Talk:Non-binary gender/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Xenogenders

As per discussion on Talk:Xenogender, I've created an entry here under Non-binary_gender#Terms,_definitions,_and_identities. I'm not entirely sure how to make the xenogender page redirect to the xenogender blurb here though, WP:Redirect is a little confusing to me. Additionally, any more WP:RS sources for this section would be beneficial, as I'm not entirely sure the second source is 100% suitable. hopolapopola ● 📩 ● 📝 15:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hopolapopola do you think these sources are WP:RS? Tazuco (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Tazuco this one seems alright, lgbtqnation has a clear editorial team, although this article is new - not sure how recency would come into play. this source doesn't seem as reliable, but it does cite at least one study that may be relevant w.r.t gender microlabels becoming more prevalent (which xenogenders would fall under). would love to hear from other editors too if they think one or both sources are good! hopolapopola ● 📩 ● 📝 00:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

further to my previous comment, I did some reading at Talk:Non-binary_gender/Archive_8#About_the_xenogender and previously an editor took issue with this source but i believe it'd be fine to show this is a thing that exists alongside this source that explains what it really is. Assuming the lgbtqnation article is Reliable enough, I would argue that this set of sources should be enough to satisfy notability - it shows that "real" sources are picking up on what already existed on less reliable places like fandom wikis and tumblrs. hopolapopola ● 📩 ● 📝 02:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

The last sentence: "In the United States there are no explicit laws to protect non-binary people from discrimination, however it is illegal for an employer to require employees to conform to sex stereotypes.[79]" What does that even mean? We are very confused about this. Needs heavy clarification. 174.255.68.7 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC) 174.255.68.7 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it means exactly what it says? The plain reading is clear to me, can you help us figure out what it means to you? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed "sex" to "gender" and added a wikilink to gender stereotypes; does that help? Funcrunch (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the wikilink helps a bit I think. The confusion resulted from the listed reference not providing any clarity either; we couldn't see how this sentence was contrived from it, but let's ignore that. Does it mean a manager cannot force, say, a secretary to wear a dress? If so it should read "an employer cannot require employees to conform, or otherwise behave in, manners that relate to their respective gender and its stereotypes". 72.93.206.32 (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Related, I made this change which provides a link to Title VII. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 03:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

Change

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

to

Non-binary[a] or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither man nor woman

because male and female aren't gender identities, they're sexes. Man and woman are gender identities. 2601:204:C784:40A0:8EC0:D0CB:FC32:A424 (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources on Gender identity, the terms "male" and "female" are also used for gender identities, not only for sexes. Newimpartial (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we should get the definition right?

Earlier I pointed out the inconsistencies in the article arising from the second sentence of the lead, and I’m glad to see that Astrophobe came to my support, but let’s move on. There is a much more important error staring us in the face in the first sentence of the lead:

"Non-binary . . . is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither male nor female" is simply wrong. The error lies in the word "neither", which is extracted from reference, no 2, whilst ignoring the qualifications which follow it. Reference 2 states: "Some people have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders." This is a good definition, and it is quite clear that each of these examples is a separate case. So the statement that some people have a gender which is neither male nor female is true, but so are the statements that some people have a gender that is both male and female at one time, or as different genders at different times. Each of these examples has parity, and our lead has to reflect this..What it should say is ". . . gender identities that are not exclusively male or female".

Alternatively, we could adopt Stonewall’s definition:

Non-binary: An umbrella term for people whose gender identity doesn’t sit comfortably with ‘man’ or ‘woman’. Non-binary identities are varied and can include people who identify with some aspects of binary identities, while others reject them entirely.

