Talk:Non-binary

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-binary article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 3 months

Agender was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 November 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Non-binary. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Gender studies Mid‑importance

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.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Wiki Loves Pride

This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2015, 2016 and 2017.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes

Section size for Non-binary (34 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	6,078	6,078
Terms and definitions	11,814	11,814
Identities	18	18,459
Agender	3,941	3,941
Multigender/polygender	1,638	10,955
Bigender	5,048	5,048
Demigender	951	951
Pangender	1,015	1,015
Genderfluid	2,303	2,303
Transfeminine or transmasculine	849	849
Two-spirit	804	804
Xenogender	1,605	1,605
Other identities	287	287
History	12,969	12,969
Pronouns and titles	6,675	6,675
Legal recognition	5,212	11,052
United States	5,840	5,840
Discrimination	4,723	4,723
Healthcare	3,883	8,305
Transgender health care	2,957	2,957
Mental health care	1,465	1,465
Symbols and observances	11,159	11,159
Population figures	26	2,856
Argentina	473	473
Brazil	641	641
Canada	425	425
Switzerland	418	418
United Kingdom	418	418
United States	455	455
See also	635	635
Explanatory notes	36	36
References	28	28
Further reading	3,344	3,344
External links	456	456
Total	98,589	98,589

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

RM, Genderqueer → Non-binary gender, No consensus, 4 June 2016 (See discussion.)
RM, Genderqueer → Non-binary gender, No consensus, 1 August 2017 (See discussion.)
RM, Genderqueer → Non-binary gender identities, No consensus, 4 June 2018 (See discussion.)
RM, Genderqueer → Non-binary, Moved to Non-binary gender, 1 May 2019 (See discussion.)

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

May 16 to 22, 2021

On 9 May 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved from Non-binary to Non-binary. The result of the discussion was moved.

Proposed Split

Recent data from the Gender Census—the largest survey of people outside the gender binary—indicates that “nonbinary” and “genderqueer” are widely understood as distinct terms or identities, rather than one being an umbrella for the other. Elantrisadjusts (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I think it would need a more detailed proposal of what is getting split and what sources support that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intersex

I believe I remember reading recently that a significant portion of intersex people do identify as transgender or non-binary. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read this, but I'll post source if I come across it, unless someone else does.FourLights (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genderqueer pride flag

It may be just an accidental coincidence, but the Genderqueer pride flag bears more than a slight resemblance to the flag of the Suffragette movement. Not that there's any likelihood of confusion between them, the latter being completely historical, and extinct as a movement (as well as both flags being broadly in sympathy with one another's ideals); but the similarity is worth pointing out, being expressive of the convergent creative evolution seen in many pieces of iconography. Nuttyskin (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuttyskin: Is the similarity discussed in reliable sources? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would require Reliable Sources and, even then, we wouldn't be able to draw any inferences from it unless the sources themselves did. It might be more contentious than you think. The Suffragette flag colours are still used by some feminists and have also been appropriated by some anti-trans groups to create an appearance of feminism. Some of the latter really hate the non-binary flag. DanielRigal (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no information related to reliable sources; my post was more aimed at stirring up discussion, in case any editors were aware of prior, encyclopedic disputations on the subject.

Nuttyskin (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is r/lbgallt a reliable source? /j -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that we should add to the article, but I felt these would be relevant to inform: the author already addressed this issue. The coincidence was accidental. There are other sources briefly commenting on this [1] [2]. And Suffragettes were seen as third-gender at some point [3] [4]. LIrala (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7 talk 07:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-binary gender → Non-binary – Based on data from the Gender Census (the largest demographic survey of people outside the gender binary), respondents overwhelmingly refer to themselves as “non-binary,” not as having “a non-binary gender.” The current title is inconsistent with how similar pages are treated—e.g., “Male” and “Female” are not titled “Male gender” or “Female gender.” “Non-binary” can be both an umbrella term and an identity in itself, and the more concise title would better reflect common usage and align with existing naming conventions. Elantrisadjusts (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had always assumed that "gender" here was natural disambiguation since other things can be non-binary, but apparently Non-binary already redirects here, and that seems to be in accord with common usage; in the first page of Google Scholar results for non-binary, 9 out of 10 results are about gender. So, support. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator and Tamzin. Since Non-binary already redirects here, there is no need to disambiguate. The proposed move is more concise and aligns with common usage. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking at the 2019 RM, it seems one of the main concerns was WP:NOUN. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nouns are generally preferred, but not required. Adjective titles appear pretty common when it comes to gender and sex: Transgender, Transsexual, Male, and Female are all either adjectives or noun/adjectives that are usually used as the latter. I think it's better to violate WP:NOUN than WP:COMMONNAME in a case where there's no elegant noun form. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Maintaining a title that is less concise, less common, and over-precise (less accurate, really) to conform with WP:NOUN is improper. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits by User:Elantrisadjusts

I appreaciate your work on the article, however you've removed a lot of content from the article, which definitely needs discussion. Skyshiftertalk 12:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Opened discussion below. Elantrisadjusts (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Review Low-Frequency Identities Based on Gender Census 2024

The 2024 Gender Census—currently the largest global survey of nonbinary people with over 48,000 responses—provides updated data on how identity terms are actually used within the community. Based on this dataset, some identities currently listed in the article appear to be selected by fewer than 0.01% of respondents. Given this, I’d like to suggest a discussion on whether it’s appropriate to include identities with extremely low representation unless they are supported by additional reliable secondary sources (e.g. scholarly work, media coverage, etc.). This isn’t to dismiss those terms, but to ensure that the article remains focused on widely used or well-documented identities in keeping with encyclopedic standards. Happy to hear thoughts on whether frequency data like this should help inform inclusion criteria, and if so, how best to apply it. Elantrisadjusts (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]