Talk:Gender binary/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links

• Gender Crash! Intersection of Boston's Queer, Transgender, and Gender Queer Communities Resources, Rants, and Information for Everyone!
• Alt.Support.Intergendered
• United Genders of the Universe a genderqueer organization
• Androgyne Online
• Gender is Not Binary: Queering the Gender of Social Networking and Beyond Support, resources, safe space, and activism around expanding gender inclusiveness on and off the World Wide Web.

I've removed these links as they don't seem to conform to WP:EL, they may make good sources but links are held to a much higher standard. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation

The article uses a lot of false information with no references. The statement "Every known society has used the gender binary to divide and organize people, though the ways this happen differ among societies" is inaccurate, assuming, as the article thus far implies, that gender binary includes only those systems in which gender is defined as strictly male or female. Noble Hikari (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No more redirect

I thought I would briefly justify breaking the redirect of this page to "third gender" remembering this page has never been anything but a redirect before.

The gender binary is neither the same as third gender nor its opposite. While "third gender" refers to a person, the gender binary is a n anthropological system of large groups of people. In order to understand genderqueers, drag queens, and the application of intersexuality, the gender binary is a central point of interest. Everyone cisgendered person obeys the gender binary daily and a genderqueer person battles it daily. --Ephilei 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment--the content on this page mentions gender binary in passing, saying that women bear children, and the generalization that all known societies follow it in some way, but the rest of the page is all about refuting the concept. Which is odd considering that gender binary is the norm (i.e. there are males and females, and they do differ biologically, and most societies have defined different standard roles beyond the biological ones). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am7146 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced

This article needs to be rewritten using reliable sources. If this can't be done, it should be deleted. —Ashley Y 09:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Adjective

"Binary" is an adjective. Shouldn't "gender binary" also function as an adjective? Unfree (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

it's also a noun. --24.61.191.94 (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gender expression sentence

Removed sentance "Transsexuals have a unique place in relation to the gender binary because their gender expression transitions from one side of the gender binary to the other.", it's quite clearly nonsensical.

Gender role or expression: Characteristics in personality, appearance, and behavior that in a given culture and historical period are designated as masculine or feminine (that is, more typical of the male or female social role) (Ruble, Martin, & Berenbaum, 2006). While most individuals present socially in clearly masculine or feminine gender roles, some people present in an alternative gender role such as genderqueer or specifically transgender. All people tend to incorporate both masculine and feminine characteristics in their gender expression in varying ways and to varying degrees (Bockting, 2008).

> WPATH SOC v7

Gender Expression External manifestation of one's gender identity, usually expressed through "masculine," "feminine" or gender-variant behavior, clothing, haircut, voice or body characteristics. Typically, transgender people seek to make their gender expression match their gender identity, rather than their birth-assigned sex.

> http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/03/21/gender-expression-is-not-gender-identity/

0x2020 (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

0x2020: Please, as a new editor, keep in mind the goal of improving Wikipedia articles, and not just deleting material you think does not make sense, OK? When you come across something you don't think is properly supported, please add a Template:Citation needed tag on it...

And typically, in response to a revert such as I performed, you should bring up the topic for discussion in Talk to achieve consensus before persisting with your editing goal, in conformity with the recommendations for WP:BRD - the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" Cycle.

Please note: In your latest edit here, you also deleted the sentence:

In the contemporary West, transgender people break the gender binary in the form of genderqueer, drag queens, and drag kings.

First, I think both of these statements are poorly phrased, and should probably also have direct citations provided to support. The statement above should probably use the word "violate" rather than "break"... but I think it's not a remarkable claim at all, though I would add genderfluid and perhaps also bigender to the list?

Second, regarding the statement you deleted because it is "nonsensical" -

"Transsexuals have a unique place in relation to the gender binary because their gender expression transitions from one side of the gender binary to the other."

There are problems with this formulation, because:

1) Some transsexuals do not fit into the type described in the statement because they express their core gender identity with unyielding determination from the earliest age people begin to distinguish between sexes and gendered behavior commonly expected in a given society of people of that sex; at the age of three, a MtF transsexual girl may make statements such as "I'm a girl!", refuse all gender-typical boy play even under threat of punishment, etc. This type of transsexual - a "primary transsexual", in the terminology used before analyses of transsexualism became somewhat more nuanced - never alter their gender expression. For a WP:RS memoir written by such a person, see Dylan Scholinski's The Last Time I Wore a Dress

2) On the other hand, the average late-transitioning transsexual, who transitions after the age of 30, has spent most of their life striving to fit into the gender roles and modes of expression which are deemed socially acceptable by society - as you quote from Bockting: "most individuals present socially in clearly masculine or feminine gender roles". That is the core of the concept of the gender binary - most people fit into it with a minimum of discomfort, and many of those "normal people" feel exquisitely uncomfortable when confronted with a person who does not; these gendered behaviors are typically enforced rather strictly in most subcultures observed in Western society, moreso for boys, men, and women than for girls, in whom "tomboyism" is normally judged tolerable... when they are young.

However, when finally embarking on the very challenging path of transition to the "other sex", transsexuals fairly frequently alter their gender expression in a radical and highly dramatic way; this is especially true for some MtF transsexual persons.

Frequently people who have lived as men for over 50 years, and expressed themselves as VERY masculine persons, pursuing occupations typically associated with male gender roles in the military or technical careers, switch to hyperfeminine modes of expression as they transition and seek Sex reassignment therapy, baffling their families and peers, and indeed, many researchers (see the article on Blanchard's transsexualism typology, which IMHO is wrong, but not wholly misbegotten? As a marvelous example, there's the memoir by the brilliant writer and prominent economist Deirdre McCloskey - Crossing: A Memoir. A quotation from the Amazon review will give you the idea of how a person "transitions from one side of the gender binary to the other":

Donald was a macho academic who dominated every discussion, viewing conversation as an exercise in one-upmanship. As he surgically altered his appearance and began to take estrogen on the road to "The Operation," he found himself relating to people in a more conventionally female way: listening to others, considering feelings. "The hormones are working, he thought at first. Or was it merely that the real person could now stand up?... Biology or core identity?" There are no final answers to such questions, but McCloskey poses them with sensitivity and insight.

