Talk:Non-binary gender/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

List of typical features that make someone identify as non-binary

As per title: can you add some examples of features that make people identify as non-binary?

In the article it reads that non-binary mixes features from both sexes, but it doesn't describe or provide examples of what those are.

Thank you Cmwoodie (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just gonna jump in here to say that perhaps "experiences of non-binary identities" would likely be a better title; it may not have been your intention, but it needs to be made clear that the only thing that really makes someone non-binary is, uh, identifying as non-binary. There are some shared experiences, but these don't constitute the identity, and nor does a set preference for one's personal presentation, clothing or pronouns. (I'd also argue that "mixing features from both sexes" isn't even quite to the point - as someone who's non-binary myself, I'd say my identity mixes male features with agender ones. Not a smidgen of female in there, in my experience.)

And this may just be my exposure to it, but "typical features that make someone non-binary" sounds just way too familiar to the kind of "I'm properly transgender Unlike Yourself" separatist garbage I've seen a worrying uptick in throughout these past few years.

Of course, it would be valid to discuss that itself, but typical features is a section I feel would fall apart at the slightest touch, y'know? Apologies if this sounds like rambling garbage - I wanted to drop my two cents in. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cmwoodie:, I don't see anywhere in the article where it describes non-binary as a "mixing features from both sexes". Good thing, too, because that wouldn't be accurate. From a scientific viewpoint, no one knows why someone identifies as non-binary. As far as "features": as it's something internal, there isn't anything that "makes" you non-binary, other than your say-so. You might be thinking of gender expression, and imagining you could extrapolate from someone's expression and guess that they might be non-binary, but that would be just a guess. You can't use someone's expression as a "feature" to label them non-binary; it just doesn't work that way. Also agree with Ineffablebookkeeper's reply to you.

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Regardless whether you consider something completely subjective or not, that's not how we decide how to title an article; that comes from article title policy. Per WP:PRECISE, "experiences of..." is no more needed here as part of the title, than "experiences of womanhood" would be needed instead of the title "Woman". (It's not a perfect analogy, as "woman" predates any notions of gender identity as apart from sex, but I assume you can see my point.) If you want to propose a different title, then see WP:MOVE and follow the procedures listed at WP:RM#CM. Just be aware that this page has had numerous contested moves, the last of which resulted in a move, and imho is very unlikely to be renamed again any time soon. Mathglot (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot - I think you might have misread? My understanding was that "what makes someone non-binary" was being suggested as a section header for within the article, rather than the title itself, hence my suggestion. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, Aha; I may well have. I was going by your: "..would likely be a better title" wording. If you meant, "section header", then you can forget what I said regarding article titles. As a section header, it isn't clear to me what it means, and I wouldn't know what I would expect to read in a section by that name. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more: "the only thing that really makes someone non-binary is, uh, identifying as non-binary". So: no typical features. :-) Laurier (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is impossible since there is no "objective" definition, experience, or basis for non-binary gender or people. It's people saying they are. There is no evidence to suggest what non-binary people "feel" within themselves is anything different from what people normally considered cisgendered "feel", and scientific research into how human brains function show that most examined brains exist between the two extremes of male and female, meaning non-binary brains are the majority. This article discusses a topic which has no other basis than people saying "I'm going to say I am." Which is their right, of course, but it is a topic without any definition or basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.177.230 (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Stop deleting opinions which agree with your definition 100% but happen to disagree with your value system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.61.177.230 (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020

The page erroneous states that I "claim" to have coined genderqueer. In fact, this didn't originate with me but was documented by Wiktionary and was pointed out to me (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genderqueer "First known appearance in print was in 1995 in a newsletter by Riki Wilchins.[1]") I don't believe I have echoed this claim in print or publicly. Historian Transgender Susan Styker had told me that the term predates me, but I have never been able to locate that reference.

Please change "Riki Anne Wilchins is often associated with the word and claims to have coined it" to "According to Wikstionary, Riki Wilchins is credited with the first use of 'genderqueer' in print."

Otherwise I sound like Dr Evil's father, going around claiming to have invented the question mark "-}

Thank you. -- Riki Rikiwilchins (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Why did you write that you coined it in this article? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

And also, [here]! Laurier (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Gender Census Survey graph - does it reflect the survey accurately? Are all respondents non-binary?

The article currently includes a graph stating that 77.5% of non-binary individuals prefer to be referred to by the singular they pronoun, but having look at the survey, I'm not entirely sure if this is a fully accurate description of what the survey said. It is true that the survey is primarily aimed at quote "people whose genders are not adequately described, expressed or encompassed by the restrictive gender binary" but it also takes careful consideration to not refer to all of its respondents as non-binary.

This survey also included respondents who do not self-describe as non-binary. Respondents also included binary trans people, gender nonconforming people (an umbrella term which can include cisgendered people who may be feminine men and masculine women), people who are currently questioning their gender and do not know how they identify, etc. In fact, a third of respondents did not self-describe as non-binary.

Is it appropriate then for the graph and article to suggest that all of the respondents were non-binary? 77.5% of respondents did indicate that they/them is their preferred pronoun, but is it accurate to state that 77.5% of non-binary people indicated that when one in three respondents did not describe themselves as non-binary?

I'm asking this on the talk page because I don't know the answer to these questions and I'm interested in what other editors think. Does the raw data of the survey make it possible to find out what percent of self-described non-binary people prefer they/them? If not, should the entire pronouns and titles sub-section be rewritten to instead cite secondary sources which mention that many non-binary individuals prefer to be referred to by they/them (rather than trying to find an exact number?)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking closely at it, the article doesn't specifically say that exact percentage of nonbinary people use they/them (any survey has statistical error anyway). The general proportions that it states/implies does accord with what the source itself states, though: Is there a pronoun that every nonbinary person is happy with? – No. The closest we have to a standard is singular they, and it’s important for journalists and anyone else with a style guide to allow it. Steadily over the last few years about 1 in 5 are not into singular they, and 9% of us don’t like he, she or they pronouns. The source treats the data basically as the article does. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The current wording of the article is appropriate, but the title and subcaption of the graph are, at least in my opinion, not currently accurate. It uses the same statistics as the survey, but titles and captions it as a graph showing the most popular pronouns among non-binary people, when the survey isn't necessarily of non-binary people. Personally, I think the best course of action would be to keep the text (and hopefully expand it with more sources about the usage of the singular they by non-binary people) but remove the graph on the right. Of course, we can still cite the survey (at least for now, it is user-generated content but it's currently the best we have).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The quote I gave treats the graph data as applying to nonbinary people as a group, including specific percentages, as does our picture caption. So if the source treats it that way, so can we. I think the graph is worth keeping. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding historical cultural recognition of non-binary genders under “History”

We could include a short summary of historical (and in some cases current) non-binary identities such as Hijra, ancient Egypt’s understanding of three genders, and the various Two-Spirit genders. Aryore (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Governmental systems and non-binary

