Talk:Non-binary gender

Criticism

Please revert section of criticism. And punish DanielRigal for deleting scientific criticism. Firstly, it is not some "guy". Secondly, what is the argument that this is a single critical voice? Based on what Wikipedia rules did DanielRigal think up that one is not enough? Please revert and punish the vandal. Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

The revert of your edit is standard at Wikipedia. First, see WP:CRIT. Second, the views of a particular person belong in an article on that person, such as at Kadji Amin. If there is no such article, and if WP:SECONDARY sources have not highlighted the views, they should be removed per WP:UNDUE. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I read. So please explain, why some articles have Criticism section, for example Islam#Criticism ? Why can Islam be criticized, but non-binary gender cannot? Hypocrisy? Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are here to criticise an article subject then you do not understand how to edit an encyclopaedia. When we cover a topic we cover all notable aspects of it, including notable criticisms of it. We cover criticism but we do not not ourselves criticise. That's WP:NPOV. There is not a topic on this earth that doesn't have at least a few haters. I'm sure that if you looked hard enough you could find a few non-notable people who hate watercress, walruses and wheelbarrows but it would not be appropriate to cover their non-notable opinions in the articles on those subjects. DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Great, now please answer why one can criticise Islam and cannot non-binarity. So far, I have not received an answer to this. Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

We have talked about the inclusion of a criticism section years ago. What exactly is there to criticize?CycoMa1 (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link to the most recent discussion of a criticism section that I can find in the archives. Funcrunch (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

But that discussion is out of date because it is claimed that there is no scientific literature questioning non-binary. I just provided such literature from 2022. And this is not the only criticism and more and more will appear. There's not much to it, because "non-binary" is a new creation. Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to pipe in and say that an editor with the same name as the OP added a section on rationalwiki identical to the one reverted. Ioe bidome (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

1. Adding a criticism section to an article about non-binary gender makes about as much sense as adding a criticism section to articles like "African-American" or "man"
2. The "criticism" was just the opinions of one guy.
3. Islam and non-binary are not comparable. One is a gender identity while the other is a religion that has been used to justify homophobia and transphobia. Ioe bidome (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

   I thought you're a vandal on "RationalWiki", but now I see you're really funny. Funny guy. Pawel.jamiolkowski (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The framing of it as a "criticism" section and overall approach promoting it above are clearly non-starters, but for future reference, the source is this academic article, readable in full, here. Generally, we have treated these sorts of articles in the humanities as WP:PRIMARY sources equivalent to single studies in science, with little or no weight on topics like this where secondary sources should exist. I haven't read it, but the source is clearly taking a queer theory perspective and probably isn't an attack on non-binary people in particular, but a questioning of our culture's way of categorizing gender overall. Of course, numerous opinions along those general lines exist. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Xenogender flag?

So Xenogender redirects to Non-binary_gender#Xenogender. What do others think of adding Xenogender flag (

) to Non-binary gender#Symbols and observances? EarthFurst (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It would need reliable secondary sources indicating that the community meaningfully uses this flag. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Jens Andersson

Article mentions Jens Andersson as a historical example for non-binary gender. Please see the two sections of sources below, Andersson was in a same sex relationship during a time when this was an illegal act, and was imprisoned for such. Prescribing a gender identity post mortem is not scholarly work, and this is also mentioned in the first highlighted source.

Recommending that this example be removed.

Sources:

https://www.nb.no/historier-fra-samlingen/jens-og-anne-christine/#:~:text=Nyborg%20points%20out,how%20I%20am%22.

https://skeivtarkiv.no/en/skeivopedia/sodomy-between-women#:~:text=Another%20case%20which,court.%20(Stoa%202010). 76.184.170.169 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Creating a "Media representation" section?

Instead of jumping ahead and creating this section, I thought I'd post here first. Other identities have robust sections of this type, like Lesbian#Media representation, Bisexuality#Media, Asexuality#In media, and Intersex#In society. I was thinking of moving SOME content from Non-binary characters in fiction to such a section. I can come up with a mock version of this possible section if you think that would help. Otherwise, I am trying to pair down Non-binary characters in fiction a bit (focusing mainly on examples either with media coverage or scholarly analysis), so if you would like to help with that, it would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be best to base such a section on scholarly analysis if so. Some of that material, like at Bisexuality, just lists off certain media and cites contemporary entertainment news, which isn't as good. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I can agree with that, that makes perfect sense. Historyday01 (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)