Talk:Genderqueer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Contents 1 Stub 2 yo 3 Sources needed 4 Categories 5 Endorsement of gender-neutral pronouns

[edit] Stub

This doesn't seem to be a stub. Is it OK to remove the stub notice?

I removed the stub notice, as I agree that it's no longer a stub. --Mairi 04:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] yo

please dont delete my edits based on how i wrote them, cus i wrote them in the same style: some people believe BLAH. if you disagree, provide a counterpoint in the spirit of wikipedia.

Yo, I'm deleting your edits because they're not cited, and they're bordering on injecting a pov. Just throwing "Some people" this is not a way to legitimize personal opinions. Most newspapers, and most tv news networks (with the exception of FOX) do not accept just saying "Some people" as a citation. "Some people" believe the sky isn't blue, doesn't mean it goes into the wikipedia entry about the sky. "Some people" think Hillary Clinton is a feminazi, but you wouldn't put that is her entry. "Some people" think Bush is a facist, but you wouldn't put that in his profile. It's way too loose of a citation. If you want to say "most traditional religious groups subscribe to a strict male-female system", thats fine, becuase thats a specific, identifiable group.SiberioS 06:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

fine, ill say anti-feminists.

I'm reverting your changes. Why? Because anti-feminists have nothing to do with anything mentioned in the article. How is genderqueer, a transgender term, or the abscence of gender, have anything to do with feminism? Some feminists are rabidly anti-transgendered, and are decidedly in the camp of you're only a woman if you are born one. As such I'm reverting.SiberioS 06:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I may add, that I see no reason for adding the bit about the unabomber. MANY people have problems with so called political correctness, and its not limited to the unabomber. It includes various right wing conservatives, libertarians, and some left leaning people.SiberioS 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• i think the problem here is that you think its just the status quo/societies that are against this. i have a lot of free-thinking friends who reject some aspects of society and religion but also reject this.Urthogie 12:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So? Your friends don't form a coherent category. Like I mentioned before, alot of people think alot of things, you can't just start throwing in opinions left and right just because one person said it. Otherwise we would have commentary from everyone on every different wikipedia subject (every time a celebrity spoke about the Iraq war we would have to add their name, everytime a politician spoke about ANY subject we would have to add it to the wikipedia topic of the same name etc). Theres a reasonable cutoff for this. For instance, if the Pope talks about contraception, its probably a valid thing to mention in the topic of the same name as the perspective of a religious leader who represents (theoretically) some 1 billion people is pretty relevent. Same with someone like Pat Robertson, or some other person in an influential position in society.SiberioS 02:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed back your line change because 1)natural is a loaded term and mildly POV 2) there are some species which are naturally transgendered (certain frog species can mutate sexes etc etc) and 3) the idea of natural doesn't apply to all the people mentioned (for instance communism opposed homosexuality and transgenderedism based mostly on an idea of it being bougeroise, not necessarly against nature).SiberioS 04:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

1)POV is allowed as long as its cited reasonably and its not the article itself 2)uh humans are not physically transgendered, so its up to opinion whether they can be psychologically. and i you wanna add that stuff about the frog go ahead, just dont delete what i put in because of your own POV.

3)sure, i never said it was the only opposition to it. its just the main one. Urthogie 06:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

"humans are not physically transgendered". Have you ever heard of intersexuality? Just a thought. -Hapsiainen 16:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • ive heard of it..but most of these genderqueers are actually physically gendered at birth and psychologically dont identify. intersexuality is the exception, not the rule.Urthogie 20:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, so? Intersexexist, even if they are "the exception". You can't go around saying, for instance, in an article about humans that everyone always pops out male or female. That would be factually incorrect. There ARE more, and its COMPLETELY natural, if by natural you mean the definition that no tampering with genes or other such modifications by another human occured. And whats with this barb about my POV, when you keep rewriting things to include your friends POV (like THATS a citable source), insisting that because "some people" disagree that you can inject stuff about how unnatural it is. Like I told you from the get go you can't do vague citings to justify injecting your own point of view. It's not that hard to find some recognizable figure (a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell) with a quote decrying transgendered people or attempts at attacking gender constructs. A cite from one of them would have satisfied me, but you insisted on injecting your own and unverifiable sources.User:SiberioS

I've changed it to "disapprove of such mixing or consider it unnatural" as an attempt to cover both views. There are definitely some groups that consider it unnatural, but there are also groups that disapprove, without commenting on it's naturalness. It'd be good to cite actual statements by people/organizations, tho. --Mairi 05:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources needed

I added the "unreferenced" tag because there's a lot of interesting material in this article, but no discernable reliable source for any of it. It has an additional urgency for Wikipedia in that some editors are identifying themselves as genderqueer, making a properly-sourced article even more useful. (Indeed, that's how I find my way here — attempting to determine an acceptable third-person pronoun for one so identified.)

I found the following when I checked on the two current external links:

• Androgyne Online responded with a "HTTP Server Error 503: No available server to handle this request". Its current Alexa rank is 16,402, making it a promising source if it can be made to work.
• GenderQueer Revolution, on the other hand, is a working site, but seems to be only a year old and doesn't even have an Alexa rank — not promising as a reliable source (by WP definitions).

Once solid sources are obtained, it might be a good idea to add some specific links to pages that provide source material, perhaps using footnotes in a References section. This is true of (and needed by) articles in general, not just this one. Thanks for any assistance on this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Androgyne Online is working now, as far as I can tell. Also, it may be easier to use a Gender-neutral pronoun when talking about any Genderqueer editors.

--Malise 01:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the unreferenced and uncited tags back. I also believe in the potential of this article (like all articles it can be stronger). However, there are certain points I'd be interested to see explored and backed-up. I know from my own searching that it's hard to find much scholarly information on queer identities, so this article may be a long work in progress. At the very least though, can't we work on reducing the amount of "some people" in the entry. Rugadh 14:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I've been looking through the category structure under LGBT and have been really confused by the organization. I suppose this has to do broadly with editors adding whichever category makes the most sense to them. My question though is what are the most helpful categories to list genderqueer under? Keeping in mind that wikipedia (usually) prefers adding the most specific categories possible [1]. I have the same question about most of the trans related entries but that's a discussion for another talk page. - Rugadh 23:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsement of gender-neutral pronouns

I just chopped out a paragraph declaring that gender-neutral pronouns are "very appropriate" for general use. While I would use them for someone who asked, they are a relatively new invention as far as modern English goes and not really part of the language. If I saw or heard one of those pronouns without the label "gender-neutral pronoun," I would be confused. --Brilliand 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)