Talk:Sexes - Revision history

72.82.40.232 at 03:07, 1 January 2022

2022-01-01T03:07:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, 1 January 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:
	I think it quite awful that you exclude people who have had genital surgery from this page. For instance, Pax Ahimsa Gethen was AFAB but now has male genitalia, so they are a nonbinary trans-male person with breasts. Also, those individuals who have had a vulva from birth and individuals who have had sex reassignment surgery to create a vulva are classified by the Genderbread Person as "female" (different, of course, from "woman", "girl", "she", or "feminine"). [[Special:Contributions/2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596\|2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596]] 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)		I think it quite awful that you exclude people who have had genital surgery from this page. For instance, Pax Ahimsa Gethen was AFAB but now has male genitalia, so they are a nonbinary trans-male person with breasts. Also, those individuals who have had a vulva from birth and individuals who have had sex reassignment surgery to create a vulva are classified by the Genderbread Person as "female" (different, of course, from "woman", "girl", "she", or "feminine"). [[Special:Contributions/2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596\|2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596]] 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
	:Hi! In what specific section(s) of the page do you think that people are being excluded? Also, I'm not sure what relevance your comment about the Genderbread Person has to this page. Genderbread Person was made by a person or persons totally not affiliated with Nonbinary Wiki. --[[User:TXJ\|TXJ]] ([[User talk:TXJ\|talk]]) 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)		:Hi! In what specific section(s) of the page do you think that people are being excluded? Also, I'm not sure what relevance your comment about the Genderbread Person has to this page. Genderbread Person was made by a person or persons totally not affiliated with Nonbinary Wiki. --[[User:TXJ\|TXJ]] ([[User talk:TXJ\|talk]]) 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			::I mean, it's a little more...meaningful to split nonbinary people into 3 categories: those currently with male genitalia (who have a tendency to be perceived as men esp. re: their voice, like Addison Rose Vincent), those with female genitalia (ditto, as with Demi Lovato), and those who are intersex. They each face different kinds of discrimination, don't you think? Male enby people are unlikely to be called "sluts", and several female enby people identify as "lesbian" (this isn't true of nonbinary males). [[Special:Contributions/72.82.40.232\|72.82.40.232]] 03:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

imported>TXJ: /* Would like to see present-day genitalia mentioned */

2021-12-30T20:04:50Z

Would like to see present-day genitalia mentioned

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 30 December 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:

	I think it quite awful that you exclude people who have had genital surgery from this page. For instance, Pax Ahimsa Gethen was AFAB but now has male genitalia, so they are a nonbinary trans-male person with breasts. Also, those individuals who have had a vulva from birth and individuals who have had sex reassignment surgery to create a vulva are classified by the Genderbread Person as "female" (different, of course, from "woman", "girl", "she", or "feminine"). [[Special:Contributions/2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596\|2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596]] 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)		I think it quite awful that you exclude people who have had genital surgery from this page. For instance, Pax Ahimsa Gethen was AFAB but now has male genitalia, so they are a nonbinary trans-male person with breasts. Also, those individuals who have had a vulva from birth and individuals who have had sex reassignment surgery to create a vulva are classified by the Genderbread Person as "female" (different, of course, from "woman", "girl", "she", or "feminine"). [[Special:Contributions/2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596\|2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596]] 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
			:Hi! In what specific section(s) of the page do you think that people are being excluded? Also, I'm not sure what relevance your comment about the Genderbread Person has to this page. Genderbread Person was made by a person or persons totally not affiliated with Nonbinary Wiki. --[[User:TXJ\|TXJ]] ([[User talk:TXJ\|talk]]) 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596: /* Would like to see present-day genitalia mentioned */ new section

2021-12-29T18:40:28Z

Would like to see present-day genitalia mentioned: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 29 December 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:

	I think, so long as they've got their own category within the article and it's mentioned that there's a nuance for some people, it's better to keep them in here. The [[Nblm]], [[nblw]] and [[nblnb]] articles are fairly short and can be argued to merge with another page, but don't quite fit on the romantic orientation pages because they're just descriptions of acronyms. I think the opposite is true about AGAB. That's heavily influenced by sex. [[User:Amazingakita\|Amazingakita]]		I think, so long as they've got their own category within the article and it's mentioned that there's a nuance for some people, it's better to keep them in here. The [[Nblm]], [[nblw]] and [[nblnb]] articles are fairly short and can be argued to merge with another page, but don't quite fit on the romantic orientation pages because they're just descriptions of acronyms. I think the opposite is true about AGAB. That's heavily influenced by sex. [[User:Amazingakita\|Amazingakita]]

