Template talk:Gender and sexual identities/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled thread

You have homosexuality in there twice. Atom 03:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This template makes me feel uneasy. For one, it distinguishes certain intersex conditions as being different sexes and not describing different conditions; are you going to list all intersex conditions as being different sexes? Is this even an appropriate and correct usage? How are you defining "sex", here, in your categorization? By the sexual identity article, listing sexes doesn't seem to be part of sexual identities, something which relates to sexual orientation; even that article notes that the term's usage isn't quite clear and unambiguous. Listing various topics relating to gender then, by use of the primary definition on that article, would thus be incorrect. The overall impression one gets is that the template is quite confused. Dysprosia 08:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that on his talk page. I think that this template still needs alot of thought and work. My impression is that the emphasis was on getting a template out there, and working out the details of what ought to be on it later. If I had a clear picture of what its purpose was, I could be more constructive in suggesting how it could be changed.

From looking at it, we start with "sexual orientations". I suppose that could be useful, but it puts Anthrosexuality and pansexuality, which are essentially the same thing, on this list, even though are lower in incidence, as is asexuality. "queer" isn't a sexual orientation, it is terminology that used by a portion of people who either are, or identify as homosexual.

There are a list of the sexes. Which most people are familiar with as male and female. There are intersex peoples, but again this is a low incidence in the population, and yet intersex, and unusual (low incidence) variations of male and female are listed. SO, this reference might be good for someone in biology, or in certain areas of medicine, but not really a reference that most people would use. It would be good material for a wikipedia article on intersexuality, or a template just for intersexuality related articles.

The Gender category throws in some of the other terms. I can see how these would be useful in certain gender related articles, such as "transgenderism". I'm not sure people who saw value to this category would get use out of the other categories.

In "other" category: homosexuality and transgender is listed, even though both were previously listed. Polyamory is listed, and so need for "polyamorous", but polygamy, polyandry and polygyny aren't listed. If they were, I am not sure how they would relate to the other categories.

I think the approach of a templte in search of articles that had some marginal relationship is probably not the best. A better aproach would be to identify a series of related articles, and then list terminology they have in common, and/or pointing to one another in a template (a brief, small template).

So far the "STD/STI" template comes the closest to fitting the bill on this. The "Sex" template is too expansive and non specific.

Atom 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Template Title

I have concerns about the template title. The various aneuploidies (and gonadal dysgenesis) listed for "sexes" have little to do with "sexual identity". Or, if you want to keep the title, it is more appropriate to replace the "sexes" section with male and female. Of course, even then, the title should be "Human sexual identities". Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Added top/bottom to 'other'

See Top and bottom in sex and BDSM (talk) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... that "other" line is getting quite full ...

... and I'm really wondering when it was that "pimp", "Geesha girl", "porn star", "prostitute", and "sex offender" became sexual identities. I'm not interested in arguing over whether they might be seen or might be interpreted as sexual identities (which claims smell rather strongly of OR). All I ask is some authoritative references that, for example, pimps (or even some pimps) feel that their involvement in the sex industry is not merely what they do for money but fundamentally woven into their sexuality and personal identity.

These are all very bold claims that require bold evidence; and the claim that "sex offender", in particular, constitutes a sexual identity is on the border between the extraordinary and the bizarre. I'll accept the claims if the evidence is provided, but only if. --7Kim (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• On review of the history, these items appear to have been added by an unknown editor who struck once, never to be seen again. I feel justified in summarily removing them. If anyone has arguments to advance for them, they can be restored. --7Kim (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Removed. I also removed Homosexuality and transgender, because the page does not refer to a sexual identity but a differentiation of two different concepts -- important, certainly, but this is not the place for it. I moved Same gender loving from "Other" to "Sexual Orientations". I removed "Celibacy" from "Sexual orientations", because to the extent that it can be interpreted as a sexual orientation it is indistinguishable from and redundant with asexuality, and to the extent that it is distinct from asexuality, it is not a sexual orientation (or identity) but a particular sexual practice not specific to any orientation or sexual identity. If anyone feels a need to restore what I have removed, please feel free. --7Kim (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Technosexuality

I've removed 'Technosexuality' from the template, and also intend to remove 'Same Gender Loving'. Technosexuality seems analogous to metrosexual, which isn't on the list. If anything, it's a fetish, and description '1' on the page doesn't even go that far. The other descriptors are words for people that: - Do not experience sexual attraction - Are sexually attracted to the same sex - Are sexually attracted to the opposite sex - Are attracted to people of either sex as well as to people with a non-binary gender identity.