To sum up: this statement needs to be qualified in order to be more precise, but it's hardly "nonsensical". This variety of dramatic transition to very feminine gender expression is, by the way, part of the reason radical feminists (and certain queer theorists along with some others) object furiously to trans women who "reinforce the gender binary".

Regarding your link to Gender Expression Is Not Gender Identity blog post, it's clearly WP:SPS, I'm not quite sure why you're providing it... I understand what Ms. Reed is saying... although it's falling into TL;DR territory, and though I agree with much of what she says, my own experience is different? (Which is typical with the nuanced and often idiosyncratic understanding of gender expressed by sophisticated trans folk, IMO. FWIW, I'm a trans woman - a late transitioning pre-op MtF transsexual, to be specific? )

PS: Regarding GLAAD:

Although GLAAD's propaganda is often mooted as a "Reliable Source", the fact is that GLAAD is a essentially a private 501(c)3 non-profit social-action organization seeking to attain "media influence" (admittedly, with great success in many mainstream publications), and its publications are really just WP:SPS opinion if you analyze their organizational staffing (zero experts, and especially zero when it comes to transgender issues) and sourcing they provide for the claims they make in position statements on "proper treatment of GLBT issue and persons in media" - again, zero. And how many citations do we find in their media reference guide? Zero.

In my opinion, GLAAD's publications should be assessed as WP:SPS and regarded with the same scrutiny as other media/organizations such as (for example) the conservative Accuracy in Media organization: worthy of note, but not as reference resources.

GEE! Look what I just found! Check it out! - Download the Corporate Brochure (PDF) - GLAAD - "Let GLAAD be your marketing vehicle for brand visibility to the LGBT community! The buying power of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender consumers is projected to be $743 billion" WHAT? !!!

GLAAD - media watchdog... or "marketing vehicle"? Which is it? Seriously.

For an example of the "why?":

Trans women - specifically, a significant minority of transsexuals, among them, myself? - are prone to become extraordinarily ticked off by the impostures and pretensions to authoritative wisdom of GLAAD; for example, in the page you draw from above - GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Transgender Glossary Of Terms -

"When describing transgender people, please use the correct term or terms to describe their gender identity. For example, a person who is born male and transitions to become female is a transgender woman, whereas a person who is born female and transitions to become male is a transgender man."

Wrong. How wrong? Well, they're managing to contradict their earlier recommendation under their definition of "Transgender"! -

"Use the descriptive term (transgender, transsexual, cross-dresser, FTM or MTF) preferred by the individual."

This might be viewed merely as a pet peeve, and in some ways it is... but GLAAD similarly offends self-identified "trannies" by lecturing them against the use of the word! They're not good on transgender issues... almost all transgender folks feel this way about them. And on their insistence that "transgendered" is "grammatically incorrect" - "it is grammatically incorrect to turn transgender into a participle, as it is an adjective, not a verb, and only verbs can be used as participles by adding an "-ed" suffix.", they've formally adopted a completely indefensible position. ??? (See my Talk comment in another article - referencing comments by a linguist ... here).

— thanks! ... - bonze blayk (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The gender binary is largely a western construct

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=544:beyond-binary-definitions-of-gender-acknowledging-the-third-gender-in-africa&catid=59:gender-issues-discussion-papers&Itemid=267 http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gender_systems#Non-Western_gender_systems

It's pretty fucking racist to state otherwise, Bonze blayk.

That's not an argument based on Reliable Sources - see WP:RS - that's just an insult. See WP:PA: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

That said, please look again at the Wikipedia article you're citing, Gender systems. Under non-Western gender systems, do you see China? No. Do you see Japan? No. Those cultures traditionally had rigidly-enforced binary gender systems, and they are definitively "non-Western" cultures, since they successfully resisted European Imperialism and the Christian cultural baggage that came along with it for a long, long time.

So the "gender binary" is not "largely a Western construct"; even in those cultures where there is a so-called "Third Gender", the roles there typically involve (or involved) male-bodied persons who assumed roles associated with women in some way. There were some notable exceptions to this, for example the androgynous male Xanith of Oman, who comprise a distinct gender category, but generally the "gender binary" has governed role expectations - where men are men and assume "men's roles", women are women and assume "women's roles", and in a number of cultures there have been special classes of "men living as women", or fairly commonly, a small number of shamans assuming a very special kind of transvestic/androgynous spiritual role.

For example see the description of the Hijra from that article: "Their status in society is neither male nor female, neither man nor woman. When hijras are asked whether or not they are male or female, most often they respond with comments like “We hijras are like women”, demonstrating their place in culture. Hijras walk, gesture, speak, and use facial expressions more common to women in India. They even take feminine names as part of their gender transformation." - "We hijras are like women".

Meanwhile, some cultures, notably some among the North American Indian tribes, allowed for a broader range of behaviors for persons who were perceived as being "Two-Spirit" people.

The article as it stands is doing OK with dealing with the diversity of cultural standards regarding the "gender binary"; it could really use citations to support the statements made here, but overall, it doesn't appear really "bad". Adding an ill-founded global condemnation of "Western Culture" as the source of the gender binary is not going to improve it.

