From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon gender.svg

This Gender related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
  • Needs a lot more sources.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Stop reverting all my edits[edit]

This discussion was moved here from User talk:Christopher.

You're seriously getting on my nerves. What's gotten into you? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I’ve reverted two of your edits that I thought made the article worse, it’s not some personal vendetta. This discussion should be on Talk:Xenogender. Christopher (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I can place the banner at the bottom of the page, but I'm not taking it to the talk page, otherwise, it will never get solved. Nobody reads the talk page since clearly, it has many issues, but no one bothered to ever fix them. The page has already been merged into another article a long time ago because it was pretty bad already. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean the discussion we’re currently having on my talk page should be on Talk:Xenogender, I’ll move it now. Christopher (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
It will never be fixed if nobody ever sees that there are problems with this article. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Sticking a massive, ugly messagebox at the top of a page listing your problems with it isn’t how things are done here. The {{rated}} template at the top of the talk page already says it’s significantly problematic, community consensus is clearly that this article isn’t terrible enough to warrant unique treatment. List your objections on the talk page, and if you feel the issues still aren’t being resolved then fix them yourself. You could stick the article in a few Category:Articles requiring attention subcategories if you want an indication on the article itself. Christopher (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is the messagebox that sparked the edit war, both as a record of Mario’s problems with the article (there’s some overlap with the problems people have already mentioned) and so that people see what I meant by “massive and ugly”.

Warning icon.svg This page has multiple issues and needs to be improved.

Xenogender has the following issues that need to be addressed and fixed

  1. It contains sources that are enbyphobic or promotes other forms of Transphobia: Specifically, some of the sources link directly to transmedicalists and TERFs, notably MOGAIpedia.
  2. It contains unsourced statements or statements from sketchy sources: Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed. All social media links like Twitter and Tumblr should be replaced as well.
  3. The article is written poorly (As it is written in a pro-transmedicalist pov) and cherry-picks its content.

Christopher (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it is tall since I did not know how to condense it any further, but that's not the problem. The issue here is that it is impossible to let people know that there is a problem with the article if it's not right on their face and this message box was perfect for that. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
As I’ve already said, most people don’t think the article is as bad as you do. There’s no justification for special treatment. Letting that template stay would be like letting this edit from yesterday go unreverted. Christopher (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
False equivalence. This edit was a clear-cut example of whitewashing. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
You’re throwing fallacies at one offhand comment I made but ignoring my main points. This isn’t how things are usually done, and you definitely don’t have a mandate to treat this article differently based on the AfD. Christopher (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Depending on transphobic sources is problematic and such sources should be critiqued where appropriate, but there's no rule that articles can't refer to "sketchy" sources if they're relevant, just as there's no ban on linking to social media like Twitter and Tumblr. With a topic like this, there isn't much in the way of peer-reviewed high-status content to use. Certainly if you have any better sources, post them here or put them in the article. --Annanoon (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
A quick review here to see what is wrong, both in the eyes of the notice poster and in my own, and how it can be improved:
  1. MOGAIpedia reference. Both of these reference the same page. This is easily cleanable because much of it has been deemed to be bunk ("Though almost universally hated, many now-mainstream LGBTQ tenents originate therein, including the idea that one doesn't need to experience gender dysphoria in order to be transgender and opposition to transmedicalism.[14]" is a line that does not add a lot to the paragraph it's in). Meanwhile, the other reference to MOGAIpedia is a double reference so to my opinion it is mostly irrelevant to keep or remove, but given transmedicalism is kind of a bad think, we can probably remove it safely. (Think of it like not linking to InfoWars when they have a stopped clock moment when we have a better source).
  2. Removal of social media links. Don't really see this as an issue? A lot of our articles rely on direct sources. We aren't Wikipedia, this is fine. Would recommend a greater emphasis on archiving these though. We have archive templates, use them I say. As a whole, the article could perhaps do with a little less reliance on "naming and shaming". I do concur that most of this is being espoused by dumb teenagers/young adults, and given they're not of note, we can easily reference it in more general terms.
Finally, there's the current Argument from Autism: Only the P1 for the first bit concerns me, because it is textbook transmedicalism. Fortunately, for this logical fallacy to work, it is not required for P1 to be faulty. I would therefore propose scrapping this element and focusing more on how P2 is faulty, which it very blatantly is. Autistic/neurodivergent people don't perceive social constructs "differently". They simply have a more difficult time understanding them and have a habit of being a bit more literal in how they understand them once they do. I am speaking on that one from both the experience of myself (although this comes with the giant asterisk that I don't have a diagnosis because of the simple fact that an actual diagnosis would be more debilitating for me than it would help me, I have my own life sorted together in a way that makes sense for me and I don't need that sympathy card from people or a shrink telling me how to live my own life) and of friends. To put this very clearly: I do get social constructs, I do get how to behave socially, but for me from what I understand moreso than others, that understanding is a very learned one. On my own I don't have a social drive, social interactions exhaust me but I do understand them. None of this suggests that I perceive social construct or social interactions in a "different" way any more than someone who is neurotypical. This is the core flaw with the argument from autism.
None of these fixes need a lot of work to the page itself, and none really warrant an AfD. So please by the gods... just do some of these changes. And make them changes. Not pre-emptive purges. While I don't object to being bold and fixing things, all the fixes that have currently been done are removing outright sections. Use a scalpel, not a shotgun. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I took out the second of the two MOGAIpedia references. This shit isn't difficult, you just need something to put there instead. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
It wouldn't make sense to let a faulty P1 stay without mentioning it's faultiness. If both P1 and P2 are faulty, both should be mentioned as such. Immiscible (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
(Regarding P2:) Speaking from my own experience (I am autistic), some neurodivergent folk perceive some social constructs differently. I know that this is true because there are some social constructs that I perceive differently, even when fully explained to me. I'll be able to understand and interact with how others perceive the social construct, but it's not necessarily the case that I will perceive it that way. Sometimes I have an already formed way of perceiving the particular social construct that works much better (for me) than the way others perceive it. Sometimes I don't have any already formed way of perceiving the particular social construct, but the way others perceive it continues to be, in some way that I may or may not be able to immediately articulate, "wrong" (for me). Immiscible (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Not to mention the problems with P1: the article says that gender isn't a social construct, then admits that gender is a social construct? This article has not improved and I'm just tempted to AfD it again. Especially since it was just a redirect to a section of the Nonbinary article until one person decided to use this to soapbox their transmedicalist views. Plutocow (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Contesting Techpriest's paragraph removal[edit]

Specifically, "those Xenogenders are mainly used by people in the autism spectrum as they believe their gender to be much more specific" as Techpriest stated that "reflect autism debunking later in the article". I think we can all agree that Xenogender is somewhat made-up as I previously reflected by stating that there was not a shred of evidence within Psychology, the science that studies social constructs, that it is real, but let's not overthrow the fact that although it is made-up autistic people have observably been using Xenogenders for a while and that should be noted in some form or another. Granted, due to the already scarce presense of citations on the subject as a whole, I can't conceivably find a reliable source on this particular statement, but that doesn't make it false, it would take some digging on Twitter and Tumblr alone just to find some examples of autistic people who refer to themselves as a Xenogender. One example that comes to mind was the person that claimed to be a "Catgender", they are autistic. I am certain Baaphomet, who is mentioned in the article, is also diagnosed autistic. I shall reiterate that I do not disagree with the fact that Xenogender are anything, but bullshit, however the article should at least present all the facts and this is one of them. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 21:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit of a double-up. We already mention the autism thing later down the line in our introduction ("Xenogenders became quasi-mainstream in around June 2020, losing their MOGAI connotations and becoming associated with neurodiversity and autistic people's supposed "unique relationship to gender"."), so mentioning it that early is duplicative and it made the sentence flow weirdly so I removed that. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


While I'm not too sure about my opinion on xenogenders, this article definitely feels incredibly hostile towards the concept, and consequently, people who have xenogenders. Sentences like "Criticism of Xenogenders has typically come from its complete lack of psychological evidence" feel a bit mean (especially the emphatical italics) and need revision in my opinion. Being skeptical of the concept is fine, but the way this article talks about it could be mistaken as contempt for those that have xenogenders. I'm going to assume it was written in good faith and that it's just an issue with tone, but I still think it should be changed to make it more clear where the skepticism is targeted. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 21:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Coming back to this as my edits were (understandably) rolled back. I assumed that I could go ahead with edits in this vein since nobody brought up objections, but just bumping this so people can interject with their own ideas. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 17:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't have much detailed input, but I think it makes sense that there's still a problem with the tone of the article. After all, the article used to contain "truscum" bias, and while explicit parts of that were removed, implicit ones may remain. Anyway, I restored your changes, since they were just typo fixes, etc., and so shouldn't have been undone. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I would go farther than implicit bias, see my comments on the italics around "complete lack of psychological evidence". The article just feels mean and unsympathetic. I think a major rewrite is in order. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 18:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
It's not sympathetic because well... it's pseudoscience/woo. Generally harmless pseudoscience and woo, but it's still pseudoscience/woo. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
No yeah I totally agree with you after reading this article. Along with other reasons it's bad (terrible citations or none). BumblingBuffoon (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I found a thesis arguing another justification from 2014, the author argues from a point of "finding your own box in a cisheteronormative world",Link, I'll try to add this to possibly provide some balance. There's this article too cited by wikipedia for its xenogender definition, haven't read it yet though. Added some stats I found on the fandom page too, hopefully these will curb the lack of citations. -- WrappedEyeCandy (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Is Xenogender capitalized?[edit]

We need to come to a consensus on this one, the inconsistency bothers me. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 18:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It seemed so from the start of the article, so I (also) went with it being so, but if others think that's wrong, I don't mind it being changed throughout the article. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Some searching on the web finds both capitalized and non-capitalized uses, but non-capitalized are more common. So it may be best to pick that instead. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Uncapitalized works, all my capitalization makes it look weird on a reread. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 18:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
And done. Page looks better now, definitely the correct choice. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 18:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Non-capitalized seems better yeah. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