Same gender loving is likewise inappropriate because it is a nonce-term. If we are going to include synonyms and slang, then the template will quickly become useless. Leoniceno (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthrosexuality

if the other template is locked with anthrosexual on it, this one should include it too for uniformal purposes. Reverting back, please provide a reason for why it shouldn't be on.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The other template is locked because you were edit warring, for which you were blocked. I'm not going to revert further until the AfD has ended, but your hostile attitude and approach to editing aren't winning you any friends. Fireplace (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do'h! Wrong template!

Sorry ... carry on with your day. Dybryd (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

I'm going to return the template to the structure it had before User0529 moved things around. I'm sorry, but the one word "cleanup" is not an adequate explanation for grossly changing the template's conceptual organisation. If User0529 would care to describe the new organisation that was intended, I'm certain we can probably reach a consensus. Who knows, e may actually have a better idea than I do. --7Kim (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Also, I moved Evening people to the "Other" line; the content of the article gives no strong indication whether "evening people" is an internally affirmed identity or an externally applied characterisation. --7Kim (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes more sense to me to have all of the gender identities under one grouping (like the sexual identities are), but if that is an issue then i won't contest the revert. User529 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fixing the "Evening people" with a wikilink to "Hijra". ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 02:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please include "Queer Heterosexual" in the appropriate place (preferably in gender identities)

Please include Queer heterosexual at the appropriate place. (59.180.139.63 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC))

"Sexual identity" versus "sexual orientation identity"

sexual orientation identity = identity based on sexual orientation: homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, etc.

sexual identity = identity based on sex: physically or biologically male, female, intersex, transsexual, etc.

gender identity = identity based on gender: socially male, female, in-between, gender-free, transgender, etc.

The fist sentence or paragraph of these articles is very clear on the differences. So as not to erase page histories, I have not renamed the template page nor its talk page. Only the box titles have been corrected. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the template links to gender identity and sexual identity. I also think it should link to sexual orientation identity. The examples that were given (Asexual · Bisexual · Ex-gay · Heterosexual · Homosexual · Pansexual · Polyamorous · Pomosexual · Banjee · Gay · Lesbian · Queer · Same gender loving · Non-heterosexual) all seem to be sexual orientation identities, not sexual identities. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Addition of Bigender to Third sex / Third gender

I initially made the edit, then realized I didn't discuss the change here. I'd like to add Bigender to Third sex/Third gender category. I believe it qualifies. Please advise. MisterBixby (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been no response to this. I will add bigender to the template MisterBixby (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to avoid making a new section, I'd rather just explain my edit. It was simple really, just added a link to Ex-ex-gays, as a subset of ex-gays -- Historyguy1965 (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Girlfags and Guydykes

What about Girlfags and Guydykes? If no one objects, I'll include them in this template as gender identities. --RedZiz (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I object per the kitchen sink principle, if we include these it seems we should likely include all manner of neologistic terms that are cropping up. As a high profile template it would seem we should be more judicious. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your objection. Well, I was too eager to contribute so the text is already there - you may revert it, if you regard the change as unbearable. But, before this I want to point out: (i) the term 'pomosexual' is relatively new as well, and not more a neologism as 'guydyke' or 'girlfag' is. Nevertheless, it remains (ii) there are people who identify as 'gay woman' or 'lesbian man' (iii) for this template, I could not find something like a 'declaration of purpose'. Therefore I am not known the profile of this template.

Have a good day. --RedZiz (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sworn virgins

It says in the Sworn virgin article that there are "fewer than 100 sworn virgins in the world", according to National Geographic, while the article Albanian sworn virgins (sworn virgins are confined to Albania and nearby areas) states "Currently there are fewer than forty sworn virgins left in Albania, and a few in neighboring countries" and they are dying out. This seems to me to be a really, really marginal community. I propose to d delete it from the template, any objections? Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Genderfuck?

"Genderfuck" seems (at least according to the article) be a political position rather than an identity. It is "the conscious effort to mock... traditional notions of gender identity... Often, parody and exaggeration are used to transgress gender roles, usually to expose them as artificial...". This is political/social theater rather than an inner identity, as confirmed later: "Genderfuck is a politics of identity stemming from the identity politics movements.... The term dates [to] an article by Christopher Lonc... Lonc wrote 'I want to criticize and poke fun at the roles of women and of men too.... I want to ridicule and destroy the whole cosmology of restrictive sex roles and sexual identification.'"