And sigh just looking over the article you link, which is hosted on a for-profit market intelligence enterprise (and thus not adequate for as an WP:RS or even as an WP:SPS on the subject? The page you link is decorated with rotating self-advertisements: "Products & services formulated to complement today's rapid operating pace - Click here for CAI's tailored research offerings." And how good is their "research" here? Well, notably, there's the statement "There were traditional third-gender roles in African aboriginal tribes such as the Mbo people of Zaire and amongst the palace and harem guards of the Arabs and Chinese." Well, the "third-gender role" of Chinese eunuchs was that of traditional male-gendered slaves who were docked in order to ensure that they were 1) less aggressive and 2) incapable of producing offspring, and thus more reliable and trustworthy servants to elite classes. Not a "third gender", thank you; just neutered men.

Sincerely, - bonze blayk (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I just thought that I should add a link to my edit that provoked this controversy to clarify the substance of the matter - "this is edit warring - don't do it - discuss changes first, because this is just plain wrong". - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lack of citations?

Besides how absurdly biased and non-NPOV this article is, why are there so few sources for all of the claims? Particularly the "rejection" one which is rather enormous claim. 68.227.167.123 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Presumably because editors have not gone out and found reliable sources to include in the article. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort. If you know of sources, please share them. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Can homosexuals be gender binary?

I'm not sure I understand this. Are homosexuals who identify with one gender exclusively, regardless of their birth gender, gender binary? Are their homosexuals who switch between playing both the female and male role, as their mood sees fits? Are their bisexual women who play the male role with women and the female role with men? (and similarly for gay men) Bostoner (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bostoner, good questions. It can be difficult for a lot of people to really get their heads around the whole concept. I'll answer your questions individually, to the best of my ability, but I still recommend doing your own research if you'd like to learn more:

A) Yes, homosexuals who identify with one gender, no matter their birth gender, could be considered "gender binary". But the gender binary isn't an adjective to describe a person, really, but a noun to describe a gender system and how it's used in society. But yes, a homosexual who identifies as a man or a woman is only a man or woman, not both. Their orientation does not in anyway affect their personal gender or gender identity. That's bolded because it's pretty important to know.

B) Their are homosexuals who switch between "playing" both masculine and feminine rolls. Their are also heterosexuals who do this. For these people, though, it's probably best to use the terms androphile and gynephile, as those refer to who they're attracted to, and not their own gender, which might change. These people often identify with the term genderfluid. Also, they're not necessarily "playing" any roles, they may simply fill different roles at different times.

C) This question is a bit more specific, but can basically be answered with "yes". Their are thousands of people and they probably do whatever they see fit. Being around men might make a genderfluid or genderqueer person feel more feminine, and vice versa.

Mellothumb (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a talk page people, keep it moving. 69.121.144.8 (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry? This is *not* a talk page? Is it not important to answer questions that a possible editor would have? (including those who are just reading right now). 99.242.116.26 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article." Helpsome (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced emphasis, therefore neutrality in question

The "No more redirect" discussion comment above identifies this page as having previously existed only as a redirect to "third gender." I suspect that may largely be the legacy reason that the content of this page -- keeping in mind that the title/subject is "Gender binary" -- features an unbalanced and inappropriate emphasis on content that is technically outside of or alternative to the page's title/subject.

Bias is especially evident in the current list of "External links," which links to content that refutes this page's subject rather than to content that relates to it.

This page's neutrality is further compromised by the narrow definition of the subject. Biological and evolutionary aspects of the subject are not covered, giving way to an emphasis on cultural and societal aspects (defined as a way to "divide and organize people," "means of bringing order").

TheSlush (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Although you are astutely noticing that this article could well use a lot more details and elaboration, i would say that it is not really a case of non-neutral point of view, but rather simply a case of an article which is Not Quite Fully Developed Yet. The parts presented (so far) seem (to me) somewhat neutral, and i agree with you that it would be excellent to add more references and summaries of other aspects of the topic you mentioned, such as biology and genetics, comparison of humans to other species, and so forth. Do you have any good reference materials where you could glean some helpful summaries of facts? If you add more elaborations to this article (perhaps you feel it needs some kind of 'balance'?) then i think it would be a tremendous improvement. Thanks! Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 19:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the links to a new discussion thread. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I also would point out a lack of neutrality in the article. "Gendered descriptors have uses, but by connecting them to specific sexes they become oppressive terms that enable continued discrimination." - this is evidently a biased viewpoint, referencing discrimination of 'non-binary' people for which there is a separate article, and subtly promoting the abolition of these "oppressive" terms as a 'social construct'. Regardless of the fact that the vast majority of people have no objection to the binary system - limitations of course should still be mentioned, as part of a balanced article - the article firmly aligns itself in opposition to these terms. Furthermore the previous comment correctly points out the purely social/cultural aspects of it and represents gender binary as purely a 'social construct' rather than an inherent biological distinction - confusion of which, it could be argued, is merely an example of nature having gone wrong. Links at the 'see also' section also do not include what I would think relevant topics such as hermaphroditism, congenital disorder, gender identity disorder or sex determination.-->thejollyjellyfish69 11:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Chadders (talk • contribs)

Name change

I think that this article needs to be renamed, as present name can be confused with sexual dimorphism. Maybe into "gender roles binary" or something similar. Also some cited sources, especially in rejection section, intentionally obfuscate this distinction and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.170.185 (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Originally tagged 09:41, 5 December 2008 until you removed it. Interestingly, it was tagged again within two months. Am removing it *again* and adding a comment in the history to refer to Talk if they want to revert the removal. They may be right about NPOV, but there's no way to discuss an unstated accusation, and we can't read their mind. Mathglot (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

The article is biased toward the idea that gender binary is "problematic". It exposes criticisms of the concept but no argument in it's favor. But considering how common gender binarism is and has been throughout history and different cultures, and how there are quite a few conservatives/traditionalists, it's reasonable to assume that actually there are arguments in its favor. If I knew enough on the subject i'd include them myself, but that's not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.13.248 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the article is currently biased toward criticism of the gender binary, especially considering how widespread and accepted the gender binary is. It's also redundant to the Genderism article, which is a WP:Content fork, and, as such, will soon be merged with this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Deleted a line in "Limitations"

I deleted the following line: "There is an increasing amount of research that illustrates that the evidence for dividing humans into the two distinct categories of men and women is problematic and a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example,"

What follows (the example and those subsequent to it) fail to give an example for what is claimed (research into dividing humans into two categories being "problematic and a self-fulfilling prophecy.)

