Talk:Gender nonconformity/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Definition: "Males and females" in the lead vs. being ambiguous

In this edit, I reverted Personman changing "does not match the gender roles set for males and females" to "does not match traditional gender roles," stating, "The previous wording is more accurate/precise. We should not be ambiguous on this. Also see WP:Lead." Hours later, Personman came back with this edit, stating, "'Males and females' is awkwardly clinical, and no less ambiguous than previously. Making explicit reference to sex assignment should help clarify the relationship between gender variance and intersex conditions, for instance." As seen in that same diff-link, I reverted, stating, "No, 'males and females' is primarily what gender roles is about -- applying them to those sexes, not intersex or every gender."

What I've stated on this matter is supported by WP:Reliable sources in the article. Being gender non-conforming or gender variant (or known by any of the other synonyms), as defined by the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, means to "deviate" from the gender role expected of a male or female. And we should be explicitly clear about that, including in the lead. It does not mean deviating from third gender or deviating from any genderqueer identity. It specifically means that a male has deviated from the gender expectations of a boy or a man, or that a female has deviated from the gender expectations of girl or a woman. This does not exclude intersex people in any way; the lead does not state that males and females are the only sexes. But like I've made clear before (near the end of this section), "Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter, though the sex and gender distinction exists and third gender/genderqueer matters are usually formulated in gender terms (boy/man; girl/woman)... ...I'll grant you that I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article)." Flyer22 (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Contention over lead sentence

(I submitted the following and got an edit conflict with the above. Not sure what protocol is, so I'm just leaving my initial text here with this note. The argument present in Flyer22's post above does not argue against the point I am actually making.)

Flyer22 has twice reverted my edits to the lead sentence. The first time, e left the edit summary "The previous wording is more accurate/precise. We should not be ambiguous on this." I agree with the latter, though not the former, and thus reworded the section significantly to remove the mentioned ambiguity.

For reference, the versions in question are

Gender variance, or gender nonconformity, is behavior or gender expression by an individual that does match cultural expectations about the gender roles typically associated with that individual's sex assignment.

and

Gender variance, or gender nonconformity, is behavior or gender expression that does not match the gender roles set for males and females.

Flyer22 then reverted again with the message "No, "males and females" is primarily what gender roles is about -- applying them to those sexes, not intersex or every gender." This is simply false - intersex individuals are given sex assignments and gender assignments just the same as people without intersex conditions, and thus can perform gender variance just as well, and thus this article applies to them. Personman (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I already replied above; therefore I removed your heading.

I reiterate that I have various WP:Reliable sources that support my reverting you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And pinging Personman just in case Personman missed what I stated above. Nowhere did I state that gender variance does not apply to intersex people. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see by "The argument present in Flyer22's post above does not argue against the point I am actually making." text that Personman did read what I stated above. Oh well. Not a lot more for me to state on the matter then. I will be even clearer with this point, though: Many, perhaps most, intersex people would prefer that people stop thinking of them as some other sex that can't simply be male or female; again, the vast majority of them are biologically classified as male or female and identity as male or female. Flyer22 (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Your removal of the heading caused our posts to be at the same level, with no break, which was confusing. I've reinserted it.

Your rebuttal continue to miss my point - in no way am I suggesting anything like that about intersex people; in fact, I think my edit explicitly supports that position. You have not at any point explained what is ambiguous about my edit - it has almost exactly the same semantics as yours, without the awkwardness of calling humans "males and females", and without excluding those people who are neither male nor female, but who have nevertheless received sex assignments and have gender performances expected of them from which they can vary.

You wrote "It specifically means that a male has deviated from the gender expectations of a boy or a man, or that a female has deviated from the gender expectations of girl or a woman." I don't understand this claim at all, and see no source for it. Googling a bit, I also can't find any source that restricts gender variance in this way. See for instance the entry here, which gives "behaving in a way which is perceived by others as being outside cultural gender norms", without any statement about the sex of the person doing the performing. Until you can provide some kind of evidence for your position, I'm reverting it. Personman (talk) 05:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your points at all, including needlessly separating the discussion by headings; this separation that you re-added makes no sense. And because it makes no sense, I will note in the section I started above about this same topic that it is continued in this section you started. With this edit, I mentioned intersex and transgender people in the lead...per WP:Lead. I don't know how I can be any clearer regarding my points above. But to try again: My main point is that being gender variant is about exhibiting gender behavior and/or a gender identity that does not align with the gender behavior expected of a male or a female. Your wording of "that does match cultural expectations about the gender roles typically associated with that individual's sex assignment" is clearly ambiguous since you intentionally avoid the male and female aspect. Your edit leaves one to ask: What cultural expectations? What sex assignment? Gender roles are typically a male and female matter, as is sex assignment (as is made very clear in the Gender role and Sex assignment articles). Yes, intersex people can, as you stated above, "perform gender variance as just as well." If they do, they are also gender variant; the fact that they are intersex matters little in this case, since they will usually be seen as and/or identify as male or female. What you see as restricting the definition is the definition. And what I mean about the definition of gender variance is exactly what sources in the article state; for example, the Julia Serano reference, which includes a quoted text for easy verification, relays, "After defining transgender as primarily 'an umbrella term to describe those who defy societal expectations and assumptions regarding femaleness and maleness,' including people who are transsexual, intersexual or genderqueer, as well as crossdressers, drag performers, masculine women and feminine men, Serano goes on to state: 'I will also sometimes use the synonymous term gender-variant to describe all people who are considered by others to deviate from societal norms of femaleness and maleness'. (p. 25), Serano, Julia (2007)."