This is political theatre and is no more an identity than being a member of the Capitol Steps or the Bread and Puppet Theatre and so forth is an identity. For this reason I've removed the entry. Herostratus (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this remain separate template - discussion on Template talk:LGBT

There is a discussion on Template talk:LGBT#What to do about merger of Template:Gender and sexual identities into LGBT about whether this template should continue as a separate template, or be subsumed into {{LGBT}}. This was prompted because a recent edit copied most of this template into LGBT, so the question is whether to complete the merge, or to take the content back out of that template. If you are interested, please contribute on that template's talk page. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Futanari

Forgive me if I'm wrong but is Futanari really a gender identity. It seems from the article to be more of a trait of Japanese art.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place

Copied here from Portal talk:Gender studies -- John of Reading (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

But the big "Gender and Sexual identities" navbox does not seem to have any entry for the xx/xy/xxy/etc. chromosomal aspect of sexual identification. Shouldn't this be added?192.249.47.186 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question is in the template name: it's about "identities". Intersex and hermaphrodite are linked in the "see also" section, and there's probably a case for adding links to disorders of sex development and Sex differences in humans in the same section. Trankuility (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Womyn

Respected Wikipedians,

The articles for Womyn contains information on the alternate spellings of "women". Gender information for the human gender is included at Woman only.

While I agree that the use of "womyn" as an alternative spelling is an important concept for us to include in the encyclopedia, I am not certain that it sufficiently relates to gender and sexual identities to be included in this template. Therefore, I suggest removing it. The template is not present on the article itself.

Please advise if there are any concerns with this proposed change. If there are no issues raised, I will make the change later this week. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any article that uses the "womyn" spelling inside the template? If an article uses it, we need to understand why and if no article uses it, it can probably go without an issue. Alternative spellings don't hurt but I suspect in this case it would be used pejoratively. --DHeyward (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi DHeyward, Many thanks for your response; greatly appreciated. The template contains a link to Womyn, an article about the alternate spelling. The template contains no other article which uses "womyn" in the article title. I am thinking if the alternate spelling is included in the text of any of the articles, that it would be best to be wikilinked there; rather than relying on a template. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

On the basis that there are no objections above, this change has now been made. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender &/or Sex

Respected Wikipedians,

The articles for Female & Male contain information on the "physiological sexes". Gender information for the human genders is included at Woman & Man, respectively. See also: our article on Sex and gender distinction.

As the template covers "Gender and sexual identities", I consider that it might be more useful to the reader for us to replace the "physiological sex" articles in the Gender section of the template with those covering the respective genders. For consistency, we would also add the template to the Woman & Man articles.

Please advise if there are any concerns with these proposed changes. If there are no issues raised, I will make the change later this week.

Apologies if the language used is insensitive; it is taken directly from the articles referenced - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I only noticed this section (and the #Womyn section below) after seeing this edit you made. As noted near the end of the #Sexes section above, we include "Male" and "Female" in the "Gender" and "Gender identities" sections on the template because they are commonly considered genders/gender identities, despite some people (like me) adhering to the sex and gender distinction. Why don't you simply include "Man" and "Woman" instead of replacing "Male" and "Female"? After all, the Gender, Gender identity and Sex and gender distinction articles mention all of them. "Boy" and "Girl" can also be included on the template. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, Many thanks for your response, greatly appreciated. The points you raise are interesting, and thought provoking.

The thinking behind proposing the removal of Female and Male was that those articles do not contain information on gender; they focus on documenting biological information. But I see the points that you raise above should be considered.

As we have agreement on including Women and Men, I will go ahead and make that change. I will also review the articles that you have linked and respond back here if I feel additional changes might be worthwhile.

