Talk:Bigender

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Non-binary gender
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Non-binary gender

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Redirect, 18 December 2019, see discussion.
Keep, April 17, 2007, see discussion.

Cited source

A report from the APA is offered as a citation to support the statement that the APA recognizes bigender(-ism?) as subset of the transgender identity spectrum. I couldn't find the term "bigender" in that report anywhere, so it doesn't seem to support the statement. Can we get a better source, perhaps, or just remove this one? Idahoev (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to improve

I'm new to Wikipedia, but I identify as bigender and so I've been trying to improve and expand on this article as best I can. Hope I did alright. Greta 23:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I find it very difficult to take the term "bigender" seriously. It appears to be typical of the behaviour of many transvestites: To come up with other terms or explanations than "tranvestite" because that term is for some reason offensive to them. Thus, I have frequently experienced that a lot of people who claim to be transsexual are in reality transvestites. Added by Anna, July 5th 2009

That's nice, Anna, but what's your point? No sources to back this up, just your opinionated sweeping statement on other people's gender identity? Where's your point in making this addition at all? -Mothwing 11:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People who find "transvestite" offensive generally use "crossdresser" instead. Bigender/bi-gender as an identity or community certainly has a degree of overlap with crossdressing, but the terms are not synonymous. Anyway, I'll second what Mothwing said. If experience has taught us anything, it's that the skepticism of people who don't experience an identity isn't particularly helpful or relevant to those who do experience that identity. Idahoev (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dualgendered

Often when using this term to describe myself, i use the phrase "dualgendered" because the term "bigendered" draws too many people toward bisexual, which the two terms are not related. I'd prefer if the page made some reference to dualgendered as being a "more correct" term to use, even if its not the term that was adopted. 65.26.119.38 (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do so, we'd first have to be able to show that it is not a neologism. Google hits appear to indicate that dualgendered is essentially non-existant and "dual gendered" is used to refer to a marriage with one partner of each gender. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can make a fairly pointless observation - the word bigender is terrible without a hyphen. I came upon this page quite by chance, wondering what on earth a big-ender was. No joke - but once a word's been coined, we'll have to live with it :) --Snograt ^{talk here} 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a little unfortunate. I use it with a hyphen. [Edit: Here is a page with four other people using the hyphenated form. It seems to be as common as the unhyphenated spelling.] --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternating Gender Incongruity

This article should contain mention of alternating gender incongruity as a scientific term for bigender. Kila Onasi^(talk) 19:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

"a person who feels they inhibit two genders" I don't think "inhibit" is the right word here. "Inhabit" would be dubiously accurate, so I'm tentatively changing it to "exhibits", which is still awkward, but it works. 75.118.51.238 (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Student editing

Note: As made clear in this discussion (this a WP:Permalink), student editing has gone at this article, and problems with the student editing were noted. That stated, it seems that the class is trying to do better. With this post, I have taken this article off my WP:Watchlist (the explanation is here). Flyer22 (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Ramachandran and Case paper given too much weight?

It was a paper in a journal that allows interesting hypotheses, not data that supports them. It doesn't seem to have been followed up on by other researchers. Yet, it is a large section of this article. Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternating Gender Incongruity listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternating Gender Incongruity. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Widefox; talk 10:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be moved to a subsection of nonbinary

Why does this subject have its own entry? "Agender" has more google hits than bi-gender, yet agender is just a subsection of nonbinary. It seems that bi-gender was a neologism that has fallen out of favor more recently, replaced by other words and ideas. That's fine, and I think it deserves its own paragraph in the nonbinary entry, but can anyone justify why it should have its own entry? The vast majority of its incoming wiki links are because it is included in the trans portal, but there are very few distinct links about bi-gender identity itself, so it seems almost to be an orphan. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I missed the December 2019 debate on redirecting this article to a subsection of nonbinary, but I absolutely think that's the best and most encyclopedic approach to this topic. It deserves its own section in nonbinary, but not its own WP article. So I like how things are now, with an auto-redirect to that section of nonbinary. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]