The gires.org source you cited above is not a WP:Reliable source, and if you are not going to bring WP:Reliable sources to the argument, there is very little point in discussing this matter with you. And you should cease WP:Edit warring, like you did here. Your WP:Bold edit was reverted. Now it is time to discuss, as WP:BRD states. Oh, and reporting me at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard after I pointed out that you were WP:Edit warring? Wow. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: And Personman has yet again reverted to Personman's edit with no WP:Reliable source at all supporting that entire sentence. I will soon be listing WP:Reliable sources showing exactly what I mean since I am, so far, the only one going by them in this discussion. I will then seek wider input. Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay so there was a typo in my edit which may or may not have been contributing to this confusion; I honestly can't tell whether Flyer22 noticed it or not. Assuming no, I would like to point out that the very quote from Serano that Flyer is relying on here, "I will also sometimes use the synonymous term gender-variant to describe all people who are considered by others to deviate from societal norms of femaleness and maleness'," support my point exactly - it says "all people", right there in the quote. Some people, regardless of their sex characteristics, hormones, etc, are expected by society to perform some gender role, and do not. Those people are gender variant, as defined in the very source you apparently think contradicts me. Personman (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point above and at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. I have been clear that being gender variant is about exhibiting gender behavior and/or a gender identity that does not align with the gender behavior expected of a male or a female. That is exactly what the Serano reference and other references in the article state. The way you are separating intersex people from that is silly. But no worry; I already noted that I will be listing WP:Reliable sources further showing what I mean, and that I will then be getting wider input. Your wording will not be staying. And do stop pinging me to this talk page via WP:Echo; it's clearly already on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I guess you did miss the typo, and none of the confusion was about that? Oh well. And, sorry for the extraneous pings, I hadn't watchlisted it myself and found it useful when I got pinged, so I did it without too much thought.

I agree entirely with you assertions in this latest post, except for the still-confusing thing you say I'm doing about intersex people. I really think you must be misreading my edit or something, because we seem to be almost entirely in agreement. Sex assignments and their related gender roles are, as you say, traditionally associated with maleness and femaleness. There are maybe some cultures with other sex assignments/roles, and deviating from them probably should fall under gender variance, but none of that has anything to do with my edit. There are three things I take issue with in your preferred wording: 1) "males and females" is a really awkward way to refer to humans, and should be avoided (which I've mentioned a few times and you haven't responded to at all); 2) no one "set" "the" gender roles for men and women, many different gender roles have arisen in various cultures over time; and 3) your sentence seems to imply that gender roles are only "set" for "males and females" and thus further implies that people who are neither cannot be gender variant (even though you clearly don't believe this yourself, as evidenced by your edit at the end of the paragraph).

I assume this third point is the one you refer to when you say "The way you are separating intersex people from that is silly." However, I'm explicitly not! I'm going out of my way to include them, by pointing out that gender role expectations tend to be based on assigned sex, rather than biological sex characteristics. Personman (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you don't grasp about what I am stating and why I therefore have to reiterate what I mean. I am not misreading your edit; I do not like the vagueness of it. Why are you avoiding the terms males and females, when, as you state, "gender roles are [...] traditionally associated with maleness and femaleness"? If we are not going to use the words males and females, then we should at least use the words maleness and femaleness or masculine and feminine. It's not just a traditional matter; I don't see why I need to keep repeating the fact that, like I noted in my initial response to you above, "Being gender non-conforming or gender variant (or known by any of the other synonyms), as defined by the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, means to 'deviate' from the gender role expected of a male or female. And we should be explicitly clear about that, including in the lead. It does not mean deviating from third gender or deviating from any genderqueer identity." I also noted in this subsection that "Your wording of 'that does match cultural expectations about the gender roles typically associated with that individual's sex assignment' is clearly ambiguous since you intentionally avoid the male and female aspect. Your edit leaves one to ask: What cultural expectations? What sex assignment? Gender roles are typically a male and female matter, as is sex assignment (as is made very clear in the Gender role and Sex assignment articles)." What don't you understand about that? Stating that "'males and females' is a really awkward way to refer to humans, and should be avoided" is your opinion. It's not avoided in a lot of Wikipedia articles, and for good reason, especially as far as biological and medical aspects go. The wording "males and females" covers "boys and men" and "girls and women"; instead of stating "Gender variance, or gender nonconformity, is behavior or gender expression that does not match the gender roles set for boys or girls or men and women.", it is cleaner to simply state "males and females." I would compromise by going with "boys or girls or men and women," however. And your issue with the word set in this case is semantics on your part.