If you have time, could I ask that you also give thought to alphabetical ordering for the gender section - I favour alphabetical ordering as a standard, but think there might be objections raised w.r.t NPOV/UNDUE & the predominance of the binary genders. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Added Men & Women, at the same place in the order as Male & Female, in the same order as those links; but prior to those links due to the "-en" articles focus on gender & the "-ale" articles focus on biological information. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As you know, I changed "Men" and "Women" to their non-plural forms. As for alphabetical order, I can see why you would want that field in alphabetical order considering all of the other fields on the template, except the See also aspect, are in alphabetical order. I'm not sure how I feel about that matter, and I leave that up to you and others. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, Thanks for the change to match the linked article titles, appreciate it. I will wait to see if any other voices want to chime in on the ordering. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, just like there is no need to WP:Ping you to this talk page since it is on your WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to it. Yes, I can occasionally accidentally overlook a talk page section, as was initially the case with this section (as mentioned above), because of my huge WP:Watchlist, but I usually don't. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Transgender people in nation links

Fellow editors,

I notice looking at the Template that there are a number of links to articles on "Transgender people in nation" - e.g. Transgender people in Singapore. While these are obviously important articles, and I believe that they should be included in a Template; especially as they help to address systemic bias towards first world perspectives; they feel a little unwieldy for inclusion in this Template. They also may not strictly fit, as currently positioned, into the Third sex / Third gender subsection of the Template.

I am interested in other editors opinions on whether we should:

1. Move the links to another Template (existing or new) - e.g. Template:Transgender topics
2. Move the links to a list article (existing or new) - e.g. List of transgender-related topics
3. Make a different change
4. Make no change

Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of objections from other editors, I will be shortly moving these to Template:Transgender topics. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:50, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sexes

I see no reason to have the various chromosomal variations that cause male vs. female in a template for Sexual Identities. If there are no objections, I will replace them with Female, Male, Man, Woman, Intersexuality. Those articles may or may not refer to the various chromosomal abnormalities. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem. Although the chromosomal differences may have intrerest for some people (biologist/scientists) I don't see that being useful to the majority of readers. Atom 12:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

who cares this is an encyclopedia, it should be useful scientifically and biologically, not to the majority of readers which it think would actually find this much for interesting, as for male and female as opposed to man and women, the male/female people got quite pissed off at me when i added it to male and female saying i was being human-centric, total bull in my opinion. i thought it was important to include sexual identities male and female are that they dont have anything to do with sex (intercourse) but do have to do with sex (whats between your legs).Qrc2006 08:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about male/female not being included. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sexes should be Female, Male and Intersex.

Female(xo), Female(xx), Female(xxx), Female(xy) are all females with female internal reproductive organs and female external genitalia.

Male(xx), Male(xxy), Male(xy), Male(xyy) are all males with male internal reproductive organs and male external genitalia.

Turner syndrome, Swyer syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome and de la Chapelle syndrome cause hypogonadism at puberty requiring hormone treatment for the development of pubertal secondary sex characteristics and are usually infertile (though some may be able to have children using assisted reproductive technology).

In Trisomy X syndrome and XYY syndrome, gonadal function and fertility is normal.

I do not think this sexual identities template should be attached to any of the articles on the above syndromes. Sexual identity problems are not characteristic of these syndromes and the articles about them should not imply that they are by including this template.

I can attest that ambiguity of body is deeply entwined with my sense of sexual identity, but I can't speak for anyone else. It's a topic on which I don't think I can objectively write. Jack Hare 07:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An Intersex(xo/xy) is an intersex (some xo/xy mosaics are female, some are male, and some are intersex depending on the mosaicism).

Male and female are sexes. Man and woman, like boy and girl are developmental stages of human males and females, not sexes.

Panda411 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The only remaining problem appears to be male/female vs man/woman. What I see is that "sexes" is not really appropriate for this template. As Qrc2006 points out, it is not sex that matters, but how individuals indentify themselves (gender). I will go about correcting the template. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Gender identity is not the same as sexual identity. The two articles on the subjects propose completely different ideas. Dysprosia 11:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the "Gender identities" section contains male, female, and intersex? These are biological states and, for example, many intersex traits are tested prenatally and/or via preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Gender identities don't become apparent from around age 3 years. Nsw2042 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

For reasons stated at the Gender and Sex and gender distinction articles (articles we have both edited); it's clear that many, likely most, people make no distinction between biological sex and gender, though a lot of us (including myself) do (or generally do). Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And, yes, like the Gender identity article states (supported by WP:Reliable sources), gender identity is usually solid by age 3 (though it was clearly forming before then). Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I shifted Intersex and Hermaphrodite to "See also", rather than "Gender identities". Incidentally, I've never edited Sex and gender distinction Nsw2042 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine to me. And, oops, I've been seeing you around at various biological sex/gender articles that I confused you as already having edited the Sex and gender distinction article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and no worries. I thought I should give a few citations: International Intersex Forum (see third forum statement on identification documents), United Nations Free & Equal campaign fact sheet "LGBT Rights: Frequently Asked Questions Fact sheet LGBT Rights: Frequently Asked Questions (via UN Free & Equal) and LGBT rights in Australia section: Discrimination protections Nsw2042 (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

