RFC about inclusion of Loki (MCU)[edit]

Should Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe) be included or removed from the list? Note, this discussion is exclusively about the inclusion of the MCU version of the character on the list, and not about the comic book version. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mx. Granger: Agreed/good point/same, please ping me as well if a reasonable challenge arises to the reliability of that source. OgamD218 (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Retain - I have to disagree with those arguing that he should be removed. Perhaps the entry can be improved, but he is humanoid enough that it can be kept and he is a prominent of enough character, not some character who appears in only one episode, one time. I personally think the whole "match the human experience" requirement is junk and should be changed, but that's beside the point. Historyday01 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you accidentally voted twice - you made another comment to "retain" in bold, but it was 6 months ago so it's understandable if you forgot. Crossroads -talk- 05:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I didn't see that until now... Historyday01 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

II[edit]

Can someone add Paintbrush from Inanimate insanity to the list under “non-binary”? 104.191.116.91 (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. Who is Paintbrush? Is Inanimate Insanity a video game? This request is pretty broad, so I'm just not sure what to make of your question.--Historyday01 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Palo Alto (2013 film)[edit]

I think this character might be non-binary: Fred, played by Nat Wolff. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If so, that's great. I'll look into it. As a note, the notice for this page has been expanded as it isn't just limited to humanoid non-binary characters anymore, just fyi, with this part as new: "A character is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful." Historyday01 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scope[edit]

As a result of this edit (prompted by this request), the scope should be clarified further to prevent people from cluttering the list with any and every of the sort of shapeshifters, body-swap scenarios, AIs, single-gender or many-sexed aliens, and the like that the phrase was meant to keep out, while still including those that should properly be understood as truly of non-binary identity. Namely, it should not be allowed to source it merely to the work itself, thus engaging in personal interpretation - separate sources are required. This is in line with normal Wikipedia practice regarding WP:NOR and secondary sources.

