Template talk:Gender and sexual identities

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

message: 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". TedTalk/Contributions 14:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Title 

message: See Top and bottom in sex and BDSM (talk) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added top/bottom to 'other' 

message: ... 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)
thread_title:  Hmmm ... that "other" line is getting quite full ... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Technosexuality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Anthrosexuality 

message: Sorry ... carry on with your day. Dybryd (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Do'h! Wrong template!

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I'm fixing the "Evening people" with a wikilink to "Hijra". ~Teledildonix314~Talk~4-1-1~ 02:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Please include Queer heterosexual at the appropriate place. (59.180.139.63 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please include "Queer Heterosexual" in the appropriate place (preferably in gender identities)

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Sexual identity" versus "sexual orientation identity" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of Bigender to Third sex / Third gender 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sworn virgins 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Genderfuck? 

message: 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 .  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)
thread_title:  Should this remain separate template - discussion on Template talk:LGBT 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Futanari 

message: Copied here from Portal talk:Gender studies -- John of Reading (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not sure if this is the right place 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hi , 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)
thread_title:  Womyn 

message: 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:
#Move the links to another Template (existing or new) - e.g. Template:Transgender topics
#Move the links to a list article (existing or new) - e.g. List of transgender-related topics
#Make a different change
#Make no change
Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Transgender people in ''nation'' links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Analloeroticism]] 

message: * "Bissu" and "calabai", which both redirect to Gender in Bugis society, are listed separately, but "calalai" (and the Bugis' two cis categories) is not listed. "Muxe" is listed, but "lhamana" and "nádleehi" are not listed. Is this field meant to list all notable-&-RSed third gender categories? Or only those with their own articles? Or...?
* "Gray asexuality", "pansexuality", "polysexuality", and "queer" are listed twice in the "sexual orientation identities" field, once in "alternative labels" and a second time immediately below as "non-binary categories". It's not clear to me what (one) sexuality "gray asexuality" would be an alternative label for, so it probably belongs in the "non-binary categories" subfield.
* "Monosexuality" is listed in "other", while e.g. "androphilia and gynephilia" is listed in "non-binary categories", and "polysexuality" and "gray asexuality" are listed in both "non-binary categories" and another place. Why wouldn't "monosexuality" be grouped with the aforementioned terms?
* Why is "crossdresser" listed in the "gender identities" field? Why is "skoptsy" listed at all? The latter article makes no mention of it being a gender, and indeed never even uses the word "gender".
* "Two-spirit" is listed as a sexual orientation, but RS and indeed the lead of our article on the topic call it a third gender category, far more often than a sexual orientation, as far as I have seen. (If the label intentionally encompasses both, then perhaps, like "LGBT", it shouldn't be listed here...?)
In general this template is a bit messy. -sche (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, why are "bi-curious" and "heteroflexibility" in two different categories, viz. "alternative labels" and "non-binary categories"? -sche (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the link to the third Bugis third gender; removed Skoptsy; moved two-spirit back from being listed as sexual orientation to being listed as a gender category since that's how it's mostly discussed in our article and RS (but with an edit summary noting that perhaps, like "LGBT", editors will feel it is simply too broad to list in this template, or perhaps it should be put in the "See also" field?); removed some of the duplicate entries mentioned above; and also removed the duplicate link to "third gender" which was both the title of one of the fields (and linked there) and also listed as one of the entries, since none of the other fields contain themselves (e.g. Sexual orientation is not listed inside the list of sexual orientations). I also strove for consistency in which part of speech was being used, e.g. avoiding aliasing the link to Monogamy as "Monogamous" right next to a link to Non-monogamy, which just looked unprofessionally inconsistent. Other issues remain to be addressed. -sche (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several issues 

message: Hello All, as part of Wiki Loves Pride I began a stub for pinapinaaine from Tuvalu and I wondered if the term could be added to the template alongside fa'afafine, etc.? Many thanks, Lajmmoore (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinapinaaine