Talk:Boi (gender)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-03-07. The result of the discussion was Keep.
LGBT Portal
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 on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Category problem

I reverted the change (the removal of the LGBT category) made by Bearcat, because bois are almost always lesbians/dykes/queers. If anyone has a compelling reason to remove an article about lesbian/bi/trans people from the LGBT category, could you please explain? - solvent 18:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea behind that is that the "Transgender people and behavior" is a sub-category of "LGBT", and articles shouldn't be in both a sub-cat and a category above that. Whether that always makes sense is another question, but some people are very ardent about "correcting" those "errors" in categorisation. It is not meant as removing people from any group, although occasionally, it sure feels that way ... -- AlexR 19:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I can see the reason in this, but not all bois ID as trans. I'm a boi, and I don't; that's why I thought to add the LGBT category to the page in the first place. Do you think the article should stay in the transgender people and behavior cat, because it is about trans behavior, if not always trans people; or should it be added to the larger LGBT category because that accounts for both dyke bois and trans bois? I know you've done a lot more work on the trans/queer articles on Wikipedia than I have, so your decision would probably be better informed than mine. - solvent 23:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, but I have to admitt that I am not familiar enough with "boi" culture to give a definite statement. My knowledge on trans-matters that come from the lesbian culture is usually 2nd-hand, and if it hasn't reached Germany, often somewhat sketchy. (Which does make it a very good thing that you came here and can put in your knowledge! Seems finally some transguys (in the widest possible sense) turn up. Good thing, too, because I started to feel a bit lonely ;-)
Anyway, I am one of those people who are not too happy with all too enthusiasticly sticking to the categorisation rules - and this being a prime example why. While technically "boi" is a transgender behaviour, one can be certain that you are not the only one who doesn't consider the label adequate. Hence sticking in another, equally adequate cat into the article seems perfectly appropriate to me.
Now, question is, is "LGBT", which is a very wide cat, the best one for this? If you think it is, just put in a HTML comment into the article, right above the cats, explaining shortly why. As far as I can see, the editing of these cats is all done manually, hence editors would see that. (Such a comment is done like this: <!-- comment --> .) However, maybe it would be best to create a new category, one that deals with transgender - or maybe better "gender-bending" or similar - behaviour among primary LGB identified people, or lesbian or female-bodied people. Something like "Gender-bending in the lesbian community"; can't think of a really good title at the moment. That would avoid the question of one cat being a sub-cat of another; although it probably still would need a comment, so that the "Transgender" cat wouldn't be removed with the argument that the new cat is a sub-cat of this one. What do you think? -- AlexR 09:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Can anyone provide a source for 216.177.2.89's claim that boi was created to parallel grrl? I can find nothing on it. Also, I have reverted some of the edits that (s)he made, because many transbois ID as TG rather than as TS. solvent 22:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Boyish/effeminate/young

Don't agree with previous claim that "boyish" contradicts "somewhat effeminate." Compromising with "young-appearing." Also added "and in reality relatively young" because I think a "young-looking 65" would not fit the common usage.

65.96.178.162 16:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying - I was thinking "boy" as in gender, rather than as in age. Mdwh 17:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bisexual and/or submissive males?

I've certainly heard the term "boi" used for bisexual boys also - in general, a feminine boy independent of sexuality (although it's probably true that it tends to almost always refer to bi or gay boys). I've also heard it used in the BDSM community to refer to submissive boys (again, usually implying femininity) as well as butch girls. Mdwh 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The term 'boi' is regularly used on SM websites such as worldskins.com / slaveboys.co.uk to denote a submissive male who may or may not be effminate. The term is used by the Dominany party and can be humiliating for you the submissive party. Lukeyboyuk 18:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punk/Goth subculture

It most definitely is used in Goth (and sometimes Punk) subculture to refer to a young man not afraid to experiment with traditionally "feminine" things such as eyeliner, frills, etc. and as a protest against gender roles. Please don't remove my edits--google goth boi and it brings up hundreds of thousands of hits. It *does* exist in Goth. Snowgrouse 16:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only is boi used by goths to mean a guy that likes traditionally female styles, but it also doesn't always mean bi or gay in that context.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.213.98 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 23 February 2007

