Talk:Genderfuck

message: There is no mention of genderfuck or anything related that I can find in the article on Annie Lennox, nor is there (obviously) any reference in this page. Perhaps it's obvious to some, but it seems much less obvious than other performers listed here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.69.27.232 (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong disagree on boths counts. Genderfuck is a well-know term in the queer perfomance and activist communities, both Izzard and Lennox fit the label for their purposeful blurring of gender norms, as do other pop Brit icons like Boy George, David bowie's Ziggy Stardust and countless others. The article should be improved to represent the nuances of gender bending and reinterpreting gender roles and allow that an articst might not lablel themself a gender outlaw, a genderfucker or androgynous hero but that hardly means they aren't doing it. Benjiboi 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiablility, not truth (see WP:VERIFY).  If it is not verifiable, then it should not be included.  I've removed from the "famous" list those people whose articles do not mention "genderfuck" since their inclusion as "famous genderfuckers" is unsupported and uncited.  Doctormatt 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that reasoning is flawed. It sould like if I edit those articles with some vaguery "some think Aniie Lennox is a genderfucker" then they would be included. I wonder if deleting examples is premature as this is a newer concept and needs expanding and research but hack away if you must. Benjiboi 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  I am in no way suggesting that "some think Annie Lennox is a genderfucker" is acceptable as a sourced claim.  What do you suggest as a citation requirement for this list?   It seems to me that there are two options: a citation right next to each entry in the list, or a citation somewhere in the linked article.   The former method is cumbersome and redundant if the citation is in the linked article already, so I think the latter method is generally better for lists on Wikipedia.  This also puts the burden of citation on the editors of the linked-to article, and not on those who edit this article.  By the way, I am not "hacking" away: I edited the list to be consistent with WP policy.   By paying strict attention to WP guidelines, we might be able to help articles grow into strong and effective ones, as opposed to creating, messy, unsourced, unencyclopedic trash.   Doctormatt 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree that the WP guidelines are not applicable to articles in their genesis.  Quoting myself, "By paying strict attention to WP guidelines, we might be able to help articles grow into strong and effective ones, as opposed to creating, messy, unsourced, unencyclopedic trash.".  I think it is more important that one sets a proper tone/structure/etc. for other editors - I think we should worry about the "general reader" only after an article is properly up on its feet.  Anyway, if you are having such a hard time finding well-sourced material for this article, perhaps there are other problems besides my editing.  Doctormatt 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to agree to disagree. I think WP guidelines are applicable to newer articles but also think that using your "strict" rules are disruptive to other editors. Although you may be technically correct that nothing should appear in the article that can't be verified I think this is a good example letting editors express ideas unfettered by seemingly restrictive rules. To me, this seems like a bullying tactic - if you don't strictly obey the letter of the law your contributions will be erased. By it's nature WP is not a machine but an organic process and it seems unfair to require every editor to only write encyclopedic facts. Even though, I hope, our goals are to improve articles our styles seem vastly different. I would rather encourage other editors to contribute and then (gently) correct as needed. Have Annie Lennox listed as an example as a genderfucker, to me, seemed fine at least for now. I certainly think her artistry is seen as such even if it has yet to be labelled exactly that way that we can reference. Instead you've removed that helpful piece of knowledge. As a little experiment, why not try adding two sentences for every one you want to get rid of? As this article is only five sentences right now you could effective double or triple its content rather quickly. If that idea seems too much then I kindly suggest there are many articles that need trimming and even have other editors looking for review help to remove "unencyclopedic trash." As for "having such a hard time finding well-sourced material" a quick book search  pulls 137 references. To me it seems the problem is not finding the material but allowing it to grow rather than being pulled by the roots. Benjiboi 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, man, why don't you just start adding some of that great material to the article (the first complaint above is from January!)?  Nobody is stopping you, and if it is well cited (and perhaps even if it isn't - we're not machines after all) it should not be removed.  Cheers, Doctormatt 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if my timing doesn't work for you, I'm also disturbed that it seems as though any edit to this article will be met with swift judgement as that seems against the spirit of cooperation that WP relies on. Here's hoping that a spirit of collaboration and encouragement will continue to grow so that WP can represent a worldwide body ogf knowledge. Benjiboi 19:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm really glad to see you've made an edit of the article - your timing is fantastic!  That's the stuff! Cheers, Doctormatt 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Snarky and sarcastic comments seem equally unhelpful. Benjiboi 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not being snarky and/or sarcastic - I don't have time for that.  I am honestly very, very glad that you have taken enough interest in this article to edit it - at least one of us (yes, you!) has actually done something to improve the article. Kudos!  Cheers, Doctormatt 23:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annie Lennox? 

