4
edits
No edit summary Tag: 2017 source edit |
Daveyelmer (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:: The text tells us that Rose is "non-binary", unambiguously. It focuses on an image of Rose while literally saying the word "non-binary" out loud. Even if that was RTD getting his terminology muddled up, well, [[T:NO RW]] applies, as do our rules against taking authorial intent as valid in itself: the valid source itself tells us Rose is "non-binary", we can't argue with that because we think possibly Davies said it by accident. (But then I don't think he did; later she cheerfully gets the "…and neither, and more" part of the punchline. I think it ''is'' pretty clearly the case that she's female-presenting non-binary.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 12:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC) | :: The text tells us that Rose is "non-binary", unambiguously. It focuses on an image of Rose while literally saying the word "non-binary" out loud. Even if that was RTD getting his terminology muddled up, well, [[T:NO RW]] applies, as do our rules against taking authorial intent as valid in itself: the valid source itself tells us Rose is "non-binary", we can't argue with that because we think possibly Davies said it by accident. (But then I don't think he did; later she cheerfully gets the "…and neither, and more" part of the punchline. I think it ''is'' pretty clearly the case that she's female-presenting non-binary.) [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 12:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: Even tough this probably won't matter until the broader conversation about Rose's article is resolved, I'd like to make the suggestion that, rather than wordily describing her as "transgender, specifically nonbinary and female-presenting", the term 'transfeminine nonbinary' be used instead.[[User:Daveyelmer|Daveyelmer]] [[User talk:Daveyelmer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 16:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC) |
edits