Talk:Genderqueer - Revision history

108.34.174.33 at 15:48, 10 March 2021

2021-03-10T15:48:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 10 March 2021
Line 16:		Line 16:
	== Uncited claims that do not appear to reflect the reality ==		== Uncited claims that do not appear to reflect the reality ==

	The section on whether genderqueer people are trans is contrary to any of my understanding of being genderqueer. "It is common for genderqueer-identified people to consider trans and transgender to be synonymous with transition and so to claim genderqueer as a non-transgender identity," is especially jarring. As a genderqueer person who hangs out with other genderqueer people, this is exactly the opposite of how we view whether genderqueer people are trans. Unless someone has a citation, this should be removed. [[Special:Contributions/108.34.174.33\|108.34.174.33]]		The section on whether genderqueer people are trans is contrary to any of my understanding of being genderqueer. "It is common for genderqueer-identified people to consider trans and transgender to be synonymous with transition and so to claim genderqueer as a non-transgender identity," is especially jarring. As a genderqueer person who hangs out with other genderqueer people, this is exactly the opposite of how we view whether genderqueer people are trans. Unless someone has a citation, this (and probably the entire section) should be removed. [[Special:Contributions/108.34.174.33\|108.34.174.33]]

108.34.174.33 at 15:46, 10 March 2021

2021-03-10T15:46:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 10 March 2021
Line 13:		Line 13:
	I think it would be better to engage with specific written sources and attempt to synthesize the definitions given there. The "History" section does a decent job of that.		I think it would be better to engage with specific written sources and attempt to synthesize the definitions given there. The "History" section does a decent job of that.
	--[[User:NumerousScorpions\|NumerousScorpions]] ([[User talk:NumerousScorpions\|talk]]) 00:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)		--[[User:NumerousScorpions\|NumerousScorpions]] ([[User talk:NumerousScorpions\|talk]]) 00:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

			== Uncited claims that do not appear to reflect the reality ==

			The section on whether genderqueer people are trans is contrary to any of my understanding of being genderqueer. "It is common for genderqueer-identified people to consider trans and transgender to be synonymous with transition and so to claim genderqueer as a non-transgender identity," is especially jarring. As a genderqueer person who hangs out with other genderqueer people, this is exactly the opposite of how we view whether genderqueer people are trans. Unless someone has a citation, this should be removed. [[Special:Contributions/108.34.174.33\|108.34.174.33]]

imported>NumerousScorpions: /* Original research */ new section

2020-12-05T00:20:18Z

Original research: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:20, 5 December 2020
Line 6:		Line 6:

	It's an interesting comment, but I don't really know how to fix it (I wish they had given us examples!). The problem seems to be that specialised terms are not defined, but most of them are actually linked to the corresponding article. Any thoughts? --[[User:NeoMahler\|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler\|talk]]) 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)		It's an interesting comment, but I don't really know how to fix it (I wish they had given us examples!). The problem seems to be that specialised terms are not defined, but most of them are actually linked to the corresponding article. Any thoughts? --[[User:NeoMahler\|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler\|talk]]) 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

			== Original research ==

			I feel that this page suffers from an "original research" problem, in Wikipedia parlance-- it currently makes sweeping claims without citing specific sources. There are so many assertions here that aren't well-supported.

			I think it would be better to engage with specific written sources and attempt to synthesize the definitions given there. The "History" section does a decent job of that.
			--[[User:NumerousScorpions\|NumerousScorpions]] ([[User talk:NumerousScorpions\|talk]]) 00:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ondo: /* Reader feedback: I feel this post repeats its... */ new section

2018-06-06T21:41:37Z

Reader feedback: I feel this post repeats its...: new section

New page

== Reader feedback: I feel this post repeats its... ==

24.205.86.181 posted [[Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Genderqueer/058f59a16dfeec10937f000000000000|this comment]] on 6 June 2018 ([[Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Genderqueer|view all feedback]]).

<blockquote>I feel this post repeats itself a lot instead of really diving into what the definition might be. It keeps reusing terms that aren't really described except by using other terms that also need to be described. I believe I am genderqueer which is why I am reading this page, but I feel like it is not giving me any insight because of how it is written.</blockquote>

It's an interesting comment, but I don't really know how to fix it (I wish they had given us examples!). The problem seems to be that specialised terms are not defined, but most of them are actually linked to the corresponding article. Any thoughts? --[[User:NeoMahler|NeoMahler]] ([[User talk:NeoMahler|talk]]) 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)