Talk:Postgenderism

Split

This article is the result of splitting postgenderism from the Transgenderism (social movement) article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Perspective

This article needs a more neutral point of view. I've made some changes, but to me it still reads like propaganda. The Hughes-Dvorsky essay is currently the source for nearly all information in the article. Dvorsky is perhaps the movement's most notable proponent; if his perspective is the sole basis for the article, the article is bound to be somewhat biased.

I think adding the perspectives of other notable futurists would help, but the subject isn't really at the forefront of debate, so I'm having a hard time finding sources. I imagine others are having the same problems. I seems that all the other futurists are talking about issues such as life extension, human enhancement, or the infamous (and conjectural) technological singularity. Almost any information you'll find concerning postgenderism has Dvorsky's name on it. I'll keep looking though. Strontium86 (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and I support your efforts to improve the article. --Loremaster (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, my main agree is that a more general and neutral article is needed, will work on it a tad. (also, i would like to not reffer to anyone spicific's [Harroway's] gender in the article. It is irrelevant and irronic) Z11o22 (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be less activist

This is an encyclopedia and it's important to include a section that comments on challenges to the conception of "postgenderism" or any controversy arising from it. I'm thinking that it might (or might not!) be a difficult idea for the GLBT to support or embrace. Gender is a social construction and it's not possible to individually transcend the gender classifications of the societies we are embedded within. It sounds more like a personal philosophy than a political outlook or achievable goal. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Science & references

Article states that " it is believed that reproduction can continue to happen outside of conventional methods, namely intercourse and artificial insemination. Advances such as human cloning, parthenogenesis and artificial wombs may significantly extend the potential for human reproduction.[1]" However, it's hard to say who is the believer, and on what basis, because none of the mentioned techniques (human cloning, parthenogenesis and artificial wombs) is available in humans, and the article gives no reference to any scientific paper, even the one discussing future possibilities of such developments. Additionally, it seems that the one source cited multiple times in this article had been retrieved in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.231.36.66 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Requesting some help

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on a single source

This article is relying too much on the first source. What’s more problematic is that the first doesn’t provide much on that topic.CycoMa (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

You're on the list now. Equinox ◑ 18:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Gender or binary gender?

Postgenderism is a social, political and cultural movement which arose from the eroding of the cultural, psychological, and social role of gender, and an argument for why the erosion of binary gender will be liberatory. Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary psychological gendering in the human species as a result of social and cultural designations and through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology, and assistive reproductive technologies.

So, postgenderists want to destroy gender (all possible forms of it) or binary gender? There is a difference. I think we should clarify this in the preamble.Reprarina (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I add that "gender abolitionism" redirects here, but abolitionism is quite different from rejecting binarism alone. If they're not synonymous, separating might be better. Gmsrubin (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StevenTNG (article contribs). Peer reviewers: InActually.

Change of Symbol / Flag

I think this flag would be a better fit which has a bit more reach. Don't see any other sources for the one currently on there. https://preview.redd.it/t0ijur5j21n51.png?width=5000&format=png&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=a28d2904d49a73880637bbe83f433160a4560386 From: https://beyond-mogai-pride-flags.tumblr.com/post/631631957911027712/postgenderist-flags https://www.reddit.com/r/QueerVexillology/comments/iscl3c/some_designs_for_a_postgenderism_flag_i_made/ Miasmicnormalcy (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I might be wrong but unfortunately, I think that a reading of Wikipedia policies require Wikipedia to only mention the currently used flags for a movement (such as postgenderism), not the proposed flags for it. Per our WP:NPOV policy, we need reliable sources saying that postgenderism is represented by these flags, and a Tumblr or Reddit post almost definitely won't do it (since anyone can post to Tumblr and Reddit).

I think the necessary step here for having reliable sources is convincing the postgenderist movement to use either of these flags. Once the flag gains steam and reliable sources take note that it is being used for postgenderism, we here at Wikipedia can then follow and mention it. Feel free to advocate for using the flags outside of Wikipedia. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)