Although unfortunately this uses ‘man’ or ‘woman’ when it should say ‘male’ or ‘female’. Brymor (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Brymor - How about "Non-binary . . . is an umbrella term for gender identities that are neither solely male nor solely female" (emphasis added to show change) EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Tazuco (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that the an old version of the page used "not exclusively masculine or feminine‍" rather than "neither male nor female‍". There has been some discussion about how exactly to phrase this on the talk page, but nothing that I can recall which focused very directly on the possible confusion between "not at all either male or female" and "not exactly male and also not exactly female". - Astrophobe (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, done. Thank you Astrophobe for pointing out the better wording in the old version, which I have restored. Brymor (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Undone. Doesn't match the given source (which happens to use male/female, among other things). Also, these dyadic negative expressions (neither A nor B, not exclusively A or B, not at all either A or B) aren't all equivalent. And in any case, should be a reflection of the body, where this should be worked out first, and then properly summarized. Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, I reread the sources and I think they support EvergreenFir's suggestion, which I prefer to the masculine/feminine version. Can we use that? I'd prefer it not to include the links to male and female, as the articles are specifically about sex. I'd be ok with just having this in the lead, as it's of the "basic facts" type discussed at MOS:LEAD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah; until and unless we can improve the lead sections of male and female, those links won't help our readers. But I do prefer "man and woman" over "male and female" over "masculine and feminine", in that order, since the concepts of "exclusively masculine" and "exclusively feminine" gender seem far too restrictive for real world identities as "men" and "women". Newimpartial (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers: I could live with EvergreenFir's suggestion, but I do find "neither solely" a bit of a mouthful - "not exclusively" is clearer, and is supported both by the old version, and reference 2. Brymor (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I do slightly prefer "not exclusively" to "neither solely ... nor solely". I prefer the unlinked male/female to masculine/feminine. I'm undecided on Newimpartial's man/woman, and I'm not sure what the full text would look like if we use those terms. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

My view on man/woman is that these terms are more biological than male/female, but even if I'm wrong, we can't use man/woman because all the references use male/female (essentially Mathglot's objection to masculine/feminine). So adopting "not exclusively" and "male/female" the full text would read: "Non-binary or genderqueer is an umbrella term for gender identities that are not exclusively male or female —‌ identities that are outside the gender binary." (With the links removed from male and female.) "identities that are outside the gender binary" is a bit odd, but it is a quote from reference 2, so is probably ok.Brymor (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I like "solely" more than "exclusively". It's shorter and flows better I think. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should do the edit, then. Brymor (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with solely, as long as we use the shorter construction of Brymor's edit: is an umbrella term for gender identities that are not solely male or female. I plan on making the edit soonish if no one else gets to it or objects. I'm worried this might have dropped off Mathglot's radar so here's a ping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes, I'd be fine with your version (@19:56). The "why" in Brymor's question below is slightly o/t here imho; however, since you asked, it's basically because this is such a contentious article within a contentious topic area, and people can get intense about a comma or a verb tense; I didn't want to reword, in order not to inflame the situation with even more options. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot: My original proposal was to use the words male and female (see above), but I was put off by the links to those pages, which are too biological, as pointed out by Firefangledfeathers. So instead of reverting, why didn't you just change masculine/feminine to male/female? The error in the existing text has to be corrected. Brymor (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Nonbinary umbrella

The subsection of this talk page called "Nitpicking terminology" has strayed a lot from its original discussion, and there have been some interesting and very subtle points that I think risk getting buried in the layers of monthslong discussion threads there. There are so many different threads up there that when I want to contribute to the discussion it's actively hard to figure out which one to even respond to. So I'm starting a new section with the idea of focusing narrowly on Brymor's proposals regarding how the lead of this article should describe the relationship between non-binary and transgender identities. Right now the lead says Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella, since non-binary people typically identify with a gender that is different from their assigned sex, though some non-binary individuals do not consider themselves transgender. I think this sentence matches the contents of the page fairly well, but Brymor points out that if some individuals do not consider themselves transgender (and if, to quote the page body, many (not all) references use the term transgender to include genderqueer/non-binary people), then it is neither a really accurate summary of the article body nor a really accurate summary of the references to say without qualification that Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella. Brymor proposes to replace Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella with Many references place non-binary identities under the transgender umbrella. I broadly support a change along those lines, but I have a small (and maybe pedantic/personal/stylistic) issue with it: the lead section shouldn't really be directly pronouncing on what proportions of references espouse different viewpoints, the lead should be summarizing the contents of the article using references as supporting material where necessary. So I would instead suggest replacing Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella with Non-binary identities usually fall under the transgender umbrella. Then the full sentence would read Non-binary identities usually fall under the transgender umbrella, since non-binary people typically identify with a gender that is different from their assigned sex, though some non-binary individuals do not consider themselves transgender. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

So the proposal is just to add the word "usually"? I don't believe that it is really essential to do this, as I feel that the existing caveat already covers it, but I don't object to it. If others think that this is an improvement then I think that it is acceptable and would be preferable to more drastic changes. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding "usually" sounds to me like certain specific identities are outside the umbrella, which isn't sourceable as far as I know. I don't think that the identities as a group falling under transgender umbrella necessarily contradicts that some individuals do not identify as transgender. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also papers like this: Non-binary refers to transgender people who have a gender identity that does not align with their sex assigned at birth and who identify outside of the traditional female-male gender binary, such as genderqueer, genderfluid, or gender nonconforming.[8] That cited article itself states, non-binary people make up a significant portion of the transgender community. Of course there are exceptions, but as a group, the current article text seems to hold. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

In light of a recent a recent and rather dismissive article from Kadji Amin that seems to mark nonbinary politics as bad faith radicalism, I framed our identities this way: "Nonbinary trans identities have historically referred to a range of gender non-normative embodiments and self-making practices that stand on the outside of, or sometimes in direct opposition to, the Western binary classifications of sex/gender (i.e., man or woman, male or female). These identities include but are not limited to androgyny, genderqueer, genderfluid, gender nonconforming, and genderf*ck. Increasingly, nonbinary has become its own free-standing identity, without many of the historical connotations that genderqueer, for instance, might invoke. Nonbinary people identify themselves with gender-neutral pronouns or a fluid mixture of gendered pronouns in social practices. Some transition and take on embodiments that have a particular gendered aesthetic. This may or may not include sexual reassignment surgeries and other procedures that are body confirming. In short, nonbinary people have varied and robust social lives." I feel like it's important to (1) point out that nonbinary hasn't always been deployed as such, (2) make a distinction even within nonbinary communities as to a plurality of identities, (3) mark those identities as emerging from often Western colonial discourse and historical relations, and (4) ensure that readers know there are interfacing and non-identical ways that nonbinary subjects identify, i.e., trans feminine and trans masculine might refer to one's relation to their birth-assigned sex, conscripted gender position, a combination of the two, or neither. We are pretty robust people. And our politics, despite whatever Professor Amin seems to think, is not a priori a radical divestment from the binary. Most of us just want to live without violence, homelessness, and economic insecurity. B Lee-Harrison Aultman, Ph.D. User:Bleeeaultman 21:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

As someone who is transgender, I would like to state that non-binary does not "fall under the transgender umbrella" as the article states, but that non-binary is *related to* transgender.

Accordingly, I suggest that the sentence:

"Non-binary identities fall under the transgender umbrella... some non-binary individuals do not consider themselves transgender"

be changed to:

Non-binary identities are separate but related to transgender identities, in that non-binary people typically identify with a gender that is different from their assigned sex, though some non-binary individuals do not consider themselves transgender.

Violet 49.183.24.37 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR. "Transgender" means a person who does not identify with their gender/sex assigned at birth. NB people (such as myself) would fall under that category. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Delendaaest (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Delendaaest (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JessiWasTaken (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Spelico.

— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit required

In the United Kingdom section, it says "The purpose of the survey was to test if respondents are willing to answer questions about their transsexual status", should probably say "purpose of the survey was to test the design of a set of questions, that if respondents were willing to answer, would reveal their transsexual status" I think this format was recommended to govt? may be worth noting 2404:4408:638C:5E00:666D:DDCF:AE5E:A34C (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Need to make clear that transgender and non-binary are not the same

Transgender, Non-binary and Intersex people are three separate groups who fall within the gender-diverse umbrella. Trans, Non-binary and Intersex people will often undertake some of the same surgeries and/or hormonal and other treatments, but they are distinct, separate groups and identities, but this article states the opposite to this, conflating trans and non-binary, including in the article lead.

It appears that this article is "locked" and cannot be updated, so can somebody with the ability to update this page please make this change?