The topic of the prisons, jails, and other correctional facilities - as well as the subject of places like schools and bathrooms - should be brought about. What political advances have made to accommodate non-binary people in these places? What controversy is there? What are some major supporting voices in favor of these actions? This article feels somewhat incomplete without an analysis of these pressing issues. If they were mentioned, I've missed them and I'm pretty sure I read the whole article. Holdonspirit (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Holdonspirit, I think that could be a relevant topic. It looks like your account is autoconfirmed, meaning that you should be able to edit this article, so I encourage you to go right ahead, be bold, and add a summary of the topic to the article. The important part will be to find enough reliable sources on the material you introduce that you can establish that it belongs in an encyclopedic summary of the idea of non-binary genders. One tricky issue will be giving due weight to whatever you add; it's usually not neutral to have a "controversies" section in an article that's about an identity, so my suggestion would be to add this under the "discrimination" section, or introduce a section on relevant landmark policies or something like this. - Astrophobe (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Lack of a neutral prospective

This article definitely lacks the neutrality that a page should have in order to fit in this website, in fact there are no mentions about criticism made by who sustain that non-binary gender is not a real thing; that's also highlighted by a lack of cited scientific studies on the subject that prove/dismiss the presence of gender-nonconforming behaviors in humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DVD668 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

DVD668, I think that the information in this article is (for the most part) well-sourced and neutral. Wikipedia gives due weight, meaning that it "requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." I think that's what you're suggesting that this article doesn't do. I see that your account is new - if you're here to build an encyclopedia, please feel free to suggest some constructive and reliable sources/additions right here on the talk page, or come back and add them yourself once your account is autoconfirmed! warmly, ezlev. talk 22:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure adding criticism towards non-binary is a good idea.

Because most sources I find that criticize non-binary are honestly bigoted also I doubt that any mainstream scholar would waste their time to criticize this since it’s not important nor is it and also non-binary is a thing you can’t prove or disprove. CycoMa (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree with both talk and CycoMa. Laurier (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia; it's not a space for unscientific arguments that nonbinary people don't exist. People's identities are not a matter for debate, and the inclusion of unscientific content and what is likely to be unfounded transphobia, because let's be honest here, it is, will be removed. Do not add it. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The arguments against the idea of nonbinary are not always unscientific. The point is made that gender is based on biology, not on one's personal feelings about how they identify. There's a historical precedent for both binary and nonbinary views on gender (and many other views on gender), with each being promoted in different cultures at different times in different contexts to different degrees. Refusing to acknowledge this except to dismiss it as bigotry is worrying. One's personal feelings about how they identify is something psychological that cannot be proven or disproven objectively, anymore than concepts like God or romantic love can be proven or disproven objectively. Articles shouldn't take a stance on these things except that they're ideas that emerge in culture and are held by some individuals and not others. Presenting it as otherwise clearly taking a point-of-view instead of presenting multiple perspectives neutrally. This applies to ideas that are generally considered debunked. For an example, the Christ Myth theory is not generally taken seriously by historians but is objectively included in the article. It says the theory is largely considered debunked, but still presents the point-of-view of the scholars who oppose the historicity of Jesus. It also fairly neutrally presents the figure of Jesus and lets readers draw their own conclusions and motivations like bigotry against Christians are not presented as the motivation for presenting the Christ Myth theory. The nonbinary article currently only acknowledges other viewpoints as discrimination that leads to suicide. While this is a point-of-view that should be included in the article, it is not the only point-of-view (or even the point-of-view of all nonbinary people) and is like writing in the article on Jesus that the Christ Myth theory never has any historical basis, that it's only promoted by antitheists for the sole purpose of causing Christians to lose faith. That just wouldn't be objective and does not acknowledge the historians, however few, who generally criticize the idea. I'm not going to hang around here arguing back-and-forth as I know this is a losing battle, as it's clear that despite the claims of neutrality, this is one of those times when Wikipedia as a point-of-view that they wish to promote. But I think someone should challenge it if only once, and perhaps other people have more energy than I do to continue arguing for neutrality on Wikipedia.Lynchenberg (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

What RS evidence is there that "gender is based on biology"? I haven't seen any. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's one such study showing the historical background of the point of view that gender is based on biological sex. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.359.9143&rep=rep1&type=pdf You could find many, many more if you care to look. This was the norm in Western culture until recently when differing views became more prominent, which is why it's been controversial in recent years. That very controversy is proof that there's been conflicting viewpoints. To be clear, I'm not advocating we say definitively "gender is based on biological sex" anymore than we definitively say "gender has nothing to do with biological sex." Obviously throughout history and through different cultures there have been a variety of views, and a lot of them don't even strictly fit into that strict gender-is-all-biological/gender-is-all-psychological binary. I'm simply advocating advocating we say, "Some people take this view, and this is why. Some people take that view, and this is why. Some people take a middle view, or a completely different view, and that's why." Right now, the article seems to take the one view and define any opposing view as bigotry. Like I said, I'm not going to argue this forever because I do think this is one of those cases where Wikipedia is interested in promoting a particular point of view. At the very least, any opposing viewpoint should not be defined only as simply bigotry.Lynchenberg (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m just gonna say this gender and sex aren’t the same thing bruh. You claiming gender is based on biology shows you are confused on the subject. CycoMa (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't made a claim either way and I'm not interested in arguing which claim (if any) is actually correct. I've just acknowledged the bias in the article.Lynchenberg (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The article does not contain the word "bigotry". The body of the article does not contain the string "biological sex". The article makes no claims about psychological bases of gender. The article says nothing about the history of nonbinary identities before 1992. As far as I can tell nothing written in this talk page section has any connection to the page, and this discussion is probably not even on WP:TALK#TOPIC. What specific changes is anybody here proposing to the article? - Astrophobe (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay dude like I have said to you sex and gender are two different things. Gender is not binary because it varies from culture.

But, sex is a binary tho. So we aren’t technically going against your views. CycoMa (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - just jumping on here, it's not actually as binary as many think. This seems to be a good introduction to less-binary sex categories in human beings.

(I'll also add here - this is a really good exploration of the fact that transgender people, including nonbinary people, are not a new concept, in case anyone wants a read of it.)

@Lynchenberg: - no idea why you're dragging faith into this, unless, as I think I can surmise, your view is that being nonbinary is a personal belief, rather than a sociological reality. If that is the case, I'd suggest everyone on this Talk page just give up on arguing that point, as to be honest, it's just nonsense. Yes, not all nonbinary people think the same, as amazingly, we're not a cabal who all know each other - but I've got no time for arguing what being nonbinary actually *is* with someone who comes across plainly uninterested in budging on their, and I have to say this, kind of blinkered and bigoted points. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m just gonna say this I have a hard time trusting sources like that because most of them are political and they only really think about humans.

