Talk:Non-binary

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

I don't believe that the statement that non binary often falls under trans should be there.

Following the logic in that sentence all nonbinary people have heterosexual sex. A large portion of them would very much not like that.

Perhaps it should say that it COULD fall under the trans umbrella 75.168.103.214 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Speaking as a nonbinary trans person, your statement Following the logic in that sentence all nonbinary people have heterosexual sex makes no sense to me. Funcrunch (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

True, doesn't make sense to me either, because the "hetero" in "heterosexual sex" is used to denote an opposite, and reminder that it's non-binary people we're talking about here. Only binary people can be heterosexual, since there's a clear opposite for a binary gender. It just doesn't work in the way 75.168.103.214 mentioned. 16kTheFox (talk to me!) 16:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hetero just means other or different, not opposite. Slomo666 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@16kTheFox: Non-binary people can be straight too. They can be straight, bi, lesbian, gay, polysexual/polyromantic, omni, pan, etc. just like anyone else. But yeah, non-binary directly falling under the trans umbrella still doesn't make sense because non-binary cis people exist — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 06:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

ohhh wait i was talking about enbies that don't lean towards a binary gender at all, i should've clarified lmao

16kTheFox (talk to me!) 19:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It is a simple fact that nonbinary often falls under the trans umbrella. The most common definition of trans is having a gender identity different from that which is typically associated with one's sex assigned at birth. By definition, that includes most nonbinary people (not all, because some nonbinary people sometimes or somewhat identify with the gender they were assumed to be at birth). The largest surveys of trans people in the U.S., the U.S. Trans Survey, reported that 35% of trans people were nonbinary in 2015 and 38% of trans people were nonbinary in 2022. Your comment about heterosexual sex is completely nonsensical. Being trans relates solely to the relationship between your gender identity (if any) and your sex assigned at birth; it has nothing to do with what sort of sex you have (if any). RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think what IP is trying to say is that they would be cisgender, and referring to sex as in assigned sex at birth. Wording is a little confusing though. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 16:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

as an enby, it does feel a little weird (the statment) now that it has been mentioned Dom206 (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I did not think that is what they meant. I think what they meant is that since a non-binary person would have sex with someone, and because their gender would not align with the sex of their partner (as in: being a different one, as opposed to the same) they would necessarily be (although I think this somewhat conflates gender and sex) having heterosexual (hetero = different, homo = same/similar) sex if they have sex.

I could be mistaken, though. Slomo666 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

heterosexual is usually meant to mean loving opposite gender Dom206 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

They’re trying to rationalize IP’s comment. It doesn’t really matter what the common usage is. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 01:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

are you talking about me? Dom206 (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No, they were talking about me rationalising the OP's rather difficult-to-understand comment. Slomo666 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, actually, your explanation makes a lot of sense. Interesting. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 01:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ido what happened with the first part. I meant to say "if they have sex" or " when they have sex" I think. Slomo666 (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Friends, this feels like a strange conversation to be having. The original poster has not come back to clarify what they meant. They said they didn't think this page should include this sentence: "Non-binary identities often fall under the transgender umbrella since non-binary people typically identify with a gender that is different from the sex assigned to them at birth..." Regardless of what they were trying to say about "heterosexual sex," the logic of the sentence they take issue with is sound, not flawed. So unless they come back and clarify their comment, it seems like we should consider this topic addressed. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@RadicalCopyeditor: I also think OP meant to say that non-binary cannot entirely fall under the trans umbrella because non-binary cis people exist. Many non-binary people are not trans, just like many trans people are binary, many trans people are not queer, and so on. This can be best explained by Venn diagrams. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 06:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So I'd say "nonbinary cis" is a misnomer, but there's definitely nonbinary people who wouldn't consider themselves trans. My view is "nonbinary is a kind of trans" is a misleading claim that merges two things: an academic definition of "trans", rarely used in the real world, that includes all kinds of gender variation, even drag queens; and an activist-tinged argument that all nonbinary people are part of the "trans umbrella", which is much more a political slogan than an anthropological statement. (Why that and not "trans people are part of the nonbinary umbrella"? That's the prevailing view in quite a few cultures and languages.) In terms of what this article should say, I think we're pretty close to having it right, but I wonder if we could change Non-binary identities often fall under the transgender umbrella to frame that as a popular opinion rather than a fact. The terms simply aren't well-enough defined for that to be clearly true or false. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

All in all it needs to be stated that this is a personal belief much like religion. It is a view that goes against observable data and doesn't need to be pushed on other people. ~2026-70747-1 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The existence of people who consider themself neither male nor female, and/or are considered neither male nor female by their community, is an observable phenomenon. Whether you personally agree with those viewpoints is not related to building an encyclopedia. -- Tamzin ^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Enbian and diamoric are both terms used by nonbinary people to refer to their attraction (Enbian for nonbinary people attracted to other nonbinary people, and diamoric to refer to the lack of 'same-gender' or 'opposite-gender' attraction due to being nonbinary. The terms are notable enough to already be within an article (linked), but aren't mentioned here; perhaps we could add them? If so, in which section? I considered the Identities section, but that primarily refers to different nonbinary gender identities, so probably Terms and definitions? I'm a bit of an amateur editor, so I wanted to reach some consensus first. kitokat ✦ xe/it/any ✦ chat? 08:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, after taking a look at the way diamoric is defined in that article, it seems to use the broader definition; not to say we should change or remove it, but are there any usable sources supporting the definition I mentioned above? So that both can be mentioned, to clear up confusion. kitokat ✦ xe/it/any ✦ chat? 08:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]