Thank you kindly. 49.185.206.32 (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Transgenderism has nothing to do with surgeries or hormon treatments. Transgender is being assigned to a gender different from one's gender identity. This includes binary as well as non-binary genders. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

being consistent with sources

I tried to add a table of information from the annual gender census and it got deleted for being sourced from an annual web poll (gender census). The graph in the sidebar should then also be removed as this is from the same 2021 survey. -Delendaaest (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Re-fixed (no longer multiple). Mathglot (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

enby

Should a bit about the term enby be added to the definitions/terms section? 2601:240:4D81:9030:DC64:9BA6:7A10:E00E (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Objections to the Brazil section?

What are our thoughts on this change? It seems to dispute the previous sentence. Is this a neutral clarification or is it argumentative POV? DanielRigal (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the caveats noted by the authors, I think some succinct clarification of the paper’s specific criteria for non-binary classification is good and possibly necessary. This should be at most 1–2 sentences of prose and not the WP:OVERQUOTE that’s there now. The exact questions are provided in a supplementary document, we should probably quote them. Introducing the distinction with However may be slightly MOS:EDITORIAL and perhaps inappropriately implies a contradiction between the survey’s methodology and stated results. I’d make such an edit myself but am hindered by being mobile-only. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022

Pablo Cavero Asencio (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I want to extend the information in the history section. Las year I did a research project about it. I think the information would be useful and would enrich the page (expanding the knowledge on the topic).

What information would you like to see added to this article? Preferably you have a good citation for it as well. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add information related to the origin of the term and its use on religion. Also information about its representation on media. Pablo Cavero Asencio (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

https://nonbinary.miraheze.org/wiki/History_of_nonbinary_gender#Antiquity

https://nonbinary.miraheze.org/wiki/History_of_nonbinary_gender#Eleventh_century

https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/resource/2021/explore-the-representation-of-diversity-and-inclusion-on-tv/

https://athenacommons.muw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&=&context=merge&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Furl%253Fq%253Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fathenacommons.muw.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%25253D1022%252526context%25253Dmerge%2526sa%253DD%2526source%253Ddocs%2526ust%253D1641427341822421%2526usg%253DAOvVaw1Ym2QrqqP1ccRWFZt9AFdi#search=%22https%3A%2F%2Fathenacommons.muw.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1022%26context%3Dmerge%22

https://study.com/academy/lesson/lgbtq-issues-representation-in-theatre.html

https://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7290&=&context=etd&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252Furl%253Fq%253Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fstars.library.ucf.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%25253D7290%252526context%25253Detd%2526sa%253DD%2526source%253Ddocs%2526ust%253D1641427678423202%2526usg%253DAOvVaw3N5_2aFKmHdIA_xrJqcoQE#search=%22https%3A%2F%2Fstars.library.ucf.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7290%26context%3Detd%22 Pablo Cavero Asencio (talk) 08:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pablo Cavero Asencio So what you should do here is write up exactly what you want added, and then we can have something to work with :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Understanding the term

To start understanding what this term means, we should first look up at a dictionary’s definition. In fact, following Cambridge Dictionary, Non-Binary referring to gender indentity is described as “Having a gender identity that is not simply men or female. Some people...experience their gender as both male and female, and others...as neither...”. Being that said, to sum up, non-binarity is not being binary, not being identified with any of the traditional binary genders or not only with one of them but with both or more. It’s simply not being a man or a woman but being neither or both. Let’s have some other terms cleared so that it is easier to understand what being non-binary means.

1. Gender identity, Gender Expression, and Sex: Sex has to do with Biology, with someone’s genitalia - female, male, or intersex (presenting both female and male genitalia characteristics)-. Gender identity is the feeling, being, and identity - woman, man, non-binary, agender, genderfluid…-. And gender expression is how someone expresses physically, or with the looks and behavior of their gender identity. This is built from old traditional gender stereotypes.

2. Gender Binary: This term refers to the two traditional and only gender identities in the western world, man and woman, boy and girl...For a really long time in our history, these have been conceived as the only existent genders, which are assigned at birth depending on the genitalia: male=man, female=woman.

3. Cisgender/Transgender: Being cisgender means that someone is and identifies with the same gender society attributed to them at birth. For instance, if a person is assigned female because of their genitalia at birth and they also identify as a woman, is cisgender. But if they were assigned female but time goes by and they identify as any other gender but woman, then, they are transgender.