Taking the Loki example that prompted this - because RS support that Loki should be understood as genderfluid, he should be included; but hypothetically, if those sources did not exist, he would not be included even if someone thought he should be based on "the work itself". Crossroads -talk- 05:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mind clarifying the scope further, although I thought that saying that "a character is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character" already seems limiting enough, as someone can't add "any and every of the sort of shapeshifters, body-swap scenarios, AIs, single-gender or many-sexed aliens" as they would have to be a recurring or main character, not someone who showed up in one individual episode. That was the idea at least and I think it is MUCH better than the previous wording, which seemed problematic and is arguably too limiting. I still believe the page should not be limited to just humanoid non-binary characters (as the previous writing could imperil a number of entries currently on the list) as that could led to too much contention on what counts as human and what doesn't count as human. Rather, the page should be focused on including recurring and main characters who can be said to have a non-binary identity, whether they are human or not. It could also encourage further participation, as the previous edit notice may cause confusion and lead less people to contribute and add to the page, unlike the current notice which the changed wording. That was the point of my request and I continue to stand by it. As for Loki, it is my understanding that he should be included. Historyday01 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, we shouldn't go back to the previous wording, again for the same reason - we should be relying on secondary sources, and if they categorize a "non-human" character as non-binary, then so be it. Basically, I think we should just eliminate the clause that permits sourcing simply to the work itself. Crossroads -talk- 17:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. How about the first line of the notice is changed to "Characters are considered non-binary when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s)" from "Characters are considered non-binary when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly in either the work itself or by the character's creator(s)"? I could see how someone could just use a cite episode template (or cite the book, video game, etc. directly) as a "source" and then declare the character is non-binary. That's happened on lists of animated series with LGBT characters before which is why I mention it. Historyday01 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes that sounds good. Crossroads -talk- 21:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! I'll submit a request for that in the template. Historyday01 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Crossroads that we should not be including entries without secondary sources that explicitly say a character is non-binary. There is no reason a many-sexed alien can't be identified as non-binary, but a character should not be identified as non-binary because an editor thinks so, only because a writer or reviewer thinks so (and ideally it's a mainstream current of reviewer thought, not one reviewer out of 50). Even in the case that a character is explicitly described as non-binary within a work, there should still really be independent sources that mention this or else the character (or that part of their identity) is not significant to the work as a whole. — Bilorv (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This comment is definitely relevant when other editors below are claiming they need to know "my" definition of what is non-binary for consensus, something which doesn't make a lick of sense to me. So, if you could jump in the discussion here, that would be great. Historyday01 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crossroads, Historyday01, and Bilorv: The new inclusion criteria are leading to exactly the problem that Crossroads predicted. Editors are now adding genderless AI robots to the list. In the cited source (which merely refers to them as "genderless"), the creator explicitly says "I was committed to the idea of a character who was not human and did not have a human expression of gender." If this list is not limited to characters with a human expression of gender, it will quickly become a meaningless list. "Genderless" is not the same thing as agender. Agender entails a complex human experience that is not at all embodied by robots, cartoon animals, AIs, deities, aliens, talking hamburgers, or amorphous purple monsters, and frankly its offensive for it to be equated to such. I strongly oppose the changes to the inclusion criteria as this list is about an LGBT identity, not a grammatical gender. Can we please reinstate some sort of wording that focuses the list on the human experience of non-binary gender? Nosferattus (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nosferattus The problem with making it ONLY focused on humans is that we then would be wrangling over what counts as human. That is why I support having it more broad rather than narrow. However, I would support creating a page called something like "Androgyny in fiction" which would cover a broader scope. But until that is created, I am wary and opposite to changing the inclusion requirements at this current time. Historyday01 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you feel about the edit I made that removed several "genderless" non-human characters? Specifically Murderbot and ART/Perihelion (genderless robots), Korvo and Terry (genderless aliens), Zoit from Lloyd in Space (genderless alien), the knights from Hollow Knight (genderless insectoids), and Quina Quen from Final Fantasy IX (genderless alien). Nosferattus (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. I wasn't able to look at the criteria on my phone, but it states "Characters can be added to their list if either the work they appear in is notable...the character themselves is notable, or if the character's gender has been covered by multiple reliable sources...characters are considered non-binary when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s)...A character is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful." However, this clashes with the opening part "This is a list of non-binary characters in fiction, i.e. fictional characters that either self-identify as non-binary (or genderqueer) or have been identified by outside parties as such. Listed are agender, bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, and other characters of non-binary gender, as well as characters of any third gender." So, perhaps the list page should incl. all those under the non-binary umbrella? If not, then, we might need more spinoff pages. And there are LOT of those for LGBTQ topics already.
So, the line in the criteria says "Characters are considered non-binary when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s)". It could be changed to "Characters are considered non-binary, agender, bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, or genderless when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s)" if that makes sense.
If the creator (or reliable sources) specifically called the characters genderless then it should stay. I know Korvo and Terry, since I added that one a while ago, and I'm pretty sure the creator (or creators) called them genderless. I have heard of Zoit, but I think it was pretty ambiguous from what I remember. Not sure about the others you listed as I don't know them off hand. Historyday01 (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stuff like that needs to go. "It/its" pronouns or being a member of a genderless species are not sufficient to include someone as non-binary or under the LGBT umbrella. To be included we need sources that specifically identify a character as meaningfully non-binary. Being a member of a whole class of beings that lack gender like depictions of robots, AI, or certain alien species does not make one non-binary, LGBT, or 'queer', and inserting such entities into the list is a form of WP:Original research. It's like saying my computer or an asexually reproducing organism is non-binary - it completely loses all meaning. The list scope and that of any other list is dictated by reliable sources, and sources do not consider the two groups the same nor is 'members of genderless species' a notable topic. Crossroads -talk- 21:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Historyday01: If I call my computer "genderless", would you say that my computer is "non-binary"? Nosferattus (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not going to go down the speculative route here, nope. I stand by what I said on Nov. 20, and feel that Crossroads has a good point, as we "need sources that specifically identify a character as meaningfully non-binary", even though I take a more expansive, rather than reductive/restrictive, view when it comes to entries on this page. Unless a creator or reliable source describes a non-human character, or characters, as "genderless", or otherwise falling under the non-binary umbrella, then it should be removed. Its as simple as that. In line with that, I have completely agree with @Aykhot's edit, which brings back those characters, as agender characters fall under the non-binary umbrella. That's established. Historyday01 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just being "genderless" is not sufficient if a class of being, such as an alien species or robots, are entirely without gender. That is not at all the same thing as someone like a human having a non-binary gender identity. Again, is an AI or an asexually-reproducing creature non-binary and LGBTQ? A computer or a plant? Reliable sources don't support that general contention. A character who is a member of such a species or class of being needs sources identifying them specifically as having a non-binary gender identity, such as an agender identity, rather than being included simply because of their species. The latter is a form of WP:Original research (and clogs up the list from much better examples anyway). Crossroads -talk- 21:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. How I define "genderless" does not matter. All I'm saying is that if a creator or reliable source says a character is genderless or otherwise under the non-binary umbrella, it should be on the page. I think that's a pretty simple rule to follow. No need to get into the weeds in this discussion. That's a waste of everyone's time. Historyday01 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would argue that sapient beings, such as sufficiently advanced AIs or asexually-reproducing nonhuman creatures, specifically identified as "genderless" would count as non-binary, since gender is a concept specific to sapient beings. "Genderless" means different things depending on if the subject is sapient or not (since calling a non-sapient subject genderless is somewhat tautological); a computer or a plant is "genderless" meaning they have no relationship whatsoever to the concept of gender, being inanimate, while Murderbot or the Knight, for example, are "genderless" meaning they have a relationship with gender characterized by rejection or inapplicability of the concept (thus falling into the agender category). Beings with agency, like AIs or nonhuman sapients, are capable of using said agency to reject or distance themselves from the concept of gender, unlike an inanimate object or non-sapient creature, which cannot even conceptualize it in the first place, thus distinguishing the nonbinary agender identity (which can be described as "genderless" or "without gender") from the default genderlessness of non-sapient objects or entities. Aykhot (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Historyday01: I'm just trying to find out what your definition of "non-binary" is. Do you consider anything that is referred to as "genderless" or "without gender" by a reliable source to be "non-binary"? Does it have to be animate? Does it have to be anthropomorphic? If someone asked the creator of Gumby "What gender is Gumby?" and the creator replies "Gumby is a piece of clay. Gumby doesn't have a gender.", would you include that character in this list? I just want to know where you draw the line so that we can reach a consensus. Nosferattus (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How I define "non-binary", "genderless", or "without gender" is irrelevant, so I'm going to ignore that question, and all the questions in your comment. I see them as unnecessary diversion in this discussion. So, please, do not go down that road. My definitions do NOT matter and will NOT influence the page in any way, shape, or form. What matters is what creators and reliable sources say. That is the bottom line. If they say that a character is non-binary, genderless, or without gender, then I don't see a problem with it on the list. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Historyday01: I don't mean your personal definition. I mean within the scope of this article. Now that I understand your position I can respond to it. In my opinion, defining "without gender" as agender and non-binary regardless of the context, is wrong. Yes, "agender" literally means "without gender", but that meaning has context. Agender and non-binary are queer identities with their own history, culture, and modes of representation. It makes no sense to refer to robots or furniture as agender or non-binary. I agree with Crossroads that the scope of this article should be limited to the LGBT sense of "non-binary" and things described as "genderless" or "without gender" should be excluded unless they are clearly referring to a character that is expected to have the human experience of gender. Nosferattus (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand where you are coming from, especially since many of the characters on the main page are humanoid. However, I tend to push back on the "human experience of gender" as we would be debating what a "human" is and isn't. That's my main issue with it and I'd like to avoid that debate if at all possible. That criteria of a humanoid/human focus is not applied to any of the other LGBTQ character pages, so it makes no sense for it to be applied to this page. In fact, that was part of my rationale for the changed inclusion criteria earlier this year, which I proposed back in June.
I would be fine with limiting the article to LGBTQ sense of "non-binary". While saying that, i do not think that a character should be included should a voice actor say the character they voice is agender (like Angel Jose in Craig of the Creek or Milo in Danger& Eggs), genderfluid (like Val/entina Romanyszyn in gen:LOCK, who had a whole scene in season 1 where they say they are genderfluid), or a creator (or reliable source) says something to the same effect.
In addition, I'm fine with excluding species (like if someone says an entire species is genderless) or character groups (like if someone says a group of characters is non-binary) from the list. The page should be for individual characters, not for character groups or species, if that makes sense.
As I said earlier, I strongly support creating a page like entitled something like "Androgyny in fiction" (that name probably isn't right) which could completely revamp that awfully text-heavy Non-binary characters in fiction page. I had meant to create it a while ago, but... I never got around to it, like my graveyard of pages which will never be created. Anything that would be removed from the main page could go into a page titled something like "Androgyny in fiction", within reason, as it could become too large. Historyday01 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding That criteria of a humanoid/human focus is not applied to any of the other LGBTQ character pages, a human(oid) focus is basically 'baked-in' from the get-go for those, since genderless species couldn't be trans in the sense of having a gender differing from sex, nor would they have sexual orientations. This article is a bit more of a special case. Crossroads -talk- 16:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crossroads Hmm, I think it makes sense to have somewhat similar criteria for all of them, instead of having an outlier. Historyday01 (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed.
As a potential compromise, maybe we do not include entire species or classes of being that lack gender or have a gender/sex division outside the "human experience" (in other words, entire classes of being that could be considered nonbinary) on the list while still including specific individuals or characters of said class on the list; for example, the Vessels from Hollow Knight, who are all genderless, would not be collectively included on the list (as "Vessels"), while the Knight and the Hollow Knight, who are specific characters who happen to be Vessels, would be included (as "the Knight" and "the Hollow Knight" respectively) with an explanation of their class of being's lack of gender. This way, we keep the characters who fall outside the binary due to the nature of their class of being on the list, while excluding said entire class of being from the list itself (although I could definitely see a use for the proposed new page to catalogue genderless classes of being or other classes with gender or sex structures "outside the human experience"; to continue my Hollow Knight example, the Vessels as a whole would be described on that page, with the Knight and Hollow Knight in particular also being included here as individuals). After all, we already have this in place for a number of entities; Gaiman's angels/demons, the Gems from Steven Universe, and the Daedric Princes from The Elder Scrolls are all genderless classes of being and not included collectively on the list, but specific examples, such as Aziraphale, Crowley, Boethiah, and the various Gem characters, are.
Under this system, the only major omissions currently on the contended version would be the taronyu from SCP Foundation (a species) and possibly Welcome to Night Vale's angels/Erikas (the Erikas are a bit of a weird case, because there's more than one of them and they seem to be a specific class of being that can gain and most likely lose members, but they canonically share a collective memory and experience and could thus arguably be classified as a single being; I personally lean more towards "class of being" and thus omission at the moment). Aykhot (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've said before, I'm a bit wary of defining it as having to be inside the "human experience" (we'd be arguing what is and isn't a human being) and would rather such entries be described on a page about non-binary characters in fiction (I noted a possible page name earlier in this discussion). While I appreciate your idea, my issue is that it may become too cumbersome for editors to implement, in that it would be often violated, especially by those which haven't been part of this discussion. I have various degrees from various higher educational institutions and your proposal confuses me, as it is hard to wrap my head around it. If it confuses me, then I imagine others may feel similarly. The criteria for this page should be easy to understand, not something people will have to jump through a bunch of hoops to figure out, or think about for ten minutes before they add a character entry. Otherwise people will say Wikipedia is against LGBTQ people, again. Additionally, I think there need to be at least some limits on the page's content, as it could balloon out of control and be hard to manage. As it is, it can be a challenge to maintain it and make sure people are using reliable sources for the entries, even now. I personally think a focus on characters, rather than species/character groups, would still be workable, and allow for most of the entries to remain intact. Historyday01 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the "human experience" thing is probably a poor metric to use, especially considering the fact that so many fictional nonbinary characters are also nonhuman due to the "Non-Human Non-Binary" trope. The way I used it as an example, classes with specific genders or sexes that only apply to them (such as a species with six sexes, for example) would be "outside the human experience", although I don't think that "within the human experience" should be used as a criterion.
The implementation at least as I envisioned it would basically be the same as we have it now, with the context of the character's class of being in the description table if necessary; a human character wouldn't have this context, but an AI character would, for example, since their class of being is relevant to their gender identity. For example, there would not be an entry for "angels and demons, from Good Omens", but there would be entries for Crowley and Aziraphale, with the additional information/description section including the fact that angels and demons collectively lack gender (as it exists in the current article).
Maybe a criterion of "individual characters" rather than "classes of being" could be implemented to make the criteria clearer? Perhaps something like "do not include entire classes of being that are genderless, but individual characters from a genderless class of being may be included"? Aykhot (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, that could work to have entries for Crowley and Aziraphale but not for "angels and demons, from Good Omens". So, something like "do not include entire classes of being that are genderless, but individual characters from a genderless class of being may be included" could work. I think the emphasis should be on individual characters. Historyday01 (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we need to get back to basics, in terms of relying on reliable sources. Entries should only be added if reliable secondary sources (i.e. not the work itself) describe them as non-binary - meaning, they have a gender identity that falls under that umbrella and per sources should not simply be understood as just being 'cisgender' for their species. So, someone would not be included for the simple fact of being a member of a genderless species - and some of the previous entries were justified simply on the basis of being referred to with it/its pronouns - but someone of that sort would be included if a reliable source on LGBT representation in fiction included them as examples of non-binary characters. Crossroads -talk- 20:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem there is that even if an individual would be considered "cisgender" for their genderless or otherwise nonbinary species, they may also be considered nonbinary by their creator, leading to some ambiguity. Take for example the character of Vaarsuvius from The Order of the Stick; Rich Burlew has explicitly stated that Vaarsuvius is genderqueer, thus falling under the nonbinary umbrella. However, he also notes that Vaarsuvius would not consider themselves such, as elves in the OOTS universe have a different concept of gender than humans. By elvish standards, Vaarsuvius would likely not be considered to fall under the nonbinary umbrella, instead being closer to an elvish concept of "cisgender", but by human standards, they would be considered nonbinary and are usually considered such both in-universe by other characters and out-of-universe by readers. There are basically two possible ways to address this: either removing Vaarsuvius from the list, despite their creator explicitly confirming them as falling under the nonbinary umbrella, or keep them on the list, despite the standards of their species not considering them as such. I personally advocate for the latter given that (a, both readers of Wikipedia and the creators of works of fiction are presumably all human and thus consider the gender of nonhuman characters based on human rather than nonhuman concepts of gender, and (b, excluding characters of nonbinary species due to their own species not seeing them as an equivalent to nonbinary has far too much potential to create reader confusion, especially when creators explicitly confirm a character of a nonbinary species who would be considered "cisgender" by their own species' standards as falling under the nonbinary umbrella (Crowley, Aziraphale, Vaarsuvius, etc). Aykhot (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with Aykhot here, although I also agree with the point by Crossroads that we should be using reliable secondary sources or primary sources (i.e. creators / crew) for the entries on the page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would consider this as an analogue to the case I mentioned where a character from a genderless species is included as an example of non-binary-gender representation by a source, just with a primary source instead of secondary. So that would count as a non-binary character. What I'm thinking of is where there is a character that is a member of a genderless species or class of being, and no secondary source describes them as non-binary, trans, or LGBT, and the creator(s) either never refer to the character as such or in passing just say that the species is genderless or has no gender, or whatever, and draws no further connection to trans/non-binary/LGBT classification, effectively making them cisgender. My point is that examples like that should not be included. Crossroads -talk- 23:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the main issue there is that characters from separate genderless species, or even two characters from the same genderless species, could potentially be excluded based on whether or not they were explicitly stated to be nonbinary. If a character is regarded as nonbinary by their creator due to their species either lacking gender as the creator conceived of it or lacking gender entirely, it sets a precedent that characters of genderless species fall under the nonbinary umbrella, as their gender identity stems from that characteristic of their species. Gaiman’s angels/demons and the Vessels, for example, have both been described as genderless, and the genders of named angels/demons and Vessels (Aziraphale, Crowley, the Knight, and the Hollow Knight) thus stem from their species’ genderlessness, so the only real difference between their genders as described is that Neil Gaiman specifically used the word “nonbinary” outside the text, while Team Cherry did not. If we take two characters whose descriptions in their respective works give them more or less equal claim to belonging under the nonbinary umbrella, even using the same language to describe them (especially the term “genderless”), and then include only one because they were explicitly described as nonbinary outside of the work they appear in, that seems to set a precedent that the primary determiner is whether or not the character has been explicitly described as nonbinary, with their actual gender characteristics only factoring in as secondary determiners. Based on that, many of the characters who we would recognize as nonbinary, even human ones or members of species with quote-unquote “typically human” concepts of gender, would be disqualified if they were never referred to as nonbinary either in or out of text.
This has two main problems: firstly, it creates a situation in which casual or normalized inclusion of nonbinary characters (like with a number of minor human characters in Welcome to Night Vale and The Murderbot Diaries) without explicitly stating “they’re nonbinary” disqualifies the character due to their in-universe surroundings being accepting of nonbinary people and thus not considering their nonbinary gender something unusual, which in turn promotes a default worldview where a character’s nonbinary gender is abnormal, character-defining, and something to make a big deal about (which is ultimately not great and kind of dehumanizes real nonbinary people).
Secondly, it means that sources must use a very specific set of words in their descriptions to “qualify” the character, and narrowing the “acceptable” descriptions that “qualify” someone as nonbinary to a limited vocabulary just leaves the definition open to gatekeeping and exclusion (“this character has all the characteristics of a nonbinary person and has even described their gender in vague yet definitely nonbinary terms, but because they didn’t use the word nonbinary/agender/bigender/genderfluid/genderqueer/etc, they don’t count”). This is especially an issue with characters in older works whose authors and contemporaries may not have been aware of or even possessed the vocabulary to describe a nonbinary person; it’s this exact sort of thing that has repercussions in real life as well as in fiction (the whole “James Barry never said he was transgender, therefore he wasn’t trans” crowd). While obviously there is a basic description or definition of what a nonbinary person is as opposed to a cisgender or transgender binary-gendered person, and we shouldn’t necessarily be describing every single person who described themselves or behaved in a vaguely gender non-conforming way as nonbinary or transgender (think Louisa May Alcott, who probably considered herself a woman and is usually considered to be a cisgender woman despite once describing herself as “more than half-persuaded that I am a man's soul put by some freak of nature into a woman's body”), vague or nonspecific descriptions of a gender identity that lies outside the male/female binary, including the phrases “genderless” or “without gender”, should still be understood as describing a nonbinary gender identity, even if they don’t specifically use the exact terms we would use to describe them in our society and time. Narrowing the qualifications to a list of highly specific and in many cases fairly recent labels is essentially a form of gatekeeping based on whether a character is “nonbinary enough”, which again has real-world consequences and promotes the idea that someone has to label themselves a certain way and be performative or specific about their gender in order to be considered nonbinary (which in turn implies again that being nonbinary is something abnormal and character-defining, when it’s really just another characteristic of a person who has other traits beyond their gender).
Basically, I think that excluding or including characters based on the amount of specificity with which their gender identity is described is exclusionary and promotes a default worldview of nonbinary people as abnormal and/or needing to prove that they’re “really” nonbinary in order to be acknowledged as such, so characters described in vague yet definitely nonbinary terms, including the terms “genderless” or “without gender”, should be considered to fall under the broad nonbinary umbrella even if the specific term “nonbinary” or any other microlabels are never used to describe them. Otherwise, nonbinary gender becomes something that needs to be proven via conforming to whatever labels or stereotypes or whatever that others may have of nonbinary people, which just turns a group of gender identities inherently rooted in defying the binary into another part of that binary. Aykhot (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding that seems to set a precedent that the primary determiner is whether or not the character has been explicitly described as nonbinary - well, to some extent that is the point. Wikipedia is based on reliable, WP:Secondary sources. Unlike some other wikis in which editors are allowed to add entries based on the source material directly, we here have to avoid WP:Original research. And those other sites still exist with longer lists; this is just about what we do on this site. And it can't be based on reader interpretation of fictional works.
Regarding concerns about gatekeeping or singling out something as 'abnormal', that's obviously not the intention, but the fact the list exists means that it is noteworthy here and that we need some basis for including a character. And it's just that Wikipedia standards set the bar at external sources from the work itself. That doesn't mean other sites are wrong or less useful to do what they do, but it is the approach we take across topic areas. Fictional works are nothing if not open to interpretation and if an entry is not here it just means the entry didn't meet Wikipedia standards (or nobody thought to add one yet), not that the character is definitively not non-binary. Crossroads -talk- 21:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Historyday01: I understand your point about wanting to avoid debates about what is human. I imagine that could get pretty tedious. What would you think about adding a criteria like: Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings, for example, robots. This would probably necessitate the removal of Neil Gaiman's various angels and demons, as all angels and demons are genderless according to Gaiman. Nosferattus (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nosferattus I'd be ok with that. As I said before, a better place for that content would be a page about non-binary characters in fiction, like the one I mentioned earlier. Historyday01 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing Chara, Frisk, and Kris[edit]