message: Anyway, if I get the chance, I'll clean up this page.  Some of the sources I will be using include, 
* http://genderfuck.net/genderfuck.htm
* http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=genderfuck
* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=genderfuck
* http://www.audioterrorist.com/genderfuck/genderfuck/genderfuck_the_history.html (and links from this page)
* http://www.audioterrorist.com/genderfuck/genderfuck/Genderfuck_Text.html
I'll also have a look around the local library for books on the matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFA (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and informing of my intention to clean up this page (maybe) 

message: Seriously...is "Genderfuck" the actual name of this concept? I mean, it sounds sort of lay-man to me. It's even got a cuss built right into it, and I don't know the formal name for anything that has a cuss in it. Surely there must be a better, more formal name for this concept than simply "Genderfuck"? I mean, would you really flip through an encyclopedia under G and find the word Genderfuck in it? I think not... 24.15.53.225 02:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you would if the encyclopedia was comprehensive. The article indeed needs work but the concept is literally about "fucking" with gender concepts. Benjiboi 11:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is understandable. However, if it is a well-known psychological concept, it would have a scientific name instead of a colloquial term. I think what the lad was driving at is that he doesn't think the page is legitimate because it has a colloquial term as its title, and I'd have to say I agree with him. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I get the point, and perhaps a politer term would be something like 'gender play' or something. But gender-fuck is what its called. Hey , I'm a straight guy who's pretty new to these ideas, but I can confirm that even with my outsider status to 'the community' , its a term I've heard heaps. And I'll add its one thats not even that exclusive to the queer community. I have a mate who likes to rock about in a flowing dress, because it annoys conservatives. That gender-fuck. Fucking with gender, so to speak. 124.182.177.121 (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Gender bending is too mild to go along with this concept. If the phrase can be assigned as a plot point of a sitcom, it doesn't fit with something this intense. Gender-bending is "To Wong Foo" and "Bosom Buddies." Genderfuck is cultural, social and sexual activism. To say that they're equivalent is like saying that a coffee break and afternoon tea are the same thing because hot beverages are drunk during both. Dreamalynn (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real name 

message: I am nominating this article for deletion because it is patent nonsense.  It is a repetition of "genderqueer" with a profanity used simply for shock value.  If it is a valid term, it is not sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopaedia; and WP is not a dictionary.  The article is unsourced and no evidence is provided for the claims made.  87.127.44.154 10:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'll complete the nomination on your behalf. Give me a little while. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 10:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genderfuck. --Dreaded Walrus  t c 10:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for AFD

message: Wow, the whole premise of genderfuck is unabashedly pretentious beyond most things i've seen. It's completely prideful in a self-conscious way, how has it not drawn criticism from the LGBT community for it's elitist and smug pretentious attitude?. Michigan Frog (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTCENSORED. We don't care if it offends you, and we don't care if it uses 'profane language' (ha!). Zazaban (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretentious 

message: Mhoward058, and I have chosen to re-write this article, we have kept the original material though some of it has been rearranged and reworded, however it is all there. On top of that we have added material and links, and references to the information provided. We did this as a part of project feminism and as a senior project for our senior capstone class. CourageCowardlyLion (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent rewrites

message: If Lady Gaga is to be considered a 'good' example, why is Grace Jones left out? Katie3byea (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Grace Jones is more of a proper genderfuck example than Lady Gaga :P And Annie Lennox! Sarah (talk) 08:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: examples

message: There is nothing androgynous about Lady Gaga, no matter what she might say. She completely packages herself using traditional female images of sexuality, there is nothing remotely masculine about her. She doesn't even wear pants, for goodness sake. I realize that she supports the LGBT community but, honestly, like Madonna or Britney Spears or Beyonce, when it comes down to it, her female sexuality is a large part of the image she users to sell her music (she's basically all about female sexuality and fashion).
It would be interesting if she played around with gender roles (beyond the "sex sells" BDSM layer), but she doesn't. She's still about long blonde wigs, biniki top and bottom, and stilettos. It's not transgressive at all. She is more Marilyn Monroe than Annie Lennox or David Bowie. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lady Gaga? Please