Another important part of gender in general but even more important when it comes to non-binary genders are pronouns. These are the words we use to refer to someone. There are four major types: masculine - he/him/his- feminine -she/her/hers- neutral -they/them/their(singular use)- and neopronouns - these are created by the own person to serve as a nongender pronoun, it is not written down specifically the ones that must be used, we could find ze/zir, bun/bunself, fae/faer/faeself...but it could be anything that the person feels more comfortable with.

Non-binary history

Despite the non-binary term, major knowledge and expansion through our modern western countries about this is pretty new, the truth is that people out of the binary genders have existed, normalized, and viewed since the beginning of our ages.

For instance, as early as Mespotoamia there is knowledge and proof that people that didn’t identify as either woman or man were normalized. Another example would be Sumerian, Akkadian (2nd millennium BCE - 1700BCE), and Egyptian (2000-1800 BCE) culture and language, which had a word “Sekhet” to make reference to trans people and other queer relatives. Other traditional cultures with a non-binary view is the South Asian (India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Bangladesh - 400-300 BCE) with the “hijra”, a kind of the third gender referring to transgender and gender non-conforming people. A lot of pre-colonial cultures such as Native American and the modern term “two-spirit” - holy people who had both masculine and feminine energy and could do everything and be with anyone-, Hawaiian and Tahitian with the “māhū”, Bugis recognizing five different genders or even early Judaism (1st century BCE) believing in six genders and sexes, are proof that non-binary and transgender people have existed ever since.

Later on, religions such as Christianism (which only believes in two genders) in Europe made fun and slurs like “wæpen-wifestre” to refer to queer people, people out of their norm.

Following this up, Christianism and other major binary religions and beliefs expanded over the globe, eradicating cultures that believed in more than two genders, invisiblizing, extinguishing, fearing, and killing “rulebreakers”, queer people...Making the visibility of non-binary people almost impossible again until the late 20th century.

LGTBQ+ Representation

Since the beginning of our times, there has always been LGBT+ representation, such as the Greek poet Sappho being openly lesbian and writing poems to her female lovers, Elagabalus, a transgender Roman emperor, or Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, king Louis XIV’s younger brother, who was openly gay.

During all our existence there has been some sort of LGBTIQ+ representation, but it has been changing, disappearing, kept secret...all through the culture and morality of the era.

When it comes to media representation, the community was hidden and invisible for a lot of time.

1. Literature: In literature, there has been more freedom. In some novels from as early as the 19th century and before, we can find some LGBT characters or acts that could mean a representation of the community. For instance, Carmilla (1872) by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu, The song of Billis (1890) by Pierre Louÿs, The Picture of Dorian Gray (1890) by Oscar Wilde, Spring Awakening (1891) by Benjamin Frank Wedekind, Man into Woman (1933) by Niels Hoyer and a lot of avant-garde literature from Gertrude Stein and Barbara Hammer.

But when it is down to other media channels, such as opera, theatre, and audiovisual mediums, there has been huge repression.

2. Painting and sculpture: From ancient Greek art, homosexuality, and transgederism have been represented, because, at the time, homosexuality mainly between men (even though the word itself didn’t exist) was naturally seen: Peithinos Cup (525-475 BCE). When Christianism and other major religions against homosexuality took over the western world, the representation of the community came up to be all negative and tragic.

But in the 19th century representing nude women together became something more permitted but cataloged as erotic and always for the male gaze: Le Sommeil (1866) by Gustave Courbet, Turkish Bath (1862) by Dominique Ingres, and the Damned Women sculpture (1885) by Auguste Rodin.

3. Opera, theatre, and musicals: In opera, the first slight representation of an LGBTIQ+ character or situation could be Countess Geschwitz in Lulu (1937) by Alban Berg. But we would have to wait until 1970 with The Knot Garden by Michael Tippett to be able to see a real and clear LGBTIQ+ story.

Since the start of theatre in ancient times, this art form has been a big window into history and our society. But until the 20th century, it was nearly impossible to find some sort of LGBTIQ+ representation. In 1926 Édouard Bourdet created and presented on Broadway The Captive, one of the firsts plays to represent a gay story, in particular a lesbian plot. The Drag (1927) by Mae West was another LGBTIQ+ (drag queens) play pioneer. But along with these law restrictions regarding obscenity were made, making it impossible to create healthy and real LGBTIQ+ stories until the 50s.

When the mid 20th century arrived, the restrictions became more liberal and stories from the community came back. Tea and Sympathy (1953) by Robert Anderson, The Boys in the Band (1968) by Mart Crowly, The Normal Heart (1985) by Larry Kramer, Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes ( 1993) by Tony Kushner… Some theatre companies like The Other Side of Silence (1974) emerged as a creative safe space. Nowadays, most modern theatre creations involve some sort of LGBTIQ+ representation.

When it comes to musical theatre, the representation of LGBTIQ+ characters and stories was again almost nonexistent until the very 20th century with the musical representation of the theatre play The Captive in the late 1920s. But with the obscenity laws regulations, we would have to wait until the 1970s- 80s to see a realistic image of the community in musical theatre. Applause (1970) by Adolph Green and Betty Comden, A Chorus Line (1975) by James Kirkwood and Nicholas Dante, La Cage Aux Folles (1983) by Harvey Fierstein and Jerry Herman, which was the first groundbreaking musical starring a gay men couple and based in a drag queens bar. And since the launch of this last one, musicals such as Falsettos (1992) by James Lapine and William Finn, Rent (1996) by Jonathan Larson, Bare: A Pop Opera (2000) by Damon Intrabartolo, The Color Purple (2005) by Marsha Norman, Kinky Boots (2013) by Harvey Fierstein, Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2014) by John Cameron Mitchell or Fun Home (2015) by Lisa Kron would not have LGBTIQ+ starring characters.

4. TV Shows and Films: Along with all other art forms, TV and cinema also play a huge role when it comes to representation. The LGBTIQ+ on-screen portrayal has changed over the decades.

Since the start of cinema and filmmaking in the late 19th-century LGBTIQ+ stories were already being created for the big screen. Dickson Experimental Sound Film (1894) by William Kennedy Dickson is the first audiovisual portrait (17 seconds film) of two men together. At the time a big shock for the audience.

Among others, Charlie Chaplin has been seen as a pioneer director on creating LGBTIQ+ characters and stories, but the truth is that in all his movies gay people are embodied inside comedy and laughter.

In 1919 the silent German film Anders als die Anderen by Richard Oswald was the first long film with LGBTIQ+ representation.

Until the mid-1930s it was likeable to find some sort of hint to the community in mainstream movies like Manslaughter (1922) by Cecil B.DeMille, Salomé (1922) by Charles Bryant, Wings (1927) by William A Wellman and Harry d’Abbadie d’Arrast, which won Best Picture at the Academy Awards Ceremony portraying the first same-sex kiss on-screen. Pandora’s Box (1929) by Georg Wilhelm Pabst, Morocco (1930) by Josef Von Sternberg and Mädchen in Uniform (1931) by Leontine Sagan were considered the first explicit lesbian movie and Queen Christina (1933) by Robert Mamoulian was based on Queen Christina of Sweden’s life.

But in 1936 Hollywood enforces taboo and image restrictions, making same-sex, trans, and drag queens portrayal almost impossible for the next decades. Here it is when queer coding and devastating endings start.

The Queer representation prohibition was lifted in 1968 with the first lesbian sex scene on screen in The Killing of Sister George by Robert Aldrich, making it easier for filmmakers to create healthy and real LGBTIQ+ stories such as The Boys in the Band (1970) by William Friedkin, Dog Day Afternoon (1975) by Sydney Lumet - Winner of an Oscar nomination-, Making Love (1982) by Barry Sandler and Desert Hearts (1885) by Donna Deitch.

In the 90s the label New Queer Cinema was created by B.Ruby Rich to refer to all the new queer filmmaking and filmmakers, portraying sexuality as fluid, and making LGBTIQ+ stories mainstream. Philadelphia (1993) by Jonathan Demme-Oscar winner for best actor (Tom Hanks)-, Boys don’t cry (1999) by Kimberly Peirce - Oscar winner for best actress (Hilary Swank)-, Todo sobre mi madre (1999) by Pedro Almodóvar -Oscar winner for best non-English movie-, Brokeback Mountain (2005) by Ang Lee- The Oscars winner-, The Kids Are Alright (2010) by Lisa Cholodenko - First LGBTIQ+ movie nominated to Best Picture at the Oscars-, Moonlight (2017) by Barry Jenkins. Winning three Oscars, one of them to Best Picture, making it the first P.O.C LGBTIQ+ plot to win it.-.