The case of including the Undertale/Deltarune humans has always been shaky in my opinion - Chara and Frisk are sourced to an article where Toby refuses to answer a question about the characters' gender, and Kris is sourced to an article by "Study Breaks", which looks like a clickbait site and in any case only refers to Kris as "gender neutral". But matters on this front have changed with the announcement of a book on the Japanese translation of Undertale, officially licensed and written with input from Toby. Preview images from this book state that Monster Kid, another character in the game that is referred to with they/them pronouns, has no canonical gender. This makes the already weak case for including the humans even weaker - weak enough to warrant removal, I feel, especially considering that the humans are deeply tied up with the player. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know any of those characters, but if the source is shaky, and not reliable, then the entry should be removed. If I had more time, I would be going through such entries myself, but I don't go on here as much as I did before. Historyday01 (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm removing them then and writing in the edit log that people can come to the Talk page if they want to make a case for their inclusion.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good idea. There have been a LOT of discussions on here before about who should, and shouldn't, be included on the page, so thanks for doing that. Historyday01 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a look at the sources in question and agree with the removal. A character's gender being ambiguous is not the same as being non-binary, and although they are called "gender-neutral" by studybreaks.com, this seems to just refer to the ambiguity, not to an explicit non-binariness. Nosferattus (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a couple of objections to this reasoning that I haven't had the time to set down until now:
-First, the book referenced does not state that Monster Kid has no canonical gender; it says that their gender was never specified and that they were designed to have no clear gender. These are two very different things, as nonbinary people (both real and fictional) often present/are designed with the intention that they do not have a clear gender, but that does not mean they lack a (canonical) gender. Additionally, a character can be designed without a specific gender in mind and still have a canonical gender (such as Ellen Ripley in Alien) or inversely be designed with a specific gender in mind while having a different canonical gender as a result of the creator changing their mind on the issue (Vaarsuvius in The Order of the Stick, who according to the creator did originally have a binary gender before reader confusion ended up convincing him to make them canonically genderqueer).
-Second, a work can have characters whose gender is unspecified along with specifically nonbinary characters. The presence of one does not necessarily negate that of the other. In the case of UT/DR, while I don't specifically remember an instance of Monster Kid being referred to with they/them pronouns within the game itself (as far as I'm aware Monster Kid doesn't interact with anybody in-game besides Frisk and Undyne onscreen and Papyrus offscreen), we do have Napstablook, who is referred to with they/them by their cousin Mettaton in Undertale and by both Mettaton and Alphys in the 5th Anniversary alarm clock dialogue. The canonical gender or lack thereof of Napstablook, who is almost certainly nonbinary based on Mettaton's dialogue, does not negate that of Monster Kid, and neither would that of Monster Kid negate that of the humans.
-Third, in regards to the assertion that "the humans are deeply tied up with the player", both games go out of their way to stress that the player is a distinct entity from the humans. In Undertale, a major reveal hinges on the fact that the human depicted in the intro sequence is not the same as the one that the player controls, and even though the player can name the aforementioned intro human, the fact that they have a "true name" (Chara) and are not controlled by the player (in fact, they are even capable of directly overriding the player's actions, as seen at the end of the Genocide Route) reinforces them as a distinct entity. As for Frisk, whose canonical name is confirmed by Asriel and later used by every character that addresses them after its reveal, Flowey, who can break the fourth wall, specifically states that the player and Frisk are separate entities in the sequence one gets when opening the game after completing the True Pacifist Route; he acknowledges the player's ability to perform a true reset and asks the player to "Let Frisk go. Let Frisk live their life." Similarly, in the sequence after finishing the Genocide Route, Chara specifically addresses the player, who is able to respond to dialogue independently of Frisk, as the one responsible for the world's destruction, rather than Frisk. In Deltarune, the separation of player and player character is a major plot point and theme; the vessel the player originally creates is discarded before the player assumes control of Kris (with the statement that "no one can choose who they are in this world"), Kris removes their SOUL (which the player can still control in the epilogue of Chapter 1) at the end of each chapter to perform their own actions, Kris is noticeably disturbed if the player decides to play the Snowgrave route in Chapter 2, and other characters, such as Toriel and Alphys, comment that Kris has been behaving strangely lately (referring to the different mannerisms of Kris when not controlled by the player and the player controlling Kris). Additionally, in the battle against Spamton NEO in the Snowgrave route, the game specifies that Kris calls for Ralsei and Susie's help, while "you" (the player character) call for Noelle, reinforcing that Kris and the player are separate entities. In both games, the player and player character are very distinct, and when they do intersect, the distinction is still emphasized (Kris's reactions to certain actions by the player, the name "Chara" being emphasized as the true name, etc).
Considering this and the fact that every character, including those very close to the humans (Toriel as Kris's mother, Asriel as Chara's brother) and those with fourth-wall knowledge (Flowey post-Pacifist and his dialogue concerning Frisk) specifically refers to the humans with they/them pronouns, I think it makes sense to include the Undertale/Deltarune humans, as long as adequate sources can be found, obviously. Aykhot (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this, I do wish toby or the marketting or something would give us an adequate source though. Would love to have them on this list. its a me mario (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of this is evidence for the characters in question being non-binary rather than having no specified gender. When multiple characters with they/them pronouns are referred to in official media as having their gender be "left unstated", "unstated and unclear", or in the case of Onionsan explicitly saying their gender was "meant to be unclear" all while never, for even a single character, saying they were meant to be nonbinary, we cannot assume such characters are meant to be nonbinary. And then there's the times in Deltarune the party is referred to as "boys and girls"...--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, the presence of characters whose gender is unclear or unspecified does not mean that nonbinary characters cannot appear in the same work. Given the context for each of the characters (the use of they/them by family members in Chara and Kris's cases, who would be likely to have the least ambiguity about their gender, and the use of they/them by a character with meta-knowledge - Flowey - in Frisk's case), their being non-binary is the simplest explanation, even if it's never actually stated. Additionally, just because a character's gender is never explicitly stated in terms familiar to us does not mean their canonical gender cannot be inferred; when a character presents femininely and is referred to with she/her pronouns, for example, it can be reasonably inferred that she is a woman even if she is never explicitly referred to as such, and there usually needs to be clarification that she is not a woman if such is the case (see Janet from The Good Place). The vast majority of minor and background characters and even some primary characters, particularly in visual media, are never referred to as a man or a woman, and yet are inferred to be canonically so from context; it seems a double standard to not also apply this contextual inference to nonbinary characters.
Also, the "boisengirls" line ("THIS IS IT, BOISENGIRLS! SEE YA!") comes from Jevil, who (a, did not know Kris prior to their fight and thus would not be aware of their gender or pronouns, and (b, is canonically insane and thus of dubious accuracy (see any of his dialogue about everyone else being in prison). Given that the Fun Gang is also referred to as "guys" collectively by Lancer, who actually does know them at the time of reference, one could just as easily make the argument that they're all boys, since "guys" is not necessarily inclusive despite generally being used as such. Aykhot (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The core problem is that the argument for said characters being canonically non-binary is essentially "they/them pronouns = non-binary". But an official source, made in close collaboration with Toby, only refers to several of these characters, including Frisk, as having an "unstated gender", when considering the context if they were canonically non-binary it would have been mentioned. Indeed no character in Deltarune or Undertale has ever been confirmed as non-binary inside or outside the games. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that in the case of Deltarune/Undertale that the use of they/them pronouns indicates a character is meant to be non-binary. Also, regarding "boisengirls", that is not the only instance of the party being referred to as "boys and girls" - Lancer refers to them as "boys or girls" at one point.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The argument in favor of their being nonbinary is that characters who would logically know their genders refer to them with they/them; Chara is referred to with they/them by their brother Asriel, Kris by their mother Toriel, and Frisk by Flowey, who has meta-knowledge of the player and their relationship to Frisk (admittedly this is somewhat weaker than the evidence for Kris and Chara, but it's still a reasonable inference). Since all of the humans are canonically and diegetically separate from the player, the explanation that makes the most sense is that they are nonbinary and use they/them pronouns. Also, once again, just because something is not explicitly stated about a character does not mean that thing is not a canonical trait of that character. For example, in Undertale, Alphys dates Undyne, a woman, and is revealed by Mettaton to have a crush on Asgore, a man. This makes Alphys canonically bisexual. The word "bisexual" is never used in-game to refer to Alphys, nor is it ever used to describe her by the creator outside of the game (to my knowledge), but because she displays attraction to multiple genders, she is bisexual regardless of whether or not that word was used to describe her. Even though her exact sexuality is never explicitly stated, it would be false to claim that her sexuality is "unclear" or "unknown", because it can be inferred from the traits she displays in game. Similarly, the humans are never referred to as nonbinary, but because they are referred to in-game by characters who know them with they/them pronouns, the simplest and most logical explanation is that they are nonbinary. If you can think of a better or simpler explanation for why they would be referred to with such in-game, by people who know them, by all means let me know.
As for the Lancer line ("You boys or girls had better turn back while you can"); (a, while he has interacted with the party at that point more than Jevil, Lancer still doesn't actually know the party members that well, as evidenced by the fact that he explicitly stated he didn't know Kris's name slightly before the C Round sequence ("Blue person whose name I neglected to learn all along"); and (b, he specifically uses "boys OR girls" (emphasis mine), which definitely indicates that he doesn't actually know Kris's gender and is just guessing based on Ralsei and Susie's genders (which he does know for Ralsei at the very least, as evidenced by his referring to Ralsei as "kindboy" in the post-Legend sequence - "Stay out of this, kindboy!"). Additionally, since "boys OR girls" is a binary choice, if we were to take that statement as accurate it would mean that either Susie and Kris are both boys or Ralsei and Kris are both girls, both of which are canonically false. Aykhot (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of Oscar, whose androgyny is misinterpreted as non-binary[edit]