Your argument that "[my] sentence seems to imply that gender roles are only 'set' for 'males and females' and thus further implies that people who are neither cannot be gender variant" concerns something I already addressed in my initial response to you above. You are acting like there is an actual third biological sex. Where is the science to show that there is one? I told you above, "I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article)." You stated that "[you are] going out of [your] way to include [intersex people], by pointing out that gender role expectations tend to be based on assigned sex, rather than biological sex characteristics." That is more semantics on your part. Gender role expectations are indeed based on biological sex characteristics, as noted in many WP:Reliable sources. What you are doing is categorizing intersex people as an "other." I already stated, "Many, perhaps most, intersex people would prefer that people stop thinking of them as some other sex that can't simply be male or female; again, the vast majority of them are biologically classified as male or female and identity as male or female." True hermaphroditism is very rare. Biologically, there is no human being that is neither male nor female. And gender nonconformity usually is not defined as referring to intersex people anyway; this is obviously because being intersex is a biological state while gender may or may not be a biological matter. Gender nonconformity, or gender variance, is usually discussed with regard to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender) people; the significant majority of sources on this topic show that. I have included a WP:RfC for this dispute below (it is for outside opinions, not for us to continue our debate). The following sources show exactly what I mean when I state that we should go with "males and females" wording, "maleness and femaleness" wording, "masculine and feminine" wording, or have some language specifically noting the boy/girl and man/woman gender binary.

Let's start with this 2011/2012 It's OK to Be Neither: Teaching That Supports Gender-Variant Children lay source from The Huffington Post, which states, "Unfortunately, it wasn't until I had a child dealing with gender variance (defined as 'behavior or gender expression that does not conform to dominant gender norms of male and female') in my classroom that I realized how important it is to teach about gender and break down gender stereotypes."

Now let's move on to the scholarly sources, from old to new. This 1993 Sexuality in Adolescence source from Psychology Press, page 111, states, "Gender nonconformity is the extent to which research subjects conformed to stereotypic characteristics of masculinity and femininity during childhood."

This 1993 Cross Dressing, Sex, and Gender source from University of Pennsylvania Press, pages 312-313, states, "Calling these people who do not fit cleanly into the gender boxes labeled 'male' and 'female' nonconformists sounds as if they violated the norms of society on purpose. Since this may not be the case, most sexologists use the term crossgendered to avoid this judgment. Cross-gendered means they either feel they do not fit neatly into either the male or female box or their behavior is not totally congruent with the rules and expectations of the society they live in."

This 2001 Social Psychology and Human Sexuality: Essential Readings source from Psychology Press, page 193, states, "[C]hildren who prefer sex-atypical activities and opposite-sex playmates are referred to as gender nonconforming."

This 2002 Gender Nonconformity, Race, and Sexuality: Charting the Connections source from the University of Wisconsin Press, page 4, states, "A gender nonconformist is therefore someone who adopts gendered traits that are stereotypically associated with members of the opposite sex [...] Included in my definition of gender nonconformity are people who do not adhere to heterosexual notions about the appropriate male or female sexual orientation, or sex-based self-definition or identity. Thus, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals -- all four groups hereinafter collectively called 'queer' people -- are also gender nonconformists. Some might think it is more appropriate to only include those gay men, lesbians, or bisexuals who engage in stereotypically opposite sex feminine or masculine behavior, and all transsexuals, in my definition of gender nonconformity. However, since queer people are still seen by majority culture as traitors to their biological sex and discriminated against as a result, all queer people are gender nonconformists regardless of the outward gendered traits they adopt."

This 2008 Social Psychology of Gender: How Power and Intimacy Shape Gender Relations source from Guilford Press, page 155, states, "All of these processes likely depend on gender essentialism, defined in Chapter 1 as the belief that men and women are natural 'opposites.' If people believe in male and female essences, then nonconformity with gendered expectations signals a potentially deep flaw. If you are not 'really' a man or a woman, your whole gender identity is threatened."

This 2009 How to Make the World a Better Place for Gays & Lesbians source from Grand Central Publishing, page 145, states, "Nonconformity to gender stereotypes threatens the established patriarchal order of male dominance and female dependency, and society deals harshly with defiance."

This 2009 Queer Mobilizations: LGBT Activists Confront the Law source from NYU Press, page 203, states, "The transgender cases illustrate how we are anchored to labeling humans as unambiguously male and female, losing the ability to recognize the complexity of sex and gender. The broad theories of human rights and gender nonconformity provided specific protection for transgender persons. These theories allowed the courts to bypass defining the terms 'male and female.'"

This 2010 Just One of the Guys?: Transgender Men and the Persistence of Gender Inequality source from University of Chicago Press, page 40, states, "However, the nineties concept of gender diversity promoted a poststrucuralist approach that challenged or queered the concept of a core, essential gender identity and a male/female binary."