What was offered is instead a link to two opinion pieces: arguments, but not research. There was no actual studies linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parogar (talk • contribs) 05:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs links to scholars listed in "Limitations" section

This section of the article makes reference to multiple people but only provides links and information on some of them. It would be useful to add information, or links if possible, from the sources provided here or Wikipedia for the following people mentioned: Karen Beckwith and Allan Johnson

Jacquelinerivera13 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender binary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403155153/http://www.glbtq.com/literature/gender.html to http://www.glbtq.com/literature/gender.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Binarism a different thing?

I'm unsure how it is being used here, but I have heard in the past that binarism specifically refers to the gender binary being forced onto people from non-Western cultures. I might be wrong, but that is usually how I see it discussed in social justice circles. Perhaps a better article title would be "Gender Binary" or "Binary Conceptions of Gender" or the like? This would allow for an article about cultural binarism. Bioethic (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is already titled "Gender binary." We don't capitalize articles unless it's like the name of a book, and so on. See WP:Article titles. As for the rest, it's best to check the sources in the article and make sure that they support whatever wording is being used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

In society

Gender binaries exist as a means of bringing order, though some people, such as Riki Wilchins, argue that gender binaries divide and polarize society.

I've removed this statement because it's too vague – how do they bring "order", what is order being brought to, how was it not ordered previously, who are "some people", and how are they important to the topic? See Weasel words. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not strongly opposed to the removal, but the addition of "Riki Wilchins" appears to be meant to resolve the "some people" part of the statement. In cases like these, giving an example is appropriate, as noted at Template:Who, since most of the "some people" are not notable. In many cases, we are going to state "some people" or "many people." And WP:Weasel words notes that this may at times be appropriate. We cannot name the general public.

The second part of the addition could be re-added, so that it states the following: "Riki Wilchins argues that gender binaries divide and polarize society." Of course...it should be placed alongside existing or new material. Single-sentence paragraphs are not ideal, as noted at MOS:Paragraphs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe that an antagonist statement should be allowed

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have had mine removed many many times, that one fact agains thte thoery of many genders and supportive of the gender binary is that there are only two sexes, therefore one can identify with one of the two genders presented in them. All other ideas, that gender is a "social construct", I believe are that they are total madness. If I identify as an attack helicopter, it does not mean I am one. The idea that more than 2 genders exist is completely illogical and makes absolutely no sense.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:8116:2000:f1ce:3a93:ed01:d9f6 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Genderism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group [add 5a] proposed editing Goals

Here are some goals for updating this page.

1. Have a clear definition of gender binary.
2. Explain how gender binary reflects social norms and one's innate identity
3. Add additional information about the subject. DanielPerez144 (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure after reading this what you intend to do wrt editing, as 1 and 2 do not appear to be article contributions. Please clarify and add Group # to header. (added formatting) Health policy (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Annotated bibliography for edits regarding gender binary colonial history and best practices for youth

1. APA Citation: Yasmeen Narayan (2019) Intersectionality, nationalisms, biocoloniality, ethnic and racial studies, 42:8, 1225-1244, doi: 10.1080/01419870.2018.1518536 Method/framework: Theoretical framework is based heavily on the theory of intersectionality, rooted in Black feminism and Critical Race Theory (Carbado et al. 2013, 303) Summary: The author presents a theory of racialized subjectification that argues that the subject faced with nationalist formations of “cultural specificity” reinscribes themselves and others as they creolize culture in effort to protect a core sense of self. Relation to topic: Under the header, “Empire, sex, normality,” this article discusses how disciplinary discourses divided “‘healthy’, ‘normal’ bodies into one of two sexes.” This gender binary was used to “normalize and elevate European bourgeois patriarchal formations over all other gender configurations.” It discusses the importance of contextualizing the gender binary in a colonized history, where its importance was based in ideas of European nationalism and enforcement of patriarchal norms. 2. APA Citation: Freya Schiwy (2007) Decolonization and the question of subjectivity: Gender, race, and binary thinking, Cultural Studies, 21:2-3,271-294, DOI: 10.1080/09502380601162555

Method/framework: The author uses “the treatment of gender in three approaches to decolonization (Nelly Richard’s cultural theory, Mujeres Creando’s lesbian street performance, indigenous movement’s written and audiovisual discourse) to discern how gender and the coloniality of power are articulated and in how far these efforts at decolonization unwork colonial legacies” Summary: Gender, in particular the notions of masculinity and femininity, is a colonial construct; the construction and performance of gender is an important part of the process of decolonization. Relation to topic: The gender binary is a construct rooted in oppressive colonial ideologies for power.

3. APA Citation: Hassim, S. (2016). Critical Thoughts on Keywords in Gender and History: An Introduction. Gender & History, 28(2), 299–306. https://doi-org.libproxy.sdsu.edu/10.1111/1468-0424.12208 Method/framework: The author uses analysis in feminist theory, including the gender binary, gender crisis, agency, and intersectionality. Summary: This article focuses on understanding historical description and theory as mutually constitutive. Relation to topic: This article discusses how various scholars have studied gender and their findings in relation to a history of colonialism. 4. APA Citation: Rahilly, E. (2015). The gender binary meets the gender-variant child: Parents' negotiations with childhood gender variance. Gender and Society, 29(3), 338-361. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.sdsu.edu/stable/43669975 Method/framework: The author uses “Foucault's notion of "truth regime" to conceptualize the regulatory forces of the gender binary in everyday life.” Summary: This article studies “how [children] confront the gender binary and imagine more gender-inclusive possibilities.” Relation to topic: This article discusses the modern application of my topic (colonial history of gender binary) by providing perspectives for resisting normative regulation of gender practices.

