Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Simple Sarah (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 12 September 2013 (→‎Survey on pronouns throughout life: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:MOS/R


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)[reply]

Yes. Personal identity is vitally important, and I'd argue considerably more vital than biological sex. —me_and 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Biology is essential to the survival of the human race. jj (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Are self-identified names often wrong?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Georgia guy - Self-identified names often aren't common names. NickCT (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Example: Is Christine Jorgensen the right name or a wrong name?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Yes, and I object to the loaded wording of the question. EvergreenFir has it right. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]


""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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete I think it is confusing and serves no real purpose. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete as conflicting with WP:COMMONNAME. GregJackP Boomer! 10:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As being in obvious conflict with WP:COMMONNAME. We can't afford to have any ambiguity whatsoever in issues like these. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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....)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete as unclear and superseded by WP:COMMONNAME. Edge3 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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....)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Before anyone corrects me, I know, I know, "guideline", not "policy". Cam94509 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us are finding that it adds precisely nothing; that it's a tautology. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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....)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

?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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Hi CaseyPenk, I agree that some guidance is definitely necessary. I've opened a discussion over at the Astronomy WikiProject but there doesn't seem to be much consensus that this is needed, at least so far. I'll wait until the discussion comes to a conclusion (or dies off) and report back here. Regards. Gaba (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It's not easy to understand. For one thing when you say transwomen, it isn't immediately clear whether you mean men who became women or women who became men. Saying they are women all their life doesn't make sense, then they wouldn't be a trans-woman. Christine Jorgensen was born male. She was uncomfortable with that gender so she changed it with surgery.Walterego (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "transman" and "transwoman" are standard and unambiguous, feel free to look them up in a popular online encyclopaedia. If you need further help to remember them then read the "trans" part as "transitioned to". Christine Jorgenson is a female who was born with a male body, her gender has not changed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No. It's not called GID. It's Gender Dysphoria, at least in the United states, as of DSM V. We only use the outdated GID because that's what everyone calls it... That said, referring to is as GID is reasonable, I suppose, given that's what everyone calls it. Cam94509 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
This gets at an important distinction: retrospective vs. retroactive changes. Muhammad Ali was already both famous and notable under the name Cassius Clay, and we don't retroactively replace Clay with Ali for his earlier bouts. David Bowie was completely unknown and non-notable as a child, and when we talk about his early life we're looking retrospectively at the biography of the person who would become famous as David Bowie. In that case it is completely natural to use the name Bowie throughout. Similarly, I think the rule under discussion here is fairly uncontroversial for retrospective use, when we're writing about someone who became notable later under a different name and identity. The difficulty is when a change would apply retroactively, replacing an earlier identity that was already well-known. It's hard to justify a blanket rule in this case, and many of the counterexamples that keep coming up (Muhammad Ali and Cat Stevens) are exactly in this category. --Amble (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
To be clear, whilst the NLGJA recommends using pronoun-at-the-time, the AP and GLAAD both recommend using current pronoun without qualification. So it is true that these manuals do not explicitly advocate current-pronoun-always, nor do they advocate pronoun-at-the-time. Chris Smowton (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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....)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia's own Gender identity page cites two scholarly books in support of the same claim. 99.192.71.2 (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
It's a general statement which may generally be true, but is complicated by the existence of transgender people. I don't imagine that this leaflet, written by transgender people, is intended for three year-olds. Formerip (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is anything in that leaflet that contradicts the claim that gender is fixed in early childhood, point it out. I just briefly skimmed it and saw nothing that did that. 99.192.71.2 (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
The title. Not "I am transgender, what do I do?", but "I think I might be transgender, now what do I do?". Formerip (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does not indicate anything about gender change. "I think I might be X" just means that I do not know for sure, but leaves open the possibility that I am and always have been X. 99.192.71.2 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Perhaps, or perhaps not. But consider the statement cited above: "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". Clearly, this is a general statement which does not take into account the experiences of transgender people. Formerip (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are saying you think the Britannica article has it wrong, I agree. They also talk about "the proper identity" for a person, which assumes that there is something wrong with being transgender. I think we would all say that it is unfortunate, since typically a transgender person prefers a different body, but to call it "improper" is to us a moralizing term. It also talks about "sex-appropriate behaviour" as if that were not morally loaded. So no, I don't have much faith in Britannica on this. 99.192.71.2 (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
My position is that this should be about human dignity before it is about scientific theory. A ten-year old biological girl who later identifies as a transgender man might be theorised as a boy. But that doesn't mean we have the right to insist she is one. Or, for that matter, deny she is one. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The comment of StAnselm is problematic because although StAnselm claims the guideline doesn't follow usage in the real world, reliable sources, or in manuals of style, StAnselm provides no examples demonstrating that, StAnselm just puts the claim out there. I quoted several guidelines from reliable sources and the only stylebook I have on hand, all of which disagree with StAnselm. Gaijin42's comment is problematic because it is based on his personal feelings and among other things completely disregards academic consensus that gender identity is almost always formed at a young age and that most trans people do experience gender dysphoria or identify as a gender other than the sex they were born as from a very very young age. GRuban's comment is similarly problematic in that it disregards academic consensus that gender identity is formed at a young age, and is also disrespectful to trans people. I'm placing these here rather than in-line comments because I don't really want to get in to an argument with someone who, say, believes that trans people "suddenly realize" they want to switch genders when they're in their twenties. As an aside: since the gendergap list has a high number of subscribers who are knowledgeable about gender issues, I've gone ahead and notified that list of this discussion with a neutrally worded message. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping them here in case they want to respond to your concern or edit their rationales: User:StAnselm, User:Gaijin42, User:GRuban. If you find !votes provided without rationales troublesome, I assume you have similar qualms about User:Pass a Method's !vote, which the user provided with no rationale other than deferring to another editor.
Also, Gaijin42 cited Wikipedia policies in the rationale. Policy-backed arguments are generally strong. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
!Votes that don't provide their own unique rationale can be useful in pointing out to the closing admin that they should probably pay extra attention to the person whose rationale is being differed to, but yeah, I wouldn't really expect "keep per soandso" to hold the same weight as a full vote. Policy backed arguments are generally strong, but policy backed arguments that fly in the face of academic consensus - not so much. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been mentioned here, I was particularly thinking of the NLGJA's suggestion on "using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time". I also note the issue is not covered in the Chicago Manual of Style, so presumably it advocates historical pronoun use. Moreover, I would like some evidence that the AP Stylebook advocates the usage discussed here. It certainly advocates current pronoun usage based on the subject's preference, but does it advocate historical use of the same? I can't even find that in the GLAAD Media Reference Guide. StAnselm (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are making problematic claims about what the sources recommend. GLAAD explicitly advises "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." in your own link. I also don't know how Chicago not covering your preferred usage is evidence of them advocating your preferred usage. __Elaqueate (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is usually best to report on transgender people's stories from the present day instead"
  • Unfortunately, that's not a luxury we have. As an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to report on all parts of her life and cannot focus exclusively on the present day; furthermore, since Wikipedia is explicitly not written in a news style, we cannot write in a reporting tone or use present tense, as if we were telling story. We simply cannot say "She leaks the documents, then she gets arrested," as if it were a play-by-play. We have to use the past tense, and say, "(s)he leaked the documents, then (s)he got arrested." What may work for journalists doesn't always work here. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CaseyPenk, since writing an encyclopedia is different from writing a news story as you point out, then it would seem that we really should put little weight (if any) on the style guidance that NGLJA gave to a journalist about pronoun use, sine it was (at best) advice for a different style of writing. 99.192.81.252 (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Okay, well in that case we have no guidelines to follow so we should default to the encyclopedic norm - describing the subject at a given time as it was known at the time. What you're saying is really that we shouldn't have any special journalistic exception for transgender people, and it seems that most people support that. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the encyclopedic norm is not to describe the subject "as it was known at the time", but to describe the subject as they were at the time. So 10 years ago Manning was not just "known as" "Bradley", that was actually her name then. But also 10 years ago she was "known as" male, but she actually was female. Think of a transgender person as like someone who is in disguise and pretending to be the gender they are not, because that is pretty close to the reality. I quickly must add the disclaimer that this is not to say that a transgender person can be blamed for lying about their gender, but they are typically lying about it and for many, many years. Lying about your gender can literally be a matter of life and death for transgender people. But it is still a lie, and so as an encyclopedia we should not perpetuate the lie when we discover it. We now know that Manning is female. To continue to use male pronouns for Manning is to perpetuate the lie. 99.192.81.252 (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
"as it was known at the time" <-- I believe very strongly in this definition. We are in the business of meta-reporting; reporting about reporting. Not reporting on our own, or spreading the truth, or even determining the truth. Just passing along what others have said. Rather mundane but that's our only goal and our only capability.