I removed Oscar from Rose of Versailles because, firstly, the character's cis gender was never questioned and was even regularly one of the main focuses of manga and anime, and secondly, half of it consisted of original research about her sexuality, not gender identity. In fact, attempts to interpret Oscar as a trans male or non-binary character have been around for a long time, but are always regularly criticized for denying the character's "raised different gender" experience and the feminist message of the original work. As with Utena, this teaches that a woman can successfully fill the same social roles as a man. The thought that Oscar achieves this as a trans man simply destroys it and actually serves the idea that the work itself opposes. All this is not to mention the fact that androgyny and living a stereotypically male lifestyle does not make a woman non-binary. With the same logic, we could consider most butch lesbians and tomboys to be non-binary. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I'm not going to disagree since I only added it originally because it was mentioned on all the other sources, and am fine with it being removed, but I would also like to hear what others have to say. Considering the above discussion on this page (which has been pretty lively in the past year), @User:Nosferattus, @User:Crossroads, and @User:Aykhot, is there anything you would like to add? Historyday01 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, the idea of ​​an Oscar as a trans man makes a lot more sense than a non-binary Oscar. For example, I once read a review comparing her sex with Andre to an "almost BL scene between two men". But this still ignores the fact that the main focus of the manga and anime has always been that Oscar was a female in a male role. If she had not been pioneers and had not appeared even before the foundation of the archetype itself, I would say that Oscar was a classic ikemen onna. Also, I noticed that you were referring to Okazu. Although Erica Friedman discussed this work extensively in yuri (in which the work was incredibly influential, even in a certain context), even she was somewhat surprised when she learned that Amazon was selling an anniversary edition in the queer/trans category. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removal seems good to me. Crossroads -talk- 23:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Solaire the knight: I'm fine with removing her. If any sources describer her as a tomboy, she could be added to List of tomboys in fiction instead. Nosferattus (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there even a separate list for such characters? Well, actually I'm not sure we can describe her as one, because in this context, tomboy isn't as androgynous as she is after all. She is rather a typical ikemen onna or prince-ish girl (aka takarazuka character, just like Sailor Moon's Haruka later), but it will be difficult to write a separate article or list about this archetype. Solaire the knight (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What would such a list be titled? List of androgynous characters, List of ikemen, or something else? But, I have to agree it would be a challenge to write a separate article or list on the archetype. Historyday01 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition of Rue Bennett[edit]

Rue Bennett has been categorized as nonbinary? Klee Bakudan (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, remind me who Rue Bennett is? I'd be fine with including Rue, if there is a reliable source showing Rue is nonbinary (or otherwise falls under the nonbinary umbrella). Historyday01 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://thecinemaholic.com/is-rue-asexual-bisexual-or-lesbian-in-euphoria/
https://64.media.tumblr.com/9a5b662b8f10bbc0ed97fbcef52b0098/67dbf7f4d0f0e48e-8d/s500x750/04a61b3382fe83596200d76c4c42b55d7b3d90ba.jpg
I'm not sure if the second one is reliable enough, but if I can find the original site I'll show you. KaleeBR (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rue Bennett is the narrator and the character focused on by the show. She is played by Zendaya. KaleeBR (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The show is Euphoria. KaleeBR (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of entries[edit]

Recently, @User:Tomorrow and tomorrow removed entries for 19 characters from this page, stating that their removals complied "with inclusion criteria" and argued that "characters where source did not describe as NB (Source saying they/they pronouns does not count as them being NB)" were removed. In another edit, it was claimed that "a non-human genderless entity is not NB regardless of pronouns used to refer to it." I reversed both edits here and here. My edits were reversed with the claims that "being bold isn't a reason to revert an edit, we literally have a guideline encouraging it," that their edits were "enacting an already in place inclusion criteria" and stating I needed to get "consensus for inclusion." Another reversal claimed that it was "unclear if you object to the edits" or if I "didn't realise WP:Be Bold was a thing." I DO realize that Be Bold is a guideline, but the user conveniently ignored this part of the guideline: "if you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to be cautious and find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page." I would argue that this page falls under the "controversial subject" description, as there is a lot of contention about what entries should and shouldn't be added to this page.

The question remains: should the following entries be included in this page? I would argue YES and would argue that some (if not all) meet the inclusion criteria:

Determining whether a character is non-binary: Characters are considered non-binary when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s). Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings, for example, robots. Determining whether a character is eligible: A character is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful.

The addition, but related, question is if the inclusion criteria should be pdated. I've pushed to improve/update it in the past, but I'd be fine with changing it again.

