Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important?

So I think the gender identity policy is odd. Under a situation like Chelsea Manning's, we could have a "she" father a child in the fully biological way. Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important? (I understand the wisdom of changing gender following sex change operations)jj (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC) ( I logged in)

Yes. Personal identity is vitally important, and I'd argue considerably more vital than biological sex. —me_and 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Biology is essential to the survival of the human race. jj (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, biology is essential to the survival of the human race. But using the pronouns a transgender person has asked people use isn't going to impact anyone's biology nor impede our ongoing survival. —me_and 16:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Touche, but this website is meant to reflect reality, not mere feelings. Could a Filipino ask to be called hispanic, white (or vice-versa) and we do a change just based on his/her word? jj (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone identifies as a different gender, we should respect that, and use the pronouns they choose. A person's biological sex does not dictate the pronouns that should be used to refer to them. See GLAAD's Media Reference Guide: A Resource for Journalists: "Whenever possible, ask transgender people which pronoun they would like you to use. A person who identifies as a certain gender, whether or not that person has taken hormones or had some form of surgery, should be referred to using the pronouns appropriate for that gender." Per the AP Stylebook, "use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly". – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem disrespectful to note that, with extremely few exceptions, we all are either male or female. A male who wishes to become female strikes me as similar to someone who wishes to become a doctor: I hope you respect my decision, but I wouldn't expect you to refer to me as "doctor" until I've actually taken the steps to become one. I mean, just factually, you don't become one just by deciding you want to. 71.209.109.202 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I very strongly encourage you to read up about transsexualism before commenting further. Trans* people do not simply "decide" to become male or female, they realises that they are, and always have been, male or female. In a way you are correct that one does not simply become either a female or a doctor simply by choosing to be one, but that is coincidental and claiming that there is any relevance to the comparison is disrespectful. Whether that disrespect stems from an lack of understanding or deliberate intention to offend (and I am not labelling your statement as either), is of little relevance to those people who have to deal with it on a daily basis. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• No. There is a similar topic bubbling away at the film project. MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, while WP:VERIFIABLE is a policy, and guidelines do not trump policies. If WP:V and MOS:IDENTITY conflict, then the policy takes precedence. That has always been the case with other policies and guidelines, and this is no different. Betty Logan (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where WP:V comes into play here. In this particular situation, we can verify both that Chelsea Manning is biologically male, and that she identifies as female. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The question seems to be presented as a general one so I answered in that capacity. However, I can think of many different circumstances of where MOS:ID would not be easily accommodated. For instance, even in one of the examples the guidelines gives "He became a parent for the first time" in place of "She gave birth for the first time" obsfucates a verifiable fact. Likewise, "He had a hysterectomy" is a biological impossibility. If Angelina Jolie became a man, it would be incongruous to say "He is married to Brad Pitt". MOS:IDENTITY only really relates to matters of self-identity, but once you move from a gender context to a biological sex context, then WP:V requires us to put the guideline aside. Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "biological sex context." In most cases, discussion of the biology of human gender is not relevant to the article about the subject. Chaz Bono's article, for example, does not require such a discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think my comments make it obvious what a "biological sex context" is. If the subject gave birth, then that is female biological action; if she marries as a woman, that likewise is a biologically female act. When we are describing biologically female acts, the subject should not be presented as male. If MOS:ID prevents us from presenting a verifiable fact as a clearly as possible it should be put aside. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments did not make your meaning clear. I had thought you were talking about a situation in which issues of the biology of gender became relevant to the subject's life. I couldn't remember her name in time to include it in my post, but the article about Caster Semenya, for example, does merit a discussion of these issues because Semenya is best known for a gender-based controversy that involved a semipolitical issue, in this case gender testing in sports. This isn't the case with Chaz Bono or with Chelsea/Bradley Manning. So no, I didn't think you meant giving birth when you said "biological context."

Marriage is not a biological act. It is a social act. That has more to do with gender in the sense of gender role than gender in the sense of being intrinsically male or female.

As for presenting verifiable facts clearly, the article absolutely should say "Chelsea Manning was named Bradley Manning at birth and raised male." MoS:ID does not prevent this in any way. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A wedding may be a social function but a male/female marriage is a biological act, unless it is not consummated, although we assume most are. Even if you make it clear someone was born male, then it is still incongruous if you describe them as "She" in a context in which they fulfil a biologically male role. To take an example from the Manning article, this sentence has been reduced to farce: Raised as a boy, Manning was regarded as small for her age – as an adult, he reached just 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weighed 105 lb (47.6 kg). This sentence refers to him in male capacity twice, and a female capacity once. This is a prime example of where MOS:ID should be put aside. The claim specifically relates to the biological traits of a young boy, and here language is deliberately obsfucating a verifiable fact. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Consummation is biological, but we can have sexual intercourse without marriage and marriage without sexual intercourse. Vows are intellectual and social, often spiritual. Think about it: What is a wedding vow, really? It's a promise made to one's partner and one's community. Men and women can both do this and they do it in almost exactly the same way. Almost any animal can consummate a sexual interaction, but only humans can marry.

The sentence that you cite is not in compliance with MoS:ID. MoS: ID It requires that female pronouns be used in all cases. It should say, "Raised as a boy, Manning was regarded as small for her age. As an adult, she reached just 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) and weight 105 lb (47.6 kg)," though it could probably be reworded to use fewer gendered pronouns. This is a case of MoS:ID being insufficiently enforced, not a case in which MOS:ID needs to be put aside. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-writing the sentence as you suggest may make it compliant with MOS:ID, but would violate WP:V. His stature was considered in relation to being a biological male, so should be presented in the context that is imparted by the sources. Using a female pronoun in this particular context obsfucates a factual claim. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How would it violate WP:V? The fact in question is whether Manning is male or female for the purposes of gendered pronouns on Wikipedia. That Manning is female in this sense has been verified: Manning declared it publicly.

Referring to the young Manning with female pronouns is consistent with the idea that Manning did not become female as an adult but rather was always female and only discovered this fact later in life. There is no deceit here, only a misconception that has been corrected. If a country music singer had always maintained that she'd been born in Nashville but later finds her birth certificate and sees that she was born in Memphis, we don't have to refer to her as being born in Nashville, even when discussing parts of her life during which she believed that to be true.

As for the "small for his/her age" issue, the problem that you describe can be handled in context. The passage just said that Manning had been raised as a boy. It is likely that the reader will know that Manning was being evaluated using boys' height figures. To be extra safe, it could be reworded saying "Manning's height was below average for boys her age" or "Manning was shorter than what was at that time considered average height for a boy." It's not a gendered-pronoun issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The use of the female pronoun in such instances removes clarity from expressing a factual claim. It undermines WP:V, not least because you are not representing the claim as clearly as possible. You are effectively introducing wordplay to alter the context and expression of a fact that is not present in the source. MOS:IDENTITY is a nice guiding principle to have, but not if it compromises the documenting of fact, which is the over-riding goal of Wikipedia. In cases where the events of a person's life or facts about them are clearly contingent on them being biologically male/female then they shouldn't be compromised by revisionist gender pronouns. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand how using "she" alters the context. What facts do you believe are being obscured? This is not a rhetorical question. I actually don't see what you're getting at.

As far as being "biologically male" or "biologically female," unless someone has tested Manning's chromosomes, blood chemistry, run an fMRI, and published the results, we cannot rightly claim to know to which biological sex Manning belongs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Biological sex is vitally important, but let's first establish what that is. The biological characteristics associated with gender in humans are genes/chromosomes, gene expression, body chemistry, anatomy with respect to primary sexual characteristics, and anatomy with respect to secondary sexual characteristics, which includes brain anatomy. These things don't always match. The clearest example of this is that people with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome can have XY chromosomes and plenty of testosterone in their blood but they also have breasts and female-seeming genitals. They usually don't even know they're not ordinary women until they're adults, an most of them continue to identify as female after they learn of it. So yes, biological sex is what causes gender identity, but biological sex is not limited to whether or not someone has a penis. It is most likely that trans people are trans because they have the brain anatomy or body chemistry or some other real, non-imagined measurable characteristic of the gender in which they wish to identify, but this has yet to be proven concretely. So okay, we can assume that Manning has had male external genitalia this whole time, but what about all that other stuff? Because we cannot give every subject a brain scan, blood workup and entirely hypothetical exam based on scientific discoveries not yet made, we should not base Wikipedia policy on this information. So what are we to do? Calling Manning male makes a political statement and calling Manning female makes a political statement. We're stuck either way, so we might as well do what we do with every other subject and take Manning's word for it. At least that's polite. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. The primary thing we go on when looking at people's gender is just that: their gender presentation and self-identification. If asked, I tell people I'm a man, and I appear as a man. It is a rare and privileged minority that get to confirm that my gender presentation and self-identification matches my biological sex. I don't know whether I in fact have XY chromosomes: it is not something I have tried to check. As for sex organs, you'll just have to trust me that it is not a sock stuffed down there.
  For the vast majority of people, their gender presentation, their gender self-identification and their biological sex will be the same and will not be an issue for them. But for a pretty small number of people who are trans the important thing we should do under WP:BLP is to treat them with the dignity and respect to identify them as they identify themselves. Just as we rightly have policies that say that a person is the ultimate decider of their religion, sexual identity and so on, it is profoundly undignified to have a situation where someone is misgendered by Wikipedia. If we are unable to follow the subject's wishes regarding their gender identity, then our BLP policy is failing article subjects.
  Let's not be get caught up in arguments over the relative merits of Manual of Style vs. WP:COMMONNAME here. The ultimate issue is one of BLP and treating subjects fairly. In a case like Manning, where we have a clear and pretty unequivocal statement of their wishes regarding name and pronoun use, it is absolutely unfair on her as a subject to not respect those wishes. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Tom Morris - *re "Let's not be get caught up in arguments....The ultimate issue is one of BLP" - Complete shenenigans. BLP doesn't tell us to treat folks "fairly". It tells us to treat folks "verifiably". If it's verifiable that someones COMMONNAME is Jack, there name is Jack. Period. Since when has WP been about "respecting wishes". We aren't in the game of "respecting wishes" in the game of delivering verifiable information. NickCT (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