"as an encyclopedia we should not perpetuate the lie when we discover it" <-- Again, we are not in the business of "exposing" lies. That's the job of AdBusters, PETA, Heritage Foundation, GLAAD, and any number of other political or advocacy organizations. We are not in the business of "liberating" the public from "falsehoods" about gender; we simply report whatever accurate or not-so-accurate things the reliable sources say. It comes down to reliable sources. That's the only test we should use, and the results are unambiguous. They refer to Manning's younger years using "he." It's really that simple.
You seem still attached to the idea that Wikipedia should be exposing the truth, or even figuring the truth out. Well, think of it this way. Wikipedia is a robot. We can only do rote actions. Monkey see, monkey do. We parse a CBS News article, we copy the text, and then we paste it into a Wikipedia article (ignore copyvio concerns for the moment). The CBS News article describes "he" and then "she." All we have done is copied the text; we have not editorialized on it. We have simply quoted verbatim from a reliable source. Rather than invent our own arcane and elaborate solution, let's do as we have always done at the most fundamental level when writing Wikpedia articles: let's be robots. Let's do the only thing Wikipedia was ever designed to do: pass along what others have written. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't get it. I am not arguing for some sort of crusading advocacy of political agendas. When I say "as an encyclopedia we should not perpetuate the lie when we discover it" what I mean is the obvious. Take the previously repeated Memphis/Nashville example. If all the reliable sources over a period of 10 years say X was born in Memphis, we put that on X's Wikipedia page. But if reliable sources subsequently report that this was an error or a lie and X was actually born in Nashville, we report that. We certainly don't continue to say that for those ten years it was the case that X was born in Memphis, but then after that it became the case that X was born in Nashville. That's crazy. So if for many years people thought that Manning was male, but now we have the reliable sources to verify that she is female, we should not perpetuate the lie.
Also, you cannot possibly believe strongly in continuing to report information "as it was known at the time" when we subsequently have reliable sources that this information was false. It wasn't until 1974 that Jack Nicholson learned the true identity of his parents. His mother is a person he believed to be his sister, and the person he thought was his mother is his grandmother. This all happened after he was a world-famous movie star and twice nominated for "Best Actor" Oscars. His Wikipedia page accurately reports this story. So if in 1971 he had taken his mother (who he thought at the time was his sister) as his date for the Oscars, the Wikipedia page should not say "his date for the Oscars was his sister" even if every reliable source of that time reported that as the case. When errors are discovered (as reported in more recent reliable sources) we correct past errors. We do this every day on Wikipedia pages. We do not preserve errors as if they were facts. 99.192.81.252 (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I see your point quite clearly. We are rehashing the same debate and I've made myself clear so this is all I'll be saying: it would be an outrageous and unfortunate deception to pretend as if Chelsea did not live her life as a male up until her sentencing. We have a basic responsibility to tell history as it was, not as we interpret it now. I'll leave it at that. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it would be an outrageous and unfortunate deception to pretend as if Chelsea did not live her life as a male up until her sentencing." I agree 100%. The page should not do that. So just as Nicholson's page tells how he believed that his actual birth mother was his sister for the first half of his life even though she was his birth mother the whole time, Manning's page should say that she lived as a male up to her sentencing, even though she was female the whole time (and we have her statement published in oodles of news reports as verification of this). "We have a basic responsibility to tell history as it was, not as we interpret it now." I agree 100%. History as it was is that she was a female person in a male body, believed by all to be male for most of her life, who claimed to be male for most of her life and lived as male for most of her life. But at the same time, she was female. That's what all the reliable sources tell us. 99.192.81.252 (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
I agree with 99.192 here, but I think we're talking past each other to some extent. I think (or hope) the disagreement is not over whether or not to report information which reliable sources say is incorrect; I think the disagreement is over whether or not the information that "at age 10, Manning was male" (as opposed to "...was living as a male") is incorrect or not (a disagreement fuelled by some sources' use of "he" to refer to Manning when writing about events that occurred before the 22nd of August).
If this were actually a disagreement over whether or not to repeat old sources' incorrect information, I would ask if you could point to any article in Wikipedia which presented, as if it were accurate, a statement which reliable sources now agreed was inaccurate. (I would then mention the article on WP:RSN so it could be cleaned up.) -sche (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Casey. So if "academic consensus" should say that gender identity is fixed by age three, should we write "he" until age three and "she" afterwards, though the actual personal decision should have been made at age twelve, and the public announcement at age twenty? That's silly. "Academic consensus" has never controlled a specific person's decision about anything, much less something so personal. All "academic consensus" it can do is talk about a theoretical person, not a real one, or at best about the majority, or the group. But people are individuals, not a faceless mass. I reject utterly the claim that treating our subjects as individuals, and going by their statements, and the statements of reliable sources specifically about them, rather than some sort of "academic consensus" from experts who had never met them, is somehow disrespectful of them. It is a strange sort of respect to treat our subjects as an undifferentiated mass, rather than as people with complex thoughts and expressions. --GRuban (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, I don't think you understand how gender works. The idea that a person's gender is not fixed until the person is around 3 does not mean that a person already has a gender before that. It means that a younger child actually does not have a gender at all. So the idea that "he" is the right pronoun for a pre-gender person misunderstands how it works. For most people their sex and their gender "match" (for lack of a better word), so you can make a good guess about gender by checking the "naughty bits" and thus make a pronoun choice for the pre-gender child. But sometimes we get it wrong and afterwards have to correct the error. Think of it like a pregnant woman who is told by her doctor that the child will be a girl, but then at birth it turns out that the child is a boy. Surprise! Mistakes happen. But the fact that the parents of this child might have said "she" and "her" frequently during the pregnancy does not mean that the chird really was female before being born. Same for the mistakenly identified transgender child. 99.192.81.252 (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
  • Keep per Roscelese. Pass a Method talk 22:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
We can have guidance that achieves this aim without it being totally inflexible. Formerip (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That flexibleness unfortunately devolves into "wikilawyering" ad nauseum that generally disrespects non-gender binary people, and anyone different. It's systematic bias that this should be addressing, not an exceptional case that may need an exemption. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a clarification of our WP:BLP policy. Not using a transperson's preferred pronoun is deeply disrespectful of that person and would violate the spirit (if not the letter) of WP:BLP. It is also more consistent if we use the same pronoun throughout. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pretty horrifying that you've felt the need to ask this, as it appears you seem to be pushing for a mass violation of WP:BLP and unleashing the maximum amount of drama possible on any and all articles relating to transgender people. Artw (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors have expressed concerns over the use of current pronouns in past phases of a person's life. You can find a number of discussions on that very topic on Talk:Bradley Manning. Please do not accuse other editors of POV-pushing or of "unleashing the maximum amount of drama possible," as that could be construed as a personal attack. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this conversation has been had many times, and you have been involved many times, and each time the importance of the correct pronoun has been stressed to you, and yet here we are again. You are right to note that a lot of these discussions get pretty heated, as they often seem to be driven by deliberate obtuseness, and accusations of bigotry often follow. The MOS is useful both as guidance and so that there are no excuses for going over old ground on multiple pages - removing the line would mean that argument dragged out repeatedly with all associated drama. Artw (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and each time the importance of the correct pronoun has been stressed to you" - I am not a school kid, so please do not treat me as such. I use the she pronoun consistently; please do not suggest otherwise. Many others disagree with you about this topic, as you can see from the delete !votes. A discussion is fully warranted. If the matter were settled it would be all keep !votes. CaseyPenk (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not to say that the opposite should be our standard, but usage beyond Wikipedia does not seem to be standardized on this yet; we're in a period of linguistic flux. The argument that someone who changes public gender was always actually their newly identified gender runs into scrapes with the admittedly small portion who do transgender reversal (and sources that say that gender identity cannot be made to change are not the same as saying that gender identity cannot change; I cannot be made to change my age, but my age will change without my trying). The statement that we should stick with the pronoun that the subject prefers makes an assumption about what the subject would prefer for their past, which I doubt we have sourced for most subjects. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps adding the caveat that if a person is well documented as preferring pronouns that pertain to their public identity at the time then that choice is acceptable for that person. Without such a known preference, referring to a trans person as a child using their asserted gender is harmless, whilst referring to them using their birth sex may constitute an unwitting slur, so the existing language is most likely to keep Wiki properly respectful to its subjects. Chris Smowton (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referring to a trans person as a child using their asserted gender is harmless, whilst referring to them using their birth sex may constitute an unwitting slur"
Do you have any reliable sources to indicate this is true for all transgender people? CaseyPenk (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that it's more likely to needlessly offend if you use their old pronoun than if you use their new one. Given the whole point of the MOS passage in question is to avoid being dickish without good reason we should take this more careful route. Are you honestly contending the opposite, that there are trans people in greater numbers that find it very offensive to use their new pronoun about their pre-transition life? Chris Smowton (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Prefer the principle of being guided by reliable sources beig taken to the lowest levels, sentence by sentence. Use the pronouns that are used in the sources that support the material on a sentence by sentence basis. Do not impose artificial consistency as an editorial decision. Allow for people have separate phases of life. A biography may use different names and titles for the child, the unmarried woman, the younger married woman, etc. If the pronoun changes across phases, so be it.