5. APA Citation: Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & van Anders, S. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193. https://doi-org.libproxy.sdsu.edu/10.1037/amp0000307

Method/framework: This article is a literature review of 5 sets of empirical findings, drawing from neuroscience, behavioral neuroendocrinology, psychology, and developmental research. Summary: The research undermines the gender binary, “suggesting that the tendency to view gender/sex as a meaningful, binary category is culturally determined and malleable.” Relation to topic: This article uses multidisciplinary research to undermine the gender binary as nothing more than a cultural construct.

6. APA Citation: Krylova, A. (2016). Gender Binary and the Limits of Poststructuralist Method. Gender & History, 28(2), 307–323. https://doi-org.libproxy.sdsu.edu/10.1111/1468-0424.12209 Method/framework: This author uses a “deconstructive rereading of a foundational work by one of the discipline's most influential poststructuralist theorists - Joan Scott.” Summary: The author looks at the “poverty of gender as a binary device to analyze those gendered identities that constitute heterosexual relations but do not fit the binary matrix.” Relation to topic: The article gives historians the power to deconstruct the binary organization of gender and identifies the social relations that created the gender binary (“radical distinction, opposition, mutually exclusive and exhaustive differentiation, hierarchy, domination, oppression - in all their myriad historical forms.”)

7. APA Citation: Maia Sheppard & J. B. Mayo Jr. (2013) The Social Construction of Gender and Sexuality: Learning from Two Spirit Traditions, The Social Studies, 104:6, 259-270, DOI: 10.1080/00377996.2013.788472 Method/framework: The author uses a social studies framework and incorporates interviews with teachers who are understanding the oppressive nature of rigid categories for gender and sexuality and how those concepts are inherently tied to citizenship (national identity). Summary: This article summarizes how “some cultures within the various Native American nations conceptualize gender and sexuality in ways that challenge Western norms.” Relation to topic: Authors are uncovering the assumptions that underlie U.S. cultural beliefs about gender and sexuality. They also provide a curriculum for students to learn to question how gender is socially and culturally constructed.

8. APA Citation: Boydston, J. (2008). Gender as a question of historical analysis. Gender & History, 20(3), 558- 583.

Method/framework: This author uses theoretical framework from the field of gender and women’s history, particularly focusing on the case of the British North American colonies and the early United States republic. Summary: The author argues “against the common practice of assuming that gender, understood as an oppositional binary, functions virtually universally as a primary process for representing differential power.” Relation to topic: This article also focuses on the colonial history of gender as an oppositional binary with inherent power dynamics. Citlalli95 (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Colonial history of gender binary

• My edits are regarding the discussion on Maria Lugones and her argument about Western colonizers imposing a binary gender system. I will provide more historical, neuroscientific, psychological, and developmental research evidence supporting her argument.

Scholars who study the gender binary from an intersectional feminism and Critical Race Theory (Carbado et al. 2013, 303) perspective agree that during the process of European colonization of the U.S., a binary system of gender was created and enforced as a means of protecting patriarchal norms and upholding European nationalism (Narayan, 2019). This idea of a gender as a binary has been shown to be an oppressive means of reflecting differential power dynamics (Boydston, 2008). Studies of Two Spirit traditions have shown that various Native American nations understand gender and sexuality in a way that directly opposes Western norms (Sheppard, J. & Mayo, J, 2013). Multidisciplinary research in the fields of neuroscience, behavioral neuroendocrinology, psychology, and developmental psych ology undermines the gender binary as nothing more than a social and cultural construct (Hyde, J. et al., 2019).

References: Citlalli95 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

References

UCSF Foundation 2, 2019, Group 5c Peer Review

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Should add subheading for LGBTQ+ impacts under “Limitation” to make it easier for readers to understand and follow along Had neutral content. Didn’t attempt to convince readers to follow certain beliefs or ideas

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

In the context of clarifying gender binary impact on LGBTQIA patients, the edits appear to improve the article. One example is an edit mentioning while there is a need to address this health outcomes gap, long-term and high-quality research simply isn’t established yet to pinpoint factors and form solutions. There is also a portion that touches upon the scope of gender outside the binary within the limitations section (e.g. gender fluid, non-binary, etc.) that adds more depth.

3. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…

Reference 9, while it touches on the definition of non-binary, doesn’t really support the statement made regarding intersex individuals and their self-placement on the gender binary. The other cited sources, however, are secondary articles that are freely available to the public and supportive of their statements. Vicknguy (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

4. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?

The draft reflects a neutral point of view. I couldn’t guess the perspective of the author after reading the article. There are no biased phrases. The articles don’t make claims on behalf of a group of people. The article doesn’t focus too much on negative or positive information surrounding the topic. Msleee (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

5.Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

No, edits are cited, and there is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Citation 9 does not correlate to the edit it is associated with. Storm1625 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

6. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, Specify… The edits appear relatively consistent with the Wikipedia manual style as they maintain the same voice, informative structure, and tone, though I could see a paragraph break being useful after "for example". Moreover, there do not appear to be any grammar issues nor unnecessary jargon. I am not absolutely sure, but I think there should be a comma between "hormones" and "etc." and again between "the media" and "for example." Snselim (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Other: The following statements are describing “gender identity”, not “gender binary":

“Gender binary therefore focuses primarily on one's innate identity irrespective of their anatomical features including genitalia, chromosomes, hormones etc. Gender binary refers to a person's gender role, often defined by social norms and the media for example. Storm1625 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Binary vs non-Binary

I can understand a list of genders could be binary or non-binary, but how can a person be a binary gender - they only have 1 gender, therefore they are unary (i.e. unary is not binary). ZhuLien (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.129.186 (talk)

Very political

I get that this article is most about the social sciences but and I also get that sex and gender are two different concepts but, I smell a good amount of bias in this.