To repeat a comment I made at the Manning RM discussion: consider how we would handle it if Manning said he'd always felt that he was blue-skinned (say), and was thinking of getting a full-skin tattoo to match his body image. Would we mangle the article so as to imply that his skin was always blue? I suspect that we would not, and that there would be no controversy about this. A statement that some BLP subject always felt they were blue-skinned would be a reason to edit the article to say that the subject always felt that they were blue-skinned, but policy would not support editing the article to say that the subject had always been blue-skinned and that was why they were dyeing their skin blue. So likewise with penises. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently just misleading. The extensive and retrospective use of female pronouns, resulting in "she was arrested", "she was sentenced" etc, simply imply that Manning was always female. If someone unfamiliar with the topic started to read the article as it stands now, with a photo of a man in the infobox, that reader would be throughly confused by the second paragraph.

Manning became notable as a man, and has openly identified as a female for a matter of hours. The recent radical changes to the article skew the prose to a most unhelpful degree. Furthermore, I don't really understand the idea that we have to kow-tow to the subject's wishes regarding his/her Wikipedia article. How about if Lance Armstrong self-identifies as drug-free? Do we say, "Aw, OK, then, we don't want to upset him"...? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A variety of professional medical associations recognize that gender identity is something that's personal and internal. [1] [2] [3] No professional organizations recognize one's drug status as being personal or internal. --Hirsutism (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, but neither instance presents a good reason to distort facts. Put simply: the article says "she was arrested". No female was arrested, and that is incontrovertible. Ergo, the sentence is misleading. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

According to many transgendered individuals, Manning was always female and merely discovered this later in life than most people. So yes, "she was arrested" would be factually accurate. When we talk about women who dressed up as men to fight in the Civil War, we say "she was promoted to lieutenant," even though everyone thought she was a man at the time.

Can I prove that Manning was always really a woman? No I can't. But no one can prove that Manning was really a man this whole time either. We should err on the side of being polite and take Manning's word for it, just as we take other people's. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be factually accurate according to certain viewpoints, but it is still misleading. Your Civil War analogy isn't entirely similar, as Manning was never simply a woman pretending to be a man. The result of (for some reason) the desire to be polite is that a number of readers, possibly a large number, will not understand what has been written. Not all readers can be expected to get their heads around such a rewriting of history, which is what this is, as all historical sources refer to Manning as a man. I do not expect those sources to be rewritten with male pronouns substituted for female ones. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how using "she" is misleading. Manning is a woman for our purposes. Of course the article should say flat-out that Manning was raised male and was living as a man and believed to be a man at the time of her notability. Using "she" does not change this. That's not rewriting history. That's incorporating newly discovered information into the narrative. Otherwise we'd have to say that the sun circled around the earth when discussing any historical period during which this was commonly believed to be true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that everyone accepts, or should accept, that Manning was always a woman, because Manning says so. I doubt that it's a widely-held viewpoint. I do not accept the logic behind why this practice should apply to gender and not anything or everything else. I have read GorillaWarfare's point below, and however widespread the practice may be, I believe it's still misleading, and largely unnecessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone accepts that Manning merits (or ever merited) the pronoun "he" either. We can't prove that Manning is really a she. We can't prove that Manning is really a he. Manning's word for it might not be hard evidence, but it's enough to tip the scales. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• No No No - This policy seems to bring MOS:IDENTITY into clear and blatant conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. If I decide to call myself "Sarah", but the entire world refers to me as "Nick", it is just plain silly for Wikipedia to reflect my personal choice and not the viewpoint of THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD. Can someone point to another group of people that get to choose how they are named on WP?!?!?! Are transgendered folk special? Why do they deserve special consideration when we try to figure out what they should be called.........? Now for the record here, I want to say that I think it's a great thing when WP gives some consideration to self-identity, but this is just silly silly silly silly silly. Just silly. NickCT (talk)

(edit conflict) Referring to trans* people as their preferred pronoun, regardless of when they decided to start using said pronoun, is pretty standard practice. From GLAAD, "Avoid pronoun confusion when examining the stories and backgrounds of transgender people prior to their transition. It is usually best to report on transgender people's stories from the present day instead of narrating them from some point or multiple points in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns." From Matt Kailey, "I would always use the person’s current pronoun, even when referring to something that person did in the past." – GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Here [4] is a good example (with one apparent lapse) of how easy it is to write something without using gender pronouns. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, you are confusing two independent questions: A person's gender and their name. The name used for an article title should be how they are commonly referred to, as WP:COMMONNAME says. But that does not say anything about what gender a person is or which gender should be used in reference to a person. WP:COMMONNAME should determine whether the name of the article is "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning". But within the article, whether the male or female pronoun is used is a separate question. In fact, while WP:COMMONNAME governs the title of an article, it does not even put a limitation on the name used for the person within an article. In the Metta World Peace article, he is referred to a "Artest" when discussing the parts of his life when that was his name, which is most of it (so far). In the case of Manning, WP:COMMONNAME says that the article right now should be titled "Bradley Manning", because that is her "common name". Within the article, it is fair to note that Manning now wants to use the name "Chelsea" instead of "Bradley". But since it is standard within an article to refer to a person solely by their surname, it will be just "Manning" in most of the article as a reference name. And none of that settles or even begins to address the issue of whether or not Manning should be referred to as "he" or "she". That's because her name and her "common name" are separate questions from her gender. 99.192.64.222 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@99.192.64.222 - Actually I stand partially correct here. For some reason when I first read "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman"), pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification", I thought it was saying that we should use the self-identified name. It doesn't. It says we should use the self-identified pronoun. Good point-of-order IP.

Maybe a resolution is to call Manning "Bradley", but use "she" as the pronoun. I feel somewhat neutral toward that potential outcome. NickCT (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are self-identified names often wrong?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The title concern is a little more complex than the pronoun one. Most people know Manning as "Bradley Manning," as this is the name by which she has been referred up until extremely recently. Though there are many cases in which article titles do not much the subject's legal name (Marilyn Manson, not Brian Hugh Warner; Laura Jane Grace, not Thomas James Gabel), there are plenty of counterexamples where an article title is different from the subject's preferred name (Snoop Dogg, not Snoop Lion; Lily Allen, not Lily Rose Cooper). – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Georgia guy - Self-identified names often aren't common names. NickCT (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare - re "The title concern is a little more complex than the pronoun one." - I think I'd agree with that. Purely speaking from a policy basis, my feeling now is that MOSIDENT supports the "her" pronoun, while COMMONNAME supports the use of Bradley. That seems somehow like a bit of a contradiction, no? Refusing to use the female name, but opting to use the female pronoun.... NickCT (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT: I agree that using both "Bradley" and "her" might seem odd, but some people have male names despite being female. Take Michael Learned, for example. 99.192.64.222 (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT: the question of how Manning should be referred to is a very lively debate right now on her talk page. I'll leave further discussion of that specific case to there.