I support the deletion of the entire second dot point of MOSIDENTITY ("Any person whose..."). It supports editorial revisionism and the writing of material not in keeping with the sources supporting the material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether you think it should be discussed, it would be more helpful if you provided a rationale. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no clear guidance in the wider media on applying new gender identifiers retrospectively. Indeed, neither the AP Stylebook or GLAAD explicitly address historical application. The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association clarified their stance and recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time (see [7]). In short there is no universal outside authority, but one organization which has issued explicit guidelines that the The New York Times has agreed to abide by do not recommend retrospective application. The New York Times is unlikely to be on its own in adopting the NLGJA's recommendations, so you have to ask if it is wise for Wikipedia to adopt a contrary position? Wikipedia should be following trends, not establishing them. Betty Logan (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change (or keep if there is no consensus for change). I can't really put the case for keeping better than -sche did, and there is a distinct difference between trans* people and people who convert from one religion to another. A religious conversion is a change from being a member of religion X to a member of religion Y, it is sometimes described as being a rebirth or a fresh start, or seeing the light - it is a change and not retroactive. A trans* person does not change from being male to female (or vice versa) they realise that their gender identity is not the gender they were assigned at birth, and at some point they choose to ask the world to refer to them as the gender they are and always have been rather than the incorrect gender they were assigned at birth. The transition isn't between being male and being female (or vice versa), it is a transition in the identity presented to the world. Kevin Gorman though makes the very good point that although most trans* people express the desire to be identified as their correct gender for their entire life, a minority do not and we have no reason to disregard those wishes. Kevin's wording of "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." I don't think is perfect but it would need minor wordsmithing only. Thryduulf (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favor of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association position. Chelsea Manning's lawyer even made a statement to a wikipedia user saying that the pronouns should reflect the gender society perceived her as at the time. The current guideline is far too strict. There should be consistency between articles, so if a user reads 3 transgendered pages, the same rules apply to every page. Users shouldn't need to visit talk/policy pages, or research the subject's preference to determine what is going on. The point of the MOS is consistency between pages. If I am reading this debate correctly this entire conversation comes down to one thing. Should we be writing articles from the perspective of the subject (personal gender identity) or the way society viewed them (perceived gender identity) at the time? Using one pronoun before transition and another after does NOT invalidate the fact they have been the same gender their entire life, it merely reflects how society at large documented the subject at different points in time. tldr: NLGJA policy should replace current wording. Xkcdreader (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If for nothing else than the sake of simplicity. It strikes me that it will be difficult for readers to track subjects throughout an article if the gender of the pronoun is switching. NickCT (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change per Kevin Gorman and/or Keep per NickCT. I think it would be equally confusing if not more to use both pronouns, certainly it would be more difficult for the editors writing the article who would have to juggle both female and male pronouns in a way that is comprehensible and at the same way respectful. I don't think it is particularly confusing with examples such as "she went to an all boys school" as long as it has been previously made clear the person is a trans woman. Space simian (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Change. To the person who pointed out that we say "'Mrs. Smith did X as a child'", let me reply that that although you may think the "Mrs." part supports keeping the line, the other part--the "child" part--supports deleting it. After all, Mrs. Smith isn't a child now--we say "Mrs. Smith, as a child" because we recognize that she was a child at the time the event took place.
And about personal versus perceived identity: there's another way to think of it. The subject's personal identity has changed. At the time, the subject considered himself male. The subject can say "I now think I was female all along"--but cannot say "I thought I was female all along", because she didn't. If you could go back in time and ask for a self-identification, this person would have said "I'm male". Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ken, see 99.192's comment beginning "The experts say that gender is fixed in early childhood..." -- the person's public persona has changed, but their internal identification, as far as we understand the matter, has not. She genuinely did think she was female all along. This is not to say that it's impossible to develop GID later in life, but I've never heard of such a thing. Chris Smowton (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reading through the Bradley Manning article for mere interest, I was constantly confused when reading "she" with reference to her childhood. Whatever she may identify as now, she was not a "she" when a child. If Wikipedia editors find this confusing, I can imagine the general public does even moreso. Icemuon (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the sake of consistency consistent pronoun use makes for good sense and easy readability. Likewise, it affords a small amount of respect to the subject which must be of at least some importance.Pez Dispens3r (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To summarize/quote good points above:
  1. "Is is arguably more neutral to portray events as others viewed them, and not solely through the lens of an individuals' lived experience."
  2. Confusing and even deceptive/manipulative (for example pushing different identities at different points to win political/personal points/achieve personal/political goals, perhaps only short term)
  3. "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." (But also subject to # 2 above.) And "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." Excellent points emphasizing wikipedia rules and not political promotion via wikipedia. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion (How hard to editor/advocates work to get this NewStatesman article published? [http://www.newstatesman.com/alex-hern/2013/09/chelsea-manning-gets-put-back-closet-wikipedia "Chelsea Manning gets put back in the closet by Wikipedia ")
  4. "Prefer the principle of being guided by reliable sources being taken to the lowest levels, sentence by sentence. Use the pronouns that are used in the sources that support the material on a sentence by sentence basis. Do not impose artificial consistency as an editorial decision. Allow for people have separate phases of life." Excellent point.
  5. "There is no clear guidance in the wider media on applying new gender identifiers retrospectively." User:Carolmooredc 18:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for a bunch of reasons that have been stated already, but I think it's better to be consistent, especially when some ambiguity/controversy over when the person transitioned crops up. Even in the case of Chelsea Manning, there's the thing over the name "Breanna" she used a few months ago before she came out, and there have been other things in the past, I think, so making the split between when we use "he" then "she" is just going to be a mess. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. The verifiable status of a pronoun exists in reliable secondary sources which Wikipedia is based on. We do not rewrite secondary sources to our own whims, that is original research and synthesis. We report what is contained in secondary sources. We need to adhere to what the sources report in referring to the subjects of biographies or the whole premise of WP:V is in question. Elizium23 (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elizium23: You might like to read (and join; it hasn't been archived yet) the dedicated discussion about WP:V and pronouns here. In short, changing "John made his discovery of foobarium in 1923" to "Jane made her discovery of foobarium in 1923" based on a reliable source saying "John = Jane" seems no more like OR / SYNTHESIS than saying "foobarium is water-soluble" based on reliable sources saying "foobarium is soluble in H2O" and "water = H2O". Do you object to the latter?
    A bigger question: if books published after a trans woman comes out do use "she" even when writing about her childhood (when she was living as a male), would you have a problem with WP citing those books and using "she" when discussing her childhood? If those books contain information about her childhood that no other books contain, would you change the "she" to "he" when adding the info to WP, or would you mix pronouns (saying "he" when citing a book that said "as a child, he..." and saying "she" when citing a book that said "as a child, she..."), or would it not be possible to include the information at all? I'm curious, because I expect it's a common occurrence when people become famous only after transitioning. -sche (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if reliable secondary sources present a contradiction or a variety of terms then editorial discretion and WP:CONSENSUS need to be used to establish consistency and clarity of usage. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If and when reliable sources refer to Chelsea's childhood, adolescence, and military service using feminine pronouns, I am more than supportive of using feminine pronouns throughout her life. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1. We're making a political statement no matter what we do. a: Using the original pronoun throughout life implies that the trans person is making it up. b: Switching back and forth implies that the trans person actually changed gender. c: Using the recent pronoun implies that the trans person always was that gender. Option c is the most polite of these routes. Ordinarily, that wouldn't factor in here much, but since these options are so similar in most other respects, courtesy should be enough to tip the scale. 2. The closest we have to a scientific evidence on trans individuals seems to say that they do not decide to become female or male but rather discover that they always were, probably because their brain anatomy or body chemistry is closer to that of their gender identity than that of their genitalia. Some juries are still out and there is a lot that we don't yet know about what creates gender in humans, but at the moment, using the most recent preferred pronoun throughout the subject's life looks like the most accurate way to go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to accommodate personal preference or else Keep — I've gone back and forth about this over the last week or so. There's no great answer to this question. On the one hand, science seems to say that gender identity is generally fixed at a very young age. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to be unequivocally settled (I think? Not sure if there's much other than the report mentioned above saying "fixed by age 3"). Plus people's personal preferences are all over the map, at least judging from Ms Manning's choice, and arguably if they were notable for something they did as a man maybe it's confusing to use "she" throughout the article, like for instance with the Wachowski Brothers (were they never really brothers even though that's what they called themselves?). But really, I don't think it's actually confusing, it's just unxpected and unfamiliar. Who is going to be confused – if the article reminds us that "Chelsea was Bradley" – if the article says, "she was the star of the boys' choir"? Nobody, I don't think; assuming otherwise is an insult to our readers. In the end, I'm most convinced by the discussion I had with a friend, which is essentially the same as the other editor above, who said that if I was talking about some transgender friend of mine I totally would say that she went to a boys' school as a kid, especially if I were talking in a group with her, because to do otherwise would be totally insulting. I don't think this is different even if it is an encyclopedia and not a social conversation. That said, if people express a personal preference I can't see why we shouldn't respect it one way or the other. AgnosticAphid talk 01:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments in the first section of this page and per my rationales here. The article on Dee Palmer is a great example of where such rigid wording goes off the rails, it's something that should be done case-by-case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (as a second choice) change to reflect current personal preference as to past identification. As two LGBT organizations have contradictory standards, this version also disrespects the subject's self-identity. I would prefer to be able to use the pronoun that current reliable sources use to refer to the subject, but that may also be confusing, as, apparently different major newspapers' style guides take different positions. (As I've noted before, the two female-to-male trans people use the female pronoun in referring to their own past life, sometimes referring to the female state as another person.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. That is nonsense. We refer to ourselves with I/me, which have no gender. (Arthur Rubin, please alter your statement so it is less confusing.) Georgia guy (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia guy, please do not reject the good-faith responses of others as "nonsense." CaseyPenk (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that he knows some trans men who refer to themselves as she/her when they're talking about themselves; and I'm revealing that that clearly makes no sense. Georgia guy (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like Arthur's friends refer to previous parts of their lives using third person ("sometimes referring to the female state as another person"). So they would use "she played in the sandbox" rather than "I played in the sandbox," presumably to demarcate their current selves from their past selves. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Our general policy is to go where the sources lead us. Before the ID change we certainly use the birth pronoun. Afterwords we would use the new pronoun. I do agree with a previous editor though, in that this would be a general guideline and we would need to take it case-by-case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my comments in the previous thread. Cam94509 (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I call myself a cat, I am wrong. If I call myself a table, I am wrong. I have all the biological parts of a man, so if I call myself a woman before I've had the surgery to change that (which, for clarification, I have no intention of doing) why am I not equally wrong? The "feelings" of the people involved should have no bearing at all in what is supposed to be a repository of fact without bias. Sonar1313 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sonar1313, I advise against comparing people to inanimate objects such as cats or tables. Some editors may find such comparisons highly offensive. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, say this: I am not the President of the United States, and if I call myself that, I'm wrong. If I call myself a resident of Bangladesh, I am wrong. These are facts as well, and they don't cease to be facts just because I think they're true in my head. Even so, I'm not budging from the position that feelings and being offended shouldn't come into play here. The moment someone holds back on publishing a true and verifiable fact on Wikipedia (or worse, changes one) because it might offend someone is the moment Wikipedia ceases to be a reliable, credible source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonar1313 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Riddle me this, captain. As you can see from our article on gender, gender contains both a biological and a self-identification component. Why is self-identification an unacceptable basis for determining someone's gender? If someone says they're a man, are they not a man? If you think self-identification is not an acceptable basis for determining facts about people, how would you determine whether someone was gay, straight, or bisexual? Ask their sex partners how into it they seemed? Try to calculate it based upon what proportion of seemingly romantic public sightings were with men versus women? What about for religion? Should we say that if someone says, "I'm Jewish," we need to independently verify they've met some litmus test of how frequently they've been seen at temple? No, of course not, we take people at their word when it comes to this sort of self-identification question. AgnosticAphid talk 23:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that doesn't address the question, which is, if someone says, for example, "I'm Jewish", do we need to call them Rabbi when talking about their earlier life when they prayed at a mosque? --GRuban (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point; as well, "gender" and "sex" are distinct concepts (which, by the way, is an entirely modern construct, according to the cited article) and the English language - nor any language, for that matter - has no separate set of he/she pronouns for gender and for sex. Biologically speaking, one is either a man or a woman. (Or, I suppose, in the middle of a change, which is its own pronoun trouble and not being covered here.) Therefore it is entirely appropriate to match the pronoun to biological sex. Also, here is a further point in support of deleting the sentence. Cat Stevens was mentioned earlier. His birth name is Steven Georgiou, and he is referred to as such in his Wikipedia article during the period of his life prior to when he was known as Cat Stevens or Yusuf Islam. Consistency demands the same treatment for these pronouns. Sonar1313 (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The gender language should map the gender change. We should use the former gender language for the former phase of life, then change this language along with the gender change. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Change per others, identity can change throughout a persons life. That one transwoman wants to be called female throughout her life doesn't mean that another transwoman won't want it to be a distinct step that signifies an important event in her life. If that person indicated "from this day forward," gender should reflect the pronoun in the distinct phases of their life. It is insulting to presume we know more about their feelings than they do. It would be just as insulting to declare someone transgender before they have made that declaration (i.e. "outing"). This discussion happened more than a year ago when people wanted to start calling Pvt. Manning "Breanna" and "she" before the press release that declared his transwoman identity. It may equally be insulting to people they may have been in relationships with and that must also be taken into account. (i.e. a transwoman that was married to a hetero, cis-female prior to identifying as transwoman - that former spouse may have BLP concerns if we are forced to say the former spouse married a woman - Manning identified and lived as a gay man and the former boyfriend might have an issue if we claim he was involved in a relationship with a woman). Considering that mislabeling/misidentifting gender has led to violence against transgender individuals, we shouldn't remove previous identities and rewrite gender without consideration of the effect/harm/wishes of the subject and those who might feel harmed or slighted by the change. --DHeyward (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Change I don't think that the wording should be so inflexible, as it can force articles into using unnecessarily clunky and confusing sentences to shoehorn past events into this style either by replacing the pronouns or studiously avoiding them. I think that in many cases using the same pronouns throughout all life stages is reasonable and will have little impact on clarity or readability, but there are also many scenarios where the gender that they were interacting with the world in is pertinent to the facts being presented or makes them more easily understandable. Whilst I think that articles should be internally consistent with the style they use (throughout life or pronouns used in sources at the time), I think they should be able to use either if it is sensible to do so. --Jeude54cartes (talk) 10:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I will post my own opinion later. But I note that most people voting "Delete" are actually proposing a change. We can't just delete the sentence and leave nothing in its place. At the very least, if there is no consensus on how to refer to earlier phases in a person's life, the guideline should explicitly say so. This would prevent it from being misinterpreted as mandating something it doesn't. – Smyth\talk 11:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I actually think just deleting it is the best option. I can think of ways that it could be better worded, but I think we will wait an eternity for a consensus about that. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but I think the current wording is inappropriate, so the holding position should be nothing. Formerip (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is 50.201.255.38 from below. I'm only picking this vote for this response because it is the most recent one stating this. I feel these votes have things entirely backwards. This is not about any sort of "revisionist history", this is about making sure information inside of articles is not false. In almost any other case where it becomes known through reliable sources that something previously thought true was, in fact, not, any and all articles would be corrected to reflect the new information with little to no opposition. Yes, it would be noted that said fact was once thought to be otherwise, but that is an entirely different thing from repeating the incorrect information in articles as fact.
The whole point of this guideline is to make it clear that trans people are not some exception to this general rule, not that they should be handled differently. For basically no other case of reliable sources correcting a historical error can I see Wikipedia editors sitting around saying that they cannot/should not correct the error (or cannot correct it until some reliable source explicitly tells them to do so). Setting the bar differently for trans people is implicitly (if not explicitly) just as much a political and non-neutral editorial stance as changing pronouns to reflect the reliably reported reality. Simple Sarah (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on pronouns throughout life

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Again, I am not necessarily assuming tension - but I am suggesting that tension may be there. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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....)[reply]
"If their advice to journalists is based on worrying about confusion rather than accuracy, then we really should NOT take this advice." Where in the WP:RS policy are we instructed to not take such advice? CaseyPenk (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This question misses the point entirely. The question is not whether or not NLGJA is a reliable source. Whether or not something is a reliable source is a question we ask about matters of fact. That is, when source X says Y is true, we want to know if source X is reliable with regards to fact Y. But when some organization says "it's a good idea to do A because it's less confusing than doing B" we are not talking about facts, but advice. We might agree that it is less confusing to do A and we might take them as being a reliable source that doing A is less confusing than doing B, but if it is the case that doing A is to say things that are less confusing wile false and doing B is to say things that are more confusing while true, then Wikipedia clearly needs to do B. Do I really have to cite a policy that says Wikipedia should report things that are true rather than things that are false even when the lie is less confusing?