Which sex is obviously isn’t exclusively a human thing. CycoMa (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

That massivesci.com source is inaccurate, as is common with pop-sci. Chromosomal anomalies like that are not 3rd, etc. sexes, any more than trisomy 21 means that homo sapiens doesn't have have 46 chromosomes, and variations in anatomy or hormones do not matter in defining biological sex and do not make it a "spectrum". The basis for being non-binary is the sex-gender distinction. Sex is defined biologically by the gametes an organism produces. All this is covered in this article, one of very many on this. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me like this discussion has hit the boundaries of WP:NOTFORUM. I would encourage anyone who seeks consensus to somehow improve the article to create a new talk page section. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be possible to include non-bigoted and reasonable criticism of the non-binary perspective, after all, as a newly developed concept it should be subject to the usual scientific testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.73.115 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC) (Please sign your comment with 4 tildes.)

Sure there are some scholars out there who criticize the concept but, most of them are part of hate groups or only express their opinions on social media like Twitter.

It’s just hard to find reliable sources that criticize groups like this because our society has changed to be more accepting of groups like this. CycoMa (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To add on to CycoMa, unless you can find a reliable source that we can use, this is a moot discussion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Deadnaming

The term is not used here. I'm not sure what section it belongs in.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it really needs to be included here; Deadnaming is an article of its own accord and anyway, it would fit better on the Discrimination against non-binary people article. Tvcameraop (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If you say so. I brought it up because it was the main subject of Amy Dickinson's column yesterday.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No criticism section?

I think there should be a section in this article where readers can read criticisms that have been made of the assertion that gender is not a binary. I have read on this talk page some views that roughly approximate to: "We should not do this because you can't just invalidate someone's identity". Apart from the fact this argument is disconnected from considerations of objective reality, it fails even on its own terms because in asserting a non-binary nature of gender, or equivalently by negating the existence of a gender binary, you are equally invalidating those that identify with male or female as part of a gender binary. Therefore there should be a neutral discussion of this dispute that presents both sides in a fair way.

As far as I can tell there is no consensus on this in the scientific literature, and as readers will be aware it is a highly controversial and politically sensitive subject. Therefore I am concerned that editors of this page may be biased towards promoting only one narrative, and not seeking to present things from a neutral point of view. 84.211.61.187 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I’ll be honest with I have issues with the concept of non-binary itself. But, I don’t know any mainstream academics criticizing so no criticism section.

The only scholars I have seen who criticize it are bigots.CycoMa (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you consider that only those you perceive to be of good moral standing should be cited in an encyclopedia? We might as well just delete every article on anything that ever happened, was thought, or was discovered throughout most of history then, as the original sources will certainly not have shared our moralities. 84.211.61.187 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It's often the case that some editors only look for and include sources that already affirm their views, but if you think there is significant criticism of the concept in the academic literature, you'd probably need to provide those sources for anyone to do anything about it. Just saying that there's a problem in vague terms is probably not very helpful. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested reading is Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism"_section, on why even if there is valid criticism of a subject (which I don't think there is here) it should be incorporated into the article in a sensible fashion, not given its own section. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to include a section dedicated to criticism of a concept (as in fact that essay accepts), and it is often done. I don't think that this article is a good candidate for such a section though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Here’s the thing about criticism sections. The reason articles like Christianity gets a criticism section and an article like lesbian doesn’t get a criticism section is because mainstream scholars know it’s wrong to criticize minorities. (Whether or not they are for or against that group.)

Richard Dawkins for example heavily criticizes religion, yet he lost a award over his comments against trans people.

I’m sorry but, many mainstream scholars know if they criticized certain minority groups their reputations would be ruined.CycoMa (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest the reason Christianity has a criticism section and lesbian does not is more because "Christianity" describes a set of ideas, which can be criticized, and "lesbian" generally describes a set of persons. I note that Christian does not have a criticism section. Taking my argument forward, while "non-binary" is associated with a set of persons that believe in the truth of this concept and identify themselves in such a way, "non-binary" is also (principally, I would argue) an idea: the assertion that gender is not a binary. So there should be somewhere that people can read criticisms of this (in my personal view: new and profound assertion), just like they can read criticisms of any religion on Wikipedia, including ones adhered to by persecuted minorities. 84.211.61.187 (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There's too much WP:FORUMing going on here. Unless you have WP:Reliable sources to suggest and discuss, there is no point to this. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

While we're at it, can we add a Criticism section to the man article as well? 172.58.139.48 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what changes you are suggesting to this page. You can open a discussion about the man page at Talk:man. This page is for discussing changes to the article Non-binary gender. Discussions about what happens at the man page aren't germane here -- the reason for that is explained at WP:OTHERCONTENT. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Per their edit summary, I believe they were making a reductio ad absurdum joke. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 21:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Change lead to include non-binary people who may partly identify with binary genders

For example: someone could identify as both male AND female, or identify as a binary and something else, or only partly identify as a binary. These are all valid non-binary identities. I feel like it should be reworded to something along the lines of "not strictly male or female". I'm not very good at finding good and reliable sources (if anyone has any tips, please let me know!) but some terms to look into are demigender, genderfluid, and bigender, some of which are mentioned in the article. PeanutButterPopcorn (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you have a point, there are non-binary individuals who identify as males or females.CycoMa (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph of the current lead covers this pretty well already: "Non-binary people may identify as having two or more genders (being bigender or trigender);[5][6] having no gender (agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree); moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity (genderfluid);[7] being third gender or other-gendered (a category that includes those who do not place a name to their gender).[8]" Funcrunch (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it I think the lead is a little too narrow. I mean people who are demiboy, bigender, or agender are classified as non-binary.

So saying

” Non-binary (also spelled nonbinary) or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female‍”

Needs fixing. CycoMa (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

May we could change it to something like non-binary is a umbrella term for gender identities that identify outside the gender binary would be better. CycoMa (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The current lead sentence reads: "Non-binary (also spelled nonbinary) or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female‍—identities that are outside the gender binary." With that and the second paragraph of the lead I quoted upthread, I think the lead is already inclusive of identities that are partly or sometimes male or female. Though perhaps changing "neither male nor female" to "not exclusively male or female" would be more precise. Funcrunch (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t saying neither male or female is problematic. There are non-binary individuals who identify as both male and female so I think it’s need a slight tweak. CycoMa (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Identifying as male and female is still not identifying as male, or as female - hence, outside the gender binary. This wording is in accord with the sources given, which we should be following. I agree with Funcrunch that the remainder of the lead explains it more anyway. The problem with adding "not exclusively" is that it actually confuses - people will wonder what it means since, after all, aren't most men and women not "exclusively" male-stereotypical or female-stereotypical in their personality? But stating that the identities are neither male nor female and outside the gender binary keeps the focus on categories of gender identity, where it belongs, rather than seeming to shift into degrees of general personality/other gendered traits, which can confuse. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the lead used to say (until this April) "is a spectrum of gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine‍", which was clearer with that qualifying adverb. But how do reliable sources define it? A lead should summarize the body, and a body which follows RS in including e.g. bigender people does need to be reflected in the lead, but RS could guide us in how to go about that. -sche (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to describe this in other than negative terms?

