Nonbinary vs Non-binary[]

I feel like typically I see nonbinary more commonly instead of non-binary, the way the article is written now. I was wondering if other people think it should be changed or if it should stay the same. I am going to be adding alternate name to the definition for now, though. Birdkiller (he/him) (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that I've ever seen it without the dash. VergenceScatter (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
We made the decision to always write it with a dash for consistency reasons, but both spellings appear -- which is why the non-dashed spelling was also added to the infobox before. I don't think we need to rename the article, but the two spellings can be noted in the beginning. In the body of the text and everywhere else on the wiki, the spelling should be non-binary though. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 17:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Just curious, can you explain a little more into the "consistency reasons?" I've primarily seen it written without a dash, funnily enough. I think it's also more common in America without a dash vs the U.K. I also think it's really interesting how there's differences in how a lot of LGBTQ+ terms are spelled (I'm definitely interested into queer lingustics, haha). Birdkiller (he/him) (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I meant the consistency reason more on this wiki. Whichever way we go, it should be a way of spelling that goes for the entire wiki. Lady Lostris / 9?cb=20190922130322 SOAP 17:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I think I misunderstood your original post. Yeah, definitely whatever word is used should be reflected across the wiki. Birdkiller (he/him/his) (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Since I'm plain ol' cis, I have no personal investment and just want to us to be consistent wiki-wide on using one version instead of three. I've seen non-binary, nonbinary, and non binary in different publications, but I haven't noticed a pattern to which version is used where. Immi Thrax (she/her) (message me) 21:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I also don't have any personal investment; I'm binary. I also have seen all three but I feel like I've seen more nonbinary than non-binary. I can definitely go digging to find which one is more representative. I wouldn't feel surprised if there's sources talking about it. I wonder if there's a preference among non-binary people. I think I found a survey about that, actually. Whichever one is more representative among the community should be used, but I'm not sure if there is one, even if I've seen more usage of the non-hyphenated term. Sometimes this is hard because there's not consensus or a good resource to say "most people do this." Same with most hyphenated words.Birdkiller (he/him/his) (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-binary people that are not trans in article (help advise?)[]

I brought this up pretty early on when this wiki was released though didn't see much of it followed up, I asked originally since I'm not the best with writing articles and wouldn't know if this would necessarily need sourcing. But I've been curious to if the statements regarding non-binary being under the trans umbrella could ever be modified as a lot of them currently exclude/feel excluding of non-binary people who aren't trans by implication (and some of the resulting implications that non-binary is a trans-exclusive term). I can completely understand that a majority of non-binary individuals are trans, but general deduction from the scope of the non-binary label simply being to identify outside the gender binary would logically include people who aren't trans, and yet they're barely referenced (or in one case, some are invalidated). It'd be really cool to see these fixed, but I'm really anxious about modifying articles myself, so I wanted to put this here in case there were any editors that might be able to input on this or offer help. The main two things I notice as an issue:

  1. The line in the intro regarding the trans umbrella isn't too bad, but I feel like there could be some small changes to make it more inclusive for all non-binary people, like adding "or are" after "identify as" in the sentence. Just that would avoid the suggestion that all non-binary people are by definition transgender but just that some people choose not to identify as it. For some people, being non-binary means they don't apply to modalities, for others they are quite literally not trans and should not be labeled as trans.
  2. The part that feels very, very off though is in the Transgender section under Distinction. It states (albeit in a very odd structure to where it might just be a poor implication) that non-binary people "are people whose gender differs from what they were assigned at birth" and sets it as the basis to why it is under the trans umbrella. Non-binary is previously defined in the article (and even later in the section) as a term referring to gender identities that are outside the binary - nothing to do with assigned gender. I'm... really not sure why this statement is here, to be honest. It feels like it implies non-binary is a term exclusive to trans people, even though the main definition doesn't involve it. Some non-binary people are just not trans, meaning their gender does not differ from what they were assigned at birth. This could probably be fixed by removing the AGAB mention altogether, though the section might need a bit of reworking to flow better in that case. This one I'm not too sure if it'd need to be backed up with a source or not.

Generally, it'd be cool if the article had more documentation on non-trans non-binary people, if any sourcing wizards better at writing articles could find them. I'm afraid it might end up qualifying similar to a microlabel with the amount of erasure around non-trans non-binary people nowadays, but I dunno. I don't think it'd hurt to make the article more passively inclusive and removing implicative exclusivity, though. ~ Karasu || user // contact // CC wall ~✨ 11:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you think the article should still be considered a stub?[]

Considering the article has lots in it and explains a lot already, should it still be considered a stub?