My point about "male" and "female" in this case is that many sources consider the "male" and "female" categories to be gender identities; those same sources obviously wouldn't be opposed to calling "male" and "female" sex categories either. Think of how, under or beside the Gender listing on certain forms, the sex categories "male" and female" are given as options to select instead of "man" and "woman"; one additional reason for that is obviously that some such forms pertain to boys and girls as well and that, as such, not all males are men, and not all females are women. To reiterate, it seems that the sex and gender distinction isn't the prevalent view, even among some scholarly fields other than the ones pertaining to feminism, and therefore it would not be best to remove "male" and "female" from the "Gender identities" section. The intersex category, though, is different because (from what I know) most people who are intersex identify as male or female, and there usually is not an intersex option to check off on a form. So I don't mind much that you removed the intersex listing from the "Gender identities" section, but someone else might, and that person or someone else might add it back. Flyer22 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I get that, and that's why I didn't move "female" and "male". The article on intersex makes it clear that intersex is a matter of biology, and there's data there (and in the citations above) that show that intersex isn't itself defined as a "gender identity". Alternate verifiable sources would need to justify inclusion, if they exist (so long as they are not given undue weight). Nsw2042 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point. Though, and not that you were suggesting this, the citations wouldn't go on this template (that's not proper); they'd need to go in the Intersex article. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, regarding this edit you made, see what Newsoas (Nsw2042) stated above. I don't feel strongly either way on that change. But Newsoas and Trankuility probably do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Flyer22 Reborn. The idea that intersex might be a gender identity would need a lot of good reliable sources. Those that exist make it clear that intersex is about sex characteristics that don't fit medical norms, and that intersex people have gender identities. I've partially reverted. Trankuility (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see what the issue is here now. I agree Intersex/DSD is not a gender identity. But.... I thought in WP terminology we were going with male, female and intersex for biology; and masculine, feminine and androgynous et al for gender identity? If we include male, female and intersex on a template about gender identities, we may need to put them in their own subsection instead of just in the big lists where they are now. I'm not overly attached either way, but I do appreciate that on WP we've been trying to bring some clarity to an issue that is often written about in a confusing, muddied manner in other sources. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a moot point, CorbieV. If you look at the page on Disorders of sex development and its sources, you'll find that DSD is not considered to be a sex, but rather females or males with a disorder. The idea that intersex is a biological sex is also not supported by reliable sources such as the UN. Trankuility (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, sure, DSD aren't a separate sex from Male or Female. It's a common misconception but I agree, we should stick with science here. So why are we conflating Male and Female (sex) with gender identity? - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Because, as I stated above in this section, "male" and "female" are also gender identities. The world commonly does not adhere to the sex and gender distinction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should add Sex and gender distinction to the template, then. Honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult here; I just would like to do what we can to bring clarity to these topics. Best, - CorbieV^☊☼ 23:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

While I don't mind much that you added "Sex and gender distinction" to the template, I don't see how it's an improvement or why it's needed on the template since it's not a gender or sexual identity. The same goes for the Gender neutrality, Gender variance, Transgender in film and television and Kinsey scale articles that others added. I would also note "Attraction to transgender people" as not being an identity, but at least it's in the "Other" section and the Terminology section of that article shows identity terms (it's better to link to the Attraction to transgender people article than all of those terms, which would redirect to that article anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree here. I think it would be best to put "Sex and gender distinction" into the "See also" section. Trankuility (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I made that change per WP:BOLD. Incidentally, I also think that "Genderqueer" should go into the "Third Sex/Third Gender" section. Trankuility (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Flyer22 Reborn on this. The template contains too much that is indirectly or tangentially related to the subject. Suggest we should go through it and remove a number of links. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Femininity & Masculinity

Fellow Editors, Thoughts on adding Femininity & Masculinity to the Gender identities section? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

They are not gender identities, and are already covered by Man, Woman, Androgyne, Gender bender and Genderqueer. There is no need for people to keep overcrowding this template, especially when the terms are already covered by other terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the template is already overcrowded - there appear to be a number of terms currently included which are also not strictly "gender identities". Would editors support removal or relocation of these? Alternately, would editors support a more.. link to a list article? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Which links would you want removed? Overall, what do you have in mind? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Another editor here. I would say that Boi as slang should be removed as it is not a gender identity, and likewise, Cross-dresser,Gender variance, and Gender bender should also be removed for similar reasons (Maybe move them to the "Other" Section" or create a new "Slang" category.]. Gender neutrality and Postgenderism also appear to be political movements rather than actual gender identities.