This 2011 Prostitution and Sex Work: Historical guides to controversial issues in America source from ABC-CLIO, page 20, states, "Transgender is the primary umbrella term used in this book for the range of gender variance [..] People whose gender identity and or expression does not fit the dichotomy of 'male' and 'female' have great difficulty entering the workforce [...] Sex work presents one occupational opportunity available to people who do not fit into the male-female gender binary."

This 2011 Psychology: Modules for Active Learning source from Cengage Learning, pages 427 and 433 respectively, state, "Gender role: The pattern of behaviors that are regarded as 'male' and 'female' by one's culture; sometimes also referred to as a sex role [...] Gender variant individuals experience a persistent mismatch between their biological sex and their experienced gender." Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

For another example of what I mean: Consider the Sissy and Tomboy articles. Not making it clear in the Gender variance article, in the lead and lower, that people are considered gender variant if they do not conform to the gender roles expected of boys/men and girls/women, meaning the gender roles expected of human males and human females, would be like not making it clear that deviating from the gender role of a boy is the primary aspect of the sissy topic and that deviating from the gender role of a girl is the primary aspect of the tomboy topic. We are not ambiguous in those articles about what it takes for a person to be considered a sissy or a tomboy, and we should not be in the case of the Gender variance article either. I am not arguing for my exact wording to be returned; for example, "does not match masculine and feminine gender norms" would be clearer than Personman's wording. To separate the WP:SEAOFBLUE wording, though, the text would need to be rephrased a little so that "gender norms" is not so close to another link. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should "males and females" and/or "masculine and feminine" be used in the lead?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After reading this long discussion I see that the editors involved came to an agreement and removed the RFC tag. I am simply boxing this section to archive it so as to avoid another closer reading the section. AlbinoFerret

---

Starting from #Definition: "Males and females" in the lead vs. being ambiguous section, one view is that the "does not match traditional gender roles" wording and the "does not match cultural expectations about the gender roles typically associated with that individual's sex assignment" wording is ambiguous, and that the lead should instead clarify the male and female and/or masculine and feminine aspects of what being gender variant means; the other view is that "'Males and females' is awkwardly clinical, and no less ambiguous than previously. Making explicit reference to sex assignment should help clarify the relationship between gender variance and intersex conditions, for instance." Sources are included in the #Contention over lead sentence section. Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was summoned by LegoBot. Well, Personman's changes seem more inclusive of diversity, but the reliable sources provided by Flyer22 seem to show a more strict definition. Since Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, I would have to say that the change seems unwarranted. If Personman can provide academic sources, as Flyer22 did, then I think we could have a debate about preferred wording. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, NinjaRobotPirate. I considered that no one would weigh in, and that I would then need to seek WP:Third opinion. You know that I always appreciate your take on issues. To reiterate, I do think that the original wording is inclusive enough, but I also see how it can be too strictly interpreted, as it was by Personman; that's why I also suggested that we use "male" and "female" in a different way or use "masculine and feminine" instead of "males and females." I ask that everyone consider what I stated with my "05:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)" post in the Contention over lead sentence section.

Editors should also look at Template talk:Gender and sexual identities#Sexes; a WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Trankuility, is there is any reason that you have not weighed in on this matter yet? You have expressed similar thoughts to me on intersex matters. For example, you stated at the Genderqueer talk page, "The glib, summarized framing of intersex as a third sex in 'Sex can be summarized as male, female, or intersex,' is indeed the reason why I made those changes. There is no evidence on the intersex page to support such a claim, and nor is there evidence on this page or the Third sex page to support such a claim. It's my view that arguments about intersex as a third sex are best not made glibly to justify a different concept, but are probably best left for those pages about the specific issue. [...] I commented on that thread on the Talk:Transsexualism page. To be clear here, just because some intersex people (and some other people) have a sex defined differently to male or female does not, ipso facto make all intersex people members of a third sex classification. That is even opposed by an international community consensus statement. It is more true to say that an intersex variation complicates initial sex assignment. I don't see my comments as at odds with those made by User:Alison - the points we're addressing are just somewhat orthogonal." Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ever since the Hookup culture drama back a few years ago, I try to avoid these gender/sexuality articles, but LegoBot seems to think that I'll have something useful to add here. It's not that I think the old wording was not inclusive, but I think there's room for improvement. "Masculine and feminine" does sound better to me, and if Personman is willing to compromise to that wording, maybe we could find an early consensus. I noticed that Google Scholar has a few hits for "post-structuralism" "gender variance" "intersex", so there's presumably something to say about non-binary gender variance, but I'm busy writing articles on direct-to-video zombie films. Or maybe it could go in Post-structuralism or Gender studies#Post-modern influence or who knows what. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Since gender variance is about being non-binary, I take it that you mean "any deviation from a gender is gender variance" when you state "non-binary gender variance"? If so, I was pointing out to Personman that deviating from a third gender or genderqueer identity to another third gender or genderqueer identity is not what it means to be gender variant; what it means to be gender variant is that the person deviates from the identity and/or gender roles of boy/man or girl/woman, which means that a person who is third gender or genderqueer is automatically gender variant. Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I was kind of tired when I wrote that, but I think I meant "non-essentialist". Anyway, it looks like you already addressed this earlier in one of your sources listed above, which cites the influence of post-structuralism on gender variance. I should have looked more closely at your earlier posts. Sorry about that! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NinjaRobotPirate. I'm glad discussion is finally happening here, but I'm afraid I still haven't made my position clear enough.

