RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Xenogender

Xenogender | Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

''This article has been requested to be deleted before. See here, here, and here for those discussions.''

Delete

 * 1) It's been over six months and the article hasn't improved at all. Yes, a couple of the more explicitly transmedicalist sources were removed, but none of the arguments or content in the article has fundamentally changed. Formerly just a redirect to a section of the Nonbinary article as a result of a previous AFD, one person with a transmedicalist agenda recreated this article. No, my problem is not with the concept of having a Xenogender article. If we had an article on the Nation of Islam that was composed of white supremicist talking points, or even an article on Blaire White that was composed of TERF talking points, nobody would accept that, but because this article is composed of transmedicalism, which is bigotry directed primarily towards nonbinary people, a lot more of you are willing to let that slide. Currently, the article contains a section that is very coddling towards autistic people and promotes gender not being a social construct, which is a TERF talking point, contains a section "Critical theory woo" which does not even try to make an argument, bizarrely tries to equate Xenogender people to TERFs (which is a bad comparison even if you don't recognize them, since you are comparing outright bigots to people who just believe in something bizarre but not hateful), and suggests that the only valid trans people are ones with brain scans that "prove" they are trans (that was less apparent due to an edit after the last AFD, but the implication is still there). And before the inevitable "Why don't you improve the article instead of deleting it", the problem is you can't improve the article without at the very least removing large sections of "content", something I tried to do earlier but was shot down. I would be okay with just redirecting it to the section in Nonbinary (which was the case for five years prior to June 2020) and do some expansion of said section but the article as it stands should just burn. Plutocow (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Horrid, not worth keeping. Perhaps do a WP:TNT and re-write the whole article from scratch, but as it stands this article is humiliating. Senioritas (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose a WP:TNT, but the problem is, no one may create a new article. I only support it if there is a draft, ready to be published, once this is deleted. Andrew5 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) This article is not worth the effort of keeping it. The topic in question, so called “xenogender”: is so trivially pseudoscientific (the brainchild of Tumblr users ffs), that it shouldn’t merit the effort of a thorough sceptical analysis, all that is required is dismissal. In addition, this article is dispensable: it plays no significant role in supporting or contributing to our best articles. Moreover the majority of editors here, quite tellingly, have shown no interest in working on it—leave it on tumblr!  Leucippus Sapere aude 18:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point, but the goal is to still improve. Besides, right now I am trying to fix up Tim Eyman, so...Andrew5 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) We don't need a page that demonizes a whole group of people.--A p r i l Chat? 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see this page as demonizing a group of people. The concept of xenogender enters into realm of alt-right trolling (e.g., Alt-right glossary, RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive396) or pseudoscience at best ("plants, animals, space, fictional characters"). Bongolian (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 20:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) As per the fact that it was kept twice in just the year of 2021. Comments from the last AFD said it was pretty missional, and, as not only said there but in many other AFDs, deletion is not the way to remove stubs. Expansion is how we remove stubs, although in this case, there are other reasons. I admit it has significant problems, but these can be fixed. Editors here, including me, need to spend more time actually fixing these articles, rather then just AFD'ing them. Me included. It is missional,and as such, expansion is the answer. As an aside, Plutocow has tried multiple times to delete it before, all of which have failed. I get that Plutocow says you can only improve it by removing content, which was shot down. Personally I do support removing content and fixing up the article, and urge others to do so so we can keep this on-mission article. Andrew5 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will also mention that every single time this happens, it appears to get very contentious and long winded. I think all of us here at RW should just calm down and not argue about everything about the article. This is clearly polarized, and it really shouldn't be. Andrew5 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that it's a stub, the problem is that it's outright bigoted. Any missional content could be put at Nonbinary. Several articles have been deleted after previous votes to keep. If we have an article criticizing Transmedicalism, we shouldn't have an article written from a transmedicalist point of view. Plutocow (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not a stub, just garbage. I read it full and couldn't believe this was written on RationalWiki of all places. This reads exactly like a long forgotten draft written by 1 person on Wikipedia. Senioritas (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) "It's déjà vu all over again." Bongolian (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) This is ridiculous. Christopher (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is ridiculous that we have people here who excuse blatant transmedicalism. Plutocow (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Might need a WP:TNT, but I'd prefer this to only get a TNT if you have a replacement ready. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to say. Andrew5 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's already a section in Non-binary gender, which was sufficient for five years before some transmedicalist decided to push their agenda. Plutocow (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been having a nasty enough uptick in the past year to be semi-mainstream bullshit though. I already filtered out most of the truscum stuff the last time I saw a complaint get raised over this article. The problem is that I kinda lack the sources to meaningfully rip out the last bits. Maybe you could help with that? -- Techpriest (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. This is getting stupid. Stop wasting our time. 18:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew5 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I cleaned up the article, so I'll vote "keep" for now. That is what you should have done Plutocow. 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Andrew5 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) smh 08:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) -Hastur! (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Oh come on. An article on its fourth deletion attempt is nearly always worth keeping. 00:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Galileo Gambit - You should note the article got merged the first time around because it was dreadful and stubby apparently. 15:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * To be clear, I went through most of this article. The only truscum thing in there that I didn't have a good way to get rid of at the time is the gender is a social construct stuff. The rest of it is not truscum anymore. It's by no means that significant a chunk of content, I simply couldn't find any better sources. I kinda do want that improved; Gender and how it is expressed is a mess between genetic factors and environmental factors. Xenogenders take at least the highly controversial assumption that it is entirely a social construct which is... well, it's slightly veering into woo territory. Just not fully sure how to work that in the article. The Ad Iram problem is real; mostly because this stuff tends to proliferate a lot on platforms with deliberately limited expression. It's not exactly truscum to point that out. Yes this article has problems, but they're fixable. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh christ I'm having deja vu here, I said this last time too. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But gender is a social construct. That's part of why truscum are wrong. 19:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The confusing thing about any "gender" discussion is that there are two elements that are often conflated a bit. There is a biological sex element that usually (not always, but most of the time) falls one way or the other. It's all about the chromosomes. Then there is "gender". Most definitions like in the WHO page here refer to gender entirely to the norms, behaviors, roles, and relationships associated with relationships and/or biological sex norms. Although "gender is a social construct" is a phrase one can derive from that, I'm not entirely comfortable with completely going in this direction, because some elements of the social gender are clearly influenced from biological based factors (like the spectrum of sexual attraction and even some of the biological differences of the biological sexes). Some aren't, of course. But the phrase kind of implies that everything is just driven by social custom, which is false. This has been noted in this article and others. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has come up with a "snappy catchphrase" to express the complete situation (it probably is hard to describe the complex reality in a single sentence). So not sure how to change the phrase. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Social constructs can be based off of things in objective reality. I fail to see the problem there. 17:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And there, that should be all truscum nonsense removed, while still keeping the consistent fact that it's woo in the article (unlike TCs attempts to remove that). Also added a small reality check that wile it's more than missional, a lot of our arguments here are about the ways teenagers misunderstand the world. If there's anything left, please page me, but I think that's everything. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Page? I think you made a typo. Andrew5 (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, paging someone is an actual verb. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)