In recent years LGBTIQ+ representation has increased in film and TV shows. In fact, in 2019 a representation record was made with movies such as Booksmart by Olivia Wilde, Portrait de la jeune fille en feu by Céline Sciamma, Rocketman by Dexter Fletcher...and shows like Pose by Ryan Murphy, RuPaul’s Drag Race (even though it has been on air since 2009 it was included on Netflix and other popular streaming platforms in 2019), and Tales of the City by Lauren Morelli.

Although it seems like nowadays the queer representation is really high and is usual to find some sort of LGBTIQ+ character or story in all-new movies and series, the truth is that Nielsen’s Inclusion Study shows that in 2020 there was only a 7.5% (cable TV), 5.0% (broadcast) and 8.3% (SVOD) of LGBTIQ+ representation and it gets worse for P.O.C or non-white queer portrayal.

Non-binary representation

If it is already difficult to find LGBTIQ+ representation in our art history when it comes to non-binary, a pretty new known term, it is nearly impossible.

In fact, the only representation of a non-cis-binary character before the late 20th century is Krazy Kat, a non-human creature from a 1913 to 1944 comic series by George Herriman.

The truth is that it is easier to find non-binary, genderfluid, and agender representation on comics, novels, mangas, cartoons, animated movies, and fantasy worlds: Steven Universe (2013-2020) by Rebecca Sugar, Princess Knight (1953) by Osamu Tezuka, Kino’s Journey (2000) by Keiichi Sigsawa, bro’Town (2004) by Elizabeth Mitchell, Knights of Sidonia (2009) by Tsutomu Nihei, Two Stand River (1976) by Keith Maillard, The Dragon Prince (2018) by Aaron Ehasz, Gen: Lock (2019) by Gray Haddock, Eth’s Skin (2014) by Sfé R.Monster, The Order of the Stick (2003) by Rich Burlew.

We can also find some more new art form that portrays non-binarity such as the musicals: Hedwig and the Angry Inch (2014) by John Cameron Mitchell and Head Over Heels (2018) by James Magruder.

When it comes to movies and TV shows, the reality is that a few have some sort of nonbinary representation and all of these are really recent. The Kings of Summer (2013) by Jordan Vogt-Roberts, The Carmilla Movie (2017) by Spencer Maybee, The Switch (2016) by Amy Fox, One Day at a Time (2017) by Gloria Calderón Kellett, Star Trek: Discovery (2017) by Bryan Fuller, and Billions (2016) by Brian Koppelman - being the first broadcast TV show to have a main openly nonbinary character-.

These days, more and more famous people are coming out as nonbinary being referents for the community, hoping the non-cis mainstream media representation will increase. Pablo Cavero Asencio (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hope it's useful and can help spreading information (in some kind of way). Pablo Cavero Asencio (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Your zeal is appreciated, but your proposed text lacks inline citations, and it’s not clear exactly what part(s) of the article this material would be added to. Some of it doesn’t seem related to the topic of this article. Definitions of terms like gender binary, cisgender are already covered by their own articles. The history of non-binary identities and groups outside the modern conception are currently discussed in detail at Third gender § History. You provide a lot of material about Media portrayal of LGBT people, but most is unrelated to non-binary people. Some of this information is already covered at Non-binary characters in fiction. Finally, the text doesn’t fully adhere to the WP:Manual of Style: the encyclopedic voice does not use first-person pronouns or editorial phrases like “nowadays” or “in fact”.

My best advice would be to spend some time reading and editing existing Wikipedia articles (this is clearly a topic area that interests you), and learn the ropes of encyclopedic writing.

Also note that Non-binary Wiki and are WP:User-generated content and thus, not a WP:reliable source, although we can base text off sources they collect. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Pablo Cavero Asencio: Material about media portrayal of non-binary people would be very useful to add to Wikipedia. Right now, all we have is Non-binary characters in fiction and a terrible and outdated section at Media portrayal of LGBT people#Media representations of non-binary people. Note that neither of those articles are protected and you're welcome to edit there without pre-approval. Nosferattus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

If the article deals only about gender identities, as is stated in start, maybe some form of #1 (Gender identity, Gender Expression, and Sex) should be there.
The lead also has this: "Being non-binary is also not the same as being intersex; most intersex people identify as either male or female."
Is not intersex the physical form of non-binary? 83.146.128.65 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the article is correct; they are two largely unrelated concepts. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 22:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect statistic

The page says that "most" respondents to the 2008 US Transgender Discrimination Survey chose "a gender not listed here." The cited source actually says that this was the smallest category (13%). The page is locked so I can't just correct it. Chwijwi (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Made the change in this diff. Thanks for the correction! –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DazedFish (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Opticsix.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-17

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 February 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahce817 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LuciBee123 (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Nonbinary ≠ Genderqueer

Genderqueer IS a nonbinary identity but I'd argue the two deserve their own subheaders rather than being squished together. The flag on the page isn't even the nonbinary flag, so like. Idk, do with this what you will, I just thought it was interesting to see em all on one very confusing page 2600:1702:43A0:1C00:C5D7:C54A:BFB8:737A (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that distinction? Currently, the first sentence is supported by two sources. If you have a source that takes a different perspective, we can add that. The section Non-binary_gender#Terms,_definitions,_and_identities has a more extensive discussion already. Do you have feedback on that as well?--TempusTacet (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The separation of the two is a very recent (I'd guess last 10-12 years) phenomenon. Prior to that they referred to the same thing. Equivamp - talk 16:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

The pages Bigender and Agender redirect back to this page, so they shouldn't be links on this page. 2605:A601:AB56:CB00:649:C9C4:31C3:7BDA (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree but where do you see these terms being linked? I just checked and couldn't find any cases.--TempusTacet (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think that there are any such links anywhere in this article, are there? Where are you seeing them as links? You don't have a browser add-on that adds extra links to pages, do you? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Fire Semester 3

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Worm Insurrection (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Anedun (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Boygender

Boygender is a gender in non- binary gender identities for those who identify with the term "boy," but reject manhood and/or feel disconnect from the term "man." It opposes toxic masculinity and embraces innocence, soft masculinity, non-binary masculinity, and non-binary boyhood.

The original tumblr made flag with the following link boygender flag WIKI Leofranken (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Leofranken. There exist a great many gender identities, but relatively few are fit to discuss on Wikipedia. In particular, it should be discussed by one or more reliable sources. Tumblr and wikis anyone can edit do not count. Have any such sources discussed this gender? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

   I thought you're a vandal on "RationalWiki", but now I see you're really funny. Funny guy. Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The framing of it as a "criticism" section and overall approach promoting it above are clearly non-starters, but for future reference, the source is this academic article, readable in full, here. Generally, we have treated these sorts of articles in the humanities as WP:PRIMARY sources equivalent to single studies in science, with little or no weight on topics like this where secondary sources should exist. I haven't read it, but the source is clearly taking a queer theory perspective and probably isn't an attack on non-binary people in particular, but a questioning of our culture's way of categorizing gender overall. Of course, numerous opinions along those general lines exist. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Xenogender flag?

So Xenogender redirects to Non-binary_gender#Xenogender. What do others think of adding Xenogender flag (

) to Non-binary gender#Symbols and observances? EarthFurst (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It would need reliable secondary sources indicating that the community meaningfully uses this flag. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Jens Andersson

Article mentions Jens Andersson as a historical example for non-binary gender. Please see the two sections of sources below, Andersson was in a same sex relationship during a time when this was an illegal act, and was imprisoned for such. Prescribing a gender identity post mortem is not scholarly work, and this is also mentioned in the first highlighted source.

Recommending that this example be removed.

Sources:

https://www.nb.no/historier-fra-samlingen/jens-og-anne-christine/#:~:text=Nyborg%20points%20out,how%20I%20am%22.

https://skeivtarkiv.no/en/skeivopedia/sodomy-between-women#:~:text=Another%20case%20which,court.%20(Stoa%202010). 76.184.170.169 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)