In the present world, sex assignments at birth are nearly universally "male" or "female". In a future in which babies are given other designations, the definition of "gender variance" may shift to include those who deviate from them, or become obsolete altogether, but that is neither here nor there. My edits aren't in any way in conflict with Flyer22's assertion that "deviating from a third gender or genderqueer identity to another third gender or genderqueer identity is not what it means to be gender variant". Rather, they make the sentence clearer and less awkward, and avoid insinuating that gender variant individuals are in fact male or female. Gender identity is irrelevant to this article; all we care about here (presently; there's room for argument about what the scope of this article ought to be) is "behavior or expression" that deviates from cultural expectations.

I honestly don't understand Flyer22's reading of the text I've written; e has said rather outlandish things in this discussion (e.g. "You are acting like there is an actual third biological sex. Where is the science to show that there is one?") that are so far from anything I've actually said that I don't really know how to respond productively. E has also presented an enormous list of references as though they somehow prove me wrong, when in fact I think they are all great and valuable. I'd appreciate it if you could respond to my actual stated reasons for preferring my edits, which I've laid out both just now and at length in the section above — I can't explain the difficulty Flyer22 and I have been having, but it would be nice to be reassured that the words I've been typing actually have meaning :) Personman (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really following you in the "in a future where babies are given other designations", because we don't live in a future society where there are other designations. I think – and this could be a wrong interpretation – that Flyer22 is saying that one deviates from male or female gender roles, regardless of one's identification. Are you saying that this insinuates that there are only male and female identities? I think it's entirely possible to expand the scope, as you say, but we'll need reliable sources to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That we do not live in such a world was exactly my point. Flyer22 has been somehow interpreting my edits as implying the existence of additional biological sexes. I can only imagine that this is because she reads "that individual's sex assignment" as ambiguous. The point I was attempting to make was that, since we live in a world in which humans are essentially universally assigned binary genders at birth, it is not ambiguous at all, and conveys exactly the sense she has been asking for — that is, variance from the gender roles expected of people designated male or female.

One of the reasons that I think writing it this way is superior is that it makes it clear that we are talking about deviation from assumptions based on assignments — both of which are externally imposed. The original wording could have felt exclusive for people who identify as neither male nor female. It is hopefully uncontroversial that such people exist — I know a bunch personally. This is totally distinct from anything like a claim that there are more than two biological sexes. I am not trained in the relevant fields, have no opinion on the topic, and don't think it has much bearing on this article one way or the other. Personman (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Personman, if "[g]ender identity is irrelevant to this article," the sources would not make it clear that gender identity is relevant to this article, and you would not have added "typically associated with that individual's sex assignment" to the lead. I have provided WP:Reliable sources to show how gender variance is generally defined, and that we should use "male and female" in some way, or "masculine and feminine," for the lead. What is your issue with using "masculine and feminine" in the way that I have proposed? How is stating "You are acting like there is an actual third biological sex. Where is the science to show that there is one?" outlandish, unless you mean that it was outlandish for me to assume that is what you meant? You are the one who objected to "males and females," as though people are distinct from being one or the other, or both. It is a fact that science does not show that there is a third sex. As I've stated already: While intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex, they are not an actual third sex. They are a combination of the two sexes, and are usually biologically identified as male or female despite being a combination of the two. Alison agrees with me on that. And so does Trankuility, as shown above and below. I still cannot grasp exactly what you mean, other than that how I originally had "males and females" worded in the lead can be strictly interpreted. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And you do not have to refer to me as "E"; I am a she. Flyer22 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think possibly you don't know what Gender identity means? Otherwise I can't make sense of what you're saying. I added that quote to lead in part specifically to make it clear that we were talking about sex assignment and not gender identity. I read through your source quotes again and can't find one that mentions gender identity being relevant — they are all about the relationship between behavior/expression and biological sex/assigned gender, as the article currently is and should be.

Yes, what I meant is that the claim you make in that quote is outlandish, namely that I am acting in a way that implies that there are three biological genders. Personman (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Personman, I think that you do not know what gender identity means if you are insisting that gender variance and the Gender variance article have nothing to do with gender identity. Sources in the article, and, yes, some sources I've listed above, are clear that gender variance partly or significantly concerns gender identity. That gender variance partly or significantly concerns gender identity is why transgender aspects and gender identity are mentioned in the article. Do you think, for example, that childhood gender nonconformity, which is noted in the article, has nothing to do with gender identity? Have you studied these topics as thoroughly as I have? I don't think you have, and you have listed no WP:Reliable sources to support your arguments. You keep arguing on opinion. Should I list WP:Reliable sources specifically addressing how gender variance relates to gender identity? Sexologist/psychologist James Cantor, who is quite knowledgeable on gender nonconformity, perhaps you have some enlightening words for this discussion? Whatever the case, I reiterate that I have provided WP:Reliable sources to show how gender variance is generally defined, and that we should use "male and female" in some way, or "masculine and feminine," for the lead. You, Personman, have yet to show any problem with using "masculine and feminine" in the way that I have proposed. As for the supposedly outlandish quote, it is only outlandish if you actually think that there are three biological sexes. Three genders is a different matter; I generally go by the sex and gender distinction. Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please point out the specific source you listed above that includes anything about gender identity in its definition of gender variance? The lead is and always has been very clear that we are talking about behavior/expression and not identity; of course the two are closely related for many people, and the relation should be and is mentioned in the article. But one's identity has no defining bearing on whether one is gender variant, as I feel is made pretty clear in the Terminology section.

