1] Therefore, it would not be appropriate to list them as an example of a person who identifies as nonbinary. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL thank you so much for your detailed feedback and corrections! I appreciate your time and support. I've applied the changes to my sandbox, and I will move the edits to the article. I plan to add more information to the healthcare section, but will do so over the course of the next few days in my sandbox. Aoka222 (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Genderfluid is normally considered to be outside of the gender binary, and thus under the umbrella of nonbinary identities. Indeed, Ruby Rose is currently categorized under Category:Non-binary models. Funcrunch (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aoka222: I would support that addition as it currently stands. @Funcrunch: while this true, I tend to be more cautious in this regard. My experience is that genderfluid folks (like myself) tend to be a bit... touchy with how you describe their identity. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I respect that - being agender myself, I know this is a sensitive issue. But given her statements about her gender, I think it's a bit of a stretch to assert that Rose does not identify as non-binary, unless she's specifically disavowed or distanced herself from that descriptor. Non-binary isn't a specific gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

To my mind the descriptor "non-binary" is saying the subject does not define themselves as belonging in one of a maximum of two categories. Unless the opposite is true (i.e. the subject self-defines as male or female and believes there are no other possibilities) how can scope be found for offence? Captainllama (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

You say the article is about people who have nonbinary genders, but it isn't. It is about non-binary gender itself, per the title. You also say the text which you object to, and quote, is "about the history of how sexual orientation has been categorized", but again, it isn't. It's about how the notion of binary gender came about in the first place. That's hardly "a very different topic" and is entirely relevant. Captainllama (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. A paragraph about the history of non-binary gender is clearly relevant to the article on non-binary gender. Loki (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't read this talk page before making a couple edits. I hope they will be received as they were made, as a good faith attempt to make this page more encyclopedic. Previously, that paragraph relied too much on one academic study as a primary source, whereas Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source that uses mostly secondary sources as the basis of information. I would be happy if others expand that paragraph to summarize more secondary sources, if that would be appropriate. I tried to at least add Foucault and some of his prominent essentialist critics.

I also happen to agree with Elysdir that it is a little confusing why the history of sexuality (not gender) is relevant to an article about gender...Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for additional sourcing. Any confusion about the history of sexuality vs history of gender is due to the two only relatively recently being disentangled and examined separately from one another, to a large degree their history is the same history. I have corrected "sexuality" to "gender" in the first sentence of the section. Captainllama (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, changing that word is helpful, I think it makes the whole paragraph flow better!Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I see you reinserted that sentence about heterosexuality only becoming common in the mid 20th century. I see what you're saying, and I don't object to that at all, but I think I will try to add a little bit expanding on the idea. I see in the source that you cited she is actually summarizing another source, Halperin's 1990 book. This subject is controversial among historians of sexuality, so I think it would be good to at least allude to the controversy -- it's covered pretty extensively in other WP entries, such as One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, where they write that "In The Mismeasure of Desire (1999), Stein wrote that Halperin's views about the development of contemporary categories of sexual orientation are not universally shared: while Halperin maintains that the word "homosexual" was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1869 and attaches significance to this event, others, such as John Boswell, argue that the concept the word refers to has existed for centuries.[33]" Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

There was no sentence about "heterosexuality only becoming common in the mid 20th century". The sentence refers to the start of labeling individuals as either heterosexual or homosexual. The sentence was not mine, I re-inserted it because the puzzling grounds given for its removal were that heterosexual could not have been used as a label in the mid 20th c because it first came into use in 1868. The one does not preclude the other. No-one is saying homo- or hetero- sexualty started in the 1950s, nor that the words were invented in the 1950s. The claim is that the words began to be used as either/or labels to apply to individuals in the mid 20th century. It's appropriate to cite that here, just as it is appropriate to cite other reliable sources with different views.

The issue with this sentence:

"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."

is that the word "though" suggests the two viewpoints are mutually exclusive when they are not. There is nothing at all problematic about a named concept existing for centuries and later being used to label individuals. Captainllama (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The most important thing is that we do not accidentally conduct original research on WP by only emphasizing certain primary sources. But I'm happy to change the word "though" to "while," which is more neutral. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• I was just coming here to comment that the sentence 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.

• "Genderqueer adj. and n. (a) adj. designating a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions, but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders; (also occasionally) of or relating to such a person; (b) n. a genderqueer person."
  • Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "Genderqueer," accessed November 30, 2019, https://oed.com/view/Entry/77468?rskey=oXiT89&result=1#eid237081402.

• "Nowadays, 'genderqueer' has solidified itself as part of a larger gender expansive movement that include similar terms, like 'nonbinary' and pronouns like 'they.'"
  • "InQueery: The History of the Word 'Genderqueer' as We Know It," Them, November 7, 2018, https://www.them.us/story/inqueery-genderqueer.

• "Genderqueer is a term that typically describes one of three gender identity categories: (1) an individual who feels their identity falls in between male and female, (2) an individual who may feel male or female at distinct times, or (3) an individual who rejects gender completely. The following terms may be used by individuals who feel that their gender identity falls somewhere in between male and female: gender variant, intergender, androgene, genderfluid, and pangender (this list is constantly growing and changing, so these are several examples of a longer list)."
  • Stephanie Budge, "Genderqueer," in The SAGE Encyclopedia of LGBTQ Studies, ed. Abbie E. Goldberg (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2016), 460–63, http://doi.org/10.4135/9781483371283.

• "'To me, "genderqueer" represents a queering of gender, so to speak,' said Laura A. Jacobs, a psychotherapist who specializes in trans and gender non-binary issues, LGBTQ issues, and other forms of gender and sexual diversity. 'It’s a deliberate playing with gender in a very political sense, and being provocative around gender norms to highlight the gender stereotypes of our culture. It is also how I identify.'"
  • Mary Retta, "What's the Difference Between Non-Binary, Genderqueer, and Gender-Nonconforming?," Vice, September 13, 2019, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjwx8m/whats-the-difference-between-non-binary-genderqueer-and-gender-nonconforming.

• "Findings of the present study highlight both the diversity of genderqueer identities and the resilience of genderqueer people in navigating and challenging master narratives. Genderqueer identities may be a rich source of pride and positivity, but genderqueer individuals may experience social tensions resulting from the lack of understanding and acceptance surrounding their identities."
  • Nova J. Bradford et al., "Creating Gender: A Thematic Analysis of Genderqueer Narratives," in "Non-binary and Genderqueer Genders," ed. Joz Motmans, Timo O. Nieder, and Walter Pierre Bouman, special issue International Journal of Transgenderism 20, nos. 2–3 (2019): 155–68, https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2018.1474516.

• Please also see Joan Nestle, Clare Howell, and Riki Wilchins, eds., GenderQueer: Voices from Beyond the Sexual Binary (Los Angeles: Alyson, 2002).

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)

I suspect "earlier" was intended to convey "older", not necessarily "outdated, no longer encountered" (and "no longer encountered" would be incorrect, as your sources from this year show); if sources support the statement that it's "older", we should just change to that word. In turn, the body and various references go into some detail about ways "genderqueer" is sometimes synonymous with "non-binary" and sometimes not, so per WP:LEAD the lead's mention of it should indeed summarize that, not mis-summarize it (though sources specifically spelling out that "genderqueer [sometimes or always] means something different from non-binary" would be most helpful); I see someone has changed "the same meaning" to "a similar meaning", which looks OK. (Another possible rewording would be 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)

The current source for this content is a self-published (via Kickstarter) anthology; I don't have access to this, so don't know whether the author of whichever specific essay this information is drawn from is an expert on the topic. (Pinging user:Kaldari, who I believe added it originally.) Susan Stryker has written about using the term in San Francisco in the early 1990s to distinguish between transgender and gay members of the queer political movement:

Cheers, gnu57 00:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@MtCicero and Genericusername57: My original suggestion for that sentence emphasized the political difference, but I wasn't able to find any sources to back it up: "Genderqueer is often used as a synonym for non-binary, although it has more political connotations due to its roots in the queer activist movement." The self-published source mentioned above is the only source I was able to find that mentioned any difference between the terms. Thanks to both of you for finding some useful new sources! What would y'all think about something like this for the lead: "Genderqueer is often used as a synonym for non-binary but with more political connotations." (Citing the VICE source)? We could then create a new section for genderqueer in the "Definitions and identity" section and use some of the other sources that you've provided. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a change, except maybe to replace "earlier" with "older" if people think "earlier" implies "outdated". The sources listed above do not support there being a difference between the two terms - quite the opposite actually. -sche mentions that 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, 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.

As for stating that "non-binary" is the less politicized term, we only have this being mentioned in two media sources, so it would be undue to say in the lead, as most sources don't make one out to be more "political" than the other. Mathglot, any thoughts on this matter? -Crossroads- (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any of the examples you've linked suggest that genderqueer and nonbinary are *the same*, merely that they are related. For example "A guide to genderqueer and non-binary identities" no more implies that genderqueer and non-binary identities are the same thing than "A guide to the plants and animals of North America" implies that plants and animals are the same thing. Similarly "genderqueer/non-binary" doesn't necessarily treat the two identities as identical, just as interchangable for the purpose at hand. If the standard for the two identities are being different is an explicit statement that they're different (and I agree it should be), surely the standard for them being the same should be an explicit statement that they're the same instead of trying to WP:SYNTH an inference out of ambiguous language.

Also, I can find sources that explicitly say they're different. For example: "There are many people who identify with all of these terms and use them interchangeably. Still, many people primarily or solely identify with only one of these terms.", "There are nuanced differences between the terms genderqueer and nonbinary — although they’re fairly similar and often used interchangeably." Loki (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources don't just say that "genderqueer" and "nonbinary" are "related"; they define them in the same way, and there are far more sources defining them the same way than ones that don't. This includes sometimes using the two terms beside each other as equivalent (such as using a slash or stating "or"). Here is a Psychology Today source doing all of this: "A GQ or nonbinary person is someone who feels that their felt gender doesn't fit with socially constructed norms for their biological sex. A GQ or nonbinary person is someone who feels that their felt gender doesn't fit with socially constructed norms for their biological sex." At any rate, at this point I don't see a need to debate this any more. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of jumping in completely unawares, would it not be easier to treat the terms as ones considered analogous by some people and yet hold important differences for others? I'd say it's something similar to the differences between someone identifying as pansexual, bisexual, omnisexual and the like - though the terms are roughly similar, their similarities and their differences are defined at different boundaries for different people. To some, the difference is important, and one identity label fits whereas another doesn't; to others, the labels are personally interchangeable. It would be remiss not to put this forward in the article's lead.

There's no "right" way to consider genderqueer and nonbinary. This isn't a case of stacking up sources for and against, and I'd put the argument forwards that this constitutes little more than a really clumsy approach to people's identities. There's no one consensus. The whole point of being nonbinary is that there isn't a consensus. A whack-hammer approach to an article like this is a blunt tool that will not provide any closure.

Now, as someone who is non-binary but also not logged in right now, I can't edit the lead at this minute, but I'd suggest something to the following:

"Non-binary identities are a spectrum of gender identities that do not fall into exclusively masculine or feminine categories, and are considered to be "outside" the gender binary. Some [intersex] people identify as non-binary, though intersex people are not non-binary by definition of being intersex. Non-binary identities vary in their relationship to a person's assigned sex at birth, and many non-binary people experience [gender dysphoria], though it is not a requirement to experience dysphoria to be non-binary. Occasionally, the term "genderqueer" is used in substitution with "non-binary", though for some, "genderqueer" is a specific identity, and not a wide-reaching umbrella term to describe non-binary people.

Non-binary identities are typically described as falling under the umbrella of transgender identities. Though non-binary people may dress in a [gender variance|gender non-conforming] manner, a non-binary person does not have to present as [androgyny|androgynous] to be non-binary, as there is no one "correct" way to present as being non-binary. Gender non-conformity is not to be confused with being non-binary, as despite sometimes overlapping, a person can be gender non-conforming and still consider themselves a binary cisgender or transgender person.

Non-binary people may identify as having two or more genders (such as being bigender or trigender), having no gender at all (agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois), having a fluctuating gender identity and moving between genders (genderfluid, genderqueer), or being other-gendered or third gendered (a category that includes people who do not place a name to their gender). Some non-binary people reject gender "identities" altogether, and there no clear-cut definition of what constitutes any one label; what makes one person genderqueer will differ from what another person considers to make them genderqueer.

Gender identity is separate from sexual or romantic orientation, and non-binary people have a variety of sexual orientations, just as cisgender people do. In many cultures, specific gender identities with social roles and/or historic meanings exist, such as [two-spirit] people in some [Native Americans in the United States|Native American] tribes. These, though described in the English language as "non-binary" or "transgender" identities, often have no direct comparison in other cultures, and in some cases have no direct translation to English encompassing the cultural and social differences that define them."

I think this pretty much gets us to where we're looking towards. As someone who spends some good time thinking about how to bridge the divide between a transgender understanding of gender and a cisgender one, the lead at the minute doesn't do this, and I don't think it's especially helpful. I literally just came out to my parents, do you know what the first thing they did was? Look for the Wikipedia page. Do I think they found it helpful, or that it cleared anything up? Absolutely not, to be honest.

A last note; when considering sources for this article, yes, PsychologyToday is generally decent, but I'd start with sources from non-binary and transgender people, organisations and charities first, then jump to scholarly or medical sources. This isn't to "push" a certain agenda, or because "scholarly sources" don't have the "right slant for this article and make us look bad"; it's just that you will find sources with better definitions and more edifying explanations if you start with non-binary people. (That quote from PsychologyToday - it's in the right ballpark, but we need something more encompassing for this article's lead.) I hope this is helpful; either someone'll get to the lead before I get home and logged in, or I'll get that done when I'm on my home computer. --Ineffablebookkeeper (not logged in)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: I reverted your changes to the lead because the subject and content of this article is very contentious (see talk page archives for history), and large changes like that should be made with consensus reached here on the talk page first. As a non-binary person myself I hear and agree with much of what you're saying, believe me, but we're in a tiny minority (in life as well as on Wikipedia) and need to skew toward what the preponderance of reliable sources say about us. Funcrunch (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Ah, god damn. You're right but also I'm stumped now. How would we go about achieving consensus? If 'consensus' ends up being either a snail-paced crawl towards accuracy (a la talk page archives) or a round-the-drain discussion that doesn't go anywhere (a la talk page archives), in the most basic sense, what do? Is there some kind of polling system, or what? So many sources differ on exactly 'what' is correct - you could quite literally find a different definition in every single source.

I'm also conscious of the fact that inaccuracy or just-plain "I don't know exactly what to put here but my editor's asked me to write about non-binary people so I'm just going to take a stab and hope for the best" could crop up in a lot of sources - these seem fine on first glance to any other editor, and can often be from reliable sources, but a reliable website does not an accurate claim and assumption about nonbinary people make. I know the BBC, of all places, have published some pretty dodgy things about nonbinary and trans people in the past under the guise of "impartiality" and "considering everyone's views"; in this kind of instance, for example, a well-respected source could end up being inaccurate, and sometimes outright harmful.

I thought a more wide-reaching approach discussing that some labels differ in definition from person to person would work better, but I'd really appreciate any feedback. I know we only work from sources, but how do you handle reliable sources publishing unreliable things? Once added to the article, they'd be difficult to remove - since we're the minority, as you say, an argument of "look that really isn't true" could be shot down due to the general and overall accountability of the publisher. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: These are indeed vexing issues, and discussions on this page have caused me considerable distress, to the point that I have withdrawn from much of the discussion on this page and related ones. (See my user page for some of my talks and perspective on being a non-binary trans editor on Wikipedia.) With regard to hashing out the lead via consensus, at some point someone should probably create a formal proposal (WP:RfC) which can be put to a !vote and closed by an uninvolved administrator. Funcrunch (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: I'm so sorry that you've had to go through that - it is, indeed, incredibly painful at times, and I have to say that I myself in the past have thought "I'm not even going to go there" in regards to transgender articles.

An RfC would be good, but wouldn't it also fall under, if only partially and in an entirely non-typical way, the reliable sources noticeboard? Less for the specific source, more for the content - a reliable publisher becomes unreliable if what they publish on transgender people isn't, well, reliable.

I'd suggest some kind of case-by-case discretionary board as part of the LGBT WikiProject vis a vis which sources get added and what edits get approved. A board consisting of people who actually represent the minority that these articles address might be slow-going, but would provide some kind of solution or fall-back, at least - when an article gets heated and no-one can make head nor tail from an issue, a pool of people who have first-hand experience of that issue could save stress and future RfCs.

Actions would be entirely accountable, if meetings to discuss an issue were held, on or off-site, minutes could be posted to a noticeboard, and most importantly (I think for me), it would introduce a sense of safety to Wikipedia articles on transgender and non-binary people. I know I'd feel safer, knowing I wouldn't simply be jettisoned into the non-representative free-for-all of an RfC, where I know my voice would get drowned out.

It seems ridiculous to me that on a contentious issue relating entirely to one minority, most of the comments at a request for comment would be...not from those people, I mean, it's important to get outside views, but having mostly every view be an outsider's?

I understand, obviously, that you can't have everyone on the Wikipedia be involved personally and in real life with the article subjects that they edit - but for an issue such as this, I don't feel it's too absurd to ask for. This isn't some impersonal topic, it's practically BlP status. Why wouldn't comment from transgender editors come first?

What we do, say, put down here, this gets treated as fact when people wish to learn about something for the first time. If we're not particularly responsible with that kind of thing, especially in times such as these, then we're going to quickly landslide into something harmful. Most English Wikipedia editors are male - I value their contributions to the Wiki but I also see no reason why we'd gather consensus about transgender people, and base our policy and editing decisions on transgender people, from people who, er, aren't transgender and have little experience with the trans community. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think Wanda's point that, with the standard for noting non-synonymy being the presence of sources explicitly stating "these words not synonymous", the standard for calling them [always] synonymous is the presence of sources explicitly stating "these words are [always] synonymous", and in the absence of such sources I think this was a good edit. I think it is probably possible to find sources to eventually support adding a statement that the terms are sometimes synonymous and sometimes not, it's just a matter of having time to look for such sources... until then, we cut the Gordian knot by sidestepping the issue. :) -sche (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I can get behind side-stepping the question if necessary, but in addition to the two sources I linked above, can I also suggest verywellmind.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-genderqueer-or-non-binary-4140578 as a source for "explicitly different (sometimes)"? (Posted like that because it's currently on the spam blacklist for some reason. It seems perfectly reliable to me, and our page on Verywell doesn't sound like there's anything wrong with it.) Loki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest to add Innate bisexuality(as defined by freud), since this handles actually about genderfluidity before the concept of genderfluidity existed. (Copy from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Perhaps for a historical perspective, but I don't think Freud's methodology is much used anymore, especially in queer theory. I would hesitate to add it to this article without some quality modern sources that discuss Freud in the context of queer issues. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Non-binary gender has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Lachlan Watson, 2001, American, Actor 108.54.192.254 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 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)

Idotrytohelp, You'll need to provide a reliable source if we are to discuss those. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:18, 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)

Ineffablebookkeeper, I've added a brief sentence on it. In the future if you see something like that, feel free to be WP:BOLD and add it yourself! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:26, 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)

Seems reasonable. A short sentence somewhere at the end of a lead sentence saying something like "nonbinary gender identities are also referred to by 'enby', 'NB', 'genderqueer'" etc. would work well to reduce clutter but ensure the names get mentioned. (I also wish to point out, based on the edit summary of the editor who removed 'enby' - as someone who's nonbinary myself, I don't really get the whole association with 'enby' being offensive - it's definitely valid that people don't wish to be called certain things, but I wouldn't say there's anywhere near consensus, as the editor suggested, to remove it.) --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I would support moving "NB" and "enby" out of the lead sentence, probably just leaving them in the body (where they are already present). -sche (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that when I more or less undid that edit earlier today in this diff, I had a false memory of what had been going on with this page from around this July 4 diff and subsequent edits. I thought that having the disambiguation "enby" in the lead was a stable version of the page with implicit consensus behind it, but actually that's not true at all. So since it looks like we do need to build consensus on this point, I'll say that mentions in the lead and also more detail in the body seems appropriate. I think the variation in language around nonbinary gender identities is not so much a problem of having many words for the same concept as it is about having many words for many slightly different concepts. If "enby" and "NB" are really just abbreviations with no other content, then they're MOS:ALTNAMES and can be listed in the lead with no further discussion of them in the body. But I think they do actually have content, context, and usage distinct from "Non-binary". Right now that merits the absolute briefest mention in the article, but there's clearly plenty of discussion around their usage that we should incorporate into the article -- of which, by the way, the edit reversions back and forth are a symptom, since they cite rationales on exactly how different "enby", "NB", and "nonbinary" are. So I think we should work more discussion into Non-binary_gender#Definitions_and_identity and then we can summarise whatever that discussion is in the lead. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Out of "non-binary", "nonbinary", "NB", "enby", and "genderqueer", I would say "NB" seems like the least important since it's just(?) an abbreviation; so, if we only move one of them (if things are getting cluttered), I'd move that one. -sche (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would replace the entire parenthetical in the lead with (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)

I took a shot at rearranging the various terms to make the lead less cluttered and easier to read. Feel free to tweak further. Kaldari (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we should still have "genderqueer" in the first sentence as it appears to be a significant alternative term. See this book's title, Genderqueer and Non-Binary Genders, and its statement, 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)

I support any of those changes. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Pangender redirects here but this article doesn’t explain what it is! Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: You may follow the steps to nominate the redirect for deletion. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Nah, I'll just add a sentence about it. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Here’s the old talk page for Pangender as you can see, Pansexuality would not make a better redirect. Also gives some definitions without references. Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to drop a couple of potential sources here and let others decide if they're reliable enough to include or not, as I don't have the energy to debate non-binary issues right now:

• What it means to be pangender, July 16, 2020 (The Daily Dot)

• Pangender, Dictionary.com (referenced in Daily Dot article)

• Pangender or demigirl? Australian study identifies more than 30 gender options, October 10, 2018, Reuters

Funcrunch (talk) 02:44, 4 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)

The caption doesn't describe the flag as the nonbinary flag - it describes it as an example of the genderqueer pride flag seen at a Pride march in Valencia. Nowhere does it claim to be the nonbinary flag; though I will add alternative text clarifying this is if this is your problem. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)