			== Would like to see present-day genitalia mentioned ==

			I think it quite awful that you exclude people who have had genital surgery from this page. For instance, Pax Ahimsa Gethen was AFAB but now has male genitalia, so they are a nonbinary trans-male person with breasts. Also, those individuals who have had a vulva from birth and individuals who have had sex reassignment surgery to create a vulva are classified by the Genderbread Person as "female" (different, of course, from "woman", "girl", "she", or "feminine"). [[Special:Contributions/2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596\|2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596]] 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Amazingakita: /* Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not? */

2019-02-28T05:53:29Z

Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 28 February 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:
	When I was building this article, I noticed that people generally mean assigned gender at birth when they talk about sex. I also noticed that the entries about the sexes would largely be redundant with the ones about assigned genders at birth. Because of this, I chose to move the assigned gender at birth article into a section in the sexes article. At first, this seemed most efficient. However, as I'm going through and updating all the articles linking to it, I'm feeling uncomfortable with this decision, despite my reasoning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it doesn't feel quite right to have the entry about AFAB be in the article about sexes. Seems like there are important nuances of difference between saying "AFAB" versus "female sex." Maybe so significant that it shouldn't be treated as synonymous, especially where trans folk are concerned, even though it's similar enough to be accepted as synonymous by many people. What do you think? Do you think I should split "assigned gender at birth" and "sexes" into two separate articles again, even if the content tends to be pretty similar between them? Or is it more efficient, acceptable, and informative to have "assigned gender at birth" in the "sexes" article? -[[User:Sekhet\|Sekhet]] ([[User talk:Sekhet\|talk]]) 04:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)		When I was building this article, I noticed that people generally mean assigned gender at birth when they talk about sex. I also noticed that the entries about the sexes would largely be redundant with the ones about assigned genders at birth. Because of this, I chose to move the assigned gender at birth article into a section in the sexes article. At first, this seemed most efficient. However, as I'm going through and updating all the articles linking to it, I'm feeling uncomfortable with this decision, despite my reasoning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it doesn't feel quite right to have the entry about AFAB be in the article about sexes. Seems like there are important nuances of difference between saying "AFAB" versus "female sex." Maybe so significant that it shouldn't be treated as synonymous, especially where trans folk are concerned, even though it's similar enough to be accepted as synonymous by many people. What do you think? Do you think I should split "assigned gender at birth" and "sexes" into two separate articles again, even if the content tends to be pretty similar between them? Or is it more efficient, acceptable, and informative to have "assigned gender at birth" in the "sexes" article? -[[User:Sekhet\|Sekhet]] ([[User talk:Sekhet\|talk]]) 04:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

	I think, so long as they've got their own category within the article and it's mentioned that there's a nuance for some people, it's better to keep them in here. The [[Nblm]], [[nblw]] and [[nblnb]] articles are fairly short and can be argued to merge with another page, but don't quite fit on the romantic orientation pages because they're just descriptions of acronyms. I think the opposite is true about AGAB. That's heavily influenced by sex.		I think, so long as they've got their own category within the article and it's mentioned that there's a nuance for some people, it's better to keep them in here. The [[Nblm]], [[nblw]] and [[nblnb]] articles are fairly short and can be argued to merge with another page, but don't quite fit on the romantic orientation pages because they're just descriptions of acronyms. I think the opposite is true about AGAB. That's heavily influenced by sex. [[User:Amazingakita\|Amazingakita]]

Amazingakita: /* Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not? */

2019-02-28T05:51:43Z

Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:51, 28 February 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?==		==Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?==
	When I was building this article, I noticed that people generally mean assigned gender at birth when they talk about sex. I also noticed that the entries about the sexes would largely be redundant with the ones about assigned genders at birth. Because of this, I chose to move the assigned gender at birth article into a section in the sexes article. At first, this seemed most efficient. However, as I'm going through and updating all the articles linking to it, I'm feeling uncomfortable with this decision, despite my reasoning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it doesn't feel quite right to have the entry about AFAB be in the article about sexes. Seems like there are important nuances of difference between saying "AFAB" versus "female sex." Maybe so significant that it shouldn't be treated as synonymous, especially where trans folk are concerned, even though it's similar enough to be accepted as synonymous by many people. What do you think? Do you think I should split "assigned gender at birth" and "sexes" into two separate articles again, even if the content tends to be pretty similar between them? Or is it more efficient, acceptable, and informative to have "assigned gender at birth" in the "sexes" article? -[[User:Sekhet\|Sekhet]] ([[User talk:Sekhet\|talk]]) 04:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)		When I was building this article, I noticed that people generally mean assigned gender at birth when they talk about sex. I also noticed that the entries about the sexes would largely be redundant with the ones about assigned genders at birth. Because of this, I chose to move the assigned gender at birth article into a section in the sexes article. At first, this seemed most efficient. However, as I'm going through and updating all the articles linking to it, I'm feeling uncomfortable with this decision, despite my reasoning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it doesn't feel quite right to have the entry about AFAB be in the article about sexes. Seems like there are important nuances of difference between saying "AFAB" versus "female sex." Maybe so significant that it shouldn't be treated as synonymous, especially where trans folk are concerned, even though it's similar enough to be accepted as synonymous by many people. What do you think? Do you think I should split "assigned gender at birth" and "sexes" into two separate articles again, even if the content tends to be pretty similar between them? Or is it more efficient, acceptable, and informative to have "assigned gender at birth" in the "sexes" article? -[[User:Sekhet\|Sekhet]] ([[User talk:Sekhet\|talk]]) 04:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

