Talk:Non-binary
(Redirected from Talk:Non-binary gender)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by OwenBlacker in topic Proposed Split
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-binary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
 |
|
 | Other articles have been merged into this article. | ||||
| |||||
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Proposed Split
edit- 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.
- There is clearly no chance of consensus here; closing per snowball clause
— OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is clearly no chance of consensus here; closing per snowball clause
Recent data from the Gender Census—the largest survey of people outside the gender binary—indicates that “nonbinary” and “genderqueer” are widely understood as distinct terms or identities, rather than one being an umbrella for the other. Elantrisadjusts (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I think it would need a more detailed proposal of what is getting split and what sources support that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support. These are clearly two different, yes overlapping, but different, terms. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 20:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Agree that genderqueer and nonbinary are not identical - genderqueer is seen as more radical than the nonbinary umbrella term; however, there is such a significant degree of overlap that having separate pages would mean duplicating (and trying to maintain) lots of content on two pages. Andi Fugard [they/them] (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Separate terms and identities. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andi Fugard (significant overlap leading to duplicated content), no comment on a potential move to "Non-binary and genderqueer" or similar title. OutsideNormality (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I am unconvinced by the claim that genderqueer does not fall within the broad scope of non-binary. If there are Reliable Sources for that then I might reconsider but I am not sure how one could extract that conclusion from a survey (unless it explicitly asked that specific question) without falling into WP:OR. I see no other reason for a split. If the article were ever to become too large and unwieldy then we could revisit this but, for now, I think we can cover genderqueer, as well as other specific types of non-binary gender, here. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, per @Andi Fugard's statement that there's a large degree of overlap between genderqueer and nonbinary, which would make for a duplicated article with few original inclusions. Additionally, I agree with @DanielRigal; both identities can be discussed here. Debonaira (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- In the middle. I think that we should just rename this article Genderqueer, have the Genderqueer flag, and include Nonbinary in the article as a subcategory, as it seems that genderqueer is an umbrella term including Nonbinary. IAmThereforeIAmConfused (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I actually changed my mind. The more queer Wikipedia articles there are, the better, so why not? However, I still am not opposed to my previous idea of renaming it to Genderqueer. IAmThereforeIAmConfused (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Per Google Ngrams "nonbinary" is the WP:common name for this topic. Technically this graph does not differentiate between other uses of "nonbinary" to literally mean "not binary"; however I would assume this constitutes a minority of usage, as evidenced by the massive increase circa 2015. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 18:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Snowclose. It's not clear that they are widely understood as distinct terms or identities. Per Merriam-Webster the two words are synonyms so a split article would likely be a WP:content fork. –RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ (talk • stalk) 18:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, as the overlap is so high that any split would effectively be a content fork, as noted above. The topic can be discussed well here. Crossroads -talk- 21:30, 29 July 2025 (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.
Simplicity in the intro
editThe very first sentence says "those that are outside the male/female gender binary." I think I know approximately what that means, but it seems overly technical for the first sentence. I suggest a more direct and simple statement, such as "those that are neither male nor female." Anyone who isn't aware of the term "male/female gender binary" will find that easy to read, if possibly even more strange (which is okay). If anyone has a better idea for a statement in clear, nontechnical English, let's have a discussion. Zaslav (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Zaslav, your proposed version
"those that are neither male nor female"
probably won't work. Female and male refer to sexes, whereas the current version deals with gender (man vs woman). Zenomonoz (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)- The idea that "female" and "male" refer exclusively to sex is, as far as I know, kind of a lexicographical urban legend. I've never seen it in a dictionary, nor in a style or usage guide, and it's not the view we take in Wikipedia articles. That said, Zaslav's desired wording has a different problem, which is that "neither male nor female" would not cover all nonbinary people. A bigender person, for instance, is both male and female. Or a nonbinary man might identify as male in some ways, but not in the way meant by someone who asserts a gender binary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Tamzin. Usage between gender and sex is currently confused (in what I read), so I agree with you. How about "not male and not female"? I don't think we need to worry about people who might be partly male; "not male" to me means "not in the category of male". Would you support this revision of my suggestion? Zaslav (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- No, that would be even more incorrect. There are lots of nonbinary people who it is accurate to describe as male, and lots who it is accurate to describe as female, some of whom are even the same people. The thing that makes nonbinary identities nonbinary is that they are not binary. If you want to improve on "outside the male/female gender binary", you will need to find wording that still conveys that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I believe that something that would solve the problem is "those that are not exclusively male or female." That includes bigender people, demigender people, non-binary men, and non-binary women. But it was also problematized here. LIrala (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Even so, I think that wording is likely to result in many readers confusing this topic with intersex. So I agree that "outside the male/female gender binary" is the best we have so far. Crossroads -talk- 20:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, Tamzin. Usage between gender and sex is currently confused (in what I read), so I agree with you. How about "not male and not female"? I don't think we need to worry about people who might be partly male; "not male" to me means "not in the category of male". Would you support this revision of my suggestion? Zaslav (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- The idea that "female" and "male" refer exclusively to sex is, as far as I know, kind of a lexicographical urban legend. I've never seen it in a dictionary, nor in a style or usage guide, and it's not the view we take in Wikipedia articles. That said, Zaslav's desired wording has a different problem, which is that "neither male nor female" would not cover all nonbinary people. A bigender person, for instance, is both male and female. Or a nonbinary man might identify as male in some ways, but not in the way meant by someone who asserts a gender binary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
References
editYour citations are all misleading. Checking citations, and every single one has to do with Trans, not non-binary. This whole has bad references 2603:7080:B000:687:2EA5:BFDE:9E7C:4CF1 (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)