[edit] Verifiability, Reliable Sources and Notability

I have some concerns that this article covers a Neologism. As of now it has no reliable sources and is unverifiable. I'm considering deltion, before replying please review policy on what wikipedia is not, esp the section on dictionaries. I will try and find some sources for this article and would appreciate any help as of right now the article seems to be original research. NeoFreak 18:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few references for you: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9709/ http://www.dailydoseofqueer.com/2005/10/29/boi-culture-in-female-chauvinist-pigs/ http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0743249895/105-9191015-6269227?SubscriptionId=0VSTEG9X9NAQ8JVP2H02/105-9191015-6269227 /Boi Leo
Sorry this took so long. Those appear to more or less be one source, the first being an execrpt form Levy's book, the second being an article about the book and the last being her book on amazon. Still, that's cool. My primary issue with the article is the nature of the subject: I think of it as a neologism and a unencyclopedic dicdef on a little used word. Marking the term as a gender label is inappropriate as well. The issue with the lack of sources was just an additional hurdle. I'm really stoked that someone took the time to go out and find some sources instead of just deproding the article with "well it's not a neologism and it's notable, cause I like it" type bullshit. So, thanks. I'll work the sources into the article and look for some others. In the end, unless alot more really solid sources emerge and it gets a firm grouding in both WP:N and WP:V, I'm going to take it to WP:AFD. NeoFreak 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Boi's, gender queerness and the like are generally impenetrable to the majority of heterosexual people; it is also much, much more widely speciated and categorised in America, than say Australia. But...neologisms aren't neccessarily unencyclopedia. Given enough time, they can turn into accepted widespread terms. Or fall into and then out of vogue. See wowser, bounder, and especially flapper.75.59.229.245 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this not deleted?

A couple of sources do not change the fact that this is a neologism. While its recent use in certain subcultures might warrant its mention on those respective entries, it does not need an entry of its own. Its use within those subcultures isn't even consistent. It's just an alternate spelling of boy sometimes used for a specific reason and sometimes just used stylistically. At most it should just be a disambiguation page. 70.21.171.213 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So what if it's a neologism? So is e-mail. Disagree that article isn't worthy of inclusion. Although article (like most) needs improving this is part of queer culture and self-empowerment self-labeling and identifying. Numerous sources exist to validate its usage even if they have yet to find their way into the article. Benjiboi 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
First, let me clarify. Yes, e-mail is a neologism, but to be more specific, it is a "stable" neologism and is well-defined and has been in use for over a decade. "Boi" is an "unstable" neologism, or a protologism, "a recently created term possibly in narrow use but not yet in general use".
Second, have you read Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms? Allow me to highlight.
  • The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people.
While e-mail is well-understood and means the same thing to everyone, the same is not true for "boi". It has different meanings in different subcultures within the queer subculture (i.e. gays, lesbians, transgendered) as well as to other subcultures (i.e. goths, S&M). In fact, the NYMag article sourced explicitly states that being a boi means different things to different people.
  • The first [reason why articles titled with neologisms may not be appropriate] is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
This is exactly what people are trying to accomplish with this article. This is not Wiktionary. Oddly enough, the uses of "boi" in this article are not found on the Wiktionary entry for boi boi, though it is found in Wiktionary's List of protologisms article (which needs cleaning up).
  • Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.
I don't mean to single you out, User:Benjiboi, but your username really doesn't help you there.
So, based in Wikipedia's guidelines, this subject does not warrant its own article (at least not at the present time) and would probably be more appropriate over at the Wiktionary project. However, the few sources given so far seem to suggest that it might be on its way to being a "diffused" neologism (the line between unstable and diffuse isn't well-defined), so I'm willing to come to a compromise and say this should either be a disambiguation page or a redirect to a section in a more appropriate article. Ozw 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Just because a neologism article isn't yet to GA status hardly means it won't be; the use of this unstable word (a lot of words had multiple meanings BTW) in the title is because that's what the article is about. And I completely agree with the use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people in context as you shouldn't replace "boys and girls" with "bois an grrls" unless the article's context and subject matter call for that. "Boi" is making it's way into mainstream culture (see Boi magazine, Avril Lavigne's Sk8er Boi, Soul-Ja Boi Records, Big Boi, alternative explanation for BOI, article references "Club Boi, a gay club in Miami" (their website is way adult oriented so won't link that directly), a Texas term meaning "Born On the Island.", "Cao Boi" (cowboy variation) used on Survivor: Cook Islands, 1950s emergence of the gei boi in Japan, etc. Your compromise to eliminate this article in any way possible seems to fly in the face of consensus although I agree there should be a boi disambiguation page ... and look - there it is (see Boi). Please WP:AGF on other editor's intentions and consider that perhaps they are not as skilled as you at writing or sourcing articles.
Also (from wiktionary) They typically have not been in circulation long enough or widely enough for their social status to be determined. Protologism (which is a neologisms) is for other contexts that have not been fully investigated, such as industry jargon or regional use. The term may not generally be understood even within those contexts. This is exactly why a decent article would help explain the use at least in this context. The term is widespread in the LGBT community and just like genderqueer wikipedia is better for having an article so those who want to learn more can. Benjiboi 02:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generalizing "Boi"

I think we need to consider generalizing our definition of "boi" outside of the lesbian community. Currently it defines a boi as a young gay or bisexual male, but the usage is becoming more broad. Many people use the term in reference to any young male (like a teenager) - gay, straight, or otherwise. This is to distinguish from "boy," which would refer to young children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creator95 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Since no one has objected to the proposed change in over a week's time, I will make the edit in 24 hours unless there is an objection.Creator95 (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What reference do you have for this? Mdwh (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't your usage belong at Boi, not Boi (gender)? The LGBT usage is what's here because this article is about the use of "boi" to denote something about gender beyond "this is a young male". --Alynna (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)