Like really

Christianity supports its adherence to a gender binary with the Book of Genesis in the Bible, where it is declared in verse 27 that "God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."[15]

And it’s kind of a stretch that the whole concept of gender binary came from the patriarchy. CycoMa (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an article from a series on LGBT topics, meaning if you are looking for information on an issue from the LGBT community, from the perspective of the LGBT community, then you would have found your way to this page. Like you said, this article is from the social sciences because far from the natural sciences there is no objective truth in the social sciences and writing all articles as if they all belong to the hard sciences is potentially even more misleading and factually incorrect since it wipes out a bunch of objectively extant view points.81.109.120.75 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

Regarding this I don’t see any issue with inserting that source. Many of the individuals in that source cited are professionals and the source isn’t anti trans or anti science. CycoMa (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the phrase gender binary in that source, so am unclear on why it is used in the lead. Also gender binary is a sociological concept, it seemed like a stretch to use a medical organization's statement here and likely explains why they never use the term. From a sociological perspective, the idea that there is a sex binary that is purely natural and not socially informed similar to the gender binary is also questionable, I could pull some quotes from texts by Judith Butler or Fausto-Sterling on that topic. Rab V (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

“ From a sociological perspective, the idea that there is a sex binary that is purely natural and not socially informed similar to the gender binary is also questionable”

Sex is a biological thing not a sociological thing my friend, so I have no idea why you are mentioning what sociologists think about sex. Also here’s the thing sociology especially gender studies is political and biased by nature.

You mentioned Fausto-Sterling. But here’s the thing about her, she is well known for spreading misinformation about this topic. Like no one took her claim about five sexes seriously.

Also Judith Butler doesn’t even know anything about biology. She’s merely a philosopher and a gender theorist.CycoMa (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Also I’m just gonna say this, sex and gender are two different things. The source Crossroads added even stated that.CycoMa (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about the gender binary; if you are not interested in what leading gender theorists or experts on the history of sex have to say then we may be at a hard impasse. Rab V (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Dude I understand that this article is about sociology sure there ideas about gender are true. Because gender is a sociological thing. However, sociologists views about biological sex are different the biological perspective about it.

Let’s not act all certain forms of academic study agree with each other on everything. Like the Wikipedia on adult states this.

“ Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity. In human context, the term adult has meanings associated with social and legal concepts.”

“ The typical age of attaining legal adulthood is 18, although definition may vary by legal rights, country, and psychological development.”

That’s all we are trying to do here. Present information from a biological perspective and a sociological one.

Also you complain about Crossroads adding a source from a medical organization yet this article already cites sources about transgender health and sources like the APA.CycoMa (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

My initial thoughts on this are along the same lines as what Rab has said above: it's not clear that the added material is relevant here, and it is clear that it's presenting only one POV; if something along those lines were added, it would need to be part of a sentence/paragraph recognizing that some sources cast sex as binary but others see otherwise (with obvious reference to intersex people), rather like the situation with gender. -sche (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is the material not relevant? It literally was walking about sex and gender.

Either you didn’t read the material or you don’t know what you are talking about.

“ some sources cast sex as binary but others see otherwise (with obvious reference to intersex people)”

Yeah that because some sources definition of sex varies.

Just like how definitions of intersex vary.

If you are defining sex based on sex chromosomes then yeah it wouldn’t be binary.

But, sex chromosomes aren’t how male and female are defined. Sex chromosomes are merely the ingredients.

You want to know why Anne Fausto-Sterling claimed that there are 23 sexes or that 1.7% are intersex; because her definition of sex and intersex don’t match up with the biological definitions.

Also I mentioned before that sometimes definitions can vary from different forms of academia. Like the sociological definition of adult is different from the biological definition.

Also by the way the source Crossroads added was written by individuals who study in biology and medicine.

And yet you guys are citing sources that have little knowledge on biology. CycoMa (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually I have a good amount of sources to show y’all what I mean. I’m currently on my phone just give me a moment. CycoMa (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The source is clearly relevant as it clearly, in the beginning even, talks about the topic of the article, e.g. Sex is dichotomous,...By contrast, gender includes perception of the individual as male, female, or other, both by the individual and by society. (Emphasis added.) How -sche is proposing presenting it is a classic WP:FALSEBALANCE and shows a lack of familiarity with the source. The source talks about intersex (also called disorders of sex development) as well as transgender people and gender identity. The authors are clearly experts on all of that and the source is a review article published in a top journal. It's an impeccable WP:MEDRS. Gender differences, gender identity, sex, and so on are absolutely medical topics, and medical and scientific research, including this March 2021 review, is where we look for WP:MAINSTREAM, secondary and tertiary views on this topic. Judith Butler's decades-old philosophizing is most certainly not a WP:MEDRS. Anne Fausto-Sterling's politicized talking points about five sexes and whatnot do not carry equal WP:WEIGHT with mainstream biology and medicine; which is what this is. This sort of special pleading is like saying that for climate science articles we need to give equal weight to that very same sort of 1990s postmodernist/relativist philosophizing. Which did occur: [1] Disorders of sex development do not disprove that there are two sexes. Leaving this out is deeply WP:POV and can only contribute to lay confusion of sex and gender - and this confusion is why some people tend to say that there are only two genders. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay let me help y’all what me and Crossroads are trying to state here.

