Talk:Non-binary gender

This doesn't seem to be a stub. Is it OK to remove the stub notice?

I removed the stub notice, as I agree that it's no longer a stub. --Mairi 04:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yo

please dont delete my edits based on how i wrote them, cus i wrote them in the same style: some people believe BLAH. if you disagree, provide a counterpoint in the spirit of wikipedia.

Yo, I'm deleting your edits because they're not cited, and they're bordering on injecting a pov. Just throwing "Some people" this is not a way to legitimize personal opinions. Most newspapers, and most tv news networks (with the exception of FOX) do not accept just saying "Some people" as a citation. "Some people" believe the sky isn't blue, doesn't mean it goes into the wikipedia entry about the sky. "Some people" think Hillary Clinton is a feminazi, but you wouldn't put that is her entry. "Some people" think Bush is a facist, but you wouldn't put that in his profile. It's way too loose of a citation. If you want to say "most traditional religious groups subscribe to a strict male-female system", thats fine, becuase thats a specific, identifiable group.SiberioS 06:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fine, ill say anti-feminists.

I'm reverting your changes. Why? Because anti-feminists have nothing to do with anything mentioned in the article. How is genderqueer, a transgender term, or the abscence of gender, have anything to do with feminism? Some feminists are rabidly anti-transgendered, and are decidedly in the camp of you're only a woman if you are born one. As such I'm reverting.SiberioS 06:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I may add, that I see no reason for adding the bit about the unabomber. MANY people have problems with so called political correctness, and its not limited to the unabomber. It includes various right wing conservatives, libertarians, and some left leaning people.SiberioS 06:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i think the problem here is that you think its just the status quo/societies that are against this. i have a lot of free-thinking friends who reject some aspects of society and religion but also reject this.Urthogie 12:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So? Your friends don't form a coherent category. Like I mentioned before, alot of people think alot of things, you can't just start throwing in opinions left and right just because one person said it. Otherwise we would have commentary from everyone on every different wikipedia subject (every time a celebrity spoke about the Iraq war we would have to add their name, everytime a politician spoke about ANY subject we would have to add it to the wikipedia topic of the same name etc). Theres a reasonable cutoff for this. For instance, if the Pope talks about contraception, its probably a valid thing to mention in the topic of the same name as the perspective of a religious leader who represents (theoretically) some 1 billion people is pretty relevent. Same with someone like Pat Robertson, or some other person in an influential position in society.SiberioS 02:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed back your line change because 1)natural is a loaded term and mildly POV 2) there are some species which are naturally transgendered (certain frog species can mutate sexes etc etc) and 3) the idea of natural doesn't apply to all the people mentioned (for instance communism opposed homosexuality and transgenderedism based mostly on an idea of it being bougeroise, not necessarly against nature).SiberioS 04:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1)POV is allowed as long as its cited reasonably and its not the article itself 2)uh humans are not physically transgendered, so its up to opinion whether they can be psychologically. and i you wanna add that stuff about the frog go ahead, just dont delete what i put in because of your own POV.

3)sure, i never said it was the only opposition to it. its just the main one. Urthogie 06:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"humans are not physically transgendered". Have you ever heard of intersexuality? Just a thought. -Hapsiainen 16:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

- ive heard of it..but most of these genderqueers are actually physically gendered at birth and psychologically dont identify. intersexuality is the exception, not the rule.Urthogie 20:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]