Talk:List of nonbinary identities

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

2601:1C2:4A00:8F1C:4948:66F5:E442:AA41 (talkcontribs)

please do

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)

Androgyne comes from Greek not from Latin!!

2
213.55.221.105 (talkcontribs)

Androgyne comes from Greek not from Latin!!

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)

hey! if you have some sources, you're welcome to edit the page yourself!

Reply to "Androgyne comes from Greek not from Latin!!"

Some kind of "minimum" criteria?

25
Summary by Ondo

Nonbinary Wiki:Uncommon identities has been updated with a new policy.

Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

We already have a page called List of uncommon nonbinary identities, which has many identities that were entered 1-5 times in a Gender Census of thousands of participants.

This page is therefore presumably for identity terms that are either more common or well-established historically or culturally, to have fewer but more well-known ("notable") genders in it. So I am confused as to why it has terms like aporagender (coined on Tumblr in 2014, entered by 0.2% of participants in the 2019 Gender Census), or autismgender (coined on Tumblr in 2014, entered by 0.6% of participants in the 2019 Gender Census).

Could we introduce a minimum % of people entering the term in a Gender Census, to ensure notability? Obviously some historically relevant genders won't meet this criterion, so I could suggest we apply it only to genders that we know were coined after 2013 (the year of the first Gender Census). Anything new and below that % could be moved to the list of uncommon nonbinary identities.

--Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 13:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)

there is a notability requirement for this page, but I have a feeling a lot of these are left over from the initial version of the page. I can't remember where we have the requirements right now though. let me go find it...

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)
Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

Wow, that seems so low! That's good to know though, thank you! :)

Ondo (talkcontribs)

I came up with this percentage in the beginning of the (new) wiki. It's always been difficult for me work on this because if we're not careful on how we explain it people could say we're gatekeeping or something. It is a low number and should probably be raised, but I don't know what should be the threshold. Any thoughts?

NumerousScorpions (talkcontribs)

I don't consider it a move towards gatekeeping because 1) it's not based on a value judgment and 2) the wiki will still host information about these identities.

Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

Hmmm, I'm not sure! It's tricky. Maybe:

1. Over 1% in a big survey, or

2. Over 0.2% in a big survey AND a non-primary-source citation (i.e. not a blog! Perhaps a news article, some kind of research or scientific study?)

3. Exists on Wikipedia and therefore is considered notable, no other criteria need to be met

?

Ondo (talkcontribs)

I actually like this idea. The Census has over 20k answers in the last editions, so this could be a good number to consider as big survey.

I'll share this thread on the Discord so other people can chime in too.

Edit: I'd probably add a fourth point to this for cultural identities which might be underrepresented in some contexts but there's still proof that they exist.

Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

>Edit: I'd probably add a fourth point to this for cultural identities which might be underrepresented in some contexts but there's still proof that they exist.

I added the "exists on Wikipedia" criteria to help cover that - a lot of the less populous gender identities that are specific to particular places or cultures end up on there! :)

Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

Is there a general consensus in favour of this idea then? Would anyone like to propose alterations to the criteria I suggested, or propose alternative criteria? If we've got overall agreement, what happens next?

Ondo (talkcontribs)

Sorry about the delay, life's been busy!

So, there was a short discussion on Discord, with this concerns:

  1. Needs clarification on what a primary source is.
  2. Is a book glossary enough for the second criteria? (taken by @TXJ).
  3. There was a worry that by using non-primary sources we could get circular references (a book using the wiki as source, then the wiki referencing the book).
  4. Also a point that the Census causes a certain degree of bias, favoring identities that gets a checkbox.

My thoughts on that:

  1. In this context, I'd say it's anything written by someone who identifies as the identity or uses the pronouns the source is discussing. This has the potential issue that many people use multiple identities. Let me know your thoughts on that!
  2. I think it counts.
  3. This risk exists regardless of accepting primary sources or not.
  4. Nothing we can do about that, I know that it's something you already think about when preparing the Census and I can't see any way to improve it.

Since no one else has participated, let me know your thoughts on 1 and we can go ahead with the policy change. This means first rewriting the relevant sections in Nonbinary Wiki:Content policy. Then, reviewing all identity articles to tag them as {{uncommon identity}} if necessary (and of course check the list of nonbinary identities).

Sorry for the rather long message, and thanks for reminding me of this topic!

Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

Hi Ondo, thanks for your response, and don't worry about the delay - the timestamp says you replied a month ago, so clearly we have conversations very slowly, like trees or mountains! :)

I agree on your points 2-4. Re: 3, this is also an issue with Wikipedia itself! For example, let's say someone edits Wikipedia because they heard a rumour that Dracula's middle name is Jerome, and then a lazy journalist at the New York Times mentions it in an article without checking for citations, and that article gets used as a new citation on Dracula's Wikipedia page... It has happened with celebrities, though I don't remember which ones. All you can do is accept primary sources for information about particular people, so for example on Wikipedia a primary source would be acceptable if it was a celebrity tweeting "my birthday is 27th February."

For 1 (clarification on what a primary source is), I would refer to Wikipedia's own policy.

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. A scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment."

So a blog post by someone who experiences a particular gender would be a primary source, but I think statistics from a survey quantifying the number of people who identify themselves that way would be a secondary source? Speculative thoughts and conclusions in the report about the results of the survey would be a primary source.

What do you think?

Thanks for continuing to engage with this!

Ondo (talkcontribs)

I like this definition; if we adopt it, we could probably change the last example for "A blog post about a specific gender identity written by someone who identifies as that gender" or something similar.

I've posted the link to this discussion on the Discord server and pinged a couple of people to see if we can get some thoughts on this. Otherwise, this can go ahead!

TXJ (talkcontribs)

I don't have an opinion either way, as long as the inclusion guidelines are clear/unambiguous. Like, I recently found a journal article that surveyed a sample of nonbinary people, including a quote from someone who is seagender. Does that validate seagender for inclusion despite no results in the Gender Census?

Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

@TXJ, the criteria I'm proposing are:

  1. Over 1% in a big survey, or
  2. Over 0.2% in a big survey AND a non-primary-source citation (i.e. not a blog! Perhaps a news article, some kind of research or scientific study?)
  3. Exists on Wikipedia and therefore is considered notable, no other criteria need to be met

So, if it's not been in a big survey it can't be (1) or (2), and if it's not on Wikipedia it can't be (3). However, if the journal article included the results of a big survey, and seagender got over 1% (or over 0.2% AND a second source mentioning it can be found), it could be included!

Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

Okay so I'm thinking about how we can make this super unambiguous! How big is a big survey? Exists on Wikipedia, does that mean it is mentioned or does it have to have its own page? So here's what I've got for wording:

  1. In a survey with at least 1,000 participants who described themselves in a way other than male or female, 1% of those participants claimed this term.
  2. In a survey with at least 1,000 participants who described themselves in a way other than male or female, 0.2% of those participants claimed this term, AND a second, non-primary source citation is provided. ([Link to definition of non-primary source.] E.g., news article, research article.)
  3. The term has its own article or its own section on an article on Wikipedia, and is therefore considered notable.

I don't know what's considered a "big" survey, my brain is very focused on the Gender Census right now, it's open and it has about 30,000 participants and it's been under a week! So if other people want to pick a minimum number of participants for the criteria, go for it. :)

Also, how do folks feel about the "its own section on an article on Wikipedia" part? Is that enough, or should it be "has its own Wikipedia article" only?

Is there anything ambiguous left that we should haggle over?

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)

i think 1000 is a a good number, but maybe 500 is more realistic? the gender census gets a LOT of results, but i think most other places are going to have a smaller pool available. (i am fine for higher, but defintely no more than 1000)

A lot of notable genders (demiboy/demigirl) don't have a page, and are under a demigender page, so i think having a section alone is enough.

i'm happy with this, so long as everything else is?

Ondo (talkcontribs)

I'm happy to see the discussion going on! :D

So, about TXJ's seagender example, that's a primary source. The book itself might not be, but the quote is, so it would need another source.

Big/small survey difference: I think that 1,000 should be the limit for big/small survey. Sure, we might not have many surveys with over a thousand participants, but that doesn't mean we should change our definition of "big". And it's not like we're removing these identities from the wiki, they'll just be tagged as uncommon.

As for the Wikipedia criteria, I think that trusting in another wiki for notability is generally risky. Wikipedia has good notability rules, so I'm ok with using its articles as proof of notability (as long as they're not tagged as lacking notability, of course). But I wouldn't take just a section as proof tht the topic is notable. We would need to look which references the section is based on.

Also, I just realised that proposal 2 means that being in a non-primary source is not enough by itself, right? We could add that if at least a significant portion of a secondary source is about an identity, it's also considered notable regardless of survey results. I'm thinking about historical or traditional identities (hijra, two-spirit, etc.), which tend to have a much lower presence in surveys but have been covered by journals or papers.

Let me know what you think!

Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

Yeah that all sounds fine to me! :) My brain isn't braining today so maybe someone else who's good at words can corral these into some criteria?

Ondo (talkcontribs)

Sure! What about this:


In order for an identity to be considered common, it must meet one of these criteria:

  1. At least 1% of participants in a survey with at least 1,000 answers focused on nonbinary people in general (and not just a subset of identities) chose this identity to describe themselves.
  2. At least 0.2% of participants in a survey focused on nonbinary people in general (and not just a subset of identities) chose this identity to describe themselves. Additionally, the identity has appeared in a non-primary source.
  3. A full article on Wikipedia is enough for an identity to be considered notable, since Wikipedia already has high notability standards. A section of a larger article is not enough for this point. Wikis other than Wikipedia are not valid sources for this point.