Georgia guy: It depends on what you mean by "wrong", but even then it is probably not all that often wrong. A self-identified name can quite commonly be different from a person's legal name. Many celebrities have legal names different from their "credit" name. Also, many people use nicknames as a self-identified name that is not a legal name. The idea behind WP:COMMONNAME is that the default in naming an article should neither be to a person's self-identified name nor should it be to their legal name. It should be to however the person is most commonly known. "Snoop Dogg" is the common name of the person whose legal name is "Calvin Broadus" and who now self-identifies as "Snoop Lion". So sometimes all three are different. Which name is the "right" name and which are "wrong" depends on what you mean by "right" and "wrong" names. 99.192.64.222 (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Example: Is Christine Jorgensen the right name or a wrong name?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It still depends on what you mean by "right". "Christine Jorgensen" was her legal name at the time of her death, so it is "right" in that regard. It also is the name she is best known by, so as a common name it is "right" in that regard. If you are talking about her early life when her legal and self-identified name was "George", it might be "wrong". But names are labels that pick out a person and do not necessarily telly you what a person's legal, self-identified, or common name is. So the sentence "Christine Jorgensen was born in New York" is true, even though her name was "George" at the time she was born. But it is also true that John Wayne was born in Iowa, even though his name was "Marion Morrison" at the time. (Note to NickCT: Using both "Marion" and "he" might seem odd, too, but that's what he was named). 99.192.64.222 (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OT remark — the classic division is that Marion is a man's name and Marian is a woman's name, as with Francis for a man and Frances for a woman. By now Marion may be more common as a woman's name, but it was not always thus. --Trovatore (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Classic case of "nothing more than feelings" vs More Than a Feeling. All I know is when I have a Wikipedia article, I'm self-identifying as a pteranodon, science be damned. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. This isn't rocket science, actually. For most people, their sex and their gender "match". Most people are either both male and a man or female and a woman. But in the case of a transgender person (who has not had sex reassignment surgery) a person can be male and a woman or female and a man. When gendered pronouns in the English language were developed long long ago, the idea that a person's sex and gender might not "match" was not a consideration. So the question, "when a person's sex does not 'match' their gender, which pronoun should be used?" was never thought necessary to ask. But in more recent times, it has become clear that it is a valid question and there are two straightforward answers: (1) Let's have pronouns track sex or (2) Let's have pronouns track gender.

The question of whether pronouns should track the person's sex or their gender is not intuitively obvious to many people. But for people who are not transgender it often seems more natural for pronouns to track sex while to those people who are transgender it generally seems obvious that pronouns should track gender. People who are not transgender, but who are sympathetic to the transgender community have generally decided that it is asking less of us to get over the fact that it might sound unfamiliar to us to use pronouns to refer to gender, not sex than it is to ask people to accept pronouns be applied to them that seem alien and false. Furthermore, that female pronouns seem less odd to those of us who are not transgender when a person who is biologically male "presents" herself as a woman suggests that our comfort with pronouns is only superficial, while a transgendered person's comfort with them is quite deep and personal. So both people who are transgender and their supporters have strongly advocated that pronouns should track gender, not sex.

In addition, a person's sex can change over time, but a person's gender does not. In this regard, gender is like sexual orientation. Even when a person who is gay "presented" themselves as heterosexual and even at a time in their life when they sincerely believed that they were heterosexual they were not. They were always gay, even if it took a bit of time to come to that realization and even more time before telling others. For a person born biologically male but whose gender is female the same is true. She is a "she" by gender from birth, regardless of biology, regardless of how she presents herself and even regardless of how she understands her own gender at earlier times in her life. Once she knows that she is a "she" and tells the world that she is a "she" it becomes a verifiable fact (for anyone worries about WP:V) that she was always a "she", even when she (biologically) fathered a child.

MOS:IDENTITY has been written to specifically acknowledge these facts. Since a person's gender does not change over time (regardless of whether or not the person's sex changes), it means that the correct pronoun to use for a male (sex) woman (gender) is "she" even when referring to a time when the person had a male name, male genitalia, and presented as a man - and even at a time when she (biologically) fathered a child.

"O brave new world, That has such people in't!" 99.192.64.222 (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes -- Nbound (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

At this point I need to jump in with a clarification: The word "gender" has about five correct definitions in English. In ordinary speech, it means "state of being male or female" in general with no real implications about biology vs. sociology. "What gender is that kitten? It's female." In the social sciences, it's often used to mean "gender role" (society's rules and expectations for how male and female people should live and act) and even "gender identity" (a person's self-concept as being male or female). So if I say that biology determines gender (general sense) or if Anonymous User 99.192.64.222 says that we should ignore sex in favor of gender (gender role), nobody's using the word wrong. But it might help to drop a "gender role" or a "biological gender" out there for clarification when appropriate.

I'm saying this because the first (and second and third) time I heard a non-hard-scientist say "gender is culturally defined" I thought she had lost her mind. Years later I found out she was just using a different def. of "gender."

For me, I'm not too clear what Anon99 means by a person's sex changing over time. I know of frogs that can do that. If Anon99 means hormone treatment, surgery etc. then I'd say that some of the biological determinants of gender in humans can be altered. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but not by the current methodology. I am a gay cisgender man who accepts transgender individuals as having the new name and gender they have chosen. After they do so. Simply put, the expressed preference of GLAAD and transgender individuals that a person should retroactively be referred to only as their new gender is nonsensical. It is not confusing to read a piece that describes a person as being born a man and living as a male (with male names and pronouns), explains the person's gender transition, and subsequently describes her using female names and pronouns. What is extremely confusing is to read a piece that mentions a person's male birth, but then describes the person using female names and pronouns when referring to a time when they were known as a male, especially when any source dating to that time will describe them as male.

Chelsea Manning is, to put it succinctly, a female man who is known as Bradley Manning. In the article, descriptions of Manning's life from now onwards should refer to her as Chelsea Manning. When describing Manning's childhood, service, and trial, he should be referred to as Bradley Manning to reflect the understanding of him that existed at the time. WP:IDENTITY should be modified to indicate that a change in name and gender references should occur only from the point at which the change in the person's identity was expressed. Further, it should make it explicit that a person's chosen name should not automatically become an article title if the person is still commonly known by a former name; the common name should remain the title, with the new name being used in the body of the article from the time that the name was adopted. --DavidK93 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

DavidK93: "... gender they have chosen." To talk of a person choosing a gender is like talking of a person choosing a sexual orientation. People don't choose to be gay, straight, or bi. People don't choose their gender. Manning lived as a male and used male pronouns exactly like how some people who are gay live as heterosexuals (ie; date people of the opposite sex they have no attraction to and even get married to someone of the opposite sex and have kids) and explicitly deny being gay. But that does not mean that they suddenly become gay when they first come to realize that they are gay or when they first publicly acknowledge that they are gay. Same for transgender people. They don't have, as you put it, a "new" gender. They might have a new sex if they undergo surgery and hormone therapy, but not a new gender.

"When describing Manning's childhood, service, and trial, he should be referred to as Bradley Manning to reflect the understanding of him that existed at the time." We almost agree entirely on the issue of name. The one disagreement is at the end of the sentence of yours I just quoted. She should be referred to as "Bradley" for her life prior to today, but the reason for that is because until today that was her name. The name used should not be decided based on anyone's "understanding" of a person, but based solely on what the person's name actually was at the time. 99.192.64.222 (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how one can simultaneously believe that (1) gender is fluid; and (2) Bradley Manning's gender has always and immutably been female and we know this for a fact. We have Manning's assertion that she currently identifies as a woman and prior assertions that she was confused about her gender identity, but to extrapolate from that that Manning's gender has always been female is a bit much, especially given that admitted confusion. Dyrnych (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Dyrnych: Firstly, I agree that you can't believe both (1) and (2). But I don't believe (1). Gender is not "fluid". Secondly, there is a difference between being confused about your gender and it being "fluid". To use the example of sexuality, it is not uncommon for people to be confused about their sexuality at some point in their lives, but that does not mean that their sexuality changed. 99.192.70.178 (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.64.222)

I was going to stay out of this, but... With regard to whether or not gender is fluid, I feel the need to point out genderqueer; there are indeed people who feel that their gender is fluid. Likewise, there are people who feel that their sexuality (though not necessarily their sexual orientation) is fluid; some people will simply think of those people as bisexual, but a lot of people who feel that their sexuality (in this case, sexual attraction to men, women or both) is fluid don't consider themselves bisexual. I'm also with Darkfrog24 on not understanding how a person's sex changes over time (unless it's what Darkfrog24 mentioned). I've never heard anyone until now assert that a person's sex changes, unless speaking of sex reassignment surgery; but even with sex reassignment (the surgery or non-surgery aspect of it), it is not as though a person's biological sex has changed to the point where even the DNA reads their sex differently. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree about one point. People don't choose to feel the attractions or the roles that their mind believes in, agreed. However, they DO choose when to come out and identify who they are or who they believe themselves to be. Up until this point, from the perspective of everybody except the individual in question, the person has been what they identified as until that point in a public sense. UNTIL Chelsea Manning identified as Chelsea Manning, she was a biological male who every other person on the planet identified as just that. I can happily accept that Chelsea feels as she does and is now identifying as a woman. What I can't happily accept is that this changes the past or that her simply saying "I am now this" makes it so, immediately and for all time past and present. There is no other facet of Wikipedia where we would ignore all other sources in favour of the views of the person themselves... Otherwise I could self-identify as the most-notable person on the planet and make a Wikipedia article about myself that says everything that I believe myself to be. Why does gender warrant the one and only exception to our standards? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes What's the big deal? Scholarship regarding this has been clear for years, as have journalistic and law ethics. Respect the gender identity of the individual, regardless of their current sex. One is not more important than the other. You can acknowledge both if it is pertinent, but what genitals or chromosomes a person has is typically not pertinent. We don't note intersex individuals that frequently (often because we don't know, and that's the point). Also, please use the appropriate terms: man/woman or masculine/feminine for gender and male/female for sex. (I am working on my PhD in sociology and focusing in gender). EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, and I object to the loaded wording of the question. EvergreenFir has it right. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Lots of personal opinions here; I have mine, but they are all irrelevant. Wikipedia should follow reliable sources, particularly in this case reliable style guides. By all means let's discuss what these say, and how to word articles so as not to confuse readers, but not what our personal views are. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment We do have a clash here between the common name by which Manning is known (Bradley Manning) and Manning's identity as a woman (Chelsea Manning). One way of dealing with this clash might be to minimise the use of personal pronouns. For example, the first paragraph could be reworded like this:

Chelsea E. Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier who was convicted in July 2013 of several violations of the Espionage Act and other offenses, after releasing the largest set of restricted documents ever leaked to the public. Manning was dishonorably discharged and sentenced to 35 years in prison. The prisoner (or She) will be eligible for parole after serving one third of this sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released eight years after sentencing.

