Talk:Genderfuck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Fashion WikiProject
Fashion Portal
This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 30 August 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] opinion

before you revert me yet again, notice what i added to back it up. what wrong with what i have now? Urthogie 04:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this page really nessisary? Isn't it just genderqueer with obsanity tacked onto it for "shock value"? Arcuras 19:29, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

"Genderqueer" with what? Anyway, genderqueer does not necessarily go with shock value, and neither does "genderfuck" go necessarily with obscenity. (If that is what you meant.) Besides, why not have the page? -- AlexR 22:09, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I was refering to the "fuck" suffix of the term "Genderfuck"... from the text of the current genderfuck article, the term (and a majority of the article) seems to simply mirror genderqueer, being no more then a variance of terminology. If I'm wrong on this, then this article needs to be significantly expanded to emphasize this difference, otherwise the term is simply "genderqueer" reworded in such a way to ensure it obtains the reader's/listener's notice. Arcuras 22:41, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the article is somewhat improvable, and unfortunately I am not close enough to the relevant group to be able to improve it. I am positively certain, though, that both are two related, but different concepts. Actually, that is quite obvious from the articles, if one bothers to read them - genderfuck is first and foremost a "gender performance", genderqueer an identity. Theoretically, you don't have to be genderqueer to do genderfuck, although those who do genderfuck consciously probably are. Anyway, there is no reason for the merger, not even with the article as it currently stands. -- AlexR 14:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is related to genderqueer, and there is some overlap, but it would be inaccurate to enclose it there. If I can, I'll expand on this - there are different histories to genderqueer and genderfuck.
Agreed that genderqueer and genderfuck have unique but similiar histories; I'm not an expert but my exerience is that genderfuck was coined first and speaks to "fucking" with concepts of gender unintentionally or purposefully usually as an external manifestation whereas genderqueer speaks to a broader movement to cast aside gender norms and male-female restrictions of explaning, defining and enforcing gender and societal roles. Benjiboi 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stub category

After recent arguments about which stub category this belongs in 9and I agree with AlexR that the ones previously given are far from accurate), I have changed this to fashion-stub. My argument for this is that Genderfuck is a deliberate fashion or style choice, albeit a deliberately provocative one. If anything, it's most easily comparable with the deliberate public wearing of bondage and fetish gear during the punk era of the late 1970s. Grutness|hello? 06:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fashion stub? Come on... do we really have to pidgen hole every article into specific stub categories? This artile is to fashion as an improv group would be to fashion. Yes, fashion does have a part of it, but it's not the whole piece. Genderfucking is a direct challange of gender stereotypes, cultural stereotypes, and societal roles, and it achieves this thrugh various methods, unique to whomever is fucking with it.
These individuals are rebelling against labels. Ironically, that's exactly what people are trying to apply to them here. Arcuras 07:29, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think there is now an appropriate stub-category (LGBT-stub); I've changed it accordingly

Lectonar 12:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annie Lennox?

There is no mention of genderfuck or anything related that I can find in the article on Annie Lennox, nor is there (obviously) any reference in this page. Perhaps it's obvious to some, but it seems much less obvious than other performers listed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.27.232 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed - before someone is 'claimed' for this absurdly irrelevant article, perhaps some citation of them identifying/being identified with this term should be provided. Izzard, for example, calls himself an 'executive" or "action" transvestite - a witty term unlike this article's puerile version. How about deleting the whole thing? Malick78 09:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree on boths counts. Genderfuck is a well-know term in the queer perfomance and activist communities, both Izzard and Lennox fit the label for their purposeful blurring of gender norms, as do other pop Brit icons like Boy George, David bowie's Ziggy Stardust and countless others. The article should be improved to represent the nuances of gender bending and reinterpreting gender roles and allow that an articst might not lablel themself a gender outlaw, a genderfucker or androgynous hero but that hardly means they aren't doing it. Benjiboi 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiablility, not truth (see WP:VERIFY). If it is not verifiable, then it should not be included. I've removed from the "famous" list those people whose articles do not mention "genderfuck" since their inclusion as "famous genderfuckers" is unsupported and uncited. Doctormatt 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that reasoning is flawed. It sould like if I edit those articles with some vaguery "some think Aniie Lennox is a genderfucker" then they would be included. I wonder if deleting examples is premature as this is a newer concept and needs expanding and research but hack away if you must. Benjiboi 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. I am in no way suggesting that "some think Annie Lennox is a genderfucker" is acceptable as a sourced claim. What do you suggest as a citation requirement for this list? It seems to me that there are two options: a citation right next to each entry in the list, or a citation somewhere in the linked article. The former method is cumbersome and redundant if the citation is in the linked article already, so I think the latter method is generally better for lists on Wikipedia. This also puts the burden of citation on the editors of the linked-to article, and not on those who edit this article. By the way, I am not "hacking" away: I edited the list to be consistent with WP policy. By paying strict attention to WP guidelines, we might be able to help articles grow into strong and effective ones, as opposed to creating, messy, unsourced, unencyclopedic trash. Doctormatt 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. To me, it seems you're determined to remove anything from this article that doesn't meet a standard that should be reserved for articles that are more developed. This is a stub class article and I find your edits more harmful than helpful. The article needs expanding not removal of any idea that doesn't meet a strict WP standard no matter how technically correct. I'm finding it hard to see your edits as constructive rather than disruptive.