The NLGJA seems to be saying that it is false that Manning was male as a child, but less confusing to the reader to use male pronouns for the period of her life when she was "Bradley". I agree, which is why Wikipedia should use female pronouns for her childhood. We can do things to help mitigate the confusion, but we should not compromise on the truth. 99.192.66.121 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
How do you know what the truth of Manning's childhood gender identity is? Have they explicitly said it? Oh, you don't have a source? Thats not much truth then is it...Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The experts say that gender is fixed in early childhood and does not change over the course of a life. Manning says she is a woman and has felt this way since early childhood. QED. 99.192.66.121 (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Experts don't make blanket assertions about gender especially since everyone's experience can be different. Besides, this MOS is based mostly on those that have dysphoria and go through a change in gender identity at some point in their adult lives. In Manning's case the letter specifically said "from this point forward" and it was also confirmed from the attorney that "she" should be used in the future. In a September 3, 2013 letter, however, Manning's attorney used "he" in reference "Bradley Manning." I'd also note that if we went by "experts" and not by the person's preference, Manning would have been called "Breanna" and we would have switched to "she" more than a year ago. We did not, because Manning did not. Manning was living as a gay man for his adult life. It would not be unheard of for the male gay partner of a heretofore unknown transwoman to commit violence against that woman when she comes out as transwoman and starts living as a woman while the partner believes he is in a relationship with a man. There are many reasons why someone may make a distinction in the different portions of their lives and it's really not up to us to force a concept on them. Certainly no "expert" would agree that every transgender person should a) start living their life in that gender role, b) start hormone therapy and c) have surgery. It's not cookie cutter and any "expert" would know that. None of the DSM criteria for GID/GD require childhood identification of gender for diagnosis, BTW. --DHeyward (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lawyer has explicitly said that the use of masculine pronouns in legal requests was a specific and and expected exception to preferred usage. There is no "fuzziness" about this. The lawyer has used feminine pronouns consistently and repeatedly on national television, on every post-announcement press release, he's changed the twitter account and explained that "Chelsea" and feminine pronouns are what Chelsea prefers. The exceptions are caused by working within an unsympathetic environment for legal and military paperwork. You are trying to take a stated and explained exception as proof that there is no clear and overwhelming preference. And I am finding your reasoning specious that it is "forcing a concept" on someone if you were to use the pronouns they stated a preference for. We are also not talking about publishing unsourced material on any "unknown" trans woman. You are twisting the concept of outing a person who has not stated something into the idea that a trans person should be ignored and misgendered for their own good. __Elaqueate (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"And I am finding your reasoning specious that it is "forcing a concept" on someone if you were to use the pronouns they stated a preference for."
  • It's one thing to use their preferred pronouns to describe their life from this day forward; it's another to foist such pronouns upon their entire life if they have not expressed such a desire. What we're saying is that stating a pronoun preference does not necessarily mean that person prefers those pronouns to be used throughout their entire life. Even Chelsea said, from this day forward. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think people should have stories using their preferred pronouns. It's better to accidentally use the current stated (or as presented) pronoun when narrating the past from our position here in the present than to use the former pronoun. The sources are clear that there is harm to some from misgendering using the past one. I don't see any source anywhere suggesting harm has come from accidentally using a stated and preferred one too much. It's best to find out preferences, of course. __Elaqueate (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CaseyPenk, please notice where her lawyer says {http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/ "Yesterday was my first opportunity to speak with Chelsea since her sentencing."] Notice that it says "her" sentencing, an event that happened pre-announcement. Also please, watch the Today show segment on Youtube you'll see her lawyer talking about the reasons "She" leaked documents, about the chat sessions "she" took part in. All past events, and they use "she" almost invisibly because we know we're talking about a person we call "she" now. It's not a matter of re-writing the past, as it is referencing that we're talking about the person/subject we know now. __Elaqueate (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elaqueate, please point me to the source where the lawyer said gender pronouns would be an exception. Obviously, "Bradley" is the name the army uses and future court filings will match that. But using "he" instead of "she" in a letter of pardon to President Obama? Too rigid a system? Too difficult for the President to grasp?? Seriously?? Are you proposing that we should write the article so that even the President can't understand it? I find the masculine gender pronoun legal argument as specious. As for "forcing a concept", I don't think I used that term so I am not sure why you quoted it. I said a transgender persons wishes should be respected whether they wish to be known going forward or whether they wish their entire biography to use a particular pronoun is up to them. Manning was diagnosed over a year ago and there were people that changed to name in the article to "Breanna" and the pronouns to "she" more than a year before she came out as Chelsea. It should not be MOS style to adopt a transgender identity before the person themselves have requested it which is the same as ignoring their preference for past tense reference using their gender assigned at birth. If Manning wishes to be called "Bradley" and "he" for every event up to the press release, and "Chelsea" and "she" after, that's their choice, not an agenda. The specious argument is the one that acknowledges that gender identity can be forced on someone before they have accepted it themselves as happened in May 2012 to "Breanna Manning" or that each and every transgender person's experience is the same and uniform. Respecting their wishes may or may not be a complete rewrite of an article. What's even more appalling is guessing their wishes based on a manual. --DHeyward (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing that Chelsea Manning and her lawyer don't know what pronouns they prefer, because of the pardon letter. When someone actively asserts that they prefer feminine pronouns it is certainly more of a stretch to assume they want masculine pronouns anywhere. "Prefer" is the word she used. And that she would "expect" that masculine pronouns would be used for legal paperwork and things having to do at the trial. So it shouldn't be some weird "gotcha" moment when it turns up on a plea for pardon. We also have her chatlog where she said didn't want the public to see her as a "boy". I don't know why people are mystifying this. If you look at the lawyer's statements here and here, you'll see pretty bald statements of preference. I haven't seen any usage on their part that doesn't match what they explained ahead of time. As for your argument against people who wanted to do something about "Breanna", well, it seems like you're not very happy with them. It would be bad to make choices without any declaration of any preference. I don't know what that has to do after Chelsea has made a direct announcement of her preference. The statement "I prefer feminine pronouns" does not imply "Only on tuesdays". She listed the exceptions that did apply (legal work and communications to government). __Elaqueate (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm only arguing what I argued but you seem like you'd rather create a strawman to argue with. There simply is no reason to use feminine pronouns with correspondence to the President. It's not like it will come down to "You used the wrong pronouns, pardon denied." How do you feel about the editors that jumped on "Breanna" and rewrote the article with "Breanna" and feminine pronouns more than a year before Manning announced "I am Chelsea?" That's the heart of the policy: Do we consider the subject when we make gender identification claims? The rush to make her a woman prior to her own conclusions in August, 2013 is just as bad and harmful as ignoring her desire after she has accepted it. I submit that we do consider the subject yet you seem to steadfastly cling to the belief that we know better than the subjects and persons unrelated to the case at hand can and should direct how a person is referenced. Are you going to be just as unwilling to accept her desire for hormone therapy but not surgery or are you going to insist that she wants surgery, too, when she has clearly said she doesn't? --DHeyward (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are so concerned about how they talk to the President. They have said that she prefers feminine pronouns and they made a clear indication that they would make an exception for communications with the government. Are you saying people should take this admitted exception as evidence that she changed her mind about being a woman and wanting feminine pronouns? __Elaqueate (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns throughout life: Preferences and assumptions

  • 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)[reply]
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....)[reply]
Perceived gender identity and personal gender identity are not the same thing. Why is more weight given to how the person felt privately on the inside, rather than how they were seen and documented by society as a whole? Just because a person was a woman inside from birth, doesn't mean they went through life viewed that way by the rest of the world. Also, when people change their names we use their old name until the transition. See: Margaret_Thatcher#Early_life_and_education. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Why is more weight given to how the person felt privately on the inside, rather than how they were seen and documented by society as a whole?" Because we're human beings and have respect for other humans? Powers T 14:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She lived in society as a man. She was registered in the military as a man. When she filled out gender on forums she checked male. The fact that she has always been a woman does not change the fact she was living as a man. Past tense sentences such as "She/he attended Elementary School at" should reflect her state at the time. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she was "living as a man", but she was a woman. You say that the text should "reflect her state at the time", and I agree. She, at the time, was a woman who was living as a man, thus her "state" was that she was a woman, but no one knew it. But now that we do know it, we should correct our previous error. 99.192.66.121 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Xkcdreader, what you are saying is nonsense on its face. You are arguing that Wikipedia should care more about what people believe is true than what really is true. You are saying that if enough people for a long enough period of time falsely believe that a person is a man, then Wikipedia should count that person as a man even after we learn that this is false. How people are "viewed that way by the rest of the world" might be a good excuse for getting it wrong for all the years we might have gotten it wrong, but it is absurd as a justification for continuing to get it wrong. As for the name change, the situations are not comparable at all. Names change, but gender does not. Making a retroactive name change in articles is to introduce an error. Making a retroactive pronoun change in an article is to correct an error. 99.192.66.121 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