This may or may not be acceptable to other editors but it could help to make the prose less confronting to some readers.Michael Glass (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead for Carlotta is currently worded in a similar way:

Carol 'Carlotta' Spencer (born Richard Lawrence Byron)[1] is an Australian cabaret performer and television celebrity. She began her career as an original member of the long-running Les Girls cabaret show, performed entirely by heavily costumed males, which started in 1963 in the purpose built Les Girls (nightclub) building which stood on a prominent corner in the heart of Sydney's Kings Cross. The building was owned by Sydney identity Abe Saffron. Carlotta, a transgender woman, rose through the ranks of the show to eventually become the show's compere and its most famous member.

-- Nbound (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

""A quick reminder that the question being debated is "Should we really yield to gender identity when one's biological sex is vitally important?". This is not a question surrounding how we should treat transgender peoples self-proclaimed identities in most cases. Instead this is question asking if it is worth respecting a person’s identity when it leads to a very confusing article. The main case of this is Bradley Manning's article which is almost unreadable now.

First off if we are going to get anywhere we have to agree that the Bradley Manning article is confusing. This is because most people are not used to refer to people who currently have all the biological characteristics of one sex but identify as the other being referred to by the pronoun that they identify with. Can we at least agree that the article is confusing in its current state? 67.169.14.206 (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It probably is, unfortunately it got protected at a bad time. The thing to note is that none of the other transgender articles are hard to read. Chances are the Bradley/Chelsea Manning article can be fixed. The status quo for refering to transgender people didnt just happen over night, and has been tested for years. If there was confusion Im sure the transgender community themselves would have sorted something vastly different out. -- Nbound (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I think getting posted in the LGBT wikiproject is the reason it is so confusing. They rushed to push their advocacy into the article. Clinton (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen from scrolling down once clicking on this link, that article was locked down before information about the matter was posted at the LGBT project. This means the pronoun changes had already been made. There are LGBT Wikipedia editors who don't participate at WP:LGBT. And there are Wikipedia editors who are not LGBT...but believe in WP:MOSIDENTITY. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article is particularly confusing at present. It notes Manning by both names immediately, makes it clear that it's going to use female pronouns, then uses them consistently. I understand that this may confuse some readers, but not doing this would also cause confusion. —me_and 23:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Gender is a grammatical term, and the idea of "gender identity" is in and of itself advocacy. Grammatical gender in reference to sentient beings exists as a way to reference the biological sex of the individual in question. You can't be a man who is female - that isn't how language works. To suggest otherwise would be an endorsement of doublespeak. Clinton (talk)

if you are fundamentally opposed to the idea of gender identity, you might consider looking into the article about it — it is an established entity in the spectrum of identity, and it has been discussed for over a century. i do not think the validity of "gender identity" as a concept or term is up for debate. ~ Boomur [talk] 01:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's not up for debate, what have people been discussing for over a century? Plenty still believe a man who wants to be a woman is just a rarer sort of man, and a man who has the surgery is a modified man. But I've no opinion on what you or Wikipedia should think. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

sorry for the lack of clarity. what i'm saying is that the concept of "gender identity" is a valid and recognised concept that has been used in psychological et al. literature for a long time, not that people are trying to decide what it is. they aren't. ~ Boomur [talk] 04:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering about a different context; notably the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival. The festival holds an intention that it be for females assigned at birth for political/socio-cultural reasons; trans women simply do not fit into that category. However, there have been edits to remove the implication that trans women aren't female and justified by the WP MOS style guidelines. This seems specious to me. Gender is completely socially constructed; there is nothing innate about it. Female, however, has a variety of associated characteristics that cannot be adapted (reproductive capacity, menstruation, etc.) It seems very odd to define the rule through the exception (less than 3% of women have Klinefelter's or some intense genetic disorder or are intersex). The overwhelming majority of trans women have no genetic disorder and are biologically male. To ignore that is also to ignore the realities associated with female biology that are unique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugaredpeas (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Jumping in: Sugaredpress's position can be difficult to understand because the word "gender" has multiple meanings. SP, do you mean "gender roles are entirely socially constructed," "gender identity is entirely socially constructed" or "the state of being male or female is entirely socially constructed"? I'd partially agree with you on the first one but not on the other two.

Also, in all three cases, I'm not clear what this has to do with the Manning case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Pronouns should reflect a person's chosen gender identity. To do otherwise is profoundly disrespectful to that person, and a violation of the BLP policy which requires that we write biographical articles about living people with "a high degree of sensitivity" to the subject. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I support MOS:IDENTITY as it stands now; it has served Wikipedia well over the years. I also note that the comment by jj which began this discussion is loaded and factually incorrect in places, and may have skewed the discussion so much that it won't be possible to reach a consensus and/or conclusion. (JJ says, for example, that "we could have a "she" father a child in the fully biological way", but MOS:IDENTITY actually advises not just against confusing wording in general, but against that specific kind of phrase. I quote: "instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time".) -sche (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I support MOS:IDENTITY as it was written before the Chelsea Manning dispute. I agree with -sche that the comments by jj show bias, as does the section title, and I also believe that this discussion has been hopelessly muddled by people changing the policy while discussion is ongoing, making it difficult to discern what editors are supporting or opposing. That's all unfortunate.

So to be clear: I believe MOS:IDENTITY ought to explicitly require editors to use the pronouns that reflect a person's chosen gender identity, and to use the name the transgender person has chosen for him or herself. I agree with Kaldari: to do anything else is disrespectful and a violation of BLP. Some further comments:

• BLP is not purely a protection against libel claims. As per ArbCom, we are required to consider the ethical implications of our actions, to respect the basic human dignity of subjects, to not mock or disparage, and to hold as our guiding principle the desire to do no harm.
• Being misgendered is traumatizing for transgender people. That's because it repudiates and denies a central fact of a person's identity -- their gender. In most cases, transgender people have had a lifelong battle to be accepted as the gender they understand themselves to be, and societal disapproval, mockery and judgement is a significant contributor to their increased risk of suicide, stress, isolation, anxiety, depression and poor self-esteem. Misgendering a trans person is arguably not only painful for them, but for trans readers who may feel that by extension, their own gender identity is also being denied.
• Some editors have argued that it's more important for Wikipedia to be accurate than to refrain from hurting people's feelings. And, editors have argued that Wikipedia should reflect article subjects' "real," "official," or "legal" gender. It's true that for most people, whose biological sex and internal sense of gender identity and public gender expression are all the same, it *is* that simple. For transgender people though, it's not. That's why it makes sense to reflect a person's gender as they say it is: because there is no other way to make the determination that is always and obviously better. Neither we nor the news media are experts on this topic nor are we the transgender person's doctor, nor do we have access to his or her birth certificate or driver's licence or medical records. We should respect the limits of our own knowledge. To label someone's gender as different from what they say it is is in fact a highly questionable decision, and in doing that Wikipedia would not be privileging truth over kindness.
• I will point out that many reliable news organizations' style guides agree with my position here, including that of the AP which feeds material to 1,700 newspapers and 5,000 broadcast outlets. Others have issued specific guidance on Manning (for example, here, here and here) which will no doubt be precedent-setting in future cases.
• Lastly: when I was studying journalism many years ago, misspelling or otherwise getting wrong the name of someone you wrote about was one of a very small number of ways in which a student would automatically fail an assignment. I say that simply to underscore that names are important to people, and getting them right is generally understood to be a matter of basic respect. Sue Gardner (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Up front I'll admit I can't see claims of potential harm to Manning (situations like that are what sparked this discussion) as dire; for the past 8+ months I've been singularly focused on a biography with far more serious privacy issues than this, and unlike the Manning situation there's potential for real-world harm if I'm not very careful. That being said, our goal isn't to right great wrongs in English terminology. We are supposed to be rendering prose in accordance with reliable sources, not blindly following LGBT groups (or any other group for that matter) however noble their intentions. The style that GLAAD and others noted above insist upon is not universally agreed upon even by all transgender people (see for instance Mina Caputo, specifically the Personal life section), and sources such as the NYT at least sometimes follow the convention of referring to someone by their gender at the time being discussed ([5] being a rather interesting article on Renee Richards). There are many situations where using the latest expressed gender at all times makes perfect sense (Calpernia Addams being one such example), but on the other extreme you get the hackneyed prose of articles like Dee Palmer or Alexis Reich. This would make it seem that there's no one easy solution, and it should probably be sorted out on a case-by-case basis instead of having a prescriptive rule clearly favoring a particular point of view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No, unless the change is adopted by the predominance of reliable sources-- WP is a summary of reliable sources. If they address a person differently after a person has a sex change then that portion of the WP article should reflect those sources accurately. I think having a guideline that says that we should present a subject on WP in that subject's preferred manner rather than the manner the subject is presented in reliable sources is a dangerous precedent.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sue Gardner. The sort of rejection we see on various pages here that transgender people even exist and a refusal to recognise the scientific, medical consensus in regard to transgendered people, is no different from the pushing of other sorts of WP:FRINGE POVs, e.g. climate change denial and more. The community and the Wikimedia Foundation need to take firm steps to stop that sort of thing if Wikipedia is to remain an encyclopedia. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• No, though I would have worded the discussion topic differently. It's not about the biological sex being vitally important, per se. I'm sure the Manning article will end up being titled Chelsea. My problem is with the re-writing of past events before the name change. Why isn't there more acknowledgment of the NLGJA policy? A spokesperson for the group said it would recommend “he” for historical reference: “When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time. For example: Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, came out as transgender last week. In a statement, Manning said she had felt this way since childhood. Manning grew up in Oklahoma. In middle school, he was very outspoken in class about government issues and religious beliefs, friends said.”

The full article is here. It was Betty Logan who drew my attention to that article, and I fully agree with her points near the top of this discussion, particularly:

The use of the female pronoun in such instances removes clarity from expressing a factual claim. It undermines WP:V, not least because you are not representing the claim as clearly as possible. You are effectively introducing wordplay to alter the context and expression of a fact that is not present in the source. MOS:IDENTITY is a nice guiding principle to have, but not if it compromises the documenting of fact, which is the over-riding goal of Wikipedia. In cases where the events of a person's life or facts about them are clearly contingent on them being biologically male/female then they shouldn't be compromised by revisionist gender pronouns. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

When building an encyclopedia we should respect history before anything else. The "she" pronoun should not be applied retrospectively when the subject was male. The "inconsistency of pronouns will confuse our readers" argument doesn't hold up. The reader is much more likely to be confused as to how the person was perceived by misidentifying the contemporaneous gender. When Manning was in the military everyone saw the person as male. Sources reporting on the trial wrote about Manning as male. WP should reflect that because it's not an account from the subject's POV, it's an encyclopedia. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

But was the subject male at the time? If someone is believed to have been born in Nashville but it later comes out that that person was born in Memphis, we don't have to continue referring to him or her as a Nashville native, even though pre-revelation sources will have done so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not analogous. We're talking about basic pronouns. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that, then you should also acknowledge that referring to someone using a pronoun is not necessarily the same thing as stating a fact.

Going back to the subject of biology, we can assume that Manning probably spent most of her life with male external genitalia, but we don't know about Manning's brain anatomy, body chemistry, chromosomes, levels of gene expression or any of the other non-imagined, measurable biological factors that produce gender in humans. My own take is that we should value biological sex over self-reference, but only if we are in a position to collect information about the subject's biological sex, and we're not.

If you wish to claim that Manning was ever male, what evidence do you have? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• No per Gothicfilm, this is about building an encyclopedia if reliable sources are referring to Manning as a male we should follow suit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Time to close? Unless I'm very much mistaken this looks like no consensus. I'd guess there isn't an admin watching or this would likely have been closed about a week ago -- what's the procedure? Chris Smowton (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete personal name in title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

what if someone says they want to be addressed by a new name, but say they want their page to still have the old one so people not in the know can still find out about them easily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.144.40 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be honestly surprised if anyone actually said that. That said, pages about people that have went by multiple names will often contain those names, or redirects to that page from those names. See Nicolas Cage for an easy example, and then try searching for his given name.

Because it is a very simple thing to set up, and would have clear ties to the old name, then that particular concern would be dealt with, I would think. Kell (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Whenever a subject (a person, an arena, etc) is known by multiple names, redirects are created so that people who type in any of the names reach the article. Your scenario is highly implausible; I wouldn't object if someone hatnoted it the way WT:MOS#what_if_someone_tries_to_claim_different_genders_and.2For_names_so_often_that_it_will_confuse_people.2C_and_be_hard_to_keep_up_to_date.3F was hatnoted, above. -sche (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• • what if you're using google?

When I was in school, whenever an authority figure came to give a presentation there was always one kid who would make a game out of insisting that they explain in excruciating detail how they would handle the most completely implausible scenario. They used to torment the poor guy from the fire department by asking them the precise response time to climb up to the tallest roof on campus. Generally, adults outgrow these games.GabrielF (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am revising the heading of this section from what if someone says they want to be addressed by a new name, but say they want their page to still have the old one so people not in the know can still find out about them easily? to Obsolete personal name in title, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 13 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Register.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What if Michelle Obama turned into a ice cream, so you updated Wikipedia but then you realised it was a dream so you tried to self-revert but you couldn't because you'd forgotten the URL for Wikipedia and you'd forgotten the URL for Google and you'd turned into an ice cream yourself? Is there a specific policy about this? Formerip (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:DENY.—Wavelength (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The simple answer to the question is... Our policy is to use whatever name is most frequently used by a significant majority of sources... regardless of the wishes of the individual. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME, WP:UNDUE, and a host of other policy and guideline provisions. Blueboar (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My one concern here with using the majority of sources is weird cases like trans* and some other minority stuff, where mainstream culture and minority culture issues clash in a way that's decidedly troublesome. An awful lot of trans* folks, for example, get kicked around in mainstream news sources, despite whatever amount of work (little or big) they've put into their lives. It strikes me as a rough way to treat human dignity, let alone Wikipedia:DIGNITY. 2602:306:C435:8719:3DC4:8440:925B:111D (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Slash"

The usage of Slash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Slash (musician) -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY RFC: Should the text "When there is no dispute..." be deleted, kept or changed?

This RFC concerns the following bold text from MOS:IDENTITY:

Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Article titles where the term appears in the title of an article. When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too. (For example, see the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to "Jewish person".)

Should this text be

1. Deleted
2. Kept
3. Changed. And if so, how should it be changed?

Survey

• Delete GabrielF (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Change or delete – I'd like to see specific proposals for how to make it meaningful, or remove it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - There's a reason the wording is so weak/vague and can only be weak/vague - per GabrielF below, MOS is not the place to address complex or controversial issues such as identity. MOS is about style, formatting, presentation, the superficial stuff. Not questions that get to the core of who a person is, what they are, what they stand for, how to respectfully refer to them, or what their "real" name is. Also, the statement is a tautology. "When there is no dispute," we've already settled on the name and don't need any further guidance. The only people who will care to read MOS are the people who are involved in disputes and seek clarity - which this guideline does not provide. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I think it is confusing and serves no real purpose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• change or delete The preponderance of the sources should determine which name to use (which should be in the guideline)Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete the last sentence, since the claim is false on at least two counts. (The term "Jewish person" does not even appear in the article Jew, nor is it possible for an encyclopedia article to "demonstrate" a claim; demonstrating an assertion in the social sciences is something that is done by primary sources, not by encyclopedias.) Then reword the rest: I suggest changing "when there is no dispute" (which makes it a tautology) to "In simple cases" or "Typically". In other words, the remaining text is an accurate description of how terms are usually chosen (e.g, why residents of the United States are called "Americans" on Wikipedia) in the absence of any challenge. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 05:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• delete it adds nothing, is confusing, and conflicts with commonname. We should point people to the numerous naming conventions besides wp:at as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep or change. The wording may not be perfect, but it is very important that Wikipedia contains guidance about how to deal with people's identity, and there is in my mind no better place for guidance about how to style articles than the manual of style. Removing the highlighted text is not the way to improve Wikipedia's coverage of sensitive issues - rather it would make things worse as the recent Chelsea Manning RFC shows we need firmer guidance not weaker. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as conflicting with WP:COMMONNAME. GregJackP Boomer! 10:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete As being in obvious conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. We can't afford to have any ambiguity whatsoever in issues like these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I gave my detailed comments the last time this was proposed, but in short, the history of how this wording was created shows that it was designed to be informational, not instructive, and since it is unclear it is better to delete it. 99.192.87.226 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
• Delete Well-intentioned, but unclear, liable to be misinterpreted/misapplied, and encroaching on content issues that are best handled through our policies and guidelines rather than the style manual. Abecedare (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete as unclear and superseded by WP:COMMONNAME. Edge3 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep or change to "The term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too. (For example, see the article Jew, which demonstrates that most Jews prefer that term to 'Jewish person.')" Removing "When there is no dispute" makes the statement true. The term most commonly used is what it is regardless of whether Wikipedians are fighting about it or not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What happens if "the term most commonly used for a person" by reliable sources is not the term that person prefers? In that case your text would appear to be stating that the less common term actually counts as being more common just because the article subject prefers it. That completely redefines the words "most common" to mean something that they do not mean. GabrielF (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete The language is too loose. Someone knows if they are or aren't male/female and their personal characteristics. The 'dispute' refers to disputes here, in editing, not with the person themselves. Make this as clear so we avoid as many future Chelsea/Bradley Manning problems as possible. KrakatoaKatie 03:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and change Remove the "When there is no dispute" qualification. There is no conflict with WP:COMMONNAME as WP:COMMONNAME is only for article titles whilst MOS:IDENTITY is for style issues in the article body. There may be conflicts between the subject of the article and other reliable sources, but as a source about themselves, a person trumps other sources, in as much as other sources become either out-of-date or are less reliable. Once a reliable secondary or tertiary source says that the primary source (the subject which changed their name) says as much, that's it. No other primary source can even say otherwise: we should follow the Anglo-American common law (think California, home of the WMF, and your TOS choice of law provisions you agreed to) principles which has traditionally allowed name changes by a person "at will" (a common law right especially protected in California), and not follow European practice where one must beg their landlord (aka the King in Council, or in this case the US president) for permission to do so. IOW, that person is the only reliable primary source on the issue. The "him" versus "her" debate I think flows from the same logic, but is unfortunately unclear; this however is not relevant to the text under discussion. Int21h (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be looking at this through the prism of the Bradley Manning case. Does your analysis also apply to historical persons and to groups, as the current text does now? For instance, Christopher Columbus did not go by that name - it is a later anglicization. Many historical persons are known in English by anglicized names. Does this policy mean that we have to change them, even if the names are unfamiliar and confusing to readers? What about groups? How do we determine what an ethnic group, the majority of whose members do not speak English, prefer to be called in English? If there is a source that says "group X should be called Y" how do we know that that source represents the wishes of the group as a whole and not of a vocal minority that might have a particular political agenda? GabrielF (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. As has been pointed out, this doesn't contradict WP:COMMONNAME because that only applies to article titles. As for the rest, it may be that "if there is no dispute" is poor wording, but if that clause is changed, there still needs to be a limiting clause. We can't just pick the subject's preferred name all the time.

Even for Manning, there can be disputes about exactly the scope of the subject's self-identification. It's clear that Manning wishes to be called Chelsea now, but it's not so clear that Manning wishes to be called Chelsea in reference to events that happened before she announced a name change (and likewise for pronouns). But the biggest case I can think of is not Manning, but the case where group A claims to be part of group B, and identifies accordingly, but anyone else who identifies with group B thinks that A is a bunch of posers. Under these circumstances, A's self-identification impinges on someone else's self-identification and therefore should not be uncritically accepted. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. In looking for guidance on the Chelsea Manning dispute I looked through the edit history and talk history for Chaz Bono, which had a similar history of covering someone who was famous first, and came out as trans later. I saw this wording was very helpful there. Helpful enough that it's been adopted for Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW, used by 130 pages according to the transclusion counter. I'd hate for one heated case to scupper a proven-useful guideline. Metadox (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Template:MOS-TM does not use any of the language that is proposed for deletion. Template:MOS-TW does not use any of the language that is proposed for deletion. The talk history of Chaz Bono does not use any of the language that is proposed for deletion. They all talk about other parts of MOS:IDENTITY, just not this part of it. 99.192.50.55 (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

You're right, I misread/misremembered. I've retracted my entry until I can recruit more sleep or coffee. Thanks for the correction. Metadox (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep (but probably improve) per Thryduulf. -sche (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete bolded text and reword the remainder. Identity, like anything else on WP, should always be determined by WP:V, RS, NPOV etc. It shouldn't have to wait for a dispute, and it shouldn't be determined by non-policy-based criteria such as self-identification. Disputes should be resolved by consensus, and this should be stated in the guideline. Please see my detailed argument in the section below. Scolaire (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

The current text is so poorly worded as to be meaningless. The trouble with this text comes when there is a conflict between how a person or group is most commonly addressed in reliable sources and how that person or group prefers to address itself. If you ignore the phrase "When there is no dispute...", the policy makes a very strong statement that we must use the term that the person or group prefers. However, the phrase "When there is no dispute" renders everything that follows meaningless. If there is no dispute, why consult the manual of style? The entire purpose of a manual of style is to provide some guidance when there are multiple plausible choices. The policy, as written, does not actually tell us what to do if there is a dispute. It is very easy for someone who (purposefully or not) ignores the phrase "When there is no dispute" to come away thinking that the policy is saying something that it is not actually saying.

This is not a hypothetical problem. The lack of clarity has led to different editors interpreting this policy in radically different ways. In the recent Manning dispute an editor said of MOS:IDENTITY: "Some people have argued that this doesn’t apply because there is a dispute over whether to use Chelsea or Bradley. But I think it is clear in context that the reference to a “dispute” does not mean a dispute on Wikipedia; rather it means a dispute regarding what is subsequently referred to in the sentence – “the term ... [a] person uses for himself or herself...”[6] If the wording of a policy is so unclear that editors can take radically different views on what the policy refers to, then the policy is not providing clear guidance and needs to be fixed. This is one example of the practical impact of the lack of clarity of this policy. Many other examples exist.

It is possible to modify this text so that it makes a strong statement that we should prefer the article subject's self-identification. However, I do not believe that the MOS is the place to do this. For one thing, this would put the policy at odds with WP:COMMONNAME. Additionally, the MOS is an inappropriate forum for this discussion. Traditionally, the MOS handles issues of style and presentation whereas other policies, such as those referenced in the first sentence, handle the deeper content issues. The MOS is weaker than those policies - it is considered a "guideline" while BLP is considered formal policy. GabrielF (talk) 02:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no no no no. Yes, the phrase "When there is no dispute..." is confusing. It should be removed. What's left would possibly conflict with other sources that refer to him as Bradley Manning; these sources are trumped by a particularly reliable source: Manning. Once a secondary or tertiary source confirms what the primary source of note uses, all other sources should be deemed to be out-of-date. Deeming sources to be overridden by other sources is commonplace, particularly if one source is newer and reflects changed conditions. I actually don't think that poses much of a problem for current policy. WP:COMMONNAME is plain irrelevant; it only concerns article titles, whereas MOS:IDENTITY concerns content. (The Manning proposal even touched on this.) The MOS should reflect consensus, and I think consensus should reflect my opinion, which I think most editors also hold: it is up to Manning. This is reflected in Anglo-American cultural values which are themselves a reflection of long running legal practice in the common law that allows for people to "call themselves whatever they wish". The European practice is practically unknown to us, and it actually makes me quite angry when I hear a consular officer tell someone that they may not get a visa or whatever unless their driver's license says whats on their "life certificate" (yeah, Europe, what can I say. pfft.), which reflects how difficult and uncommon it is. Even the states where court decrees are required, they are to be granted by default. (European practice, on the hand, is to require a reason for doing so as I understand.) As such, Manning becomes the most reliable primary source on the matter. Int21h (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a question, before I comment, because I'm a little puzzled on something. What does this section, "When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself." actually add to the policy?Cam94509 (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Before anyone corrects me, I know, I know, "guideline", not "policy". Cam94509 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of us are finding that it adds precisely nothing; that it's a tautology. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense in terms of, for example, Jews preferring that term to Jewish people or Israelites, as some people may refer to that group or individuals in that group. However, if there is no dispute then it's likely the case that the correct terminology is being used already... However, for cases where there is a dispute (in the sources, not between our editors), we need some guideline or policy to reflect the prevailing opinion of editors. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 05:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence: "Wikipedia should use them too." should also be removed as it's redundant. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That sentence got added after the rest of the text proposed for deletion was written. I believe it was added by someone who read the rest, saw that it was merely informational, not instructive, and so thought it would help to add the instruction. But it is redundant to say it and the rest, as others have noted, in confusing and not meant to instruct anyway. 99.192.87.226 (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• As currently written, does the MOS apply only to BLPs? How would it be applied to dead/historical figures (eg, Rajeesh/Osho, Byron/Noel,...)? In such cases would only the last self-chosen name count, or should we look at what reliable sources use? I agree that the current version is a hash and better off deleted, or recrafted more-narrowly. Abecedare (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The existing text clearly applies to more than just BLPs since it references groups. I see nothing in the text that suggests it would not apply to historical figures. GabrielF (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved with the Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, I can tell you that self-identification as a principle does not work. It has proved unworkable to such an extent that it was taken out of IMOS altogether, having been there for years as a criterion for a person's Irish-language name, and having also been used informally as a criterion for a person's nationality. The simple reason is that it is extremely rare to find reliable sources that say unambiguously what a subject's personal preference is. There was a particularly lame dispute recently at Talk:Michael Gambon where one participant actually claimed that a 2010 interview where Gambon said he didn't "feel" Irish trumped a 2004 interview where he said "I am Irish"! The case of Chelsea Manning is relatively unique, in that the subject's personal preference made banner headlines. The only similar case I can think of off-hand is Muhammad Ali, and we call him Muhammad Ali because that is how he has been referred to by every sports writer for the past forty-odd years, not because he "self-identifies" as Ali. "Jew" is also a bad example, because even if that statement is correct, it is not a principle that is universally applied. Quakers are called Quakers, although they call themselves "Friends", and Hispanics are called Hispanics regardless of whether, as a group, they have ever expressed a preference. To say that "the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself", therefore, is simply untrue. This is not to rule self-identification out altogether, by the way. Where RS, NPOV and other policies do not point to a single answer, identity will be decided by discussion and consensus, and self-identification is a perfectly valid argument in a discussion. It just doesn't belong in a MOS. Scolaire (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