Common identities can be listed in the List of nonbinary identities. An identity can have its own article as long as it has at least a non-primary source to support it. However, articles about an uncommon identity must be tagged with {{uncommon identity}}.


How does that sound?

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)

I think 2 should be for both small & large surveys, and clarification that other wikis may not be accepted as sources? Wikipedia itself, yes, but not smaller ones (e.g. lgbtqia wikia, etc)

Ondo (talkcontribs)

I'm fine with both suggestions. I've eddited my previous reply with this changes!

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)

my bad, I meant more like:

1. At least 1% of participants in a survey with at least 1,000 answers focused on nonbinary people in general (and not just a subset of identities) chose this identity to describe themselves.

2. At least 0.2% of participants in a survey focused on nonbinary people in general (and not just a subset of identities) chose this identity to describe themselves. Additionally, the identity has appeared in a non-primary source.

Ondo (talkcontribs)

Got it, fixed!

Ondo (talkcontribs)

Done! I have updated Nonbinary Wiki:Uncommon identities with the new policy. Of course, this now requires checking both identity lists and all identity articles to check if they need to be marked as uncommon. I'll try to get to it but if anyone else wants to help, go ahead!

96.233.158.171 (talkcontribs)

I don't have time to add it now, but I'm really surprised that this isn't included here, especially since it's been around since the 1970s. I'll try to add it if someone else doesn't get to it first.

(asterisk is because it's not letting me add this discussion otherwise)

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)

have you checked the list of uncommon nonbinary identities? I know we have a page on the wiki for this, however the 0.1% criteria from the gender census may not have been met in 2019

Cassolotl (talkcontribs)

When you say "the 0.1% criteria from the gender census", do you mean that in order to be included on this list it has to have 0.1% or above in the Gender Census? (I'm just checking because the criterion for the Gender Census is that it has to get over 1% of participants typing it in to be added to the list of pre-typed checkbox list options, and I'm currently trying to work out if there is a minimum % for terms to be added to this wiki list!)

--Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 13:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)
Ondo (talkcontribs)

0.4% of people in last year's census identified as genderfuck, so I've added it to the list. Thanks for the heads-up!

(sorry for the asterisk issue, that's the automatic abuse filter not liking new users that write the word fuck).

96.233.158.171 (talkcontribs)

Ha, no worries about the asterisk, I figured! Thanks for adding it.

Reply to "Genderf*ck?"
Summary by Ondo

Discussion about the use of butch and femme as nonbinary identities.

KhiaJade (talkcontribs)

Hey! So, two terms mentioned in the list of Non-Binary Identities, "Butch" and "Femme" are actually Lesbian only terms and have been forever. They do not belong on this list as they are terms made to describe lesbians and only lesbians, not enby people- just women (specifically lesbians). Calling yourself or others either of these despite not being a lesbian/woman would be misgendering as well as stealing lesbian culture. Thanks! :)

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)

butch and femme have been used by genderqueer people for years, so we will be keeping them in. thanks for the concern though!

KhiaJade (talkcontribs)

That's not correct though, Butch and Femme have been used by WLW for the entirety of their existence. Butch emerged from in the 40s-50s through Lesbian bar culture and later made a large comeback in the 90's also by Lesbians. Femme also came about the same way through Lesbians. Just because nonbinary/genderqueer people have been using the term does not mean they are allowed or should be using it, it appropriates Lesbian culture and further erases them despite Lesbians being the women who fought for LGBT rights- it's downright disrespectful.

Amazingakita (talkcontribs)
Ondo (talkcontribs)

Hello Khia! To elaborate on that, the wiki does not decide what's right and wrong, we just document what people use, and in this case there are nonbinary people who use these terms. However, I see how the former phrasing could be confusing, so I've rephrased it as such: This term has its origins on lesbian people and is mostly used by lesbian women. However, some nonbinary or genderqueer people are known to use this term as well.

If you can think of an alternative phrasing that highlights your point while keeping the fact that some nonbinary people use them too, I'll be happy to hear it. Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it!

KhiaJade (talkcontribs)

Thank you for that :)

Sekhet (talkcontribs)

You might want to read up on the history of butch and femme in books such as Leslie Feinberg's "Stone Butch Blues," "Transgender Warriors," and "Transgender Liberation," as well as Jack Halberstam's "Female Masculinity." Feinberg was *in* lesbian butch bar culture in the 1950s, and is the best-known historical resource on the subject of it. From that first-hand, first-person experience, Feinberg defined butch as a category outside of the gender binary, and part of the continuum of transgender experience. Halberstam agrees and says that butch has always been a category that has included masculine women, gender variant people, transgender people, people who identify outside the binary, and others. The claim that butch and femme are only for lesbians who identify as women is historically baseless and a transgender exclusionist argument. KhiaJade's comments are full of other TERF dogwhistles, such as "lesbian erasure," which in this context does not really mean preserving women's history and culture, but rather excluding trans people from participation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_erasure Transphobia is not welcome on this wiki.

There are no older topics