I don't need sources to read the article and your sources. You keep repeating the fact that I haven't offered any sources as if I am making any claims that require them, but I'm simply not. I will say for the third or fourth time: all the sources you've provided are great, I agree with them, and we should use them in the article! They just don't say what you claim they say. Personman (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should I point to the sources in the way that you suggest when the sources are clear, including to NinjaRobotPirate? They indeed claim what I've stated they claim, including that the lead should not be as ambiguously formatted as you have it. Like I noted to Trankuility below, the lead should be clearer regarding what gender variance is, the way that gender variance is deviating from gender norms; we should be clear what those gender norms are -- masculine and feminine. Your ambiguous lead is silly, and what I proposed regarding "masculine and feminine," or something similar to that, will eventually replace your ambiguous lead. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You continue to fail to address what the problem is with using the "does not match masculine and feminine gender norms" wording that I proposed, which is wording that is clearly supported by the WP:Reliable sources I have presented above, which also means that you continue to fail to compromise. What WP:Reliable sources support your sex assignment wording for gender variance? WP:Reliable sources are needed for this discussion. They are needed from you if you expect your wording to trump mine. You have now sidetracked the discussion to a debate about gender identity. And your assertion that "one's identity has no defining bearing on whether one is gender variant" is false for the very fact that people who are transgender, third gender or genderqueer are automatically termed gender variant in many WP:Reliable sources, including some of the aforementioned sources. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

For example, besides sources I've already listed above, another source that makes clear what I mean regarding my use of "males and females," and what I stated about gender identity, in this case is this 2014 Treating Transgender Children and Adolescents: An Interdisciplinary Discussion source from Routledge, page 191, which states, "Gender variant people have gender presentations and related behaviors that do not conform to expected social roles for males and females. So, for example, a person with male-typical genitalia and male-typical sex chromosomes who behaves in a female-typical manner and/or self-identifies or self-conceptualizes as a woman (or as not a man) is gender variant." In fact, anyone who has studied these topics as much as I have should know that gender variance mostly concerns the topic of transgender, whether treating the term transgender strictly or as the umbrella term it largely is these days. That is why the Gender variance article is tagged with Template:Transgender topics. Instead of listing a bunch of WP:Reliable sources showing just how much gender identity has to do with gender variance, I will simply note the "Transgender umbrella term for gender variance" and "Gender variance term transgender" Google searches for editors to learn more about these topics.

Like this 2011 Gender and Higher Education source from JHU Press, page 59, states, "It is important to note that not all individuals whose identity is gender atypical use the term transgender. Gender variant is emerging as a phrase that is used interchangeably with transgender." This 2013 Transgender 101: A Simple Guide to a Complex Issue source from Columbia University Press, page 148, also drives home my points, but acknowledges sex assignment; it states, "The terms gender variant and gender nonconforming are similar, and the use of one or the other really comes down to personal preference. Any transgender person can be considered gender variant or gender nonconforming because he or she, by definition, does not conform to Western society's notion of what a male or a female is. A person assigned male at birth who is very feminine and may like to dress in feminine clothes or participate in typically female activities, but who still identifies with his birth sex, might be gender variant or gender nonconforming. The term is usually used for people assigned male at birth because it is more obvious when a man engages in stereotypically feminine behavior than it is when a woman engages in stereotypically masculine behavior. This is because of our society's lenience toward tomboyishness, especially in childhood, and rejection of most boys or men who enjoy feminine or female things. Gender variant or gender nonconforming can, however, be used to describe a female person who expressed herself as masculine yet still identifies as a woman." Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with User:Flyer22 on this issue: gender variance is not behavior and/or expression that does not meet societal expectations for men or women. The current definition about sex assignment turns the subject into an overly broad synonym for transgender, and renders the separate article pointless. Trankuility (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(Responding to both of you here) Ok, this is a rather different take on this issue than I have previously understood you to be advocating, and one I pretty much agree with. It seems like you're proposing a larger overhaul of the article, though! I personally like a definition of "gender variance" that is not restricted to behavior/expression, but it has seemed clear from every iteration of the article so far that consensus was that that was the primary distinction between Gender variance and Transgender. I don't really understand Trankuility's statement that the current definition renders it a synonym; it seems like a proposed change that includes "Any transgender person can be considered gender variant," as Flyer22 mentioned in her post above, is pretty clearly making them more synonymous than the current wording, but again, I'm personally totally ok with that.