?OK, question: what do we do when there are multiple names for a subject, like with Octavian? Would that not be a similar situation? Int21h (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My answer would be, discuss it on the article talk page. It's an article-specific question, not a question of style. This page is only for giving general guidelines. Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

New Survey started regarding wording of the MOS-TW and MOS-TM templates

This survey concerns wording on the MOX-TW and MOS-TM templates. You can view the discussion here: Template talk:MOS-TW#Removal of possible WP:POV statement - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Question on prefered units

Hi all, just a quick question: should the use of astronomical units (ie: lightyears vs parsecs) be added to MOS? I searched but found nothing in the current version. Should I try to come up with some sort of consensus over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy first? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is specified elsewhere, but it would be nice for it to be specified somewhere. Most Wikipedia editors have limited knowledge of astronomical units (just as we have limited knowledge of, say, architecture, or any other specialized field). We would probably appreciate some guidance on what measurements would be preferable. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC on pronouns throughout life

It would appear that the jury is still out on the topic of pronouns from before a person's announcement (for example, referring to Private Manning as either "she" or "he" when Manning was young). Discussions on this topic have been mixed in with other discussions, so I propose a dedicated discussion. I propose a survey on the retention or removal of the sentence on this topic.

Regarding the following sentence from MOS:IDENTITY:

This applies in references to any phase of that person's life.

What do you think should happen to this sentence?

• Keep
• Delete
• Change (please specify how)

Proposed by CaseyPenk, who will not !vote on this matter but reserves the right to comment. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey on pronouns throughout life

• Keep. Trans women are women. Thinking of trans women whose bodies haven't yet been fixed with surgery as men uses the point of view that people whose anatomy and identity do not match are people with the right anatomy and the wrong identity, a point of view people who understand transgenderism don't use. How easy is it to understand this statement:

Christine Jorgensen is a woman; this statement is true throughout her life; she merely had the wrong body before it got fixed with surgery. Georgia guy (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• delete Is is arguably more neutral to portray events as others viewed them, and not solely through the lens of an individuals' lived experience. For example, if there was a soldier in an all-male unit, it wouldnt' make sense to portray this soldier as "female" even if he had gender identity disorder during his time in service, because everyone around them treated them as if they were male. Rather it would make more sense to being the use of the female pronoun at the point that person comes out as transgender and begins transitioning (Note: I'm not saying we should require surgery, etc, but rather just the public announcement or obvious actions taken (such as a name change) that suggest you are embracing a different gender). This is in line with NGLJA guidelines. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  Comment. You appear to be thinking that transsexualism is a mental disorder per the word "disorder" in your post. Georgia guy (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure on OWK's reasoning, but we do have a page on gender identity disorder and we use the term "gender identity disorder" through the article on Manning. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone is so disturbed by their assigned gender that they end up transitioning, then they would qualify for a diagnosis of GID. I know some people find GID offensive but that's what it is called - gender dysphoria is another term but it's more broad, and there are people with gender dysphoria who never transition. I'm not passing any judgement on what "disorder" means, as I'm not a clinical psychologist, so take it up with those guys not me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons I stated in the discussion section below. I also concur with OWK's point four paragraphs above, that it is "more neutral to portray events as others viewed them, and not solely through the lens of an individuals' lived experience." - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. It is confusing and deceptive to describe someone who doesn't consider themselves female, and that no one considers female, as female, just because twenty later they will suddenly realize they should be such. Gender identity is more complex than something eternally unchanging - for some people it absolutely does change over time, and we shouldn't be pretending that it doesn't. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• User:Cam94509 made an insightful comment about this recently. Basically, the push to "use the pronouns a person's contemporaries used at each stage of their life" misunderstands not just what it means to be trans, but also what pronouns (and names) are for. As Cam put it, pronouns and names are "used to refer to a person or thing, not used to describe them. In so far as they do any describing, they are used to describe that person in their current state, even if you are discussing them in past. You would, for instance, say 'Mrs. Smith did X as a child', even if she was Miss Carpenter at that time in her life." Many editors find this intuitive about names, perhaps because they have experience with people changing names: they may have had the chance to see how confusing it is to say "Miss Carpenter got an award from the mayor for her work. A year later, Mrs. Smith got a letter of thanks from the prime minister." (Huh? Are you discussing two people, or one?) Some editors find it less intuitive about pronouns, perhaps because they have less experience with people 'changing' genders. They may not have had a chance to see how much it confuses people to tell a story about a woman and switch to "he" midway through: "Mrs. Smith has always been patriotic. Miss Carpenter wrote her thesis on Trafalgar. In primary school, he told his classmates that his favourite holiday was 5 November." (Huh? How many people are you talking about??) Complicating matters, many transgender people say (and medical science, looking at brain structures, etc, increasingly supports) that they have always been the gender they now identify with, and that rather than 'changing' gender, they have simply come to accept and reveal their gender. Keep the line, I think. -sche (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This makes sense; and indeed, when speaking to a TG person directly, I would probably use the current pronouns the whole way back - and I don't doubt the science that says (in some cases) that they have not really changed genders, they are just revealing their "true" gender that has always been there (there are also edge cases, I note, like people who prefer the pronouns "they" or "hir" or even self-created ones, or who don't identity as either male or female)

However, when writing an encyclopedic, neutral article, we have to take other things into consideration. You can already see that the guideline exhorts us to rewrite things to handle oddities like "He gave birth to a child" - so it's already explicitly acknowledged that use of the current pronouns complicates description of the past - but here we have a case of a soldier who is about to be incarcerated in an all-male prison and who has always been treated like a man - and the retroactive changing of pronouns, while it may misrepresent Manning's internal state as of some moment in time X, is indisputably a more accurate and neutral representation of how that person was viewed by the world when the events being described were happening. To take an extreme example, a reader may come across something like "She walked naked into the boys shower room and was mercilessly teased by the others" where the use of the female pronoun completely screws up the story - and then we're exhorted to not "avoid" pronouns either.

I see your point, that lines like "David Bowie was born in X" when David Bowie didn't even exist at the time, but when talking of the past, if you say "Bowie was born in 1965" - you're not imagining rock-star David Bowie, but Bowie as-he-was-as-a-little-boy. In the same way, when you use a pronoun to describe something in the past, that also invokes the PAST personage, not the current one, at least in my head. The pronouns bring to mind instantly a gender (and the whole package of gender roles that that entails) in a way that Mrs. Smith vs. Miss Carpenter doesn't. I think the best way would be to carefully draft two articles - say of Manning - and then do a survey of readers (a/b test) and try to understand what users find confusing, and is a pronoun switch ultimately worse or better than a consistent use of a pronoun. Ultimately, our goal is to prevent readable, good articles for our readers, that follow sources in a neutral fashion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"insightful" perhaps, but incorrect. When we write about Muhammad Ali, when we talk about his bouts before he changed his name, we call him Clay. When we write about Hillary Clinton, when we talk about her early life, we call her Hillary Rodham. So "You would, for instance, say 'Mrs. Smith did X as a child'," is strictly incorrect. We would not and do not write that.--GRuban (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• delete/change It is a violation of WP:V and WP:BLP to make this a blanket policy/guideline. Just because SOME trans people feel that way their entire life, does not mean that ALL trans people feel that way their entire life, and we should not be making such statements on their behalf. In cases where people have made clear statements saying the have felt they have been gender X their entire life, then we should consider it. In cases where they have not made such statements, we should only switch genders for actions after their transition/announcement. Further, in historical actions that were clearly gender controlled (childbirth, membership in gender restricted groups, etc) we should use their original gender in order for things to make sense. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to developing better wording. There should be an assumption in favour of using the most recent pronoun, but the guidance is at present too rigid. It ought to allow for pronoun usage, for example, to reflect the preferences of the subject or to avoid confusing, tortured or deceptive text. I find the peripheral guidance on this wrong-headed. There is nothing wrong with saying that a transgender man once worked as a air-hostess and we should certainly not go by a rule of pretending that they never give birth. Wikipedia should reflect the world.