The LGBT wikiproject writes:

"The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful."

An article in its genesis needs more help for a general reader to relate to it not less. Annie Lennox, David Bowie and pop music icons are a good resource point for general readers to be able to understand what the article is talking about. The [Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence] are certainly genderfuckers so even if the resource has not yet been unearthered hardly means the very suggestion should be enpunged. This article is now five sentences thanks to your diligent effort. Benjiboi 17:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the WP guidelines are not applicable to articles in their genesis. Quoting myself, "By paying strict attention to WP guidelines, we might be able to help articles grow into strong and effective ones, as opposed to creating, messy, unsourced, unencyclopedic trash.". I think it is more important that one sets a proper tone/structure/etc. for other editors - I think we should worry about the "general reader" only after an article is properly up on its feet. Anyway, if you are having such a hard time finding well-sourced material for this article, perhaps there are other problems besides my editing. Doctormatt 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think WP guidelines are applicable to newer articles but also think that using your "strict" rules are disruptive to other editors. Although you may be technically correct that nothing should appear in the article that can't be verified I think this is a good example letting editors express ideas unfettered by seemingly restrictive rules. To me, this seems like a bullying tactic - if you don't strictly obey the letter of the law your contributions will be erased. By it's nature WP is not a machine but an organic process and it seems unfair to require every editor to only write encyclopedic facts. Even though, I hope, our goals are to improve articles our styles seem vastly different. I would rather encourage other editors to contribute and then (gently) correct as needed. Have Annie Lennox listed as an example as a genderfucker, to me, seemed fine at least for now. I certainly think her artistry is seen as such even if it has yet to be labelled exactly that way that we can reference. Instead you've removed that helpful piece of knowledge. As a little experiment, why not try adding two sentences for every one you want to get rid of? As this article is only five sentences right now you could effective double or triple its content rather quickly. If that idea seems too much then I kindly suggest there are many articles that need trimming and even have other editors looking for review help to remove "unencyclopedic trash." As for "having such a hard time finding well-sourced material" a quick book search [1] pulls 137 references. To me it seems the problem is not finding the material but allowing it to grow rather than being pulled by the roots. Benjiboi 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, man, why don't you just start adding some of that great material to the article (the first complaint above is from January!)? Nobody is stopping you, and if it is well cited (and perhaps even if it isn't - we're not machines after all) it should not be removed. Cheers, Doctormatt 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if my timing doesn't work for you, I'm also disturbed that it seems as though any edit to this article will be met with swift judgement as that seems against the spirit of cooperation that WP relies on. Here's hoping that a spirit of collaboration and encouragement will continue to grow so that WP can represent a worldwide body ogf knowledge. Benjiboi 19:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm really glad to see you've made an edit of the article - your timing is fantastic! That's the stuff! Cheers, Doctormatt 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Snarky and sarcastic comments seem equally unhelpful. Benjiboi 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not being snarky and/or sarcastic - I don't have time for that. I am honestly very, very glad that you have taken enough interest in this article to edit it - at least one of us (yes, you!) has actually done something to improve the article. Kudos! Cheers, Doctormatt 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why don't people just search for references, rather than deleting information? Here is one ref, found in less than fifteen seconds, for annie lennox: http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/21/21_br_singout.html . Sometimes I wonder if people really edit Wikipedia in order to help spread enlightenment through the ether, or rather to further their own narrow agendas. Jeffpw 09:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and informing of my intention to clean up this page (maybe)

Anyway, if I get the chance, I'll clean up this page. Some of the sources I will be using include,

I'll also have a look around the local library for books on the matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

The term "genderfuck" is used in the following academic articles (I'm happy to e-mail you copies if plan to use them to expand the article)

  • Glick, E. (2000) Sex Positive: Feminism, Queer Theory, and the Politics of Transgression, Feminist Review 64:19-45.
  • Reich, J.L. (1992) Genderfuck: the law of the dildo. Discourse: Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture 15:112-27.
  • Coviello, P. (2007) review of "World Enough Sex and Time in Recent Queer Studies", GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 13:387-401.
  • Altman, D. (1996). Rupture or Continuity? The Internationalization of Gay Identities. Social Text 48:77-94.
  • Collier, R (1996) “Coming together?”: Post-heterosexuality, masculine crisis and the new men's movement. Feminist Legal Studies 4:3-48.

