Talk:Non-binary gender

Template:WikiEd banner shell This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2019, between 13 September 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noraschulz100, Wentl015, Fonde020 (article contribs).

What is the relationship of WP:NOUN to the current title?

Some comments in the above RM disfavored "non-binary" because WP:NOUN says nouns are "normally preferred" to other parts of speech. In light of that, isn't the current adjectival title "genderqueer" also (equally) problematic? If not, why not? None of the people who invoked NOUN against "non-binary" proposed to move the page to a nounal title like "genderqueer gender", and I'd like to understand the logic: is that just an omission, should a future RM consider "genderqueer gender" or "genderqueer genders" as an option?
(Procedural note: I didn't put this as a subsection of the RM because I don't think anything else should be added as an option to that RM at this late date, and I also don't think this question should be denied the possibility of being answered if the RM gets closed; instead, I am asking with an eye towards the options any eventual future RM, next year or later, might consider.) -sche (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't use the repetitive phrase "Genderqueer gender". "Genderqueer identity", maybe, or "Genderqueer people". But I don't think I'd advocate for either of those, either. WP:NOUN might be a good rule to follow generally, but I don't see why we should treat it as absolute. If an adjective can be changed to a noun easily, like Youth instead of Young, sure, that's great. But in a case like Genderqueer (or Transgender), turning the title into a noun would feel like an awkward contortion. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a non-issue afaic. There are many articles which have adjectives for titles. Here are some just in this topic area: cisgender, bigender, agender, pangender, transfeminine, transgender. Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the noun rule is not an absolute, but for me, the topic name "non-binary" would immediately make my mind jump to the question of "Non-binary what?". In mathematics and computing, it is natural to discuss whether something is binary or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

My opinion here is that nonbinary is a noun (sometimes). The reason I think that is that it's fairly common in trans circles to talk about "men, women, and NBs", or to say "X is an enby", where enby = NB = nonbinary. (Now, because I never hear "I am a nonbinary" spelled out, I suspect this might only be a property of the acronym "NB" and its derivative "enby", and not the full word. But it's still important to note for this discussion that while nobody seriously says "I am a transgender", people do seriously say "I am an NB".) LokiTheLiar (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As WP is written for a general audience, we have to predict confusion. BarrelProof's point is valid - it needs a modifier in a title: Nonbinary gender or Nonbinary gender identity. Nonbinary would probably be best as a disambig. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Above, when I said it was "a non-issue", I was limiting my response strictly to the WP:NOUN aspect raised at the top. BarrelProof raises a different issue, i.e., "non-binary what"? and that is of course exactly the point. There is zero chance that this article will end up named "Nonbinary" since it fails WP:PRECISION in very spectacular fashion: fully 98% of occurrences of this term refer to something other than gender identity. See the collapse box at #Using search engine result counts, above. Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Re BarrelProof/CorbieVreccan/Mathglot: I quite disagree that "it is natural" to use non-binary in math or computer science; see my comment here. So precision is not an issue here. At absolute best - and just to be clear this is very much a contrived example - I could see some property of a number where what is known about it in base 2 is different than other bases, so you might end up with a sentence like "Number X was proven to be a normal number in base 2 in 2008, but whether it is normal in non-binary is currently unknown." Almost any other situation, you'd just specify the actual base you're talking about; "this memory dump is presented in hexadecimal format" or the like. SnowFire (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION is precisely the issue here. SnowFire is correct that non-binary doesn't turn up at all or hardly at all in math or CS. That just happened to be Barrelproof's offhand remark about it, and they got that example wrong. So what? That doesn't change the underlying data about "non-binary", and it is still the case that 98% of sources using the term are not about anything related to gender. Mathglot (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Does non-binary ever occur on its own meaning anything other than non-binary gender? Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Ever? Surely. 98% of the time? I'm less sure; poking around Google Books for phrases like "is non-binary" and "was non-binary", most first several pages of results are for the gender, though one is referring to a matroid instead; I have to actively add non-gender-related search terms to get any sizeable number of non-gender-related hits. It's also worth asking how many of the uses referring to other things are "notable", in either the WP:N or the lay sense: Wikipedia situates many a biography at a person's name even if lots of other random people mentioned in books have the same name, if that one person is the only one who's really notable in their own right. But the issue is perhaps moot now, in the American sense, since the article has been moved to a title that includes "gender"... -sche (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

--

Non-binary certainly can be used for things other than gender. Here's an example sentence (that I made up): "in the United States, voters are generally faced with a binary choice between Republicans and Democrats, but in some other countries, there are several viable political parties, and voters' options are non-binary."

But in practice, from what I've seen, writing for laypeople very rarely uses the word non-binary, except in reference to gender.

In any case, I'm fine with the current title (Non-binary gender).

Regarding the suggestion that we should make a non-binary disambiguation page: I disagree. There aren't any other articles competing for the title "Non-binary" so a DAB page wouldn't be helpful for readers. For people who search for non-binary but aren't looking for information on non-binary gender, two accommodations have been added: 1. a hatnote link to the Binary page and 2. A link to the Wiktionary definition of non-binary. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"pride pride flag"

Oh buddy y'all been through a lot on this talk page. Thanks for all the effort.

Small thing -- the caption for the non-binary flag calls it a "Non-binary pride pride flag." Why is "pride" repeated? Is it a typo or is it intentional?

The Genderqueer flag caption is "Genderqueer pride flag" without the repeated "pride" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3001:11E:2000:F990:C947:D562:4817 (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! Funcrunch (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You realize that now someone has to design the Pride Pride Flag. Pride in Pride. To display at Pride. Which Pride? All the Prides. In Pride, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, one idea is a flag with all the stripes of the rainbow flag plus all the stripes of the trans flag, but what could be a canton? If one were thinking in "LGBTI" terms, the canton could be the intersex flag... :) -sche (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Completely disagree with Corbie's proposal. It's clearly about having Pride over the magnificent design of the Pride flag; and that topic, by WP:COMMONNAME is obviously "Pride flag pride" and the parades can have a redirect (or splitoff article) at "Pride flag Pride" (acceptable as a WP:NDESC). We need someone to design a new flag for it; care to step up? The new emblem, soon to be carrieed in Pride Flag Pride parades by cheering queer artists and designers and allies worldwide, will, no doubt, be called the Pride Flag Pride flag. I'll be starting a stub for it, soon. Mathglot (talk)

Grammar in lead sentence

"Non-binary gender, also known as genderqueer..." A noun phrase cannot also be known as an adjective. Kaldari (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Yep, seems to have been a result of mechanistically copy-pasting the new title into the slot where the old title used to be. For now I have simply changed it to "non-binary". This is fine—the first sentence does not have to list all the words of a title contiguously in bold, e.g. Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy only bolds Rapid onset gender dysphoria and has the word "controversial" a little later in the sentence, like this article has "gender" a little later in its first sentence—although someone may want to come up with some even better wording. -sche (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kaldari and -sche: Don't really agree. That is to say I agree with your logic about NP ≠ Adj., but not with your assessment of the sentence fragment, which I think is fine. The tricky part comes once again from the fact that the adjectival part, non-binary, means a lot of things outside of gender, whereas genderqueer never means anything outside of gender. Putting it another way, to resolve the part of speech mismatch, one might be tempted to say, "Non-binary gender, also known as genderqueer gender...", only we all know that's wrong. At least, it feels wrong, but why should it: genderqueer is adj., gender is noun, so what's wrong? Well, it's the fact that everybody knows it's gender-related, so genderqueer gender is a pleonasm, and nobody uses that expression. (Which was also at the root of some of the invalid data analyses in the RM.) Bottom line: there is nothing really wrong in my book with saying "Non-binary gender, also known as genderqueer..." in running text, at least not in most cases. However, I'm not insensitive to the fact that this is the defining sentence of the article, and also that many readers may not have English as their native language, and thus be confused by the part of speech issue; so it's kind of a more formal setting perhaps requiring the strictest attendance to "rules". So okay: what to do?

I do think it's better to include the article title in the first sentence per MOS:BOLDTITLE where possible when it's not awkward. I think the awkwardness here comes from trying to force it to the beginning of the sentence, but it is not necessary to do that. So, I would simply say it this way: "In the context of gender identity, non-binary, also known as genderqueer, is...". Note: I would not wikilink gender identity here, to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue; there will be plenty of opportunity to link that term further down. (Or, is a single comma enough to preclude that?) Mathglot (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Another solution I was pondering was to remove genderqueer from the first sentence and give it it's own sentence. Like "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." Although sadly I can't seem to find any sources for such a statement other than blogs and nonbinary.wiki. Kaldari (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Hm, OK, what about something like "Gender identities that are non-binary or genderqueer are those in a spectrum of identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍—‌those that are outside the gender binary and cisnormativity." ? IMO this is less awkward than starting "In the context of...", which other articles in this general topic area, e.g. gay or queer despite both of those terms' longstanding polysemy, do not. Relatedly, should this article introduce "non-binary" and genderqueer" as words, the way the gay and queer articles introduce those words? (I'm not saying it should, I am literally just asking, I don't have an opinion one way or the other yet.) -sche (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

No, because unlike Gay or Queer, this article is not about a term, it’s about a gender identity. See use–mention distinction. Mathglot (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I like -sche's first version. I like that Non-binary is alone without the word gender, which is how it often occurs. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Bigender

I removed Bigender from the second paragraph of the lead in this edit, because bigender is a binary gender. This was reverted by Pfhorrest (talk · contribs) with the summary: "bigender is no more a binary gender than bisexual is a binary orientation". That seems like a pretty confused rationale to me.

First of all, bigender is in fact a binary gender; the very word itself, made up of bi- (two, binary, dual) plus -gender shows it. Bigender is not genderfluid; it's bi-gender. Agender is non-binary; it's no genders, thus agender is on the non-binary spectrum. Tri-gender is non-binary (it's three); pangender is non-binary (it's many). Bigender, though, is two genders; it's binary.

The bigender article does not say that "bigender is a non-binary gender", it says that it's exactly two genders, boldfacing it three different ways in the first sentence to make sure you get it. It says that it is "typically understood" to mean M and F, but doesn't have to, but it is always two, and contrasts it with genderfluid. But the lead of this article currently includes "bigender" as a "non-binary gender". This should be changed. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any RS that make this argument. Googling bigender and nonbinary I see several sources that state bigender falls under the non-binary umbrella, such as this link and this. Personally I think the gender binary refers to men or women with the assumption these are stable, immutable categories, and since bigender people frequently switch between the two they would be non-binary. Rab V (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, basically what Rab V said. To my understanding, the binary genders are exactly "man" and "woman", and everything else is a non-binary gender. "Both, one or the other from time to time" is not just "man" or "woman", so it's a kind of non-binary. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Man/male and woman/female are binary genders. People who identify as more than one of these, or neither, or switch between them, are not binary. Simply having the prefix "bi" in a word does not automatically make it binary! Funcrunch (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree; as far as I have seen, RS treat "bigender" as a non-binary gender because it's not one of the (two) binary genders, "man"/"male" and "woman"/"female". That "bigender" involves duality / being both of these, is not the same as it being (only) one of the two binary genders. Compare how some intersex conditions involve "merely" having both male and female traits (rather than having some third trait, like a Z chromosome), and yet, are still considered a distinct category (namely "intersex") outside the binary of "male" and "female". If there are (sufficiently many) other RSes which say "bigender" is a binary gender, I would think that should be mentioned in the article body, though. -sche (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There are enough comments here by editors who I trust, that I won't be pursuing this approach in the article further. I do want to make two points, though: first, about (some) bigender people, and secondly, a response to Rab's sources (thanks for finding those) in case it helps formulate any additions/changes regarding bigender in the article going forward (just "if" we do; I'm not necessarily pushing for any changes at this point).

I see why you (collectively) argue for bigender as non-binary; if I'm reading you correctly, it's that they've not accepted the gender binary, and therefore are somewhere else on the spectrum of identity other than binary, ergo, non-binary. (There may be other reasons in there, too; but that's the main thrust I'm seeing.) I can accept that, which is why I won't push further. Here is my new point, however:

• There are definitely some bigender people who fully accept the gender binary with respect to their own identity, and like the first sentence of the body at Bigender, occupy both of the traditional places (M/F) on the spectrum. Other bigender people just as clearly occupy positions other than M/F, and by the logic you have all brought to bear, I can see why those individuals are more allied with agender, trigender, or others, which clearly do fit the bill as non-binary. But, what about the first group? Are some bigender people non-binary, and others not? This isn't clear to me now. If we're defining non-binary as non-acceptance of the gender binary then some (most?) bigender individuals are not non-binary. To the extent that we want to say anything at all about this in the article, I don't think it belongs in the lead—it's too fine a point; but we might want to address it in the body. Then again, if I'm still not seeing this clearly, and you all think that *all* bigender people are non-binary, then I'd like to hear more about why you think so.
• About Rab's sources: I appreciate your taking the time to look for them, and if we decide to go into further detail in this article (or at Bigender) then I wanted to comment about the two that you found. I think we should try to find better sources to support what you have said, as I think these two are weak:
  • NCTE – A reliable source. A close reading of the NCTE source, however, doesn't actually show that they say that bigender is non-binary. They start with a "People who..." and then list several identities that fit the bill, non-binary being one of them, and bigender being another. (The term bigender is not repeated again in the article.) Nowhere do they actually say that a bigender person is necessarily non-binary. Further, under the bold heading Why "Non-Binary"? they talk about the traditional group of people who "recognize just two genders, male and female". They don't address bigender here specifically, but some bigender people are squarely in that group. My point here being, if we want to make a strong claim about bigender belonging to, or being on the non-binary spectrum, this source isn't very strong as it never really asserts that.
  • NY Books – Also a reliable source, but the source they quoted about bigender is not. The New York Review of Books article mentions bigender just once. It occurs in the context of a "such as"-list of gender identities stated as examples of "Nonbinary [as] an umbrella term", and is a quotation from California bill SB-179 Gender identity. I'm not sure who drafted the bill, but it's either politicians, or more likely, politicians' staff or paid or unpaid interns, and with all the best intentions of a deep blue legislature in California, I don't consider politicians of any stripe as my go-to source for definitions or reliable information about gender issues.

If we decide to add sources about bigender to the article, I would request that we find better ones than these two. As far as reliability, I certainly trust NCTE; so if they make a clear statement about it somewhere, that's good enough for me. Wording in legislative actions could be added as supporting info, especially to verify article content that talked about laws that were passed, but I would not like to see the wording of any bills used for statements about what bigender (or any gender identity) actually means. I realize they have experts (maybe even the NCTE) advising them, but in the end, there are political pressures behind the scene that we don't know about (and money), and I just don't trust politicians to write dispassionately and accurately about such topics.

Thanks to all who responded. Mathglot (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The way I see it, and the way I've invariably seen it framed, is that if a person is both a man and a woman at the same time then they are rejecting the gender binary. A bigender person might "fully accept" that the vast majority of people identify as one of those two genders, but a person identifying as both of them simultaneously is non-binary by definition. (I'm speaking as an agender person, for the record.) Funcrunch (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Funcrunch:, Can you state the definition you are thinking of here? It sounds like you're implying a "not both" somewhere in the definition, but I don't want to mind-read you as to how you view the full definition of non-binary. Also, some bigender people might not view themselves as man and woman simultaneously, but at different times. Would that be an exception, then, to the at-the-same-time case? Mathglot (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: The current lead of Gender binary sums this up well: "Gender binary (also known as gender binarism, binarism, or genderism) is the classification of gender into two distinct, opposite, and disconnected forms of masculine and feminine, whether by social system or cultural belief." A bigender person does not have a disconnected identity, whether they are identifying as a man and a woman at the same or different times. (Unless we're speaking of certain cases involving multiples, which is another subject entirely...) Funcrunch (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: You're right, that definition does support what you're saying, with the key word there being disconnected. A cursory glance at the Gender binary article does not reveal what part of the body of the article this may be reasonably taken to be a summary of, however, and I can't access the lead references (yet). On the one hand, the sourcing of the lead of that article should be discussed at Talk:Gender binary, but on the other, to the extent that what we do in this article about supporting certain content is based on this discussion and that definition, then we should also try to source that statement for our own purposes, as it seems like the key one for resolving this. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I can see the argument being made that the concept of bigender implies gender binarism, inasmuch as "both genders" implies there are only two of them, rather than a continuous or multidimensional spectrum. But being both of those binary genders at the same time or alternately is still different from being just one of those binary genders. (And I can also see a counterargument about how the very concept of "being both of the two and only two genders" constituting a third, non-binary gender is an obvious confusion of concepts and so couldn't coherently be what bigender actually means). --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Genderqueer

Category:Genderqueer has been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 4a goals

We would like to add a new section on challenges individuals come across in healthcare and the need for affirmative practices. New information will include availability and access to primary care and highlights from current APA guidelines Aoka222 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

As just a regular 'ol editor, I'd love to know why folks from this WikiEd course had to edit this talk page over a hundred times. Otherwise, excited to have more folks working on the article! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I too am very curious about that. The edit history almost looks like an edit war over who the project is assigned to, but that explanation doesn't quite make sense as there seem to be lots of self-reverts. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Thanks for raising this; you may wish to lurk at the next section. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm the course instructor; we're having issues with the dashboard. When students try to assign themselves to the article as part of the course, they've been getting bounced out. It looks to me like almost half the class was somehow assigned to this page even when they chose a different article, then immediately unassigned. Wiki Ed is investigating; until it's resolved I've asked students to not make any edits on this page. Any similar weirdness from this point forward would definitely be unintentional. Sorry for the confusion--I've been running variations of this assignment for 5+ years and this is the first time anything like this has happened. We're completely nonplussed. Health policy (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Rapid-fire edits by Health policy class

Instructor Dorie Apollonio, can you explain why students from your Health policy class have collectively made over 100 edits to this page within a 90-minute period, including numerous back-and-forth self-reverts by multiple students? User:Helaine (Wiki Ed), can you please monitor and/or respond if the instructor doesn't? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Shalor, can you please watch as well in case Helaine isn't available? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems like an issue might have occurred with the dashboard? Hmmm... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Mathglot. There appears to be a glitch with the Wiki Ed dashboard since yesterday that left students unable to assign themselves to the article in the course (after signing up their names should appear in the box above reading "This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment...") The Wiki Ed folks have been investigating but no updates so far. I asked the class yesterday afternoon to avoid editing pages where there had been assignment issues until hearing back from Wiki Ed--it looks like maybe students' efforts to sign up earlier in the afternoon may have hit the page hours later, all at once? I will follow up with the students whose accounts posted here individually as well, just in case. Health policy (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Understood, and thanks for the update! Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Eeek! Sorry about that noise. The Dashboard glitched because this article was listed as one of the available topics, and the deletion action on May 28 resulted in the Dashboard tracking the old deleted page ID as well as the new page ID it got after the deletion. This meant that the first student who signed up to work on the article ended up linked to the deleted page ID and the others were linked to the new one... and each time the Dashboard went through to update the talk pages of assigned articles (which happens when a new assignment gets added), it would try to treat this as two separate articles... hence the switching back and forth. I've fixed the bad data, and will get a fix soon to prevent it from being possible.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that detailed explanation, Sage. Health policy (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 4a edits

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. 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)

References

@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)

Is the anthropologist paragraph relevant?

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)