I came to this page trying to improve my understanding, but find that an article that describes its subject in terms of what is it not (ie, "identities that are neither...," "some non-binary individuals do not consider themselves...," "Non-binary gender identities are not associated with...,"Being non-binary is not the same as...," and so forth) is not really clarify anything for me. Little if anything makes plain what non-binary is rather than what it is not. Is there a way to write this article the way I had expected, or does the subject matter itself present a challenge there? I do want to understand, and ask with respect. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Count Robert of Paris, Well the subject is somewhat defined by what it isn't. In the simplest: non-binary folks are simple those who are neither male nor female. That encompasses a very wide range. As the article points out, its an umbrella term that encompasses many different identities. I feel like the lead does an okay job of summarizing that, but it could probably use revision. Any wording suggestions appreciated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, not a problem. There are many things defined by what they aren't. See for example nonverbal communication, non-governmental organization, and non-penetrative sex ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 02:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Trimton Apologies but those seem like possibly poor analogies. nonverbal communication actually does define the subject by what it is as well as what it is not. Specifically the article notes that nonverbal communication is eye contact, is body language, is posture, is gesture and even platforms such as social context and distance. So despite the name including a negation, the definition is replete with positive characteristics. non-governmental organization likewise includes a substantial amount of positive definition of subject matter - for example they are "organizations which are independent of government." Subjects matter becomes much clearer and easier to understand when defined positively and any article can benefit from additional clarity. There actually is one, lonely positive definition at the beginning of the article, namely that non-binary is an umbrella term for several different gender identities, and that's probably a good jumping off point to anyone wanting to make the article more immediately informative to readers.MacThulu

the noun for non-binary

I hope this question isn't ignorant but is there a noun that non-binary people may prefer. ie an equivalent to man/woman ? I realise that the pronoun "they" can sometimes be preferred to she/he but I am unsure on nouns ? Is this dealt with in this article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally, one just says "non-binary person", or just "person" if non-binary-ness isn't an important distinction. Colloquially, some nonbinary people use the term "enby" where others might use "man" or "woman". The article mentions "enby" as abbreviation for "nonbinary" but doesn't mention it being used to mean "an individual nonbinary person", which is a somewhat different usage. It's a subtle difference of syntax, but an important one. I might take a further look at the sources we're citing and see if we're correctly representing how they use the term, as it's not quite consistent with my anecdotal experience. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

add language Dutch (Nederlands): http://nl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Derde_geslacht Ln.sukr.aM (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: inter-language links are stored in WikiData. Elizium23 (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

In particular, Ln.sukr.aM, nl:derde geslacht is considered at present to be analogous to the English Wikipedia page Third gender. If you go to Third gender and click on Nederlands in the language tab, you will be taken to nl:derde geslacht. If you believe that is wrong, it can be changed in the corresponding wikidata entry, as Elizium23 mentions. But that would require some discussion, since it looks like derde geslacht literally just means "third gender", so it would be surprising if it should instead correspond to this page. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out :) I'll see if we should get something like a "niet binair geslacht" page going on the Dutch Wikipedia. Ln.sukr.aM (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There already is a redirect-page for nl:Non-binair; it redirects to nl:Genderqueer at the moment, but that could be changed of course. And yes, the Dutch do call this 'non-binair', not 'niet binair'. That is almost the same as on the English language Wikipedia, where Genderqueer redirects to Non-binary gender. I don't think it's actually 100% a synonym, but that's a different discussion. Laurier (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

New demographic information

There's a lot of new demographic information about American enbies at https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/nonbinary-lgbtq-adults-us/. Nosferattus (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Frankly some of the framing of this survey is pretty starkly at odds with the balance of reliable sources. Our article says in the lead (and repeats in various ways throughout) that "Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella", which definitely accords with my reading of the bulk of reliable sources. That directly contradicts their finding that "A greater percentage of nonbinary LGBTQ adults are cisgender rather than transgender." I think this will actually be tough to work into the page, which is kind of amazing given that it looks like it should be such a high quality data source. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what definitions of "transgender" and "cisgender" they are using, as they clearly don't align with the typical definitions and the explanation given in the paper (in footnote #2) is more confusing than enlightening. I emailed the study authors to ask for clarification. In the meantime, we can just skip the information related to "transgender" and "cisgender". Nosferattus (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at the methodology, it looks like they asked all participants the question "Do you currently describe yourself as man, woman, or transgender?" with no other options. This is separate from the gender identity question which does include "non-binary" as an option. So it looks like anyone who currently describes themself as "man" or "woman" (when given no explicitly non-binary options) and were also AMAB or AFAB, respectively, were classified as "cisgender" (which seems like a rather awkward and artificial definition of cisgender). Nosferattus (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I was troubled by that framing as well. I know some non-binary people identify as neither transgender nor cisgender. But a cisgender person by definition has a gender identity that aligns with their assigned sex, so I'm not sure how or why a non-binary person would identify as cis. Maybe the researchers or respondents were confusing gender presentation with gender identity? Funcrunch (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling (protected from edit)

Not sure this talk page is appropriate placement, but there's a misspelling at the end of the Definitions and Identity section. It says: "Transfeminine is a term for any person, binary or non-binary, who was assigned male at birth and has a predominantly feminine gender identity or presentation; transmasculine is the equivalent term for someone who was assigned female at birth and has a predominantly msaculine gender identity or presentation" -- masculine is misspelled at the end.

Also, not a major editing point, but the article includes two very similar statements in the intro and then in the Definitions and Identity section. In the first paragraph, it says: "Another term for non-binary is enby (from the abbreviation 'NB').[4]" and the second paragraph under Definitions and Identity states "Some people use enby (from the letters 'NB') as a short form of non-binary.[19][20]". The first note is likely sufficient.

Wondamike7 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; the typo has been fixed. The repetition you mention is how articles are supposed to be written; the WP:LEAD summarizes the body of the article and is not to contain information not found there. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

‘Please add the following sentence after the sentence on being gender fluid in the intro to the page “Non-binary can also be used to describe non-binaryflux where you fluctuate between non-binary and a binary gender (male or female). 81.174.156.236 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Portal bar in See Also section

Please see the documentation for Template:Portal bar which specifically says "This template does not belong in the "See also" section"

It would be better to use the regular Template:Portal instead if you want to keep it in the See also section. If you want to use the Portal bar it would be better to move it down to the bottom of the article with the Navboxes.

I would have fixed this myself already if the article was not locked. -- 109.78.204.92 (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Why no discussion about chromosomal determining identity?

Very layman gay male here. It is super interesting to me that the main article contains no information about the definitions of XY and XX sex chromosomes. I understand it's not black or white and about 1000 people a year are born with just one sex chromosome (monosomies). There are are several other configurations, unfortunately a lot leading to health problems. My feeling ist that: if you are distinctly XY, you are and always will be a male. If you are distinctly XX, you are an always will be a female. Anything else can be considered non-binary. And of course your particular non-XY/XX situation may have a recognized name (medical or whatever that group prefers).