Also, searching using the term "genderfuck" in my University library turns up a hit for this book:

  • Whiteley, S. & Rycenga, J. (eds) 2006. Queering the popular pitch. New York : Routledge. ISBN: 9780415978057.

Pete.Hurd 21:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real name

Seriously...is "Genderfuck" the actual name of this concept? I mean, it sounds sort of lay-man to me. It's even got a cuss built right into it, and I don't know the formal name for anything that has a cuss in it. Surely there must be a better, more formal name for this concept than simply "Genderfuck"? I mean, would you really flip through an encyclopedia under G and find the word Genderfuck in it? I think not... 24.15.53.225 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually you would if the encyclopedia was comprehensive. The article indeed needs work but the concept is literally about "fucking" with gender concepts. Benjiboi 11:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That is understandable. However, if it is a well-known psychological concept, it would have a scientific name instead of a colloquial term. I think what the lad was driving at is that he doesn't think the page is legitimate because it has a colloquial term as its title, and I'd have to say I agree with him. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I get the point, and perhaps a politer term would be something like 'gender play' or something. But gender-fuck is what its called. Hey , I'm a straight guy who's pretty new to these ideas, but I can confirm that even with my outsider status to 'the community' , its a term I've heard heaps. And I'll add its one thats not even that exclusive to the queer community. I have a mate who likes to rock about in a flowing dress, because it annoys conservatives. That gender-fuck. Fucking with gender, so to speak. 124.182.177.121 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scientific/formal name"?! A few articles have that, but it's not a general principle (nor is genderfuck a term, primarily, of psychology). What are the "formal" names for, e.g. Hip hop, Rock and roll or Jazz, all of which terms originate as (somewhat vulgar) slang? LotLE×talk 18:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gender-Bending" was mentioned in this discussion, and seems a more appropriate and commonplace term. You hear "gender-bender" or "gender-bending" used in journalism and the media to describe what this article appears to be about. That seems like the correct and appropriate term. Further, it actually links to this article for some reason, even though there's no discernible difference between the two. Perhaps this article should be merged to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.125.188 (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for AFD

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is patent nonsense. It is a repetition of "genderqueer" with a profanity used simply for shock value. If it is a valid term, it is not sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopaedia; and WP is not a dictionary. The article is unsourced and no evidence is provided for the claims made. 87.127.44.154 10:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'll complete the nomination on your behalf. Give me a little while. --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderfuck. --Dreaded Walrus t c 10:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly list

I find the new addition "List of musicians..." to be really amateurish looking. Without specific discussion of why they are included or how they relate to the topic, such lists are vacant verbiage. It would be so much better to add any artist who is relevant to the actual body of discussion, with explanation of how or why that specific person relates to the concept 'genderfuck'. LotLE×talk 00:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be a bit less judgmental with labeling my (or any editor's work) as "ugly" and "amateurish." It's hard to hear your constructive comment past those remarks. If you have a suggestion for the best way to do so then go for it. Benjiboi 00:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he intended it as a personal jibe, and I certainly don't when I agree with him. It actually reminds me of WP:OR and it is almost like a trivia list at the moment. It contributes nothing to the article in its current form, and is not referenced. As User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters suggests above, if incorporated properly into the article proper (i.e. turning lists into prose), it would be much better for the article's quality. --Dreaded Walrus t c 00:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, my intention is not to criticize Benjiboi as an editor (which is why I didn't mention the particular editor's name in my comment). It's the list itself that I don't like (and wouldn't any more if a different editor added or removed some names from it). I quite share Dreaded Walrus' concern with WP:OR here.
There is also a certain POV issue that comes up. Take a look at Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia, which is a good essay on the need for criteria in lists. The problem is that an uncited "fact" can be (allegedly) established by adding a name to a list, or category, of "X who are Y". Even if the claim "X is Y" could not be supported in the article on X, it gets snuck in by a back door via including the alleged fact in a list. Or even if the fact is stated on the X article, that full article is able to contain more nuance and context for the "is Y" element than is the raw enumeration of X with some other (allegedly similar/identical) things. It all feels very sloppy, and possibly even deceptive. LotLE×talk 00:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely with these comments and also have another reason to suggest removal of list and incorporation of the names into the article text: that is the article text could then be used to explain why artist X is a genderfucker (is that the correct term?); and in doing so might help to explain in clearer terms than present what the genre is. 87.127.44.154 11:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)