I think the guidance has been drawn up with two aims in mind. It should properly deal only with style related to gender-identity, but I think it is also trying to deal with the issue of privacy in low-profile BLPs. These are separate issues that should be dealt with separately.

@-sche. The argument that personal pronouns refer rather than describe may be tempting, but it is not correct. They do both. The fact that they do both may be more or less important depending on context, but consider: "When my son came to visit, I offered her a cup of tea". Formerip (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Gaijin42. The guideline pretends to follow the wishes of trans people, but there is no reason to suppose that all trans people feel this way - it's legislating how they are supposed to feel. Also, the guideline doesn't follow usage in the real world, either in reliable sources, or in manuals of style. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as better for article consistency and more respectful to transgender people (per sche). I don't buy the argument that we need to change the MOS in a way that could potentially damage dozens of articles because purely hypothetical individual subjects might feel differently; if we have a subject who does feel that they have changed gender rather than always having been the gender they have revealed themselves to be, WP:IAR and handle that article differently. Don't open the door to trolls. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If I read your comment correctly, your belief is that most transgender individuals prefer to be referred to using the current preferred pronouns throughout all phases of their life, and that only a few transgender individuals feel differently? CaseyPenk (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is not something that can be concluded from the evidence so far adduced. We have evidence that LGBT organisations advise that (linguistic) gender should match the identity of the person at the time and that transgender people talking about their childhood match their gender to their sex at birth. We don't seem to have anything, so far, pointing the other way. Formerip (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It is my understanding that the majority of experts on the issue of gender identity take the position that the gender of a person is fixed before the age of three and remains unchanged over the course of a person's life. If that is correct, then it would be factually inaccurate to say that a transgender person "changed" gender. As an encyclopedia, factual accuracy is paramount, so the pronouns we use should reflect our current best information on a person's gender. If we find out that an article has inaccurately said that a person of one gender is actually the other gender, then we must change the article to remove the false information. 99.192.71.2 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

I will quote from this article in Encyclopedia Britannica:

Basic gender identity—the concept “I am a boy” or “I am a girl”—is generally established by the time the child reaches the age of three and is extremely difficult to modify thereafter.

CaseyPenk (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Change to "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the person in question has expressed different desires in a WP:RS. If the person has expressed different desires, then follow those desires." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the sentence "He gave birth to his first child." Some men have uteruses. Some women have penises. This wording conforms to the AP Stylebook, the GLAAD guidelines, the NCTE's advice, the advice of UC Berkeley's Center for Gender Equity, and is common practice with people and in areas who are aware of trans issues. I'm significantly concerned that some commenters on this page don't appear to have looked at any material about this issue before they !voted, and I presume the closing admin will discount !votes based on uninformed personal opinion. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Most !votes have been thoughtful and grounded in reasonable rationales. I have yet to see any !votes that are hateful or propose ridiculous and untenable theories about transgender people. Most editors who support deletion of the sentence have put forward rationales based on reasonable pretenses, such as the desire to accurately described what reliable sources viewed the subject's gender to be at that phase in that person's life. Could you please identify which particular !votes you see as purely personal opinion? It may also help to respond to such comments so as to draw attention to what you view as faulty reasoning. Were I the closing admin I would not see the preceding comments as worthy of being discarded, sans an explanation of which ones should be discounted and why. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per Roscelese. Pass a Method talk 22:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, many editors and especially vandals need a clear understanding of this because trans issues are just as of yet beyond their understanding. Or worse, they see trans people as morally inferior and wish to make this point through poor writing and editing. It seems this same argument needs to be asked and answered even with a good explanation. Imagine the disruption without a clear directive. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on pronouns throughout life

NLGJA guidelines

• My problem is with the re-writing of past events before the name change. Why isn't there more acknowledgment of the NLGJA policy? A spokesperson for the group said it would recommend “he” for historical reference: “When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time. For example: Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, came out as transgender last week. In a statement, Manning said she had felt this way since childhood. Manning grew up in Oklahoma. In middle school, he was very outspoken in class about government issues and religious beliefs, friends said.”

The full article is here. It was Betty Logan who drew my attention to that article, and I fully agree with her points near the top of an earlier discussion on this page, particularly:

The use of the female pronoun in such instances removes clarity from expressing a factual claim. It undermines WP:V, not least because you are not representing the claim as clearly as possible. You are effectively introducing wordplay to alter the context and expression of a fact that is not present in the source. MOS:IDENTITY is a nice guiding principle to have, but not if it compromises the documenting of fact, which is the over-riding goal of Wikipedia. In cases where the events of a person's life or facts about them are clearly contingent on them being biologically male/female then they shouldn't be compromised by revisionist gender pronouns. Betty Logan (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

When building an encyclopedia we should respect history before anything else. The "she" pronoun should not be applied retrospectively when the subject was male. The "inconsistency of pronouns will confuse our readers" argument doesn't hold up. The reader is much more likely to be confused as to how the person was perceived by misidentifying the contemporaneous gender. When Manning was in the military everyone saw the person as male. Sources reporting on the trial wrote about Manning as male. WP should reflect that because it's not an account from the subject's POV, it's an encyclopedia. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I won't address your entire post, but I would note that the NLGJA is focused on gay and lesbian - not transgender - issues. There has been historical animosity between gay/lesbian people and transgender people. That animosity still exists to some degree, although I think it is getting better. I think there are two main reasons for that animosity:

1. In some senses, gays/lesbians have different goals for the LGBT movement than transgender people do. Transgender people might value hormone replacement therapy more than same-sex marriage rights, and vice versa for gays/lesbians.
2. Gays and lesbians may not fully understand the experiences of transgender people, just as I do not fully understand the experiences of some groups to which I do not belong. Whether a lack of understanding of transgender issues factors into the NLGJA guidelines, I am not sure, but you may wish to consider that possibility. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

From their website: "Founded in 1990, NLGJA is an organization of journalists, media professionals, educators and students working from within the news industry to foster fair and accurate coverage of LGBT issues. NLGJA opposes all forms of workplace bias and provides professional development to its members." so I'm not sure if your statement is true Casey.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Name-dropping the term "LGBT" is common; many organizations do that. Actually following through on issues of interest to the "T" part is much more difficult. For example, many transgender people criticize the Human Rights Campaign for neglecting transgender issues despite the HRC claiming to speak for all LGBT people. While the NLGJA might not be actively hostile to transgender causes, it might not be the most supportive. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You should write an email to NGLJA and GLAAD and ask them why they have disparate guidelines then.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was serious or rhetorical. I don't claim to definitively understand why different organizations issue different guidelines; but the tensions between L/G and T is one possible reason. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume any tension as a reason to diminish the NLGJA policy. The principle of writing accurately for an encyclopedia holds. The article is about events that occurred and how RS reported those events. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, I am not necessarily assuming tension - but I am suggesting that tension may be there. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of weight seems to be being put on a the second had report of a comment one spokesperson made in an email. This was not an officially published statement of policy nor was it a public announcement of any kind marking an "official" position on pronouns. Furthermore, that email refers to the "gender the individual used publicly at that time." Note it does not say the "gender the individual was at that time." So even the NLGJA seems to be saying that Manning was female at the time. If their advice to journalists is based on worrying about confusion rather than accuracy, then we really should NOT take this advice. But I would like to hear more from NLGJA or some other similar organization before concluding that it is accurate to use "he". 99.192.71.2 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (-99.192....)

Other discussion

• It is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:V to assume that ALL trans people have the same experience, eg that they have been the "other" gender their entire lives. We should not be making any such blanket statements for all trans people, without a specific statement as to that situation for themselves (Similar to how BLPCAT means we have to have an explicit statement about orientation at all). To make this policy violates the rights of trans people just as much as not respecting their gender preference at all, regardless of what the LGBT PC lobby would say. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have seen people argue that we should respect the "preference" of a subject by using the pronouns they want as an argument for using female pronouns for the entire life of a transgender woman. Now, it seems, you think that a person's "preference" can be an argument for using different pronouns at different times. My response to you is the same as my response to the others who talk about "preference". The pronouns that a person "prefers" we use has no weight at all. Wikipedia is not in the business of writing articles to match the subjects' "preferences". We report the facts as accurately as they can be supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources tell us that gender is fixed in infancy and remains the same throughout a person's life. So an individual person might "prefer" we switch pronouns, but it does not make it accurate. But in general, the idea that we should be deciding policy based on what a subject "prefers" is a very weak argument. 99.192.71.2 (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)

• Comment: I have notified WikiProject LGBT studies. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have notified WikiProject gender studies. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have notified the talk page of the Private Manning article. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)