She was living as a man. It's not some factual error people had wrong, she lived her life as a man. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct to say that she was living as a man. It is not correct to say that she was a man. A woman living as a man is a woman and entitled to female pronouns. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) "Living as a man" and being a man are two very different things. It is a factual error to say that a person is a man when she is a woman who is living as a man. 99.192.66.121 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
How come no one has commented that in order to make the argument that masculine pronouns must be used for past activities to make sense, Xkcdreader uses feminine pronouns throughout? "She was living as a man." and "She was registered in the military as a man." This proves that it can be used in a way that is invisibly natural. __Elaqueate (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Darkfrog24 has made an analogy several times (including once further up on this page) which I'd like to repeat and expand upon: if a country music singer always thought she was born in Memphis, and wrote songs praising Memphis and was given an award by Memphis' mayor and in general lived and was identified by others as a Memphis native — but then researchers find her birth certificate and birth announcements in the papers, and it's learned that she was actually born in Nashville — then we should absolutely note (when relevant) that several of the actions she took, or that others (like Memphis' mayor) took, were based on her being treated as a Memphis native, but we should not say "Memphis native Jane Doe then received an award...". We should say (on the basis of more recent information) that she was born in Nashville. Likewise, if it's relevant, we should note that e.g. Ryan Sallans was living as a woman at the time he did something, but that's different from saying "[since she was a woman,] she ...". -sche (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What we do at Wikipedia is meta-reporting. We summarize reporting and report what reliable sources say, not what the truth is, per se. Traditional reporting is concerned with where the subject was actually born; meta-reporting is concerned with where reliable sources report the subject was born. We would say "NBC News reported in 1946 that X was born in Memphis," and later in the article say "CBS News reported in 2013 that X was born in Nashville." Neither is necessarily "true," but we can talk about both as we do in Metta World Peace (e.g. ESPN called him Ron Artest when he played in 2010, ESPN called him Metta World Peace when he played in 2013). Going back to the birthplace analogy, it is not our place (since we are a secondary source) to assume what NBC News would have said was X's birthplace had they known such information in 1946. That would be original research, synthesis, and a reverse form of crystal balling. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so you would say "in 1993, Jane Doe released a song about her birthplace, Memphis" even though reliable sources showed that Memphis was not her birthplace? Or are we talking past each other about somewhat different things? I haven't seen an article in which every sentence begins with "NBC News reported that...". I've seen and am talking about articles that summarize reliable sources and have footnotes citing them. I'm talking about articles that say either "in 1993, Jane Doe released a song about her birthplace, Memphis[1]" or "in 1993, Jane Doe released a song about the city she believed to be her birthplace, Memphis[1]"—and I'm suggesting that if reliable sources confirm that she wasn't born in Memphis (even though older reliable sources assumed she was), we should say the second thing and not the first thing. -sche (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jane Doe here sounds like someone who has already peaked in her fame; the same is probably true for Chelsea. As such, the number of media reports about both is likely only to decline as time passes (with an occasional spike upon big news). Given the dwindling numbers of new sources that are likely to be produced, I would imagine there are a greater quantity of sources written about their childhoods from before their 2013 announcements, than will be written after their 2013 announcements. Yes, we do give greater weight to more recent sources, but explaining what reliable sources talked about in the past adds to our encyclopedic coverage. Sometimes mis-reporting can be a topic in and of itself, as when CNN got the Obamacare Supreme Court ruling so very wrong. My point is that we have a responsibility to relay what reliable sources have said, without editorializing. If Chelsea becomes a superstar (more so than she is now), and remains a superstar for 20 years, there's almost no question we'll talk about her childhood using feminine pronouns, because the sources will use feminine pronouns to refer to all phases of her life (especially with media becoming more aware of transgender issues, and once she undergoes hormone replacement therapy concerns about her biology will be less persuasive). But until that happens, the pre-2013 status quo (male pronouns for the periods of her life leading up to 2013) seem warranted. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Eventualism can be used to justify almost any policy on the grounds that any harms it might cause will eventually not matter." __Elaqueate (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not we use the correct pronouns for Manning should not depend on what she does in the future. Powers T 22:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we can't guess if or when Chelsea's childhood will be referred to using feminine pronouns. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, luckily we can look at reputable sources now? __Elaqueate (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the most reputable source possible. Chelsea herself. She has made it quite clear what she prefers and why. She has made it clear what she wishes and absent proof otherwise it's pretty insulting to assume she is not an expert on herself. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Wikipedia policy do we consider the subject the most important / most reliable source? CaseyPenk (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where in Wikipedia policy do we not consider someone to be an expert on themselves? Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was one of the places where they were considered the most reliable source?__Elaqueate (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, she hasn't made it perfectly clear. She's given us limited guidance is all. Formerip (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She has made it abundantly clear she identifies as a woman and wants to be addressed accordingly, the rest is nitpicking nuances that are entwined in her legal situation (apparently won't get mail delivered in prison under her new name). Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:SlimVirgin reported receiving an email from David Coombs (Manning's lawyer), and stated that,
"Regarding the pronoun, he [David Coombs] wrote that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material. I also asked about the current main photograph, and he said that Chelsea is proud of the photograph and would want it to be used until a better one becomes available." [Emphasis added.]
It is not clear how much weight should be given to her request (if that is indeed Manning's own request, and not just the lawyer's assumption), but that request does run contrary to the current wording in MOS:IDENTITY which suggests that the current pronoun should "[apply] to any phase of that person's life." -- ToE 04:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure. The lawyers statement says to only use the female pronoun post announcement, where as IDENTITY says i should apply to their entire life. The two statements are in direct conflict. I can't read, my mistake. Xkcdreader (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It AMAZES me the "we should respect Chelsea's wishes" crowd is in fact going against her wishes by promoting revising historical pronoun use to match her current state. This statement alone should be enough to remove the guideline, it's far too strict. Xkcdreader (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the survey above you'll see there are many people happy to use that style when a preference is known. Question is, what to do when no preference has been expressed? Chris Smowton (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have consistently maintained that Wikipedia should not care what a subject wants us to say about them. Wikipedia should be committed to reporting what is true about them, whether that is what they prefer or not. So if it is true that Manning's gender has always been female, then the female pronoun is the correct one to use, no matter what she wants us to use. (2) I put no weight on what one Wikipeidia editor says Manning's lawyer said in an email. We don't know if the editor really ever received any email. Assuming the lawyer did sent an email, the editor did not publish in full the correspondence, so we are relying on that editor's interpretation of the lawyer's comments. And even if the email was sent and it really was from the lawyer and the editor has accurately reported the contents of the discussion, we don't know if the lawyer is representing what Manning has said she wants. So even if you care about Manning's wishes regarding pronouns (and I don't) there is no reliable source to say she wants male pronouns used.
Xkcdreader is AMAZED that people who argued that Manning's wishes should be honoured seem to be arguing against her wishes. I might say I am AMAZED that people who have been arguing "use reliable sources!" are so quick to grant this unverifiable third-hand report status as "reliable", but it actually does not surprise me. I give no weight to this alleged email not because I have no reason to believe that it reflects what Manning wants (even though none we have no reason to think that), but because what Manning wants is not relevant. Doing our best to get the facts right is the only thing that is relevant. 99.192.50.20 (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
"Wikipedia should be committed to reporting what is true about them, whether that is what they prefer or not."
