Distinct Nonbinary Genders · 9 entries

Distinct Nonbinary Genders

The microlabels here share one insistence, and their sources make it in almost the same words every time: this is not a partial gender, not a blend, and not a point between two poles. It is a whole gender that happens not to be either of the familiar ones. Juxera sits near female and its own documentation is emphatic that this makes it a neighbour rather than a fraction, in direct contrast to demigirl. Maverique is described as a gendered feeling entirely independent of male, female and neutral alike.

That insistence is the filing rule, and it separates this group cleanly from the partial and the multiple. It is also the group where the record is thinnest. Almost every term here was coined online between roughly 2013 and 2015, several of them on the same archive blog, and the documentation consists of two community wikis and a dictionary glossary. Those two facts belong together in a reader's mind: a word can be attributed to a named person on a known date and still have no dictionary entry, no survey figure and no scholarship at all. The entries say so in each case rather than padding around the gap.

Emblem of the category

In this category

All 9 distinct nonbinary genders

9 entries

Keep going

The other categories

See all 11 categories

Common questions

Questions about distinct nonbinary genders

How is this different from being non-binary?

Non-binary is an umbrella covering everything that is not exclusively male or female, including partial, multiple and shifting genders. The terms in this group are narrower claims made inside that umbrella: each one names a specific whole gender rather than a position relative to the binary.

Why do so many of these come from 2014?

A large share of the microlabel vocabulary was coined on Tumblr between roughly 2013 and 2015, and several terms trace to one archive blog that collected and circulated new coinages. The concentration is real and it is one of the more striking patterns in this catalogue.

Are these terms used by many people?

Mostly no, and the entries say so. Community surveys record most of them at write-in level only, meaning somebody typed the word into a free-text box but it never appeared often enough to be given its own checkbox.

Why include terms with almost no documentation?

Because the documentation itself is the finding. A term with a named coiner, a precise date and no scholarship whatsoever is a common object in this vocabulary, and a reference work that only listed the well-attested words would misrepresent what the record actually looks like.