			I think, so long as they've got their own category within the article and it's mentioned that there's a nuance for some people, it's better to keep them in here. The [[Nblm]], [[nblw]] and [[nblnb]] articles are fairly short and can be argued to merge with another page, but don't quite fit on the romantic orientation pages because they're just descriptions of acronyms. I think the opposite is true about AGAB. That's heavily influenced by sex.

imported>Sekhet: Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?

2019-02-28T04:19:05Z

Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?

New page

==Should "assigned gender at birth" be merged into "sexes" or not?==
When I was building this article, I noticed that people generally mean assigned gender at birth when they talk about sex. I also noticed that the entries about the sexes would largely be redundant with the ones about assigned genders at birth. Because of this, I chose to move the assigned gender at birth article into a section in the sexes article. At first, this seemed most efficient. However, as I'm going through and updating all the articles linking to it, I'm feeling uncomfortable with this decision, despite my reasoning. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it doesn't feel quite right to have the entry about AFAB be in the article about sexes. Seems like there are important nuances of difference between saying "AFAB" versus "female sex." Maybe so significant that it shouldn't be treated as synonymous, especially where trans folk are concerned, even though it's similar enough to be accepted as synonymous by many people. What do you think? Do you think I should split "assigned gender at birth" and "sexes" into two separate articles again, even if the content tends to be pretty similar between them? Or is it more efficient, acceptable, and informative to have "assigned gender at birth" in the "sexes" article? -[[User:Sekhet|Sekhet]] ([[User talk:Sekhet|talk]]) 04:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:07, 1 January 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:
	I think it quite awful that you exclude people who have had genital surgery from this page. For instance, Pax Ahimsa Gethen was AFAB but now has male genitalia, so they are a nonbinary trans-male person with breasts. Also, those individuals who have had a vulva from birth and individuals who have had sex reassignment surgery to create a vulva are classified by the Genderbread Person as "female" (different, of course, from "woman", "girl", "she", or "feminine"). [[Special:Contributions/2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596\|2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596]] 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)		I think it quite awful that you exclude people who have had genital surgery from this page. For instance, Pax Ahimsa Gethen was AFAB but now has male genitalia, so they are a nonbinary trans-male person with breasts. Also, those individuals who have had a vulva from birth and individuals who have had sex reassignment surgery to create a vulva are classified by the Genderbread Person as "female" (different, of course, from "woman", "girl", "she", or "feminine"). [[Special:Contributions/2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596\|2603:3021:3A38:0:75A4:F880:9B7C:8596]] 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
	:Hi! In what specific section(s) of the page do you think that people are being excluded? Also, I'm not sure what relevance your comment about the Genderbread Person has to this page. Genderbread Person was made by a person or persons totally not affiliated with Nonbinary Wiki. --[[User:TXJ\|TXJ]] ([[User talk:TXJ\|talk]]) 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)		:Hi! In what specific section(s) of the page do you think that people are being excluded? Also, I'm not sure what relevance your comment about the Genderbread Person has to this page. Genderbread Person was made by a person or persons totally not affiliated with Nonbinary Wiki. --[[User:TXJ\|TXJ]] ([[User talk:TXJ\|talk]]) 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
			::I mean, it's a little more...meaningful to split nonbinary people into 3 categories: those currently with male genitalia (who have a tendency to be perceived as men esp. re: their voice, like Addison Rose Vincent), those with female genitalia (ditto, as with Demi Lovato), and those who are intersex. They each face different kinds of discrimination, don't you think? Male enby people are unlikely to be called "sluts", and several female enby people identify as "lesbian" (this isn't true of nonbinary males). [[Special:Contributions/72.82.40.232\|72.82.40.232]] 03:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)