As I wrote my comment I thought someone might make the pedantic reply about verifiability vs truth, but it is no more than a pedantic one. The reason that Wikipedia goes with what is verifiable is because that is the best objective approximation of the truth we can get. If Wikipedia did not care at all about the truth, then it would be a pointless project. So when I say that Wikipedia should be committed to reporting the truth I don't say anything radical or false. But no matter how you put it, what a subject wants us to report or the way they prefer that we report it is not and should not be a factor in how we edit pages. This is especially the case when subjects prefer that we report things that we have facts that can be verified to the contrary. The best experts we have tell us that gender is fixed in early childhood and then after does not change. This is verifiable. Manning tells us that she has identified as female since early childhood. This is verifiable. If Manning wants us to use "he" for when she was a child, that's just too bad for her. If she wants us to report a lie, we should not do it when we have verifiable information that the contrary is true. Finally, we actually have no verifiable evidence that Manning wants us to use male pronouns anyway. So even if Wikipedia did care (which it doesn't and shouldn't), we have no verifiable reason to use male pronouns. 99.192.65.23 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Please do not suggest that my reasoning is pedantic. There is no "objective" or "true" way to report on Manning's gender. Gender as an inherently complex topic that cannot be easily summarized in a single word, like "he" or "she." Gender experts would agree. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I know that I'm only an IP without an editing history (Or, rather, a shared IP with an edit history from other people), I feel I need to respond to this and some similar comments I've seen from you and others, both here and on other talk pages. First off, WP:TRUTH is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. Second, I believe you are somewhat mistaken on what that essay and WP:V and WP:RS mean. As 99.192 states, they only say that Wikipedia should only include truths that can verified by reliable sources. If reliable sources clearly indicate that someone is a man or woman (Be they transgender or cisgender), then, if WP:V is what you want to point to, that is what Wikipedia should be going by, period. Under the current understanding of gender by people that actually study it, currently the most reliable source for that information is that person themselves. This information, verifiably reported by a reliable source such as major media organizations or (in the case of gender) in a press release or blog post that can clearly be traced back to the person, is all that should be used to determine gender and, in most cases, pronouns.
Now, I have some disagreement with 99.192 over whether or not gender can change or if preferences on pronouns matter (Especially for people that identify as genderqueer or otherwise non-binary). I do think that, absent an explicit statement otherwise by the subject, it should be assumed that the gender of the subject has been fixed and, therefore, pronouns should reflect that reality for their entire lives. In such a case it shouldn't matter that there might be sources that used or continue to use the other set of pronouns, as older sources are clearly no longer reliable on that fact in light of new information and new sources are taking an editorial stance contrary to the current mainstream scientific, psychological, and sociological views (Which, again, makes them unreliable). Put simply, Wikipedia should not be treating outdated or editorial information as verifiable truth when they are verifiably false. Saying "he" for a woman or "she" for man just because at one point those pronouns where once used to refer to the person is simply perpetuating a historical error that has been corrected.
To summarize, WP:TRUTH and WP:V mean that Wikipedia should state the verified truth on a subject, not treat prior factual errors as anything other than just that: Errors. In cases where it is discovered that incorrect pronouns were being used for a subject based on what were previously thought to be reliable sources, those sources should be ignored in so far as they refer to gender and pronouns. Correct and current pronouns should be used. but for the present and historically, since, absent anything indicating otherwise, that is the best assumption to make. 50.201.255.38 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"new sources are taking an editorial stance contrary to the current mainstream scientific, psychological, and sociological views (Which, again, makes them unreliable)"
Considering that the supposed position of NLGJA is being assumed based off of a quote from a spokesperson as presented by a TV critic for Time writing an entertainment blog piece, rather than from from a news story or a NLGJA press release or posting on their website, I question how much weight can be given to it. Regardless, when other groups, such as GLAAD say otherwise on their actual websites I find it strange that people insist we defer to what they interpret the NLGJA to be. GLAAD states, among other things, that "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."
As for sources to my above comment, the American Psychological Association says "Use names and pronouns that are appropriate to the person’s gender presentation and identity; if in doubt, ask." This linked from this page for the American Medical Association instructs physicians to use preferred pronouns and names.
What the issue seems to be is that people are pointing out how, strangely enough, very few places have pronoun guidelines to apply to encyclopedias or Wikipedia. I've noticed that some people think that guidelines for pronoun use in the press shouldn't apply to a historical encyclopedia like Wikipedia, but instead that Wikipedia should base things of off, uh, the pronouns used by the press in the past.
And all this aside, this whole idea of changing pronouns is utterly unworkable. At which time should you switch? How would that work with people that transitioned before becoming notable? Would they have consistent pronouns from early parts of their life, whereas someone that became notable before being known to be trans would have the wrong pronouns used for early, non-notable parts of their lives? It seems like people want to toss away a simple, consistent method of writing in favour of one that will be extremely subjective and inconsistent. To reference an example mentioned before, this would mean that for some trans men Wikipedia would say "she gave birth", but for otherwise, like Thomas Beatie, it would have to say "he gave birth." 50.201.255.38 (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is usually best to report on transgender people's stories from the present day" - I talked about this above, but we simply don't have the luxury of writing in the present tense. We write in past tense because we're an encyclopedia.
You can write in the past tense from the present day. Tense is grammar, but you are always writing at the time you are writing. A quote from Chelsea's lawyer, "Yesterday was my first opportunity to speak with Chelsea since her sentencing." Notice that it says "her" sentencing. If you watch the Today show segment you'll see her lawyer talks about the reasons "She" leaked documents. __Elaqueate (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The APA guidelines do not seem to discuss descriptions of people prior to their transition.
  • "some people think that guidelines for pronoun use in the press shouldn't apply to a historical encyclopedia like Wikipedia" - we need to be careful with applying press guidelines, because we have different priorities and we are explicitly not a news site. We are not journalists, and we are not here to break ground, or to "expose" anything but what others have reported.
  • "simple, consistent method of writing" - yes, but too strict, some say. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the original post, while some trans people are indifferent to how they are referred pre-coming out, I would still, for the avoidance of harm, make an assumption to retroactively apply the pronoun. In good article writing, we should be writing in the historical present. If we make it clear that a person is transgender pretty early on — and, for many notable trans people, coming out is important and should be mentioned in the lede! — I don't think people would be confused (and really, it's offensive making assumptions that our readers are stupid). It's a non-issue based in pedanticism that could be solved with better writing. Sceptre (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns throughout life: Notifications

  • I have notified the gendergap mailing list since many subscribers are knowledgeable about gender issues. I'm too lazy to dig up a url to an archived copy of my message, but it was written in a neutral manner. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns throughout life: Usage in actual sources

  • Question: We've talked extensively about what reliable sources do, but I haven't read many, if any, post-announcement sources that discuss the childhoods of the subjects (for example, articles about the childhood of Chelsea, written after her announcement). Does anyone have examples of such articles, so we can see what reliable sources use for pronouns when referring to people in their pre-announcement selves (e.g. Chelsea when she was actively serving in the military and in childhood, adolescence, etc.)? That would help bring some more factual clarity to this situation, and allow for more meaningful comparisons, so we need not speculate on what reliable sources say. Thank you. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it could also be informative to find reference materials about the lives of people who became famous only after transitioning. I expect that such materials might use one pronoun throughout, which would mean that people who think that changing a book's pronouns violates WP:V or WP:OR (which I don't) would be in the position of supporting retroactive pronouns. -sche (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might be an important distinction to make during this discussion - the distinction between people famous before transition and people famous after, or because of, it. For people most/first famous during or after transition, it makes a whole lot of sense to use current pronouns throughout. Most editors have expressed concern with the alternate case - where the person became famous prior to transition. So I think the most revealing sources would be ones on people who transitioned after becoming famous. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other pronouns

There are some people, such as Justin Vivian Bond who prefer invented pronouns ('v' in the case of Bond.) the current Wikipedia article uses Bond and doesn't ever seem to use pronouns, which makes the language rather tortured. Bond has explicitly stated that use of 'he' would be considered an insult or sloppy journalism (http://justinbond.com/?page_id=323), so he's not taking a 'this is my preference but I understand if you don't follow it' approach. there are other TG people who prefer 'they'. Should Wikipedia accede to their demands in this case, or does the MOS language only apply to the standard he/she, and not extend to 'they' or invented pronouns like hir or shim etc? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Currently MOS:IDENTITY reads as applying only to he/she pronouns. If reliable sources use other pronouns we should go with that. Justin Vivian Bond is a special case, because v has expressed WP:BLP-type concerns about certain pronouns. So it makes sense to avoid he/she pronouns in Bond's case - either use tortured "Bond" phrasing or the v pronoun. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS should instruct users in correct, general-audience, encyclopedia-appropriate English as that English exists now, not as it might exist in the future or how some people wish it existed. Other than proper nouns and clearly fictional terminology, Wikipedia should categorically reject made-up words and other constructs that are not part of mainstream English. If "v" or "shim" ever enter the standard formal lexicon, we can change the MoS to allow them then.
Otherwise, we'll get linguistic revisionists using Wikipedia as a platform for improvements and "improvements" to the English language. That's pretty much what happened with WP:LQ; popularity won out over verifiability.