First let’s define intersex to understand the point we are making.

“However, species are also considered gonochoric if (as developmental abnormalities or because of genetic mutations) intersex individuals accidentally occur I.e. ones with a mix of both male and female characters. (This is on page 117 in the book below.)

https://books.google.com/books?id=AKGsDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=biology+of+reproduction+intersex&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi2p9vA7fPvAhWXK80KHYI9CAAQ6AEwAnoECAUQAw

Now there is a certain word in that sentence, the word they used is gonochoric.

“Gonochoric: A term mainly used for animals: a sexual system where individuals exhibit either the male or the female sexual strategy throughout their lives”

https://books.google.com/books?id=_r4OCAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA213&dq=evolution+encyclopedia+anisogamy&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiH6NSn8PPvAhWJHc0KHdmqCL4Q6AEwAHoECAAQAw

“ Gonochorism describes sexually reproducing species in which individuals have one of at least two distinct sexes (see Subramoniam, 2013). This condition is also referred to as dioecy.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/gonochorism

Gonochoric basically means the species has males and females. So no intersex organisms don’t disprove our point.

So that makes you ask what is male and female.

“ The sexes of parents are defined on the basis of gametes produced by them. Generally, the parent producing smaller gamete is “male,” and the one producing larger gamete is “female” (Smith 1971). The both gametes can be motile or one of them can be motile and the other is immotile.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20201011041118/https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-47829-6_340-1

“Sex, the sum of features by which members of species can be divided into two groups—male and female—that complement each other reproductively.”

“ If only sperm cells are produced, the reproductive gland is a testis, and the primary sex of the tissue and the individual possessing it is male. If only eggs are produced, the reproductive gland is an ovary, and the primary sex is female. If the gland produces both sperm and eggs, either simultaneously or successively, the condition is known as hermaphroditic.”

https://www.britannica.com/science/sex

“ The classical biological definition of the 2 sexes is that females have ovaries and make larger female gametes (eggs), whereas males have testes and make smaller male gametes (sperm)”

https://academic.oup.com/edrv/advance-article/doi/10.1210/endrev/bnaa034/6159361

“In anisogamety, an individual’s sex condition coincides with the type of gamete it produces: male if it produces male gametes exclusively, female if it only produces female gametes, and hermaphrodite if, simultaneously or at different times, it is able to produce both types of gametes.” (page 112.)

https://books.google.com/books?id=AKGsDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=biology+of+reproduction+define+sex&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_jOTy8_PvAhXRQc0KHSXRAm0Q6AEwAHoECAUQAw

Sure the definitions I presented do vary a little but they basically define it all by gametes.

This may sound weird but some sources sum it all up like this.

“ The advantage of this simple definition is first that it can be applied universally to any species of sexually reproducing organism. Second, it is a bedrock concept of evolution, because selection of traits may differ in the 2 sexes. Thirdly, the definition can be extended to the ovaries and testes, and in this way the categories—female and male—can be applied also to individuals who have gonads but do not make gametes.”

https://academic.oup.com/edrv/advance-article/doi/10.1210/endrev/bnaa034/6159361

Richard Dawkins states this.

“ However, there is one fundamental feature of the sexes which can be used to label males as males, and females as females, throughout animals and plants. This is that the sex cells or 'gametes' of males are much smaller and more numerous than the gametes of females. This is true whether we are dealing with animals or plants. One group of individuals has large sex cells, and it is convenient to use the word female for them.”

https://publicism.info/nature/selfish/10.html

Sure y’all are right, sources do vary on this topic. However, I can clearly tell that some sources are more reliable than others.

A lot of the individuals I just cited are experts in fields like biology and medicine.

Some of them even have PhDs.

Notice how they say there are two sexes without controversy. Like source Crossroads added mentioned intersex people and trans people, yet said sex was Sex is dichotomous.

I also seen sources from biologists that know the existence of intersex organisms yet still say that there is only two sexes.

And y’all were saying things about how some scholars would disagree about sex being binary.

The only sources I have seen so far that claim this are ones who clearly have political agendas or making that claim because of some controversy.

Also like I said before most of the individuals cited in the sources in this article are sociologists.

You keep arguing about sociology perspective when sex is clearly a biological thing.

The only biologist cited in this article was Anne Fausto-Sterling, who is clearly not the most reliable source.

In her revised version of the five sexes she even admitted she made mistakes.

I know someone might call me out saying I’m not being neutral, but I am trying my best to be neutral here. And it is very obvious that the individuals cited in this article have knowledge in fields like sociology. But lack knowledge in fields like biology. CycoMa (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about my poor grammar. I typed this all really fast CycoMa (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

But anyway Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy let’s all try our best to respect that. CycoMa (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Do I need to repeat myself. To help you understand my point I’m gonna review the sources to show y’all the problems.

Source review

Marjorie Garber She is a professor of English and Visual and Environmental Studies at Harvard.

Claudia Card

She is a professor of philosophy.

Who studies on LGBT issues.

Darren Rosenblum

Professor of law

AnaLouise Keating

Professor in women’s studies.

Claude J. Summers

Darryl B. Hill

He is a social psychologist

Brian L. B. Willoughby

Couldn’t find much information on his but he’s a psychologist I think.

Judith Lorber

Professor of sociology.

Lisa Jean Moore

Professor of sociology.

Anne Fausto-Sterling

Professor of Biology and Gender Studies

She may seem like a good source at first but, looking more on her it’s clear she’s not the best.

She admitted that the whole five sexes in her book was merely just a thought experiment.

She claimed that 1.7% of people are intersex yet some scholars called her out on that.

Response to her claim.

National Center for Transgender Equality

A Social equality organization.

Janet Shibley Hyde

Information about her,

Rebecca Bigler

Yeah this individual’s Wikipedia page explains everything.