Here are the entries in contention:

Anime and animation

Character Show title Portrayed by Identity Duration Notes
Acid Storm Transformers: Cyberverse Jaime Lamchick Genderfluid 2018–2021 Acid Storm is a Seeker and member of the Decepticons. While initially conceived as male, in the series itself, despite Acid Storm having a female voice actress, the character has often switched back and forth between "male" and "female" Seeker models in episodes 14, 15, 16, and 17. Commenting on this, writer Mae Catt stated that the difference was "just something Acid Storm likes to do."[1]
Bastion The Last Bastion Chris Metzen Agender 2016 A robot in the Overwatch franchise, Bastion was originally developed by Blizzard Entertainment as "agender", with the development team using "it" pronouns for the character.[2] This pronoun was used up until the release of Overwatch 2, when Blizzard switched to he/him pronouns for Bastion on their official website listing for the character.[3][4]
Courtney Dead End: Paranormal Park Emily Osment Non-binary 2022 Series creator Hamish Steele said that Courtney is not "aware of gender in any way" and cannot be misgendered, noting that all pronouns were used in production. He added that he uses they/them for Courtney, but that Netflix persuaded them to use the pronouns of the person cast for Courtney's voice role (Emily Osment), which are she/her.[5][6]
Korvo Solar Opposites Justin Roiland Genderless 2020–present Korvo is an intelligent alien scientist who hates Earth and wants to leave as soon as possible, while Terry is his evacuation partner. In March 2021, series creators Justin Roiland and Mike McMahan confirmed that both are a romantic couple in a committed relationship.[7] Roiland also described Korvo and Terry as genderless aliens which asexually reproduce but are not asexual.[8]
Terry Solar Opposites Thomas Middleditch Genderless 2020–present Terry is a Pupa specialist fascinated with human culture and the evacuation partner of Korvo. In March 2021, series creators Justin Roiland and Mike McMahan confirmed that both are a romantic couple in a committed relationship.[7] Roiland also described Korvo and Terry as genderless aliens which asexually reproduce but are not asexual.[8]


Books, print comics, and manga

Character Title Author Identity Year Notes
Aziraphale Good Omens Terry Pratchett

Neil Gaiman

Non-binary 1990 The book mentions that Aziraphale is perceived as a gay man and that this is incorrect because angels are sexless.[9] Neil Gaiman specified that this meant that he has no gender identity, despite pretending to be a human male most times.[10]
Desire The Sandman Neil Gaiman Genderfluid 1989–2015 Desire is the personification of desire itself. Desire is both male and female, because the character represents everything someone might desire.[11] Desire is called "sister-brother" or "sibling" by their siblings and "uncle-aunt" by their nephew Orpheus.
The Sibling Rhythm of War, fourth volume of The Stormlight Archive Brandon Sanderson Ambiguous 2020 The powerful spren, or magic spirit, that suffuses and powers the tower-city of Urithiru. Unlike most sapient spren on the world of Roshar, the Sibling does not view themselves as male or female, and characters refer to it with they/them pronouns. Their voice is described as having an ambiguous tone which fits neither gender.[12]

Live-action television

Character Show title Portrayed by Identity Year Notes
Aziraphale Good Omens Michael Sheen Non-binary 2019 In the show's context, book co-author and series writer Neil Gaiman considers all angels and demons to be non-binary,[13] and cast all such roles gender-blind.
Crowley Good Omens David Tennant Non-binary 2019 In the show's context, book co-author and series writer Neil Gaiman considers all angels and demons to be non-binary,[13] and cast all such roles gender-blind. The demon Crowley, specifically, is shown to change gender presentations over time.[14]
Janet The Good Place D'Arcy Carden Genderless 2016–2020 A non-human, genderless entity who uses she/her pronouns. Janet corrects other characters who attempt to gender her by saying she is "not a girl".[15]


Video games

Character Game Voice actor Identity Year Notes
Quina Quen Final Fantasy IX — Agender 2000 In a genderless race called the Qu. Also uses she/he pronouns throughout the game.[16]
WX-78 Don't Starve — Non-binary 2013–present A former human who transferred their mind into a robot. Referred to by they/them pronouns in-game in both Don't Starve and Don't Starve Together, as well as in official materials for the latter;[17] before 2015, WX-78 was referred to by it/its pronouns.

Webcomics

Character Title Author Identity Year Notes
Caliban Aurora Red Non-binary 2019–present The Ignan god Caliban uses he/him, she/her, and they/them pronouns.[18]
Life Aurora Red Non-binary 2019–present The primordial elemental entity Life uses she/her and they/them pronouns.[18]
Void Dragon Aurora Red Non-binary 2019–present The primordial entity known as the Void Dragon uses he/him and they/them pronouns.[18]


Other

Character Title Author Identity Year Notes
Murph Nerf Nerf, The Martin Agency Non-binary 2022 The mascot of the Nerf toy weaponry company, with a body composed entirely of foam darts, uses they/them pronouns.[19][20]
Nine 17776 Jon Bois Non-binary 2017 A fictional depiction of the Pioneer 9 space probe. Bois also considered including a non-binary human character, but was unable to do so "completely matter-of-factly".[21]
Tala Hertfordshire Public Library system Emma Phillips and Eva Povey Non-binary 2022 A "bright, vibrant" alien who is referred to with they/them pronouns and serves as the new mascot of the Hertfordshire library system, replacing Bookstart Bear.[22]

Considering your previous comments in previous related discussions, @Crossroads, @Nosferattus, @Bilorv, @Aykhot, @Eldomtom2, @Solaire the knight your comments here would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have any strong opinions on most of these characters, though things like referring to Bastion as "agender" in quotation marks when the devs haven't used that term is definitely dubious. A core problem with this page that I see is that its focus is far too indiscriminate - we can hardly list every fictional non-binary character.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps. I don't have strong opinions on most of these characters either. And surely, the focus can be broad, but I do think there has been good progress in the "RFC about inclusion of Loki (MCU)" (2021-2022), "Scope" (2022), "Removing Chara, Frisk, and Kris" (2022-2023), and "Removal of Oscar, whose androgyny is misinterpreted as non-binary" (2023) discussions, which has resulted in a narrower scope than before. I think there should balance between being somewhat broad while making it clear we can't list every fictional non-binary character, as you rightly point out. Historyday01 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I favor removing robots and things like "primordial entities", basically anything that is anthropomorphized rather than anthropomorphic. Does that make sense? This list is going to get extremely long in the coming years, so it makes sense for us to narrow its scope and keep it focused on human (or nearly-human) characters, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair and makes sense. Korvo and Terry are aliens, as is Tala. Acid Storm is a robot (a Decepticon) as is Bastion and WX-78 . Life and Void Dragon in Aurora are primordial entities. I think Nine in 17776 is a robot. Not really sure about Murph (sort of an alien? in any case, not human). Quina Quen would fall under us not including "genderless species or class of beings." Aziraphale and Crowley are gods, Janet is a genderless entity, as is The Sibling, Desire, Aziraphale (another version).
I believe the only one which may qualify under what you are proposing is Courtney in Dead End, who MAY have humanish characteristics.
Would you support this changed inclusion criteria? I streamlined it a bit, and I wanted to make it more clear, so there is no confusion in the future:

Determining whether a character is non-binary: Characters are considered non-binary, genderqueer, or any of terms under the non-binary umbrella (including agender, bigender, trigender, pangender, demigender, xenogender, or two-spirit) when either a reliable source identifies them as such, or it is confirmed explicitly by the character's creator(s).
Determining whether a character is eligible: A character is eligible for this list if the character or work they appear in is notable, specifically if the character is a main or recurring character. This is meant to keep the list meaningful and useful. Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings, for example, robots, or are primordial entities. Only include characters with anthropomorphic qualities (i.e. human or nearly human characters), not those which are anthropomorphized.
Historyday01 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: I am rethinking the above proposal and will purpose a new one later, as I note in a below comment.Historyday01 (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the issue with this is that a robot/nonhuman entity's baseline gender, especially those entities shared between works, is typically dependent on the work that they're from - angels might be nonbinary by default in the Good Omens universe, for example, but not so in the Ultrakill universe, or the Supernatural universe, etc. This can even apply to individual characters or entities, especially those in the public domain or those that have multiple conflicting adaptations - Nyarlathotep, for example, might be treated as male in one work, genderfluid in another, and genderless in a third. Excluding broad categories of nonhuman entities, especially ones whose baseline gender expression varies from work to work, seems overly strict to me, and ignores the fact that in many (indeed, most) cases nonhuman entities can have a binary gender identity (to use an example from the deleted characters, Caliban from Aurora is a nonbinary deity, but they coexist with numerous other deities that appear to have binary genders, such as Vash, Tahraim, Gleicann, Lady Ilia, Tynan, and Zuurith; for another example, elves from The Order of the Stick have different cultural views on gender than humans, as exemplified by the character Vaarsuvius being considered genderqueer by the author despite not viewing themselves as such, but there are still elf characters with binary genders, such as Lirian, Veldrina, and Zz'dtri). Additionally, a category of nonhuman entities being nonbinary by default does not necessarily mean that they cannot have a gender identity distinct from their category's baseline, and "nonbinary by default" does not necessarily mean "monogendered by default"; ghosts from Undertale, for example, are treated as nonbinary by default but can apparently experience dysphoria and transition to a binary gender (Napstablook, "Hapstablook", and Mad Dummy are all referred to neutrally, but when the latter two become Mettaton and Mad Mew Mew respectively, they are consistently referred to with binary pronouns).
Since there's no real way to distinguish between an "individually nonbinary" nonhuman and a "default nonbinary" nonhuman without having the context not only for their class of nonhumans but for the work they're from, and "nonbinary by default" isn't a clear criterion anyways (does a species with more than two sexes, like the five-sexed Tralfamadorians from Slaughterhouse-Five, count? One that has binary genders or sexes but that switches between them, like the inhabitants of Gethen in The Left Hand of Darkness? One that universally accepts nonbinary gender identities, like witches in The Owl House?), I would err on the less strict side and include nonhuman beings, although I agree that it would make sense to differentiate nonbinary classes of being from individual characters somehow. Is there a way to create sub-subcategories, so that each medium's subsection could have a "nonhuman" section beneath the main section (so the live-action TV section might have a "humanoid" section that includes Jim Jimenez from Our Flag Means Death followed by a "non-humanoid" section that includes Crowley, Aziraphale, Beelzebub, and other angels/demons from Good Omens, for example)? This would probably need a bit more refinement before actual implementation, as well as a working definition as to what exactly constitutes non-humanoid nonbinary, but I think it would solve some of the debates about whether certain characters qualify, and it seems simpler than just creating a separate article, which would probably result in even more confusion. Aykhot (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with proposal to Only include characters with anthropomorphic qualities (i.e. human or nearly human characters), not those which are anthropomorphized, which I think would support almost all the removals above. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's... the opposite of what I said, but since you're the one who made the removals to begin with, I'm not surprised. Do you have a reason for not including nonhumanoid characters? Aykhot (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I am rethinking the proposal (I have withdrawn it, for now) based on your comment, and will reply more in detail later. I didn't expect there would be two diametrically opposed views and was perhaps too hasty with the proposal. I'll propose a new one tomorrow. Historyday01 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aykhot sorry, I agreeing with @Historyday01's original proposal, I realise that wasn't what you said. I was using the reply tool and that sometimes doesn't put responses in the most logical spot.
Though in response to Do you have a reason for not including nonhumanoid characters? yes, because otherwise I think we go down the path of including a whole range of nonhuman entities on the basis that "they don't have a gender therefore they are NB" when infact they don't have a gender because they are a robot/angel/god/dragon/alien/anthropomorphized version of the Pioneer 9 space probe. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I can understand that reasoning, as I've argued before (in the "Scope" section of this page), any nonhuman character will be interpreted from a human perspective due to the fact that only humans are creating or interpreting them, and as a result of this characters that might be "cisgender" for their species might still be considered nonbinary by their creators, by associated or derivative works, by other characters in the same work, or by the people who consume that work (see Neil Gaiman labeling angels in the Good Omens show as nonbinary, for example). Additionally, a lot of nonbinary characters, particularly in older works, are nonhuman precisely because having a nonbinary human would have been labelled as unbelievable or pandering, and in a lot of cases "these beings don't work the same as humans" is a justification for representation via proxy when it might not be safe or profitable to represent actual nonbinary human beings (alternatively, a nonbinary character might be nonhuman because of authorial bigotry, or their non-humanity might be unrelated to their being nonbinary). If we don't include nonhuman characters, this can result in a situation where being explicitly labeled as nonbinary by the creator is still not enough to warrant inclusion, which is unnecessarily confusing and seems to directly contradict previously established guidelines. Aykhot (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be a problem. And its why I am planning on posting new possible guidelines for consideration on here either today or tomorrow (whenever I have time). Historyday01 (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aykhot do you have source for a lot of nonbinary characters, particularly in older works, are nonhuman precisely because having a nonbinary human would have been labelled as unbelievable or pandering, and in a lot of cases "these beings don't work the same as humans" is a justification for representation via proxy when it might not be safe or profitable to represent actual nonbinary human beings? or this: a nonbinary character might be nonhuman because of authorial bigotry?
Furthermore, even if this is true it doesn't have an impact on whether they should be included. Our purpose on Wikipedia is not to take a broad (arguably inaccurate) view of nonbinaryness in order to create "representation", it is to document what reliable factual sources say, and a tweet saying that an entire class/species in a fictional work is genderless does not mean that each individual can be listed as a "Non-binary character". That is what the vast majority of these removals were about. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some sources commenting on the ubiquity of the trope:
[1]https://parasomniac.home.blog/2021/06/09/why-are-so-many-non-binary-characters-not-human/
[2]https://theafictionado.wordpress.com/2023/01/26/otherworldly-bodies-non-human-non-binary-characters-in-ya-fiction/
[3]https://electricliterature.com/we-need-more-non-binary-characters-who-arent-aliens-robots-or-monsters/
[4]https://www.cbr.com/non-binary-alien-trope-problematic/
As for the second statement, "nonbinary" is already a broad term as it is, as this very article acknowledges in the description (and for that matter, "nonbinary" is literally just any gender identity that isn't exclusively man or woman; it literally means "not having a binary gender"). There isn't a way to take a "strict view" of nonbinariness, since it's an umbrella term defined against two very specific things and encompassing literally every gender identity that isn't either of those two things. And to address your claim that the "vast majority" of removals were due to the characters originating from a genderless species, let's take a look at the removed characters:
Acid Storm: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species (Cybertronians have binary-gendered members and are not genderless, and in fact, the vast majority of known Cybertronians have a binary gender - see Optimus Prime, Bumblebee, Megatron, etc).
Bastion: Agender robot, but not described as "genderless", unless we're using the terms equivalently (which, at least based on previous discussion, we're not).
Courtney: "Not aware of gender", but not a member of a genderless species (Danny, a fallen angel of the same class of angel as Courtney, is male, as is Fingers, an angel of a different type).
Korvo (and Terry): Explicitly described as genderless.
Aziraphale (book version): Explicitly described as genderless.
Desire: Not a member of a genderless species nor genderless themself, as they are genderfluid and have siblings with binary genders (Destiny, Dream, and Destruction are men, while Death, Delirium, and Despair are women).
The Sibling: Not a member of a genderless species, as it is unique or unusual among spren for not having a binary gender.
Aziraphale and Crowley (show versions): Explicitly described by the author as nonbinary (as opposed to the book versions, who are described as genderless).
Janet: Described as genderless, although I can't actually find the source for that; presumably it's in an episode of the actual show somewhere, but it's worth noting that she's referred to as nonbinary by other sources.
Quina Quen: Explicitly described as genderless.
WX-78: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species, as they're originally human and essentially a very advanced cyborg rather than a true robot.
Caliban: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species, as other gods in the setting have genders (Vash, Zuurith, Tynan, Ilia, Tahraim, Gleicann, etc).
Life (and the Void Dragon): Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species (as these two seem to have different genders from one another - it seems likely that all primordials are nonbinary, but each one is nonbinary in their own way that goes beyond mere genderlessness).
Murph: Never described as genderless (they are described as having "no set sex or gender", which is not the same as being genderless) and the only known representative of their species.
Nine: Neither described as genderless nor from a genderless species (as Ten and Juice evidently have different genders and pronouns from both one another and from Nine).
Tala: Never described as genderless (they are described as "neither male nor female") and the only known representative of their species.
So of the 19 characters that were removed, 5 were described as genderless and 14 were never described as genderless (in fact, of those 14, 8 are explicitly from species with multiple genders), so clearly genderlessness is not what "the vast majority of these removals were about". Aykhot (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"ghosts from Undertale, for example, are treated as nonbinary by default" - wrong. As stated by official sources, they are treated as having an "unstated" gender by default.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, the fact that their genders are clearly able to be inferred from the way their relatives address them (Napstablook is the most prominent example of this, but "Hapstablook"/pre-transition Mettaton, Mad Dummy/pre-transition Mad Mew Mew, and even the dummy in the Ruins are all characters whose genders are known to their cousins and thus inferable from the way said cousins address them) means that their genders are not unknown despite not being explicitly stated, and the facts that all known ghosts are addressed neutrally (barring Mettaton and Mad Mew Mew, but as noted they were both referred to neutrally pre-transition) and the two that transitioned specifically had to transition to either binary gender points towards their being some flavor of nonbinary by default. "Unstated" ≠ "unknown". Aykhot (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When an official source discussing the translation of their pronouns only says that Napstablook has an "unstated" gender, treating they/them pronouns as proof of a character being nonbinary is OR.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if a character is never explicitly described as a woman but indicated in every other conceivable way to be one (feminine presentation, she/her pronouns, portrayed by a woman, the absence of any evidence indicating she's not a woman, etc), we can't treat this as proof of her being a woman according to this logic. The same goes for men - masculine presentation, he/him pronouns, portrayal by a man, and the absence of evidence to the contrary are all apparently not enough for a fictional character to be considered a man, he has to be specifically referred to as a man to count. You and I both know that's not how it works, and calling it "original research" when nonbinary characters are treated the same way is a double standard. Aykhot (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again I have to repeat myself - the official book discussing the translation of Undertale discusses the translation of Napstablook's pronouns, and in doing so rather than saying Napstablook is non-binary says they have an "unstated" gender. Since unlike she/her pronouns and (nowadays) he/him pronouns, they/them pronouns are used in more contexts than just referring to non-binary people, this indicates that assuming Napstablook is canonically non-binary is incorrect.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And again I must repeat myself - unstated ≠ unknown. The context in which Napstablook's pronouns are used is one in which their being nonbinary is the only reasonable explanation. It doesn't matter that there are other contexts for they/them use (the main ones I can think of are reference to a nonbinary person, to a person whose gender is unknown, misgendering a binary trans person, multiple individuals sharing a body, and as a generic pronoun), because none of those contexts are relevant to Napstablook's situation (it can't be generic because Napstablook is an individual, there's no indication that they're more than one person, and as discussed, the context of familial usage indicates it isn't misgendering or lack of knowledge). I once again ask if you have a simpler/more reasonable explanation for the use of they/them pronouns by close family members than the character referred to being nonbinary, because if so, I would love to hear it.
Also, she/her and he/him pronouns are also used in more contexts then referring to women and men respectively; besides the existence of nonbinary people who use either or both set of pronouns, she/her pronouns are used for ships, countries, and other inanimate objects, he/him was historically used as a generic or neutral pronoun (as you mentioned; further confusing matters here are authors who, in response to longstanding usage of generic he/him, use generic she/her), and he/him and she/her are used to refer to male and female animals respectively. They/them isn't unique in this regard. If we can take an instance of she/her and deduce from context that the usage is referring to a woman instead of a ship or an animal, why can't we use context to deduce they/them is referring to a nonbinary person? Once again, it's a double standard. Aykhot (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry "them being nonbinary is the only reasonable explanation" is OR, plain and simple. Yes, unstated ≠ unknown, but in the context of a fictional work unstated does meant unknown unless the character's gender is stated elsewhere, which in this case it isn't. Fictional works can and do have characters who do not have confirmed genders without this meaning they are canonically nonbinary. As they/them pronouns are neutral and can be applied to men and women, the use of them to refer to a character of unstated gender, while somewhat unrealistic (not that dialogue in fiction is often realistic), does not indicate the character is meant to be canonically nonbinary, at least in a case like this where official sources could have referred to them as nonbinary but did not. This last point you keep ignoring - why wouldn't the officially licensed book on Undertale's translation, made in close collaboration with Toby Fox, say Napstablook was nonbinary if they were intended to be canonically nonbinary?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So based on this logic, inferring that a character whose gender is never stated has a binary gender based on context is also original research, and thus characters who are never referred to as "men", "women", "guys", "girls", or other synonyms but that display every other indication of being either a man or a woman have "unknown genders". However, that's not how it works in practice, is it? If we're going to apply the "explicitly labeled as such" standard, we need to either apply it to all fictional characters regardless of gender, which would likely eliminate a number of characters from various lists and necessitate the editing of articles referencing them to reflect the fact that their gender is technically never stated, or don't apply it at all and allow labeling based on context clues. To apply it to some demographics but not others is a double standard, which is something you've failed to address.
The reason Napstablook's gender is listed as "unstated" in the translation book is because their gender is never explicitly stated. This does NOT mean that their gender is unknown. Things in fiction can be true without a character or creator ever explicitly stating them. For example, in The Dark Knight, Joker reveals himself to be wearing a number of grenades underneath his jacket when in a meeting with Gotham's underworld bosses; while none of the characters in the scene explicitly state "if we kill him he'll blow us all up", it's obvious from context that this is his message. For another example, in Hollow Knight, in one piece of dreamnail dialogue Zote the Mighty thinks to himself, "I'll kill a thousand more... Will that be enough, father?" From this, it is clear that Zote has relationship issues of some sort with his father, even though nobody explicitly stated this. For yet another example, in the Dracula novel, Jonathan Harker overhears Dracula commanding the three vampire women to "wait" and "have patience" outside his door, proclaiming that "To-morrow night, to-morrow night is yours!" From this, it is obvious that Dracula is about to feed on Jonathan, but at no point is this explicitly stated in the novel (the closest we get is in an American edition, in which the line is "tonight is mine, tomorrow night is yours!"). For yet another example, see my earlier example of Alphys's bisexuality, which is never explicitly stated and yet demonstrated to be canonical. Asking why Toby never explicitly labelled Napstablook as nonbinary is like asking why he never explicitly labelled Alphys as bisexual, or Bram Stoker why he never explicitly stated Jonathan was fed on by Dracula, or Team Cherry why they never explicitly stated Zote had father issues, or Christopher Nolan why he never had the Joker explicitly state he was going to blow up the bosses' meeting place - because it's unnecessary to explicitly state those things when they've already been clearly indicated and/or implied, and oftentimes, implication, indication, and other indirect forms of providing information are more effective storytelling devices than explicitly stating information. "Show, don't tell" is a writing guideline for a reason.
Finally, the reference to Napstablook was not meant to be the main point of the initial argument - I was using Undertale ghosts as an example of a nonbinary or monogendered species that can have genders different from the baseline of that species. If my using Napstablook and their family really detracts from the argument that much, just mentally replace the references to them with 82 White Chain and the angels of Kill Six Billion Demons, where angels are male-presenting nonbinary by default but White Chain exclusively identifies as female, or Cheery Littlebottom and the dwarves of Discworld, who traditionally all identified as male for cultural reasons and discriminate against Cheery for being openly female. Hopefully that should make the actual, original argument easier to swallow. Aykhot (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The reason Napstablook's gender is listed as "unstated" in the translation book is because their gender is never explicitly stated". I'm sorry, by your own logic this doesn't work. The only characters the translation book refers to as having an "unstated" gender are those with they/them pronouns. So if it is a double standard, it's a double standard officially approved by Toby Fox. "Show, don't tell" applies to works of fiction - not non-fiction books about the translation of works of fiction.
I also know Napstablook wasn't the main point, but I wasn't interested in arguing the main point.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Toby Fox never explicitly stating the genders of characters with they/them pronouns is not the double standard here. That happens all the time even with the best and most explicit of intentions, as the current focus of this talk page proves. The double standard is when characters with unstated but implicit genders are treated as having unknown genders, which gets applied almost exclusively to nonbinary characters; a character whose gender is never stated but is contextually a man or woman will almost always be treated as such, whereas one who is contextually nonbinary gets labelled as "of unknown gender". Toby Fox never said their genders were unknown, just unstated, which as discussed above are not synonymous terms. As the creator, in this case it's actually impossible for him to engage with the double standard without removing it, since if he makes a statement either way the whole issue ceases to apply to the relevant characters; his explicitly confirming that a character is either nonbinary or of unknown gender would remove the double standard, but since all he's said is that their gender is "unstated", he's not approving it, he's simply not engaging with it at all.
You're correct that "show, don't tell" doesn't apply to nonfiction, but since the nonfiction in question deals with the issue of translating Napstablook's pronouns and not the context in which those pronouns are used, it doesn't actually provide us with information that contradicts or changes said context. There isn't anything to tell in the translation book besides "Napstablook uses they/them pronouns and has never had their gender explicitly stated", which does not contradict or supersede the actual game showing the context for that character. Aykhot (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a difference between a work of fiction not stating a character's gender and a non-fiction work about that work of fiction explicitly stating a character's gender is unstated. You keep dancing around the question of "why wouldn't the translation book say Napstablook was non-binary if that was the intent?". What would you take as evidence that a character referred to with they/them pronouns is not canonically non-binary beyond an official statement.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither Toby Fox nor the translation book has an obligation to elaborate on Napstablook outside the place where they're relevant to the topic of discussion, that is, translating their pronouns. The question is, "why would the translation book say Napstablook was nonbinary", since it's their pronouns specifically that are relevant and not the gender-indicating context of those pronouns. It's simply not relevant to the topic at hand, unlike in the game itself, where their gender, and those of ghosts more broadly, is relevant enough to be contextually indicated and contrasted with those of their cousins.
If a character is referred to with they/them pronouns in a context that indicates their being nonbinary (familial usage, in this case), beyond an explicit statement either in or out of universe to the contrary, a good criterion would be a usage that both contextually indicates otherwise and invalidates the former indications. For example, if a character is referred to with they/them pronouns by a family member but later revealed to be multiple people in the same body, or a fake family member whose gender legitimately is unknown by the referents, or some kind of memory-altering doppelganger a la the (ironically named for this discussion) Not-Them from The Magnus Archives, that would be context that negates the earlier indication. Aykhot (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The translation book could just have said that Napstablook is referred to with they/them pronouns. Instead it refers to them as having an unstated gender and links this to the use of they/them pronouns. So no, I really don't see a reason why the book would have said their gender is unstated instead of being nonbinary if Napstablookk was meant to be canonically nonbinary.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whew. Your arguments and that of Aykhot are so different that I'm not sure I can reconcile them. As such, the edit notice should stay the same, for now. Even so, this discussion is still important nonetheless. Historyday01 (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spot-checking four of these, the removals were absolutely correct. A source needs to say that a character is non-binary (or in rare cases some strict subset of the category) for them to be non-binary. They/them pronouns is not enough. Inclusion of these entries in the list is synthesis. The secondary sources in some entries mean that the gender should be commented on at a "List of characters" page or an article about the character or show. The tweets are typically worthless.
Historyday01's actions were completely wrong, opposing the edits on mistaken bureaucratic notions rather than contesting the reason for removal. This sort of behaviour makes these topic areas toxic as editors are reverted just for the sake of someone reverting them. Don't revert unless you can be accountable as to why these entries should be included. — Bilorv (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree thoroughly with your argument. Secondly, I only reversed each of their edits ONE time and didn't even get in an edit war (I used to do that in the past, but do NOT do that anymore, as I've learned). I fully and completely stand by my reversals. And as I half-expected, this turned into a discussion, which is a positive. I did NOT contest the reason for the removal because I was hoping that the reason for the removal could be more fully explained in this discussion (and it appears it has, and I'm working to come up with a compromise between all the perspectives to propose new language to the edit notice). I have to say, your comment is very unhelpful and almost verges on a personal attack. I'm surprised (and disappointed) to see this comment from you. I would not say my reversals (I only did two, and no more, no less) are "toxic." I don't own this page and I'm not acting like a bureaucrat. In fact, I don't even have any role in what some call the bureaucracy on this site. I'm just an editor like everyone else. I'm not going to fight over whether something should be included or not through an edit war. That would be a waste of everyone's time. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Catt, Mae [@MaeCatt] (December 21, 2018). "That's just something Acid Storm likes to do. #Cyberverse #AcidStorm" (Tweet). Archived from the original on February 8, 2020. Retrieved May 7, 2019 – via Twitter.
  2. ^ Chu, Michael [@westofhouse] (October 29, 2017). "Bastion does not have a gender. We use "it."" (Tweet). Retrieved April 3, 2023 – via Twitter.
  3. ^ "Bastion - Heroes - Overwatch (September 30, 2022 archive)". playoverwatch.com. Blizzard Entertainment. Archived from the original on September 30, 2022.
  4. ^ "Bastion - Heroes - Overwatch (October 5, 2022 archive)". overwatch.blizzard.com. Blizzard Entertainment. Archived from the original on October 5, 2022.
  5. ^ Steele, Hamish [@hamishsteele] (June 26, 2022). "I've personally never seen Courtney as someone aware of gender in any way. You can't misgender them. In production we used all pronouns pretty evenly and casually. The characters start using "she" but Courtney doesn't care either way. I still use they/them mostly" (Tweet). Archived from the original on July 6, 2022. Retrieved July 6, 2022 – via Twitter.
  6. ^ O'Connell, E (June 27, 2022). "Dead End: Paranormal Park Creator On Why Courtney's Pronouns Changed". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on February 19, 2023. Retrieved February 27, 2023.
  7. ^ a b Kleinman, Jake (March 27, 2021). "Are Terry and Korvo a couple in Solar Opposites?". Inverse. Archived from the original on April 7, 2021.
  8. ^ a b Roiland, Justin [@JustinRoiland] (September 12, 2015). "@kopparnickels reproduce solo" (Tweet) (in Spanish). Archived from the original on May 19, 2021. Retrieved January 24, 2022 – via Twitter.
  9. ^ Pratchett, Terry; Gaiman, Neil (1990). Good Omens. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.
  10. ^ Gaiman, Neil [@neilhimself] (July 10, 2019). "@thelarkspurr @spacelesbian7 According to the book, angels and demons are sexless. They don't have genders. I've been very happy to describe it as a love story, because that's what I wrote. I'm not going to describe them as gay men because whatever they are, they aren't that" (Tweet). Archived from the original on January 8, 2022. Retrieved January 24, 2022 – via Twitter.
  11. ^ Jackman, Josh (July 14, 2017). "Meet DC's incredible new genderfluid superhero". PinkNews. Archived from the original on February 14, 2020. Retrieved October 3, 2020.
  12. ^ Sanderson, Brandon (2018). "Skyward Pre-Release AMA" (Online). Interviewed by u/UppityDarkeyes. Retrieved November 13, 2022.
  13. ^ a b Gaiman, Neil [@neilhimself] (July 14, 2019). "Happy International Non-Binary People's Day! Love from me, And from all the angels and demons in Good Omens and one of the Horsepeople of the Apocalypse. https://t.co/4kegSJQHyn" (Tweet). Archived from the original on November 2, 2021. Retrieved January 24, 2022 – via Twitter.
  14. ^ "You know what Good Omens does NOT get enough credit for? How it never, not once, makes gender presentation the butt of a joke..." Neil Gaiman's Official Tumblr. June 27, 2019. Archived from the original on September 2, 2019. Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  15. ^ "'The Good Place' Takes Gender-Bending to a Whole New Level". The Advocate. 2018-12-07. Archived from the original on December 8, 2018. Retrieved 2019-09-12.
  16. ^ Winkie, Luke (April 19, 2014). "From a pink dinosaur to "Gay Tony": The evolution of LGBT video game characters". Archived from the original on October 27, 2022. Retrieved January 1, 2023.
  17. ^ "WX-78 Refresh Now Available On Steam!". Steam. April 28, 2022. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
  18. ^ a b c "Characters". Official Aurora Website. WordPress. Archived from the original on December 28, 2022. Retrieved January 1, 2023.
  19. ^ @MurphFromNerf (June 23, 2022). "Ok Twitter, I'm here now. I had foam-o" (Tweet). Archived from the original on June 23, 2022. Retrieved October 19, 2022 – via Twitter.
  20. ^ Givens, Billy (June 20, 2022). "Nerf Has a Nightmarish New Mascot Named Murph". IGN. Archived from the original on June 25, 2022. Retrieved October 19, 2022.
  21. ^ Bois, Jon (24 July 2017). "17776: Questions and Answers". SBNation. Archived from the original on November 3, 2020. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
  22. ^ "Introducing Tala – a new character to inspire the newest generation of visitors to Hertfordshire's libraries". Hertfordshire Public Library system. Archived from the original on October 9, 2022. Retrieved January 1, 2023.

Adding back characters who were deleted off the article[edit]

When I was looking at the earlier talk pages, I noticed characters such as Aziraphale, Crowley, Korvo, Terry, and Acid Storm, who were previously on the list before, were deleted. I can see why people think they don't fit the criteria for this list, but these characters are non-binary because they really don't have a determined gender inside the gender binary. With these characters' lack of gender in the binary, they can have the decision to choose their gender and pronouns, like Aziraphale, Korvo, and Terry choosing he/him, and Crowley and Acid Storm changing between genders. I would also like to point out Loki, who doesn't think he has a gender or orientation, and changes between male and female forms, like Crowley. Another example is the character Garnet from Steven Universe, who is a fusion of characters Ruby and Sapphire, who are sexless, but female presenting. Garnet goes by she/her pronouns by characters in the show, like Krovo and Terry going by he/him pronouns by other characters, and creator Rebecca Sugar stated that "the Gems are all non-binary women," which includes Garnet, and her friends, Amethyst and Pearl. And just like Aziraphale and Crowley, Garnet is human presenting. One last character who is one the list I want to point out is Nightshade from Transformers: Earthspark. They're a Transformer, like Acid Storm, and tells Optimus Prime they go by they/them pronouns, stating that "he or she just doesn't fit who [they are]". Seeing that Loki, Garnet, and Nightside are on the list, I think the deleted entries should be added back in. FeministDisneyDragon (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In part, I can say that I got rid of characters on the list because of discussions on here. As it stands now, as long as the character meets the inclusion criteria (listed at the top of this page), then it should have an entry. Historyday01 (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the criteria, it states "Do not include characters that belong to a genderless species or class of beings", but all of the gem characters in Steven Universe is sexless, which is a synonym for genderless. The word non-binary can be defined as a gender identity that does not conform to the male/female gender binary, and genderless is can be defined as not having, not suggesting or not identifying as (= considering yourself to have) a particular gender to the male/female gender binary. This further proves my reasoning to add back the previous deleted entries and to add other genderless characters on the list. FeministDisneyDragon (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding Ed to Paranatural?[edit]

One of the main characters, Ed, has recently(Chapter 8 Page 36) been confirmed in-comic to be non-binary, and uses they/them, with occasional he/him. However, a quick google yields nothing but fansites and the comic itself. Is the comic itself sufficient citation to add them, or should we wait for an article or something to come out? PiddleAndTwiddle (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we can wait for an article. Historyday01 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are they/them pronouns and/or neopronouns enough (on their own) to say a character is non-binary?[edit]

Hello all. As you all know they/them pronouns are often used as appropriate pronouns by people who are non-binary, genderqueer, or other individuals under the non-binary umbrella. Some use neopronouns like ze/hir, fae/faer, ey/em. My question is simple: are such pronouns, on their own, enough to say that a character falls under the non-binary umbrella (i.e. is non-binary, genderqueer, etc.)? Or are more secondary and /or primary sources needed?

Your thoughts would be appreciated. My proposal would be adding a third point to the inclusion criteria to address this issue. My main interest is ensuring the page is a better resource for users. I wish last year's discussion (ending on Sept. 20) hadn't got so heated, resulting in an unclear consensus by the end, at least from what I could tell. But, my hope is that through this discussion there could be a clearer consensus, providing better guidance for those adding entries to the page. Surely, the inclusion criteria should be revised and improved. And I am hopeful that discussion could be one step toward that improvement.

Although I may not agree with all of you all the time, considering your past contributions on here, and the fact you all mentioned pronoun usage by fictional characters, in past comments, I thought your thoughts would be helpful on here @User:FeministDisneyDragon, @User:Eldomtom2, @User:Bilorv, @User:Aykhot, @User:Tomorrow and tomorrow, and @User:Crossroads. Historyday01 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the case of "they/them" alone, no. Author intent has to be clearer than this. He's not a fiction writer, but Matt Parker uses they/them pronouns to describe all people. And with fiction we reach edge cases real quick: aliens; robots; multiple consciousnesses occupying one physical body. Would "non-binary" even make sense as a term if talking about a fictional civilisation with a four-gender system? The answer to it all is: if and only if reliable sources describe the character as non-binary, whether author or reviewers, then we can list them.
I'd be interested in a case where neopronouns were used but there was no clear expression of gender, but I would still tend towards no per the edge cases idea. — Bilorv (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not changed my viewpoint from previous discussions. We should not include characters just because they are solely referred to by they/them pronouns. In my view that is original research. The only exemption to this rule I would allow is if it is made clear that the character themselves wishes to be solely referred to with they/them pronouns.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's my thought as well. It is too easy for some to see a creator (often on Twitter) say that a character uses they/them pronouns, and this means the character is nonbinary. I think that is too much of a leap. I know in some cases, like characters in Steven Universe, where Rebecca Sugar called Gems "non-binary women" and then elsewhere it was stated that these characters used they/them pronouns. But, yes, have an exemption about whether the character wishes to be solely referred to with they/them pronouns would be a good one. I'll draft up some language for a third point to the inclusion criteria in the coming days, after responding to all the comments on here. Historyday01 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I don't think they/them usage alone is enough (after all, someone whose gender is unknown can still be referred to with they/them), if a character is consistently referred to with they/them in a context that makes it clear their gender is not unknown (close friends/acquaintances/family using they/them, characters with omniscience or other forms of meta-knowledge about the character in question using they/them, etc), that seems like enough evidence to classify them as textually nonbinary (unless there's some speculative element, like the character in question being canonically multiple distinct people in one body, that sheds new light on said context).
To use a frequently argued example, Kris Dreemurr from Deltarune is consistently and diegetically referred to with they/them by their family members, childhood friends, and other important people in their life, and since the game is very clear that Kris and the player controlling them are two separate entities whose sharing of a body is both a recent development and unknown to the people who refer to them with they/them, I would consider that enough textual evidence to label Kris as nonbinary, since the speculative context (player possession) does not change the primary context (usage by family/friends/peers unaware of the speculative context). Aykhot (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For starters, that's still OR. Second, there is at present no explanation in the game for the use of they/them pronouns. Thirdly, it has been confirmed that the use of they/them pronouns for many characters in Undertale does not indicate an intent to make them canonically nonbinary, and there is at present no reason to believe Kris is different.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding Glen/Glenda[edit]

Glen/Glenda from childs play films is genderfluid 2603:6010:A3F0:8380:850F:DC5C:6A95:36D4 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories