Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gender identities

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per changing circumstances during the discussion. This could be called n/c, but a full reading of the discussion shifts the weight to the Keep !voters Star Mississippi 14:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of gender identities[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unneeded, unsourced, and misleading list that lists entries like "male" alongside numerous neologisms with zero presence in reliable sources.

There is no need for this list. Noteworthy non-binary genders are already listed at that article. Other notable terms about gender are linked in articles on gender and transgender topics and in navboxes and sidebars.

This article was WP:PRODed and endorsed by Mean as custard and TenPoundHammer, but this was removed by Kvng, pointing to the WP:DEMOLISH essay. As that is an essay, I'd rather point to WP:BURDEN and WP:UNDUE. Listing every neologism ever thought up for "my gender identity feels unstable" or [object]gender is an undue treatment of gender. It does not matter if the list is ever completed, it is fundamentally misguided and unneeded, with the topic being covered much better by existing articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Sexuality and gender, Behavioural science, Psychology, Social science, and Lists. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is unsourced nonsense and probably an unencylopedic list given the lack of clear inclusion criteria. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no proof that the list is being worked on; clear WP:PUTEFFORT failure if the editor just churned out a list and gave up halfway through without even trying to source or finish it. Most of these are one-shot neologisms, and the ones that actually are reputably sourced are already in categories. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As The Drover's Wife said, there is no clear inclusion criteria. I just can't see this list being improved in a way that makes it both able to warrant a page and purposeful to readers. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely no sources, mostly non-article entries, no clear inclusion criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like most lists on Wikipedia, it is incomplete, so it can be improved. A new criterion could be established whereby unless there is a blue-link or it has a ref. then it can't belong in the list. Several of the entries already meet this criterion, so it is just a matter of cleaning up. Nonetheless, it is a useful guidepost for navigating a thorny issue. And remember: WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't care tuppence whether this list stays or goes, but Crossroads, your description of these terms as 'every neologism ever thought up for "my gender identity feels unstable"' could very easily be seen as offensive. It is the use of the word "unstable" that is most potentially hurtful. It implies that anyone who describes their gender using words on this list is somehow psychologically confused, doesn't know what they are, is liable to change, or has a belief in their gender that is somehow less secure or less valid than that of those of us who identify as "Male" or "Female". May I suggest you strike that bit, and concentrate on the fact that the list is very large, nevertheless incomplete, it's unlikely ever to be completed, and it's not drastically useful as it doesn't help our readers find targets at which they can find any useful information, since only three entries point to an article? At the moment, it's worse than a dictionary: it's a dictionary with no meanings. Elemimele (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without talking a lot about the specifics I would only add that while the subject could be notable, the article is in very poor shape. It shouldn't be allowed to stay in the article space until it is well developed with reliable sources. I hope that List of sexual orientations (created on the same day as this article on 22 May[1][2]) won't survive the PROD tag, otherwise, get ready to nominate it for deletion as well. TolWol56 (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deprodded this because prod is for uncontroversial deletions and the justification for deletion TenPoundHammer gave was "Unreferenced and appears to peter out half way through. . ." which I could not readily map to any WP:DEL-REASON. The rationale given by Crossroads here is more developed but I don't see a clear policy-based reason to delete this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and substantially revise, with RS required for inclusion. An initial search of GScholar includes: Culturally Responsive Teaching in Gifted Education: Building Cultural Competence and Serving Diverse Student Populations (2021, Chapter 12 includes A Brief List of Gender Identities, and in-depth discussion of related targeting/scapegoating/marginalizing/pathologizing/bullying/harassment etc., as well as additional historical gender identities); Dress, Gender, and Identity: An Inclusion of Many (2018, includes an overview of sources "for fully broadening the concept of gender" including the NYC Commission on Human Rights (2018), which includes "(1) Bi-gendered (2) Cross-dresser (3) Drag King (4) Drag Queen (5) Femme Queen (6) Female-to-Male (7) FTM (8) Gender Bender (9) Genderqueer (10) Male-to-female (11) MTF (12) Non-OP (13) HI JRA (14) Pangender (15) Transexual/ transsexual (16) Trans person (17) Woman (18) Man (19) Butch (20) Two-Spirit (21) Trans (22) Agender (23) Third sex (24) Gender Fluid (25) Non-binary transgender (26) Androgyne (27) Gender gifted (28) Gender Blender (29) Femme (30) Person of transgendered experience (31) Androgynous"); Teaching and learning guide for: Guidelines for respecting gender diversity in psychological research (2019, at 2 "Beliefs about binary gender/sex are so fundamental in Western culture that it can be quite “mind blowing” (to borrow a phrase that is often uttered by our students) to learn that gender/sex is actually a multi-dimensional spectrum", with a list of additional sources). There also appears to be scholarly attention to Facebook and its options for gender identity, but I am not able to access more than snippets via GScholar and have not yet tried the WP Library, e.g. inter alia, Transforming Gender, Sex, and Place: Gender Variant Geographies (2019, "Early in 2014, for example, Facebook announced a new list of gender identities, including 51 possible options, allowing users to select transgender, intersex, genderqueer and other …"). Per WP:NLIST, this group/set has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and the existence of this list could serve a navigational purpose with the inclusion of related articles. Based on available sources, this topic appears to be too broad to be considered covered in the manner suggested by the nom, and the addition of prose as an introduction to this article could help make this more clear. Beccaynr (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An initial search of GNews includes: What you need to know about Tinder's new gender identity terms (USAToday, 2016, includes a list with some definitions and commentary), Google+ Now Lets You Define Your Gender (Advocate, 2014, "These latest updates reflect similar changes recently embraced at Facebook — which in February expanded its available list of gender identities available for users to select to more than 70 different options, depending on where users live — and online dating site OKCupid, which in November announced it would allow users to choose from a wide range of gender identities and sexual orientations."), Merriam-Webster Just Added 2 Very Important, Inclusive Words to the Dictionary (TeenVogue, 2016, "Plus, some other valuable vocab on gender and identity.") Beccaynr (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:No page, even notable topics are sometimes best covered in other articles. And that principle certainly applies here - a list of terms is not helpful, and once definitions are added it would mostly just duplicate the material at non-binary gender and transgender. You have since added a bunch of entries that misleadingly present terms that mean the same thing as separate genders - e.g. "trans female", "trans woman", "transgender female", and "transgender woman" are all separate when the vast majority of RS recognize and treat these terms as meaning the same. There's also marginal sources out there that just republish lists they pulled from user-generated sites like wikis, which exacerbates DUE issues, as well as sources that have no relevant expertise in the LGBT studies field (Teen Vogue, a fashion magazine, falls into that category). Crossroads ^-talk- 02:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am using independent and reliable sources that identify, discuss, list, and define gender identities to help address concerns raised in the nom and other !votes about this recently-created article, and I have also moved unsourced content to the article Talk page. I do not appreciate being referred to as "misleadingly" presenting terms when I am relying on independent and reliable sources to develop the list instead of original research or my own POV. I have quickly conducted a WP:BEFORE and identified multiple sources that support the notability of this list with secondary commentary and analysis. There are obviously more sources available, but I have made quick additions and revisions as a start to improving the article, which appears to have navigational, development, and informational purposes. Beccaynr (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr, thanks for your contributions here! Keep in mind that AfD is not a happy place. ~Kvng (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per WP:HEY, I have continued to update the article to add inline citations to reliable sources and to make revisions to address a variety of concerns raised by !voters advocating deletion of this newly-created article. Per WP:NOTDUP, It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. There are many advantages of a list, including the ability to include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and it seems appropriate here to use a selection criteria based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item due to potential subjectivity or disputes related to inclusion for the topic of gender identity. There are also now a variety of wikilinks added to the article, and despite several pointing to various sections of the Non-binary gender article, this appears to serve a useful navigational purpose, and the addition of wikilinks to other articles helps show the wider variety of articles covered by this list than indicated in the nomination statement. As to more specific concerns more recently raised, none of the sources added rely on "user-generated sites like wikis", which a review of the sources can help verify, and a review of the Teen Vogue source can help show that it is more than a fashion magazine, incorporates a source with expertise in the LGBT studies field, and provides secondary commentary about the dictionary definitions highlighted in the article. This article can continue to be developed, similar to all articles, but it is now reliably-sourced and includes wikilinks, as well as a clarified inclusion criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep after improvements by Beccaynr. The "weak" is only that I think this could be better done as a navbox. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:NLIST. The grouping of "gender identities" is discussed by many reliable sources. Beccaynr has gone over and above in providing sources for the individual list entries. As they noted, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a list for this as well as other types of pages and templates. Arguments about completeness or difficulty in maintenance are not relevant here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made by other editors during the discussion. Pinging @Crossroads:, @The Drover's Wife:, @Capsulecap:, @Ajf773:, and @TolWol56: to see if the improvements are satisfactory to them now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a different kind of problematic now: much of the unsourced nonsense has gone, but now most of this list aren't things that are "gender identities" at all. It's just a confused list of vaguely trans-related terminology, largely based on misapplying sources in a very confused way. The entries are "sourced" in the same way that having a source verifying the existence of a breed of horse would be useful as justification for its inclusion in a list of birds: not at all, because it's not sourcing the subject as being in the relevant category for the actual list. It's become a weird, probably unintentional case of incoherent WP:OR through a poor understanding of the subject/comprehension of sources. Crossroads made similar and very pertinent comments above on 1 June and I'm not sure why they were ignored by a couple of users above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I removed all of the unsourced material and moved unsourced entries to the Talk page. I also used independent and reliable sources that described these terms as 'gender identities', not WP:OR, to add entries to the list. Beccaynr (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The problem with the list is as I said one of WP:DUE. There are tons of marginal sources that technically could be argued to pass RS, but have no expertise in a relevant academic field, and these can down the line be used to reliability-wash junk like lists from user-generated content sites. There's some diversity-training stuff out there like this, for example. As it is, we have stuff like textiles conference proceedings and a fashion magazine, USA Today, etc., and this problem will only get worse with time as people add entries. This is why we have trans-related terms now being classified as gender identities, and stuff like "transgender female" presented as separate from "trans woman". Crossroads ^-talk- 00:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Exactly. The list has no real inclusion criteria - it's just a list of mishmashed terms that aren't actually "gender identities" "cited" to low-quality sources that don't address the issue of "does this term actually fit within the purported subject of the list?". The "keep" !voters aren't engaging with this point: just because "gender identities" are a legitimate encyclopedic subject (in a general article sense) is not an argument for a list of every random term that is vaguely associated with the subject (but isn't an actual gender identity). It can't be cleaned up because that's precisely the basis it was created, and it's far from clear that that any inclusion criteria could be defined that wouldn't, like the present, just result in editors going 'oh here's a word that's vaguely trans-related, let's stick it in there". The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think if the sources are closely examined, it would be more clear that, e.g. a sociologist is reporting and commenting on Facebook's gender identity options, which were developed with experts in the LGBT field, USA Today is reporting on Tinder's options, which are similar to Facebook's, Teen Vogue, as noted above, is not simply a fashion magazine and is reporting on new dictionary terms and the expertise of an LGBTQ organization, the New York City Commission on Human Rights is carefully used as a source (it is also quoted by the International Textile and Apparel Association conference proceedings), etc. The recent delete !voter comments seem to focus on what they seem to consider the weakest sources, despite the strength of the sources that these independent and reliable sources rely on, and seem to ignore the other, even stronger sources in the article. Hidden text can be added to remind editors about the need for reliable sources, and page protection is available if there are repeated attempts to remove sourced content or add unsourced content. One improvement to the article that I think could help is an introductory paragraph - I just have not had the time and focus to research in the WP library and make an attempt at composing it. Beccaynr (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - The article consistently cites poor-quality sources as fact - including those you reference. The "New York City Commission on Human Rights" source is twenty years old and was badly inaccurate even then (as many sources of that era were). I can't think of another example where someone would try to cite the self-published opinion of Tinder or Facebook (as companies) as evidence of anything other than their opinions as companies. Why in blazes would the views of the International Textile and Apparel Association (!) be relevant to defining whether terms are gender identities or not? The bizarre article used for "xenogender" appears to be less-than-serious (and the explanation at the wikilink illustrates the completely undefined scope or definition of this list). It's just a motley collection of poor sources, and it's unsurprising that that's the basis on which we've wound up with this ill-defined mess of a list. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I actually question my addition of the 2002 date to the NYC CHR cite, because I really should pull the statute to verify the difference between the current published guidance and underlying statute, to help avoid the use of original research to claim it was "badly inaccurate even then". And the expert-informed opinions of Facebook, and the creation of lists by other social media companies, appears to be another reason why this list has navigational, informational, and development purposes - it seems clear that a list of gender identities is a valid search term, and we can offer encyclopedic content. Also, personal POV on what is or isn't "bizarre" does not appear relevant to whether or not this article should be kept, because it seems clear that reliable sources exist and this article can be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The best you can do for this list, is a twenty-year old source of questionable veracity - it's similar to citing a Reagan administration paper on homosexuality as unlabelled fact in the present-day - and the opinions of Facebook and Tinder. (The "expert-informed" about Facebook and Tinder is an assertion of yours that's not backed up by the sources, apart from repeating the same claim in passing.) As for the article I referred to as "bizarre", it is very relevant if you're citing an apparently satirical article as to whether that should be kept. If reliable sources exist, where are they, instead of this "Facebook and Tinder gave me a list and they totally must've consulted experts; also I found this low-quality guide from 20 years ago" rubbish? It's just a motley mess of sources, which predictably has led to a mess of a list of vaguely trans-related terms that aren't necessarily gender identities at all. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I encouraged a close of the review the sources, and the sociologist commenting on Facebook's list discusses both the development of the list and the hostile reactions that followed after Facebook published it. Beccaynr (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        See also: Facebook expands gender options: transgender activists hail 'big advance' (Guardian, 2014, "Facebook came up with its range of terms after consulting with leading gay and transgender activists, and the company plans to continue working with them."), Facebook goes beyond ‘male’ and ‘female’ with new gender options (CNN, 2014, "Facebook said it worked with a group of leading lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy organizations to come up with the new gender categories."), A Comprehensive Guide to Facebook’s New Options for Gender Identity (Time, 2014). And I have never claimed that these sources are the 'best I can do', and have instead noted that these are initial results, that delete !voters appear to be ignoring even stronger sources already added to the article, and that this article can continue to be developed. I also indicated that I likely mis-dated a source that appears to be current by relying on the date of a statute, so suggesting it is the equivalent of Reagan-era validity seems to be a red herring at best. Based on the wide availability of sources and the tenor of some of the delete !voter comments, I am also concerned about the possible lack of WP:BEFORE searches, because the burden and onus to find sources is shared in these discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic of the list is now clearly Notable and encyclopaedic. All I'm hearing from the nominator is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the first few votes seem to have been swayed by the state of the list at the time rather than its appropriateness or Notability. But WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Newimpartial: The "delete" !voters were specifically pinged and have given updated feedback about why the material needs to be deleted. Please bother to read it before dismissing clear, policy-based logic as WP:IDONTLIKEIT because you couldn't be bothered. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comment, which I read, said This list is unsourced nonsense and probably an unencylopedic list given the lack of clear inclusion criteria. This does not apply to the current article, and in any event, AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Newimpartial (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Newimpartial: I explicitly said in the comment in which I pinged you that the "!delete" voters had given updated feedback about why the material needs to be deleted, and now apparently your response is to just to straight-up admit that you didn't bother to read any of the updated comments. Refreshing honesty, but perhaps a comment centred on "all I'm hearing" from comments he admittedly didn't read probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you want to make an updated comment, you can do that by striking your erroneous !vote rationale and replacing your own !vote with an update. The fact is that TenPoundHammer provided an appropriate !vote update and that you, rather than doing the same, opted to argue with them in reply to their !vote. Then when I call attention to the low-quality !votes that opened the AfD, you, rather than updating your !vote, choose to argue with me in reply to my !vote, making the rather bizarre claim that I ought to parse the replies to another editor's !vote in order to triangulate an updated version of yours (and of the nominator's, presumably) because you cannot be bothered to format that information clearly and in the correct place. This is a nonsense argument, which you seem unable to make without personal attacks. I suggest you let it go. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I was pinged and I responded to the ping. You literally said "all I'm hearing is WP:IDONTLIKEIT" about feedback from specific people that you then admitted to not having read whatsoever. That's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact relevant to your !vote. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        First of all, if you read my actual comment, I said All I'm hearing from the nominator is WP:IDONTLIKEIT (emphasis added for the text you cut when quoting me above). That point wasn't directed at your original !vote or your subsequent comments. Both the original nom and the nominator's subsequent comment at 00:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC) present essentially IDONTLIKEIT rationales, and don't deal with the demonstrated Notability of the topic or the quality of the sources in a meaningful way. The additional comment, for example, dismisses admitted RS that have no expertise in a relevant academic field, as though this were relevant to the Notability or suitability of the list - we are not writing a supplement to the DSM-6, here. Also, the reason offered for doing this is essentially WP:CRYSTAL - what might happen in future if we admit non-MEDRS now to what is not a MEDRS topic.
        
        Your repeared misreadings of my original and subsequent statements are tiresome. You refered to specific people that you then admitted to not having read whatsoever, which doesn't relate to anything I said, ever - I read the whole discussion as it exists each time I respond, but that doesn't oblige me to reply to all of it. You stated that I didn't bother to read any of the updated comments, but I have repeatedly pointed out that my criticism was directed at the early, unaltered votes on the AfD (and the nom) - I have in each instance clearly stated to what I am responding, I am under no obligation to WP:SATISFY you by responding to other things, and the fact, demonstrated in my previous paragraph, that you are misreading my comments that you try to quote back at me makes your complaints about my reading and your repeating your errors as "facts" seem, well, reasonably rich in irony. Newimpartial (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List is clearly notable based on sources easily discovered by Beccaynr. The complaints about content can be addressed through improvements without deleting the list. It looks like WP:AFDISCLEANUP is already taking care of this. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.