Reader feedback: I feel this post repeats its...[edit source]
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.
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? --NeoMahler (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Original research[edit source]
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. --NumerousScorpions (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Uncited claims that do not appear to reflect the reality[edit source]
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. 126.96.36.199