According to who?[edit]

"Most common research in the late 2010s and early 2020s has been focusing more and more on gender and how we understand it, meaning it enters the pop culture understanding." What does it mean by common research? Does it mean research on gender, gender identity, non-binary? What? This line is confusing and non-specific. Also the title quote is a strawman and probably needs a source quote. "According to some person on tumblr". BumblingBuffoon (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Quote removed. Good catch on that, didn't think to edit it but definitely has no place in the article. I think the line you refer to is talking about how more and more research into gender and gender identities causes more fringe ideas surrounding gender to enter the mainstream, but you are correct that it is incredibly confusing and does not really fit. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 19:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Done. Hopefully looks better now. There are still massive issues with uncited conclusions in this article that need attention ASAP. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 19:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I inserted that part (as well as the conclusion in general, which is basically an admittance/reminder to the reader that we're talking about arguments made mostly by teenagers). Sorry that was an embellishment. Unfortunately most of my evidence for this can be filed away as anecdotal; kind of an annoying thing for something where we don't have a lot of conclusive studies for. To me the most damning thing is just how exceptionally young Xenogenders swings; when you look at say, the LGBTQ+ coming out rate or gender identity rate, we see that stuff kinda happen across age groups; I can list some people who only realized they were gay at 50, people who only realized they were transgender at 45 and non-binary people at 48 (for privacy's sake, not actual ages listed). Meanwhile I've yet to see any example of someone above 40 being a Xenogender; it seems extremely concentrated in youth, with a lot of anecdotal examples fizzling out over the years. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the main problems of those claims is that they mirror transphobic talking points, if you replace xenogender with transgender, the arguments are indistinguishable. See links: [1] [2] I'd be careful making those kinds of points, because they tend not to age well. This topic is a hazard. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

While this is definitely a hazardous topic, ignoring it isn't a solution. This article is on mission and has some good parts that should be saved. Your second point definitely reminds me of the "replace that with women" meme (I hate sandwiches. Now replace sandwiches with women. Not so funny now, is it?). I agree with you here, but imo that's not the best point to justify it. I'm still not quite sure where specifically I stand on the issue, but it's definitely at least a little more sympathetic to people with xenogenders than this article. armed_roomba (she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 20:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that from an attacker's side, who hates both trans people and xenogenders, they want to get you to hate both trans people and xenogenders. Since xenogenders are the easier target, admitting this throws a potentially vulnerable person under the bus. I don't think it is a wise idea to be bullying people for the crime of exploring their own identity, especially when that doesn't seem to be harming anyone. I think the better approach would be to hold the attackers of trans people, i.e transphobes, to the fact they are just engaging in a balance fallacy "comparing apples to oranges" rather than joining in on them on a hate bandwagon on some random person you think is silly, especially given that that person is likely a child, and trying to avoid a much more robust area of debate scientific reality that has sources behind it and way more activism. If someone identifies as a goat I literally don't care, this is a completely irrelevant point to bring up about someone and focuses on meaningless qualities, something that racists, sexists, transphobes, and other types of asshole have done for ages. I'm not here to engage in that. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
To be clear the flawed argument used by transphobes is a case of Motte and bailey, not balance fallacy. That aside, we refute xenogenders because it is flat out woo. It's kids with a partial understanding of the concept that "gender is a social construct" applying it in the silliest way possible, likely in an attempt to be unique. Car woo is largely harmless and we refute that because it still is woo. Just because it's kids doesn't mean we shouldn't refute the bad reasoning that is used to justify the woo. It means we however do need to add that as a partial "softener" of sorts to make it clear we're not writing articles to dunk on dumb teenagers/young adults. As for BB - your second link 404s for me. That said, I do not quite see the value in simple wordswapping here. Xenogender != Transgender. One has almost a century of visible research behind it (more if you remember the Nazis burned a lot of it too), the other is a bunch of New Age woo with zero academical backing. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I used balance fallacy solely because on this wiki it is lumped in as an alternative form of the false equivalence fallacy (comparing two distinct things as if they are the same or apples and oranges), clearly transgenders (apples) are not oranges (xenogender). Fixed second link, mostly it goes on to also repeat that sources used in the first one have been criticized for flaws. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Roomba Edits the Xenogenders Page Part XVIII: The Criticism Section[edit]

"Criticism of xenogenders has typically come from a lack of psychological evidence supporting their existence, as unlike more common gender identities, they rely on validating themselves[citation needed] (while research into non-binary identities is still sparse, binary transgender identities are typically well understood)". Does any gender have "psychological evidence supporting their existence"? I tried rephrasing the sentence to remove that section (as I get what this portion is trying to say and it does make sense), but nothing really avoided the problem. I could just be wrong, and there is psychological evidence of male and female identities (saying that they are "typically well understood" isn't really sufficient in my opinion, especially as it invalidates the existence of non-binary people in that same sentence if you operate under that assumption), but I'd like to either source that claim or get rid of it while adding something that doesn't bring up questions rather than answer them. armed_roomba(she/her)What am I doing wrong this time? 18:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)