Then, in the Sexual Orientation/Identities section, Antisexuality does not appear to be a sexuality but rather another political movement, Banjee appears to be similar to Same gender loving in that it is AAVE, and not a sexuality but rather intracommunity vocabulary, and should likely be removed, or placed under a "Slang" category. Ex-gay and Ex-ex-gay also appear to be political movements, and should be removed. Kinsey scale is related to sexuality but is not a sexual orientation and should be moved to the "See also" section or removed (I personally do not like having that section there, and see no reason for it.). Monosexuality is not an orientation; monosexuality covers anyone who is only attracted to one gender, which includes both Heterosexual and Homosexual people.

I would also propose that Intersex should be added to the template (under either Gender or Third Gender).Ariadne (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The definition of intersex in the lead section to its article relates to bodies, not identities: an intersex person has any of several variations that "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". The section on Legal recognition notes a diverse range of identities: "Sociological research in Australia, a country with a third 'X' sex classification, shows that 19% of people born with atypical sex characteristics selected an "X" or "other" option, while 52% are women, 23% men, and 6% unsure". This makes the relevance and placing of intersex in this template challenging. In See also, where it is currently located, seems appropriate. The National Institutes of Health include intersex people/people with disorders of sex development under a related but crucially different term, Sexual and Gender Minorities, see Sexual and Gender Minority Health Research at the National Institutes of Health. Also please sign your comments (you can do this by typing 4 tildes). Trankuility (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fair. I was reading through and must have missed it, it did seem odd that it was not included anywhere on the template. I rest my last statement then, and apologize for not marking my comment, I'm usually better at that.Ariadne (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

how is the distinction made between the “gender” and “third gender” categories?

title. much of what's in “gender” now feels like it could very well be in the “third gender” section.

also: given that there's a separate “binary” category for sexual orientation, why shouldn't there be one for gender? —mountainhead / ? 17:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

example:

the binary/non-binary distinction is a useful one, at least to me. it's already present in the sexual identities section, so I don't see why it shouldn't be used here.

if someone can point out to me how exactly non-binary “western” categories and “third gender” identities specifically differ (enough to warrant a specific section), that would also be helpful. —mountainhead / ? 17:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The third gender categories are based on what are considered third genders. We follow what the WP:Reliable sources state. If genders or gender identities were automatically third genders, we wouldn't have a Third gender article. There are often subsets of a topic. The non-binary gender aspects are genders or gender identities (or similar), but not every gender or gender identity is non-binary. It's similar with third gender. The third gender aspects are genders or gender identities (or similar), but not every gender or gender identity is a third gender. Disagree with your suggestion. Definitely doesn't make sense to place transgender in the binary category, given how broad the term transgender can be and that "non-binary" is considered by enough sources to fall under the transgender umbrella. As for the binary category on the template, I rearranged things. This way, the template is more in line with the related templates. Asexuality, for example, is not necessarily binary (that is, when considering the panromantic aspect or similar, or gray asexuality). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Analloeroticism

Лорд Алекс, regarding this (followup note here), analloerotic/analloeroticism should not be listed on this template as a sexual orientation. It is not defined as a sexual orientation (not usually anyway). If ever it is, it's in relation to asexuality, which may or may not be described as a sexual orientation by sources. Scholars still debate even classifying asexuality as a sexual orientation, but it is at least a common enough term/concept to be on the template as a sexual orientation listing. As noted at Talk:Analloerotic (not sure why you changed the title of that page, but I'll address that there), it is hard to see analloerotic as distinct from asexuality (despite one author's claim). And as also seen there, editors feel that it should be merged into the Asexuality article. Besides all of that, this template is clear that we are trying to keep this template consistent with the related templates it points to. It would be odd to have analloerotic on this template, but not on the others. And, no, that doesn't mean that it should be added to the others as well. Like I stated, it is a barely used term and a barely studied/dubiously distinct concept. Just like autoeroticism, which is also related to asexuality, it doesn't belong on this template as a sexual orientation. If you want to add it in the "Other" field of the "Sexual orientation identities" section of the template, I wouldn't object to that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)