Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 28 July 30 >

July 29[edit]

Category:Arminian Christians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 30#Category:Arminian Christians

Muslim socialists and feminists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 9#Muslim socialists and feminists

Category:5pb.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 9#Category:5pb.

Category:Musicians from Bavaria[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 10#Category:Musicians from Bavaria

Category:Genderqueer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: create and populate parent Category:Non-binary gender with most but not all of the contents currently here; also keep Category:Genderqueer for now. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As non-binary is now the more common umbrella name for those with a non-binary gender identity and non-binary gender is now the name of the main articular for this the genderqueer category. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's one thing for the article to be renamed, but it's another to rename the topic category. Genderqueer is a more inclusive topic category than the term non-binary (even if the latter is now in more common usage). This is the rare time that I think the category should have a different name from the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to Category:People who self-identify as non-binary gender Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:People with non-binary gender identities. Funcrunch (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is like earlier suggested to split the category. Though I am not fully supporting this option yet, because I am not certain that the two categories can both be reasonably populated. By the way, this does not even require a CfD, a keep closure of this discussion will normally not exclude the creation of a new parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding and experience is that some non-bindery people do indeed identify under the transgender umbrella and some do not and that being non binary is about their personally inwardly felt gender identity. Whereas those who identify as genderqueer most often have a queering of gender norms (i.e dress and roll) as part of their identity, which is not usually something that is part of a non-binary persons reasons for identifying as non-binary, and genderqueer people often queer gender norms for political reasons. So I like the idea of keeping Category:Genderqueer and creating Category:Non-binary gender but I think that would result in a problems of what parent category to put each in. And I think that putting Category Genderqueer under a new parent category called Category Non-binary gender would not be a good idea, if one is to be a parent category of the other then genderqueer would be the better parent and not non-binary gender as genderqueer is a more broader concept. And I think if we make genderqueer a parent category for non-binary gender then we would also need to make Category:Genderqueer people a parent category of Category:People with non-binary gender identities. I do think though that non-binary is now the more used self identifier, but after reading the comments above I would support keeping Category:Genderqueer and creating Category:Non-binary gender as a new subcategory of it. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Funcrunch: Thanks for providing a link to this discussion as the arguments there about non-western cultures, including indigenous peoples of North America, not using and identifying with the word and concept of Queer is a strong and compelling reason to have Category:Non-binary gender be the parent category, if for no other reason then for the category structure not to be western centric. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Funcrunch. As long as people who don't like the term "genderqueer" can be kept in the parent category (Category:People with non-binary gender identities), we should also have this more specific category for those who actively use this as an identifier. I see no problem with having both. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Note: See question above. I'm still not sure how many levels and renames we need with this. I'm good with whatever keeps it simplest and has Non-binary/Nonbinary as parent cats to Genderqueer cats. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The discussion that led to the rename of the main article, viz. COMMONNAME and so on, also entails renaming the category. I would not support making Category:Genderqueer a parent category of Category:Non-binary gender; if there is a hierarchical structure, it should be the other way around. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if in the end there is consensus to split, but no consensus which should be the parent, then we can also keep them as two sibling categories. However we need to discuss if (or how) we might populate each of the two categories. As far as I can see, correct me if I am wrong, is Genderqueer fashion the only article that would fit Category:Genderqueer while all other articles would be in Category:Non-binary gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just staying linear here instead of burying this up-thread. Do we have consensus for Nonbinary to stay as a sub-cat of Transgender? That's where it is now: Category:Transgender and transsexual people. Because a number of the people in the Nonbinary cat don't consider themselves trans. Many of the people currently covered in the Non-binary gender and Third gender articles don't consider themselves trans, either. I personally would not put Two spirit in the trans category (unless we're using the "all gnc people" definition, which I don't think is in use anymore). I know, this is back to the "which size umbrella are we using" thing... But as long as we're back here. Briefly: Broadest umbrella, as defined by Leslie Feinberg in the earliest days when she included all gnc people (even Dennis Rodman) yes, pretty much everyone fits. Current umbrella, no, Non-binary should be its own parent cat. But it's been so changeable, and varies based on age and other demographics, I don't know where we're at right now. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CorbieV: You bring up important points, which I think are growing beyond the bounds of this particular CfD. Maybe we should have a broader discussion on gender categorization elsewhere, soliciting input from as many gender-related (not just transgender-specific) WikiProjects as possible? Funcrunch (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Genderqueer is a subclass of transgender. But non-binary identifying intersex who did not assigned binary gender is not transgender. --Sharouser (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CorbieVreccan: Do you have some examples of the people in the non-binary category that don't consider themselves trans? I think that would help to inform future discussions. Kaldari (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like, notable people with BLPs? I'm not sure. Lately it seems there are a significant number of clearly not-trans, (and in some cases not-LGBT) people who are using they/them pronouns and claiming some kind of nonbinary identity... but... they don't seem to actually be involved in the trans or LGBT communities. I'm not talking about BLPs here, but the world at large. Honestly, as the online descriptions of the trans umbrella keeps expanding and contracting, depending on who's working on the article, and which sources are added and removed, I'm seeing some ahistorical and out of sync things going on. I was working on articles not that long ago when the trans umbrella was pretty small - people who had transitioned or were transitioning in some way - and nb people were not under it. I added mentions of how early usage of the term was very broad, including all gnc people, and now it seems, very recently, that articles have been changed to the extremely broad definition of trans again... but I'm not sure this actually represents reality. A source from decades ago isn't current reality. I don't like having to say this, but... I don't think there is consensus around this. Either on, or off-wiki. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Split There are somewhat differences. --Sharouser (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, there are people who specifically identify as "genderqueer", but generally it's just an older synonym of "non-binary". Having two separate categories is confusing and makes it hard to find out if a person is, in fact, non-binary, as the people in the genderqueer subcategory are often removed from the non-binary parent category, making both categories somewhat useless. Kaldari (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_29&oldid=916558574"