Talk:Non-binary gender

Proposed merge of Xenogenders into Non-binary gender

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am closing the proposed merge as per the independent discussion on WP:AFD the article Xenogenders has been deleted and turned into a redirect. This action has made this discussion unnecessary and I am therefore closing it. Thanks! ZombiUwU ^{(💬 ~♥~ 📝)} 19:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Xenogenders are already discussed in Non-binary gender and as it stands the Xenogenders article doesn't cover any unique ground other than the invention section and neopronouns which are not exclusive to Xenogenders and are already covered in Neopronoun. ZombiUwU ^{(💬 ~♥~ 📝)} 02:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I do think that could be a good idea. 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I added some more information such as results from gender censuses and research done on xenogenders. So I think the article covers some unique ground now. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge. I've added that to the correct Wikidata item too. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and the article for xenogenders should be deleted as not notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose (and delete xenogenders; not notable). Mathglot (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect. Considering WP:GNG (and the lack of 'notable' coverage about xenogenders), I'd say that the current info about xenogenders at Non-binary gender#Xenogender is probably sufficient for Xenogenders to just redirect there. Same deal as Xenogender. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. A wide swath of xenogenders don't fall under the nonbinary (or even transgender) umbrella whatsoever. Tdmurlock (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

However, the issue here is WP:GNG (and WP:SPS for your point in particular). Yes, xenogenders are a real thing, and there undoubtedly are some xenogenders out there which don't fall under the nonbinary/transgender umbrella - however, Wikipedia requires reliable sources about topics, and, as it stands, the vast majority of sources about xenogenders (along with lived experiences) are WP:SPS (and, regrettably, due to WP:NOTLEAD/WP:NOR, the task of 'performing some original research into the lived experiences of people whom have xenogender identities and their perspectives on their identities, and then publishing said research via a reputable outlet' isn't a task which can be performed via Wikipedia itself - it has to be done elsewhere and then referenced on Wikipedia). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That's true. However, that kind of research isn't impossible, and someone could step up. 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. If we expanded the article and used more sources, we could possibly keep it a separate article. 8UB3RG1N3 (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I am closing the proposed merge as per the discussion on WP:AFD the article Xenogenders has been deleted and turned into a redirect. ZombiUwU ^{(💬 ~♥~ 📝)} 19:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-binary

In the opening paragraph of the page, the statement “assigned to them” as description of one’s individual thrownness, is misleading. I feel it reasonable to suggest a change to something more empirically accurate. 2600:1700:3840:A2E8:703E:A5E2:57BC:A08F (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You mean in the second sentence discussing sex assigned at birth? I am not sure how it is misleading, could you elaborate more? To my under standing this is referring to the sex assigned to the individual at birth by a medical professional or other entity based off of the individuals genitalia or chromosomes. Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 03:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

the gender isn't assigned to them, they're born with it. Also, for some reason you say non-binary is listed under the Trans umbrella, but non-binary and trans are two vastly different things. Trans requires a binary, non-binary doesn't. You can't be Trans if you're non-binary because you can't transition from something to nothing 2600:1014:B166:2C2E:7595:3956:A8A8:AE7F (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done These are just assertions and the whole thread falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM. There is no coherent edit request here, just assertions, arguments and opinions based on a complete misunderstanding of what the topic of this article even is. If anybody wants to suggest a change to the article then please do so clearly saying what specific text should be changed, what it should be changed to and provide Reliable Sources to support that change. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The prefix "trans" means "other"; it doesn't rely on there being a binary. Additionally, even if you seem to not like the phrasing "sex assigned at birth" it is nonetheless the standard academic term, because a newborn's apparent sex is determined by outer observation. 2A01:CB00:50F:B000:F0EF:1FD8:8566:3E14 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Unary

what about those unary people who believe people can only be of one sex? 157.211.134.108 (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"Enbian" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Enbian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30 § Enbian until a consensus is reached. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Criticism

Please revert section of criticism. And punish DanielRigal for deleting scientific criticism. Firstly, it is not some "guy". Secondly, what is the argument that this is a single critical voice? Based on what Wikipedia rules did DanielRigal think up that one is not enough? Please revert and punish the vandal. Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The revert of your edit is standard at Wikipedia. First, see WP:CRIT. Second, the views of a particular person belong in an article on that person, such as at Kadji Amin. If there is no such article, and if WP:SECONDARY sources have not highlighted the views, they should be removed per WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I read. So please explain, why some articles have Criticism section, for example Islam#Criticism ? Why can Islam be criticized, but non-binary gender cannot? Hypocrisy? Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are here to criticise an article subject then you do not understand how to edit an encyclopaedia. When we cover a topic we cover all notable aspects of it, including notable criticisms of it. We cover criticism but we do not not ourselves criticise. That's WP:NPOV. There is not a topic on this earth that doesn't have at least a few haters. I'm sure that if you looked hard enough you could find a few non-notable people who hate watercress, walruses and wheelbarrows but it would not be appropriate to cover their non-notable opinions in the articles on those subjects. DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, now please answer why one can criticise Islam and cannot non-binarity. So far, I have not received an answer to this. Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

We have talked about the inclusion of a criticism section years ago. What exactly is there to criticize?CycoMa1 (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link to the most recent discussion of a criticism section that I can find in the archives. Funcrunch (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

But that discussion is out of date because it is claimed that there is no scientific literature questioning non-binary. I just provided such literature from 2022. And this is not the only criticism and more and more will appear. There's not much to it, because "non-binary" is a new creation. Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to pipe in and say that an editor with the same name as the OP added a section on rationalwiki identical to the one reverted. Ioe bidome (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Adding a criticism section to an article about non-binary gender makes about as much sense as adding a criticism section to articles like "African-American" or "man"
2. The "criticism" was just the opinions of one guy.
3. Islam and non-binary are not comparable. One is a gender identity while the other is a religion that has been used to justify homophobia and transphobia. Ioe bidome (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)