I think what would be useful at this point would be if one of you could propose a specific wording that meets your standards; I feel now that it's pretty likely that I'll be fine with it, as long as it uses "masculine and feminine" instead of "males and females" and doesn't imply that there are "set" gender roles rather than culturally relative expectations. (It might also be worth thinking about why the masculine term comes first in all proposed wordings so far; avoiding implicit valuation through ordering is another benefit of my sex assignment wording, but whatever.) I continue not to understand at all how the present wording is "silly" or inaccurate at all, but it seems more and more like we don't actually disagree about the desired semantics, and disagree only about whether certain wordings appropriately convey them. So, propose a wording, and I bet we can be done with this! :)

As for the apparently-desired shift from focusing on behavior/expression to including identity, maybe we should add Gender variance#Association with gender identity after Gender variance#Association with sexual orientation? Personman (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Trankuility and Personman, I'm addressing you both with this post: Trankuility, did you mean to include "not" in your "09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)" post above? I didn't state that "gender variance is not behavior and/or expression that does not meet societal expectations for men or women." I've partly been arguing that gender variance is that. I also stated that I felt that the wording "males and females" was fine to use to cover "boys and girls" since "men and women" only covers adults to most people. I've been arguing that we should be clearer in the lead that gender variance is about deviating from the gender behavior (including gender identity) expected of human males and human females than the current lead is. My sources show that gender variance is gender expression that does not meet societal expectations for boys/men or girls/women. They also show that gender identity is a part of that. Again, refer to the aforementioned Routledge source, which states, "Gender variant people have gender presentations and related behaviors that do not conform to expected social roles for males and females. So, for example, a person with male-typical genitalia and male-typical sex chromosomes who behaves in a female-typical manner and/or self-identifies or self-conceptualizes as a woman (or as not a man) is gender variant." That is what I've meant -- that the lead should be clearer in that regard. Personman's wording states "does not match cultural expectations about the gender roles typically associated with that individual's sex assignment." I argued that the wording is ambiguous because it is not explicitly clear what the cultural expectations about the gender roles are. Those expectations are that people either act in a masculine or feminine way; that's why I proposed that we exchange Personman's wording for my wording of "does not match masculine and feminine gender norms", or something similar. For example, to get rid of the WP:SEAOFBLUE, we could word it as "does not match the gender norms of masculine and feminine." Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The first of those is totally fine with me. It avoids each of the three issues I took with the original wording: it doesn't refer to people as males and females; it doesn't imply that gender roles were "set" by anybody on purpose; and it doesn't restrict the set of possibly gender-variant people to males and females. I think we can end this discussion now :)

The latter suggestion is not good English, as "of" doesn't really work that way and "masculine" and "feminine" aren't nouns. We could avoid the sea of blue issue by just not linking "masculine" and "feminine"; I think the Gender norms link is plenty sufficient to describe what we're talking about. Personman (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Why didn't you agree to that wording earlier when I proposed it? After all, this WP:RfC proposes using "males and females" in some way or "masculine and feminine," and I'd already pointed to my proposal of "does not match masculine and feminine gender norms." I agree that my "of masculine and feminine" alternative is not good wording; I simply wanted to avoid the sea of blue, at the expense of grammar perfection (LOL). Even though I think linking "masculine" and "feminine" is important in this case, and I know that it is not a WP:Overlinking violation since those two terms are especially relevant in this case, I can agree to forgo linking them for my proposed wording. NinjaRobotPirate already agreed to go along with my proposed "masculine and feminine" wording. Now let's see what Trankuility thinks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't agree to it when you first proposed it because I literally didn't see it :/ I had started reading in the RfC and never saw your final edit to the earlier discussion. I apologize for that oversight. More recently, when you restated it a few comments upthread, I think I did see, but was too focused on what still seem like baseless attacks on my wording and approach to realize that while I disagreed with your logic, I didn't disagree with your proposed resolution, and I apologize as well for letting myself get caught up in the argument instead of short-circuiting it by accepting your proposal. I continue not to see any problem whatsoever with the present wording, but yours is fine too, so go for it. Personman (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

After waiting for more commentary, I went ahead and added the agreed upon wording. I also removed the WP:RfC tag since this matter is now resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Flyer22 and apologies for being late to this debate. I think the word change makes sense, but I also think that "intersex" should be taken out of the introductory section. Intersex Society of North America stated in Teaching Intersex Issues that intersex "is used to deconstruct sexes, gender roles, compulsory heterosexuality, and even Western science, rather than addressing medical ethics or other issues that directly impact lives of intersex people," Organisation Intersex International Australia states in an Employers' guide "some people have the expectations that intersex people will openly challenge or transgress gender norms; our reality can disappoint" and the Third International Intersex Forum argued that "no-one should instrumentalise intersex issues as a means for other ends" along with statements about initial sex assignments and changing assignment. These citations, and the material on the intersex page itself show that intersex is not, in and of itself, a form of gender variance, and its use as a tool to justify gender variance is problematic. Trankuility (talk) 09:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Trankuility! Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say "I think the word change makes sense", and respond to the explanations for why I'm in favor of the current wording that I explained in my reply to NinjaRobotPirate above? Thanks! Personman (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, above. I support the use of terms that relate the concept of gender variance to non-normative gender expression. Thanks! Trankuility (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Trankuility, also consider what I stated about being clearer regarding what gender variance is, the way that it is deviating from gender norms; we should be clear what those gender norms are -- masculine and feminine. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Trankuility, I think that, per WP:Lead, the lead should mention something about intersex people, since the article addresses the topic. I agree with this change you made to the intersex content in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I reconsidered aspects of my prior statement. Trankuility (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2015 (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.