Daphna Joel

PhD in psychology.

Charlotte Tate

Information about her.

Sari van Anders

Ph.D., Biological & Cognitive Psychology

Thomas Keith

Teaches philosophy and gender studies.

Laura Boyd Farmer

Yeah clearly not a biologists or doctors.

Rebekah J. Byrd

Couldn’t find much on this individual.

Maria Lugones

An activist, philosopher, and Professor of Comparative Literature and of women's studies.

Jason Cromwell

Anthropologist.

Michael Kimmel

Sociologist.

Amy Aronson

Professor of Journalism and Media Studies.

Amy Kaler

Yeah sociologist.

Morgan Holmes

Yeah a sociologist.

Sure the individuals in this article are medical professionals but, they are mostly focused on LGBTQ+ health.

JEANNE BOYDSTON

A historian and sociologist.

Individuals cited in this article. two of them are scholars in law, scholar in Psychology, studies in department of Feminist Studies.

This source right here doesn’t understand the definition of sex from a biological perspective and only focuses on humans.

Y’all keep arguing with me about sociological perspective, since gender is a sociological thing these individuals view about gender is technically true. However, the topic of biological sex is clearly a topic these individuals are not experts in. CycoMa (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an infodump that isn't edited in a way to make it easy to read. Are any of these sources explicitly about the gender binary and establish the statement is important enough to belong in the lead? Btw typically if there is an academic debate mentioning the other side would be warranted so we may need to mention Butler and others who don't see sex the same way. Rab V (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m not saying we shouldn’t mention the other side in academic debate. I’m basically calling you out because you keep arguing about “sociological perspective”.

When this is about biology.

Like it would be dumb to cite a mathematician who doesn’t study medicine as a source for a medical article.

Also do you really think that saying “source never even uses the phrase gender binary, as many editors in talk are not convinced it should be included as those that do.”

I mean it’s kind of obvious what the source is talking about. It just feels like you are just making petty excuses at this point.CycoMa (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

You have now reverted this 4 times over several days. There is literally no debate in biology and medicine over how many sexes there are. A few sociologists and philosophers (like Butler) misunderstand how sex is defined biologically or conflate gender and sex (which they are very much in the minority in, even among social scientists), but that is not the relevant field of expertise to comment on sex. All the material is really about is the sex and gender distinction which even most feminists take as foundational and which is very relevant to understanding the topic (and the source specifically mentions gender not being binary, as I laid out above). The pushback is baffling. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an article about the gender binary; if your sources aren't about the gender binary they are misplaced and open for misuse. Editor sche appears to agree on this. If the sources are about the sex and gender distinction, please use them there. If the concept is important for understanding the gender binary than RS about gender binary would state it, per WP:DUE. Instead I've mentioned sources about gender binarism that question how absolute sex binarism is as well and stating the opposite as absolutely true would be unbalanced besides being undue. Rab V (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

It's important to note here that this should not be a discussion about the truth or falsity of the statement at hand, nor should it be a discussion of editors' personal feelings about various theorists. The question at hand here is whether or not Bhargava et al.'s binary treatment of human (and animal) sex is due for inclusion in its own paragraph in the lead of an article about the concept of a gender binary. It certainly seems undue to me, given that the source is not addressing the sociological concept of a gender binary. If we think that readers will be confused about the sex and gender distinction, then let's include a link to that article. If for some reason that's not enough, maybe include a section in the article body disambiguating the concept of a gender binary from a sex binary. We'd need a different source for that, though. Srey Sros^talk 06:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay that’s fine by me.CycoMa (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Anne Fausto-Sterling

I noticed that this article cited Anne Fausto-Sterling. However, I do have a slight issue. The article states.

“Anne Fausto-Sterling suggests a classification of 23 sexes and to move away from the classification of male and female.”

However, Anne Fausto-Sterling stated this.

In 1993 I published an article titled The Five Sexes that unleashed a firestorm of debate about sex and gender, with a particular focus on the intersex experience. I asserted that “the two-sex system embedded in our society is not adequate to encompass the full spectrum of human sexuality.” I had intended to be provocative, but nevertheless was surprised by the magnitude of the controversy unleashed. At the time I suggested, tongue in cheek, a five-sex system, which I later amended in The Five Sexes Revisited. Rather than identify a specific number of sexes, in the second paper I wrote “sex and gender are best conceptualized as points in a multidimensional space.” source here.

She wasn’t trying to create a new model on how many sexes there are, it was merely a thought experiment.CycoMa (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, I've removed the initial sentence from the paragraph about Fausto-Sterling. I still think a better characterization of The Five Sexes would be good, but at least now we're not mischaracterizing her or her article, right? ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

gender binarism isn't gender binary

as the first paragraph implies, exorsexism/genderism are not the same as gender binarity/binariety/binaryness. are yall implying binary trans people are inherently binarists/exorsexists? I hope not! Kautr (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong page numbers

Original research isn’t the only issue with this article. There are also cases of people citing the wrong page numbers.

Like as I said someone cited page 511 to a book with only 201 pages.

There is also a case of someone citing a certain statement in the source but, it was actually like 5 pages further.

I don’t want to remove stuff because it’s clear editors worked hard on this page.CycoMa (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The articles Gender binary and Genderism currently appear to be describing much the same thing. Proposal is to merge content of current Genderism into Gender binary. This proposal will coincide with a proposal to move Genderism (disambiguation) to Genderism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A145GI15I95 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Original research

@Crossroads: I’ll admit tagging the entire article wasn’t the best idea however, there is indeed a good amount of original research in this article.CycoMa (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zdaniels1478.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tenyen, Ccconnect.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sxbrow13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christinewmin, Mlomanto, Kshim054, DanielPerez144. Peer reviewers: Storm1625.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)