Identity is of course not just about chromosomes but I think it's relevant to this article. asherkobin (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you go to the article on sex, what you are talking is gender.CycoMa (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Also please sign your comments.CycoMa (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen our articles on Hermaphrodite and Intersex? Elizium23 (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is titled "Non-binary gender".asherkobin (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, exactly, that's why we suggest you go to the page Intersex to read up about chromosomes etc. Gender is not the same as sex. (And sex is not the same as sexuality.) Laurier (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, let's just close this discussion and remake it as a request. Can someone who knows this stuff (not me) write a section explaining why chromosomes have something or nothing to do with gender? What does the X and Y chromosomes contribute to gender (binary and non-binary)?.asherkobin (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you're not the only one who gets confused by this, so I moved the sentence "Being non-binary is not the same as being intersex" up, so it's in the lead of the page now. This should do the trick. Laurier (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Laurier: Anything in the lead should also be in the body of the article, please restore the sentence to its original location in addition to its new location in the lead. Equivamp - talk 19:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I'm sorry! I see someone else already corrected this. Thanx! Laurier (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

History of the term 'non-binary'; non-English terminologies

During my recent edits, I was reminded that we have several paragraphs of referenced content on the history of the term genderqueer but nothing on the history of the term non-binary that the article is titled with. It would be good to add when was it first used, when it became the prevailing term, etc. We also only cover English-language terminology (identity terms, pronouns, titles, etc); it would be good to {{globalize}} the article to cover the situation in other languages as well. Florence Ashley, "'X' Why? Gender Markers and Non-binary Transgender People", in Trans Rights and Wrongs: A Comparative Study of Legal Reform Concerning Trans Persons (2021), edited by Isabel Cristina Jaramillo Vélez, Laura Carlson, pages 33-34, has some content on this (noting e.g. the French term non-binaire), and covers French terminology (pronouns, etc) more extensively in other articles; other Wikipedias' cited reliable sources on the concept in their own languages are also good places to look for leads regarding those languages' terminologies (e.g. de.WP has a section on abinär in the article on nichtbinäre genders). I will try to wp:SOFIXIT myself when I have time, but mention this here in case anyone else is inspired to help out, bring sources to bear, etc. -sche (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Discrimination section

I have an issue with a particular statement.

In India, hijras and other non-binary identities were criminalized under the Criminal Tribes Act from 1871 onwards, referring to such individuals as "criminal castes."

I looked at the source for that sentence. There is no mention of non-binary identities in it nor does it say Hijra is a non-binary identity.

Although I am aware the Wikipedia article on Hijra says they are classified as a third gender. There is some controversy regarding modern LGBT+ concepts and third genders from other cultures.CycoMa (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

There's a broader issue here, that "non-binary gender" is often defined in terms that would apply across cultures, but in practice is used almost exclusively in a Western context. Hijras meet the definition that this article gives for "non-binary", but are usually described in Western sources as "third-gender"... never mind that this article defines "third-gender" as a subset of "non-binary"... but also has a history section that starts with the advent of overt non-binary identities in the West, not with the much older history of "third-gender" identities in the rest of the world. I've thought on-and-off for a while about how we can best address that discrepancy, but I really don't know. Any mergers I can think of would be SYNTHy, while clearly defining this article as being only about Western non-binary genders would be descriptively accurate, but probably not consistent with the cited sources. I do feel something ought to be done, though. One question we may want to consider more is if this article is supposed to be about a term or about a concept. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that broader issue but have not thought of how to bring it up. You explained it well. I think the solution is to keep the overall setup as-is, but to only allow material here about non-Western cultures if they are from academic sources, per WP:SOURCETYPES. That way we avoid popular media articles that don't understand the topic well and thus conflate things that seem to be different topics to some degree. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I think the best approach may be to make it clear that these are terms of art. Going by the literal meanings of the terms, in most contexts there is no meaningful difference between "non-binary gender" and "third gender" (since "third" usually doesn't mean "there are only three"). A Western agender person and an Indian hijra would meet both literal definitions. However, in a scholarly context the former will be called non-binary and the latter will be called third-gender. The best example that comes to mind of similarly frustrating terminology is "Self-harm" and "Self-inflicted wound". Those articles do a good job of saying, "Yes, we know that these are essentially synonyms, but when professionals use these terms they have different meanings."

So a good start would be for both this article and "Third gender" to draw that term-of-art distinction more clearly in their ledes, while, as you say, restricting content about the other concept to what high-quality sources are explicitly connecting. What's missing, then, though, is an article that discusses the broad concept of being neither male nor female. It seems strange not to have one, but at the same time, I'm not sure how many sources discuss that broad concept. (Sometimes gaps like that are obscured in situations where terms of art, if taken literally, would cover the broad concept.) If there aren't sources now, I imagine we'll have them within some number of years. Women's and gender studies discussion of non-binary gender and anthropological discussion of third genders have been integrating for some time. But I'd still be interested to see if there's any existing scholarship that one could base a broad-concept article on. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: it should also be kept in mind this article defines non-binary as Non-binary[a] or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female

The thing about third genders is that, third genders, just because someone identifies as a third gender doesn’t mean they don’t identify as neither male or female.

Like Albanian sworn virgins are classified as a third gender. But, that doesn’t mean they identify as neither male or female.

That goes for hijras. So I think Wikipedia should try to find ways to distinct between non-binary and third genders.CycoMa (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Unintentional being discriminatory

In this one paragraph it says.

Misgendering is also a problem that many individuals face, be it intentional or unintentional. In the case of intentional misgendering, transphobia is a driving force. Also, the use of they/them pronouns is lumped into the larger, controversial, subject of safe spaces and political correctness,[80] causing push back, and intentional misgendering from some individuals. In the case of unintentional misgendering, it is often expected for the person who is misgendered to console and forgive the person who made the mistake.[81]

Honestly I can understand how purposely misgendering someone is discrimination but does unintentional misgendering really fall under the definition of discrimination.

Purposely calling someone by the wrong name can fall under the definition of discrimination.

But calling a person the wrong name and correcting yourself is just a mistake. And does not fall under the definition of discrimination.CycoMa (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, I've seen you remind other editors that Wikipedia is not a forum, so I know you know that. Do you believe that the content you're quoting isn't supported by the cited sources, or want to suggest a change based on new sources? If not, why did you create this section? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ezlev: just to make sure you are aware an admin removed the statement

In the case of unintentional misgendering, it is often expected for the person who is misgendered to console and forgive the person who made the mistake.

because the source didn’t say that.CycoMa (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

But anyway the reason I am commenting about this is because I didn’t want to start conflict.CycoMa (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the source for the claim that Ivanvector removed, I think I do see the statement that the claim was based on, around the 20:00 mark. However, it's a passing statement by one nonbinary person; even a clear complaint by one nonbinary person would't be enough to assert that as true in the encyclopedia's voice, so I do agree with Ivanvector's decision to remove the assertion. (Also, always important to keep in mind that admins have no special status in content disputes, even if I happen to agree with said admin here.) As to the rest of the "Misgendering" paragraph, you still haven't really answered Ezlev's question, CycoMa: What improvements are you proposing to the article? There definitely are improvements that could be made to that paragraph, so if you'd like to suggest some, I think that would be a productive thing to talk about. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Here’s thing the article appears like it is saying accidentally misgendering a non binary person is discrimination. I think there should be context added to a statement like that, like an example where unintentionally misgendering a non-binary person is discrimination would be nice.CycoMa (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I don't see how it says that accidentally misgendering a nonbinary person is discrimination. The word "discrimination" doesn't appear once in that paragraph. The paragraph is under the heading "Discrimination", yes, but the reference to unintentional misgendering is under the more specific description of (part of) "a problem". If there were more non-discrimination-related stuff there, I'd say we should rename the section, but when one word in the entire section refers to something that isn't discrimination, I think it's fine as-is. Besides, many would argue that unintentional misgendering is still collective discrimination even if it isn't individually so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe creating a misgendering section could fix the issue. Personally I can’t say it’s misgendering unintentionally is discrimination because I’m not non-binary.CycoMa (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be an extra section for a single paragraph, and I still don't really see the issue with the way it is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I am just concerned that a typical reader is not gonna know how unintentional misgendering could come off as discrimination. I am not saying discrimination can’t be unintentional, it’s just depends on context.CycoMa (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section

There should be a critical section of many people including LGBT people who oppose this movement and disagree to be put together with them Nlivataye (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nlivataye: I wouldn’t be against a criticism section. However, I don’t know any scholars that would openly criticize something like this. Do you know any scholars or do you have any sources that criticize this?CycoMa (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The addition of criticism to this article has been discussed multiple times, most recently in May 2021, and nobody has presented any reliable sources as far as I am aware. Do you have any @Nlivataye that you can share here? Also, articles generally should not have criticism sections and any "criticism" should be integrated throughout the article (with the exception of politics, religion and philosophy articles where a separate article may be more appropriate). Tvcameraop (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

maybe the criticism would be on Transmedicalism (specially enby-skeptic) or TERF. —YT0 ☎ ^(she/ey) 18:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not an article about a movement. It is an article about a marginalised minority group. I can't think of any other article about a marginalised minority where we would have a "criticism" section covering the views of those who straight up "disagree" with that minority's very existence. It is not that we shouldn't cover such positions. It is that "criticism" or "disagreement" is not an honest or neutral way to frame them. This isn't about "disagreement", it is about discrimination. We already have sections, and whole articles, covering the legal recognition of and discrimination against non-binary people.

I think that the Discrimination against non-binary people article is probably where the bulk of this coverage should go, particularly given that enbyphobia redirects to it. Transmedicalism and TERF seem too specific to carry the broad topic, although their specific enbyphobic views certainly can be covered there. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: OP was asking for a criticism section not a discrimination section, OP didn’t mention anything about discrimination. So you mentioning discrimination comes off as irrelevant.CycoMa (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Most criticism of non-binary gender is discriminatory in effect" doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: I see your point. Some hate groups like to call their statements “criticism”. Like racists call themselves race realists.CycoMa (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

About the xenogender

I’m not entirely confident that source that mentions xenogender is reliable to be honest. If it’s not please forgive me for putting it there.CycoMa (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Xenogender is definitely a thing. Here is the little-r reliable but not big-R Reliable nonbinary.wiki talking about it. How much coverage you can find in big-R Reliable Sources, I'm not sure. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  To be honest I honestly assumed xenogender was a invention by the alt-right. But apparently there are legit lgbt sources mentioning it.CycoMa (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• There's going to need to be some agreement on inclusion/noteworthiness standards. The ones added by CycoMa come from two sources, separate ones in each case, that appear to be non-peer-reviewed books. Jessica Kingsley Publishers isn't a university press or the like; in fact, they have an imprint for "books on Chinese medicine and complementary therapies, [and] yoga therapy", which sounds like the sort of pseudoscience academic publishers would avoid. This book by Bloomsbury, as seen in that link, lists literally dozens of genders, citing no sources of their own as far as I can tell. It is not practical, reasonable, or WP:DUE to the others we already have to list them all here. Even nonbinary.wiki, linked by Tamzin, notes that very few people identify with xenogenders. Something else to consider is DUE as it relates to how gender is defined by RS as a whole - it has to do with masculinity/maleness and/or femininity/femaleness; in those it does not refer to personality or likes in general. I suggest that we limit ourselves to discussing specific non-binary identities that are discussed in multiple sources, preferably peer-reviewed ones (in the field of LGBT Studies or otherwise), or in a somewhat higher number of non-peer-reviewed but reliable-enough mainstream media sources or published books. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  If there's RSs describing genders that would be undue to include here, should there perhaps be a discussion of splitting to a List of non-binary identities? Could cut the list part of § Definitions and identity (i.e. ¶4 onward) down to two to three paragraphs (maybe one on agender-ness, one on having more more than one gender, and one on the terms transmasculine and transfeminine), treating it really as a glossary more than anything else. More detailed information could go elsewhere in the article where applicable (e.g., some of the bigender stuff could go to § Population figures), and/or to the relevant list entry. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Such an article would have to pass WP:NLIST, meaning the topic of the set or grouping would have to have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, and I don't think it does. Plus, the overwhelming majority of them would be just a WP:DICDEF. Such a definition list seems to be the sort of thing that is out of scope for Wikipedia. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• To be fair, there is ample evidence that some people believe that xenogenders exist, but no evidence that xenogenders actually exist. 122.213.236.124 (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Whether some sort of independent ontological existence has any meaning when discussing gender, which I doubt, it is not a property we insist on when covering material on Wikipedia. - Astrophobe (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

What the hell does that mean? Gender exists because we believe it does. Should we delete every article on religion? QoopyQoopy (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

About this addition, which is not a WP:Minor edit by the way, all 5 sources do not appear to be reliable or establish WP:DUE-ness for the material. In order:

• Source 1 is a master's thesis, which is unreliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
• Source 2 is an obscure lifestyle site. They claim to have an editorial staff, but since this is an obscure site and is not by relevant experts, at best WP:DUE is not met.
• Source 3 claims to have a scientific review board, but it's empty. Their editorial team is likewise empty, aside from the site itself (?).
• Source 4 has the same formatting as source 3 despite supposedly being a different site, which is odd, and likewise has a blank scientific review board. Their editorial team has only one other person besides the site itself (again), and she only has a bachelor's in psychology.
• Source 5 might have been okay enough, but it only uses the word "xenogender" once, in speaking of one individual, and does not elaborate on the term at all.

Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, based on Crossroads' research, the support for this looks sketchy. Reminds me a bit when Facebook came out with a list of 56 gender options, which is all fine and good for them, but doesn't automatically make the entire list encyclopedically usable at Wikipedia if there's no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mathglot (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I retrieved sources from here Tacielle (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh god what did I just start. I’m not entirely sure xenogender is notable enough to be included in this article to be honest. If it should be include the source should do more that just briefly mention it.CycoMa (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! It may seem kind of weird, but xenogenders definitely do exist. It can be hard to what's real or not though, as xenogenders are often the target of enbyphobes. Xenogenders are mostly used by neurodivergent people, who can experience gender differently than neurotypical people. They're not very common, but [Edit, did the math, I was pretty far off]but as of 2020, about 27 million people identify as a xenogender. . AureliaDefines (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Updated Reference for Agender Meaning & Definition

*Source 1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeadowMellow (talk • contribs) 15:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC) 

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmwsax.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenmom1973, Ballinm, SWalton, RadRemi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sophieburke99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ldolle, Aoka222, YooCo, Elizabeth Hays.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 September 2019 and 17 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noraschulz100, Wentl015, Alicesonbegaye, Fonde020. Peer reviewers: Graceatkinson, Macylynn27, Viki.vick, Conra278, LukieW, Tyler Borschnack.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Khatherinne.rivera. Peer reviewers: Kamila Pineiro.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jzaragoza23 (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzaragoza23 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Nitpicking terminology

"Non-binary or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female‍"

'Male' and 'female' are sexes, not genders. It's a category error to compare a gender to a sex. This should use 'man' and 'woman' instead.

"Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella, since non-binary people typically identify with a gender that is different from their assigned sex"

Again, this is comparing a gender to a sex. More precise would be "identify with a gender that is different from the gender associated with their assigned sex". Footnote 2 on the transgender page gets this right (though not footnote 1).

Ulaniantho (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure reliable sources really hold with these rigid distinctions. Merriam-Webster talks about gender identity in their male definition[1] and uses the words male and female in their nonbinary definition.[2] Meanwhile, the WPATH Standards of Care uses male and female in their Gender identity definition on page 96.[3] WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, according to RS "male" and "female" are terms for gender as well as sex. To present these terms in Wikivoice as if they represented one or the other would fail WP:DUE and WP:NPOV principles. Newimpartial (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue of how to word the lead sentence definition has come up quite a bit; a perusal of this talk page's archives is informative. The adjectives (which refer to gender as well as sex in everyday parlance, and per references, as noted above) are probably fine; recasting it with nouns would require some care, since "gender identities that are neither men nor women" would be awkward: of course a gender identity isn't a man (where is Diogenes when you need him, to hold up a gender identity and go "behold, a man!"), a male gender identity is something a man has. (Relatedly: the lead at various points in the past used wordings like "not exclusively" instead of "not"/"neither", to reflect that there are also non-binary women like Rebecca Sugar or Riley Dennis.) -sche (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Further comment on the sentence:

"Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella, since non-binary people typically identify with a gender that is different from their assigned sex"

This should not be in the openning paragraph. First of all, the reference attached to it, currently 3, contradicts it, saying: "[Definition of] Non-Binary: Children and adults who don’t identify as male or female." Trans people do identify as male or female. And secondly, for this reason, it is plausible to argue that trans people are binary.

Later on, we get the sentence "Many references use the term transgender to include genderqueer/non-binary people." If they do, fair enough, but many references don't do this, so this should be toned down to say "Some references . . . "

And to clarify the point made above by Newimpartial, "male" and "female" are terms for gender identity, not gender roles, where the terms are masculine/feminine.Brymor (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken when you say "Trans people do identify as male or female. And secondly, for this reason, it is plausible to argue that trans people are binary.". There are three broad categories of trans people: Trans men, trans women and non-binary people (inc agender people). Trans men and trans women are binary but they are not the totality of trans people. The definition of a trans person is one who's gender is not aligned with the sex they were assigned at birth. Nobody is assigned non-binary or agender at birth so it is perfectly logical for non-binary people to be included as trans, and they generally are. Of course, no non-binary person is under any obligation to embrace that label if it does not feel meaningful or useful to them but, for the purposes of explaining to readers what non-binary genders are about, we absolutely should be defining them as within the transgender umbrella in the opening paragraph. We already have a caveat saying that not all non-binary people consider themselves trans, so we are not overstating the case or cramming anybody into a box that they don't want. Of course, not all of the source material about trans people is going to explicitly mention including non-binary people. Such sources should be considered neutral on their inclusion. Unless there is a body of source material explicitly excluding them I don't think we have a problem here. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It also appears to be based on a misreading of the quoted sentence it is responding to. When the source says "Children and adults who don't identify as male or female", it means that they do not identify exactly as male or exactly as female. That does not contradict the definition ("identify with a gender that is different from their assigned sex") because someone whose assigned sex is (say) male who identifies as anything other than male — even if they do not identify as female — is indeed identifying with a gender that is different from their assigned sex. So I don't see any contradiction. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It's simply untrue to say that all transgender people identify as either men or women. Are there really "many references" which define transgender to exclusively mean trans men and trans women? The use of "trans" as an umbrella term for all gender identities which do not correspond to assigned sex (a definition which naturally includes non-binary and gender-queer identities) is well-supported both by 3 sources on this article, and also by three different sources in the lead of Transgender ([2][6][7]). If there's a reliable source that contradicts this, please share? RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

"If there's a reliable source that contradicts this [The use of "trans" as an umbrella term for all gender identities which do not correspond to assigned sex], please share?" I refer you to reference 42 on this page, "Everything you never understood about being nonbinary" which says that Trans falls under nonbinary, the reverse of what is stated here. I could live with that! :

“Nonbinary” is generally used as an umbrella for various gender nonconforming identities—including being transgender. But while transgender falls under nonbinary, it doesn’t mean that all nonbinary identify as transgender. Some simply see themselves as nonbinary and nothing more. Brymor (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ref 42 appears to be The Daily Dot, a website primarily about internet culture - not exactly an expert source. Their definition is new to me and very much is an outlier. The WP:Due weight of sources is that trans men and trans women are not automatically non-binary. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and the reverse is also true: non-binary individuals are not automatically trans, hence the discussion. Brymor (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments, and I am happy to concede that I may have interpreted "Children and adults who don't identify as male or female" too rigorously. I am trying to work out why classifying non-binary as transgender makes me uncomfortable, and I think the key is the rider referenced by DanielRigal: "though some non-binary individuals do not consider themselves transgender."

What this means, of course, is that this definition of transgender is disputed by these non-binary individuals. I can confirm this, as I am one of them. So when such an individual comes across the bald statement "Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella" it can feel a bit jarring. I wouldn't go so far as claiming that it is offensive, but people are very sensitive about their identities.

Still, you have the rider placed next in the text - maybe that is good enough. I have already mentioned this discussion to some friends of mine, and i will see what response I get (if any). It is unfortunate that the reference supporting the rider - currently no 4 - does not explain why the non-binary individuals object to being classified as transgender - it just ,mentions it in passing. I could expound on the subject myself, but that's not the point, it would not be a valid reference.Tricky. Brymor (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's all part of the same sentence, so it is unlikely that someone will be misled by failing to read the entire sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that this is the article for Non-binary gender, the fact that some non-binary individuals do not accept the trans label needs to be given more emphasis, so I still think we have a problem with the way this is phrased in the lead section. I suggest that asking ourselves why these people deny being trans can help us to get the balance right. Unfortunately, none of the references provide the answer, but I suggest the answer is obvious: Non-binary people who accept their gender assigned at birth will not identify as trangender.

And who are these ‘accepting’ non-binary people? Again, the answer is obvious, they are bigender. It is axiomatic that bigender people accept the two genders they identify with, and for most of them, one of these will be their birth gender. If they don’t accept their birth gender, then they are trans.

This view is supported by the references already provided. Take No 12 on the Transgender page, Schorn, Johanna. "Taking the "Sex" out of Transsexual". "Most often, the term transgender is used for someone who feels that the sex assigned to them at birth does not reflect their own gender identity. . . or they may reject all gender categorizations" In the case of a bigender person, the sex assigned to them at birth does reflect their own gender identity, plus the extra identity.

However, there is something subtler going on here which is glossed over in the Transgender article. This is the fact that most transgender individuals reject their birth gender. It isn’t just a matter of difference – rejection is a key component. Yet rejection only appears once in the article, taken from reference 12, quoted above – this hardly does justice to the reality of the situation. Bigender people mostly do accept their birth assigned gender, so of course they don’t identify as transgender. I can confirm this in my own case: I am happy with my assigned gender, and am extra-happy to have another gender to play with.

So back to the lead section of the Non-binary article. The words “Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella” should be amended to read “ Several commentators place non-binary identities under the transgender umbrella” This is factually correct, and makes it more consistent with: the Transgender article which simply says “Some non-binary (or genderqueer) people identify as transgender.” (also factually correct). Brymor (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Brymor: As a non-binary person who does identify as trans I have a lot of thoughts on this, but this whole discussion is really falling into WP:OR territory. It also points to the need for more reliable sources written about (and by) non-binary folks so we can represent such people with greater accuracy. Funcrunch (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, we need more reliable sources written about (and by) non-binary people. There are plenty of sources out there, but are they any use? Take this one: 24 celebrities that have come out as non-binary. While this might be dismissed as pop journalism, it is undeniable that these 24 people have come out loud and clear as non-binary, so should be listened to.

I looked at this for an essay I was writing in January, and categorised these individuals as follows: bigender 12; trans 4; genderfluid 2; genderneutral 2; bisexual 2; gay/drag 2. So of 24 non-binary individuals, 4 were trans. I would be interested in hearing how you would classify these people, which might establish whether we can use such material as a source - or not. Brymor (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Brymor: The word "bigender" does not appear in your cited article at all, so unless any of these celebs explicitly identified as such elsewhere, that label should not be applied to them, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Bisexual and gay are sexual orientations, not gender identities, so those labels are irrelevant to this discussion. Regardless, I wouldn't use this article to make any claims about whether non-binary falls under the trans umbrella or not. Funcrunch (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The article seems to identify when people have positively identified themselves as trans in addition to identifying themselves as nonbinary. People have any number of reasons for doing that, and the fact that someone people have done that and a news article chooses to note it has no bearing on whether or not being nonbinary is a subcategory of being trans. To make a claim about that requires a source on the topic itself, not original research based on inference about the frequency of different types of self-identification. - Astrophobe (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Attempting to get the balance right on the 'umbrella' question, let us review what the references actually say. First, there seems to be general agreement with the statement [Terms, para 4:] "Many references use the term transgender to include genderqueer/non-binary people [12,27,28]", although the three references vary in their support for this view. 12 is broadly supportive, 27 talks about "those whose gender identities are at odds with their biological sex", which is less definitive, and 28 references a chapter entitled "Trans* spectrum identities" - trans* is not the same as transgender, so this reference should be removed or reframed. It is reference 3 which provides the clearest support for the transgender inclusive position.

Several references take the opposing view: 4 " It’s important to note that not all genderqueer or gender non-conforming people identify as transgender", 36 "Finn Enke states that people who identify with any of these [agender] positions may not necessarily self-identify as transgender.", 42 quoted above says that Trans falls under nonbinary. And see this reference from /Duke University: "Although transgender has been used since the early 1990s as an umbrella term to cover the widest possible range of gender variation, it is now understood in some circles to represent only binary notions of transness and to refer only to trans men and trans women rather than to those who contest the gender binary ".

The fact that there are arguments on both sides does not contradict the statement "Many references use the term transgender to include genderqueer/non-binary people", but does require that the statement in the lead section should be made consistent, so my suggestion is to change it to "Many references place non-binary identities under the transgender umbrella". Brymor (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

That Duke University reference is from 2014, and you brought it up here where another editor noted that "trans*" (with the asterisk) is rather "passe" now. Their definition of "transgender" seems to be the same. While almost any category or concept has exceptions, I don't see that this contradicts non-binary identities in general falling under the umbrella of trans identities. Most of the best sources that you touch on above seem to support the current text, including 27 and 28 by my reading (I don't see any basis for the claim that "trans*" is broader than the "transgender" umbrella as understood today). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have proposed the simplest possible edit to improve the balance of the article, and make it consistent, but if no one agrees, I will back off. The next non-binary person who is disturbed by the lead section can take over where I left off. Brymor (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, the sidebar includes this definition: "A spectrum of gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine". But masculine/feminine are inherently nonbinary; they represent a range, not a single point. So defining nonbinary as "not exclusively masculine/feminine" seems overly broad, since almost no one is exclusively masculine or feminine. Under this definition, basically everyone would count as nonbinary, which doesn't seem like a useful categorization. Ulaniantho (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ulaniantho, I suggest you read about Wikipedia's core content policies, which may help to clarify how wording in Wikipedia articles is meant to be chosen and supported. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I removed that, it's just the one in that odd sidebar that most gender articles thankfully don't have and is completely redundant to the actual text. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, can you clarify what I should take away from that? Something like "wikipedia is about attributing material to a reliable, published source, so even if a definition is 'bad' in some way, that definition should still be used"? Ulaniantho (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much, Ulaniantho. Wikipedia is based on reliable, published sources, and isn't for righting great wrongs. If you have an issue with what the sources say, that's an issue that should be taken up with the sources, not with Wikipedia. If you believe Wikipedia doesn't accurately reflect what the reliable published sources say, that's when it's appropriate to address the issue onwiki and provide reliable sources to support your proposed changes. I very much understand the temptation to debate the details of sex and gender terminology here, but our concern should be reflecting reliable sources rather than using what we believe to be the right wording. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense, but what partially motivated my original comment was that the sidebar definition was itself unsourced. But thanks, that helps clarify what wiki editing should be. Ulaniantho (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)