I feel like the clothing section is quite short and very under defined. A little bit of expansion on the topic might be beneficialDhuc (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Atypical gender role is an oxymoron

The section Atypical gender roles should be retitled and rewritten to better conform to the meaning of "gender role", or deleted.

An "atypical gender role" with respect to a particular culture and time period is an oxymoron, and comes from a confused understanding of what "gender role" means. Since gender role is the societal norms and expectations of behavior and expression for a given gender, an "atypical gender role" would be the "unexpected expected norms of behavior and expression" which is self-contradictory.

The only context in which "atypical gender role" can make any sense, is in comparing one society or period with some other one(s): for example, one might say: "men in skirts is an atypical gender role these days" (because most modern societies define skirts as the exclusive purview of women, even if Scotland doesn't and therefore has an "atypical gender role" in this respect compared to others). Or one could say, "women doctors was an atypical gender role in the 19th century, compared to today."

But that's not what this section appears to be talking about. My guess is that the intent was to discuss individual or small group behavior and/or expression that diverges from societal gender role, but I can't read the mind of the authors of this section, so I don't really know what they meant. The point about Hijras totally does not belong there at all in my view, as Hijras fulfill the societal role expected for Hijras. The point about Househusbands is confused; on the one hand, it claims they stay home, and in the next breath, it claims they earn 38% less than their spouse. Which is it?

In my opinion, if this section of the article is to be kept, there would have to be some conception of what the section is actually about, because what it is not about right now, is "atypical gender roles". Is it intended to be a bullet list of minority expression or behavior, or is it something else? If the former, it needs a lot of cleanup. I believe the article would be improved by simply deleting this section entirely. Mathglot (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The terms atypical gender role or gender-atypical are used by some sources. But the section in question is currently completely unsourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with gender-atypical because I read that as "gender-atypical behavior or expression ", and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and I assume that's what the sources are saying.

As for "atypical gender role" I'm not sure that some sources really say that in the way I think you mean. Some snippets with that string of characters exist, yes; but if you search for that as a quoted expression in Books and examine them, it's almost invariably "atypical gender role behavior", and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either, since "atypical": modifies "behavior" and not "gender role". Try a search for "atypical gender role" where "atypical" modifies "gender role", and I believe you'll have a tough time assembling any examples.

The fact that the section lacks sourcing is a good enough reason to challenge it, which I hereby do. Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If we are speaking in basic terms, gender roles are behaviors. Enough sources define them as traits and behaviors associated with men and women/masculinity and femininity. I've never seen a clear difference between "gender roles" and "gender role behavior" or "atypical gender role" and "atypical gender role behavior" in sources. It's like stating that "gender non-conforming" and "gender non-conforming behavior" are two different things. They aren't. I'm also not sure what you thought I meant. I simply stated, "The terms atypical gender role or gender-atypical are used by some sources." I've read enough sources that use those terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Added Two-Spirited people in under Atypical Gender Roles and added two references to back the added statements. Sedersta (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Did a bit of cleanup and changed it to "A person may be considered to be fulfilling an atypical gender role when their gender expression and activities differ from those usually expected of people of their gender in their culture. As social norms can vary widely by culture, what is or is not "typical" for one culture may be "atypical" for another." If that doesn't work, feel free to flag and discuss some more. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Gender-Affirmative Practices

Hi, I am interested in adding a section on Gender-Affirmative Practices in the psychological and physical health fields. I'll mostly be using research cited by the APA in their 2015 "Guidelines for Gender-Affirmative Practices with Transgender and Gender Non-conforming People". I'd like some advice - do you think this is the best page to put this on? Thank you. Hannahsmith00 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Hannahsmith00, yes, it's fine to go in this article. I'd prefer to see exactly what you'll be adding, though, which is why I suggest you draft the material in your WP:Sandbox first and then link to it here for review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Great thank you. Here is the link to my addition - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Hannahsmith00/sandbox#Gender-Affirmative_Practices Hannahsmith00 (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hannahsmith00, it would have been better if you waited longer for a reply. But as seen here, I tweaked your text. See WP:REFPUNCT, WP:Overlinking, WP:External link, and WP:MEDRS. I removed one piece of text per WP:MEDRS. The other health material should be supported by non-WP:Primary sources, but the sources for it are stronger than that one source I removed (along with the material it supported). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Genderqueer

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

Thought this was relevant to this page and yes I am the nominator. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Direct link to discussion —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)