As for the singular they, I don't believe it's sufficiently formal for an encyclopedia, but there is a difference of opinion on that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying but I would avoid calling alternative pronouns "made-up words and other constructs." Every word was invented at some point, so that's technically tautological. More importantly I think some people take these alternative pronouns very seriously; they use them not so much to play with English but to reflect very deeply-held identities. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly every word is made up, and (newly) made up words can become standard, but we should not be using words that are generally unknown or limited in scope. Has the "v" vocabulary gained any traction outside of Bond? There are many other gender neutral pronouns, some which are commonly used (the ungendered he, they), and some which are more rare/recent (E, Ey, Hu, Per, Thon, Jee, Ve, Xe Ze, Zhe). Using whichever random one a person prefers will lead to an unintelligible mess (what about if an article is discussing more than one person with different preferences?!) Until a standard develops, or is used by our reliable sources, we should minimize use of pronouns to avoid the problem (although Bond's article reads horribly due to this) or use the most common neutral pronouns. If reliable sources are using a particular pronoun about a particular person, then use that one. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that's not what is suggested - rather, it is that gender neutral invented pronouns have not sufficiently entered the language; and in cases like bond, he made up an entirely new and custom pronoun just for himself (or vself as he'd prefer). But we should document sources. I suggest that we update the language to specifically state that if the subject does not like either he/she, we use the pronoun most often used in RS (either he/she) - And not avoid pronouns which makes the article tortured. Once society/language changes, so can we. We can of course note which gender X identified with - in the case of Bond his gender is transgender (neither male nor female), but 'he' is the most commonly used when they aren't using 'v' or 'Bond'.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"we use the pronoun most often used in RS (either he/she)" Unfortunately, that could constitute a BLP violation. And while I'm not planning on pressing charges, I think your use of the "he" pronoun is straying into BLP violation territory, simply because it seems possible for the subject to be harmed by use of that pronoun. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no charges to press. Doing something that a person doesn't like is explicitly NOT a BLP violation. It might be rude. It might be contrary to their wishes.But there is no libel, or defamation or any other policy violation. MOS:IDENTITY is a style guideline, not part of BLP. If BLP worked that way, every negative item in every BLP article we have would be deleted. Further, when we are actively discussing a policy/guideline, it begs the question to accuse someone of violating your preferred wording/interpretation. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not prefer one pronoun or another, but I'm concerned that Bond might find "he" to be libellous. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casey, I suggest you look up what the word libel means before tossing it around so lightly. Bond is free to demand that we use an invented pronoun just for him, and we are free to ignore his requests. As I've pointed out on sue gardner's blog, the 'omg people may be hurt/offended by something on Wikipedia' brigade would do well to demonstrate efforts towards correcting massive extant biases/errors/problems, esp outside their special interests, rather than worrying that Bond is annoyed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with libel, thank you. The point of BLP is to head off offensive content; some may find improper use of pronouns just as offensive and damaging as falsely stating that someone is addicted to heroin. It is theoretically possible that someone would commit suicide because the wrong pronouns were used (this is obviously an extreme example and is quite unlikely, but it's possible, and that's why we have a heightened sense of scrutiny over this). Ultimately what it means for policy is that we should avoid using pronouns the subject explicitly rejects as offensive. If someone states they may face harm from the "he" pronoun, I don't think it's appropriate to question that and steamroll over their biography with "he." CaseyPenk (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's theoretically possible that someone might commit suicide over ANYTHING in their wikipedia profile (say, a reminder of a past indiscretion), so your example is rather useless. We have a profile of another trans woman who had been dating somebody who was later killed; she came and asked us to delete her biography since it pained her deeply to see that story every time she pulled up her profile (it was one of the main sources of her notability). She was denied. Again, NOTHING in the BLP says we have to at all costs avoid offending somebody, I don't know where or how people are imagining this to be the point of BLP. In this case, I *do* think it's acceptable to use a standard pronoun even if the subject rejects it. We are an encyclopedia, and we should not be pandering to those who want special pronouns. We're probably going to have to wait until 3rd gender pronouns come into wide use, and then we can start using them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More thoughts not encapsulated above - It seems rather arbitrary for us to allow people to self-identify as male/female, but not as third gender. It's not our place to make value judgments on which types of identities are "acceptable," so I think we should either accept all forms of gender self-identification or none. When we start saying "only male/female gender binaries are allowed" we get into dangerous POV territory. CaseyPenk (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree with your first sentence and your last sentence. -sche (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts: Especially because Wikipedia already has articles on people who are neither male nor female (third genders are relatively common in the world, both historically and today), it would be a good idea to agree on one or more ways of writing about them.
  1. We could eschew pronouns and use surnames, as the article on Bond does. A drawback is that this is clumsy; a benefit is that it is clear and grammatically acceptable.
  2. We could use one or more genderqueer pronouns. A drawback is that there are so many such pronouns that no one is likely to be familiar to many people or recommended by more than one (or any?) style guide. Wiktionary documents over thirty (not even including v!), of which seven met criteria for inclusion in the dictionary as words. (Another drawback is that a large number of the genderqueer pronouns look like typos of he, she or the singular they, and might be subject to repeated good-faith "typofixing" by users unfamiliar with them.)
  3. We could use the singular they. A drawback is that this irks some people; a benefit is that it has been used for so many hundreds of years by so many respected authors that it is familiar to most (all?) people.
Are there other options? (I suppose "arbitrarily use either he or she" might be suggested as one, but it doesn't comport with WP:NPOV.) -sche (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would these suggestions impact articles on people who can be described accurately and respectfully using he or she pronouns (e.g. with Manning, although we debate which of the two to use, we are still talking within the he-she binary). Would we write he and she out of the guidelines and use last names/genderqueer pronouns/theyfor everyone? I assume that is not the case and last names/genderqueer pronouns/they would only apply to people to which he/she does not apply. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that if standard masculine or feminine pronouns were clearly accurate and respectful to use for a person, it would make the most sense to continue to do so, wouldn't it? 50.201.255.38 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I'm suggesting ways of writing about people who are neither male nor female. It would be possible to write about men and women in these ways, too, but I wouldn't (and I would make discussion of whether or not to a separate discussion). -sche (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be cool to write about everyone using "they" - get some of these arbitrary gender implications out of our writing.
For now, we'll talk about people who don't identify as male or female. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm fine with using singular they in cases of people with non-binary or indeterminate gender. This blog post gives a bunch of reasons why it's correct, but really, I find a BLP subject's wishes to be more important than prescriptivist whining. Sceptre (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Does anyone have an idea as to how many people with biographies on WP have expressed a desire to be called by a pronoun other than he or she? I think it needs to be more than a few before it needs a formulated approach. Formerip (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also fine with using singular they in cases of people with indeterminate gender. While it may not be considered standard English by all sources, it is vastly preferable to the ridiculous pronoun avoidance currently used in Bond's article, ("Bond began attending elementary school, where Bond first became aware that Bond was unlike the other little boys..."). Using neologistic pronouns is obviously not on the table, no matter what the subject's preferences are. The BLP policy is not about respecting the subject's preferences. It is about doing no harm to them. – Smyth\talk 14:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and direct quotations

I propose changing the following:

Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary).

to this:

Direct quotations should not be modified to conform with this guideline, but apparent contradictions can be reduced by adjusting the portion quoted or replacing pronouns with the subject's name. " [sic]" may be used where necessary.

I do not believe this to be a change in meaning. The intention of the original guideline is clearly to prevent editors from modifying direct quotations using [brackets] in ways that the source of the quote might reasonably consider to be a misrepresentation. This change would make that intention explicit. It also provides an additional suggested way of resolving the situation: namely, replacing pronouns with names. – Smyth\talk 11:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the change. However, I don't agree that it doesn't change the meaning. There's clearly a difference in meaning between the cautious may need to be handled as exceptions and the direct should not be modified. So I think that there should be some discussion first. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems very sensible. If a quotation like this - "If I told him once, I told him a hundred times that he should be careful with his cheese grater." - is thought to be important enough to be quoted in full in an article, but we subsequently learn that the person being referred to is (and was) actually a "she", the modification I would recommend would be this - "If I told him [Smith] once, I told him a hundred times that he should be careful with his cheese grater." This kind of clarifying parenthetical is done all the time when it is unclear which person a pronoun refers to. If there is still some fear that the quote will be misunderstood a lead-in clarification can help - "Jones, talking about Smith when she was believed to be a man, said...." Perhaps adding a "for example" or two to the text might help, but perhaps it is not necessary. 99.192.71.46 (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)[reply]
Oppose. There's a contradiction between "Direct quotations should not be modified" and "replacing pronouns with the subject's name". Formerip (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I specifically wrote "should not be modified to conform with this guideline". That would mean actually reversing the gender of the quotation, which would misrepresent the source. On the other hand, exchanging pronouns and nouns, changing tenses, or decapitalizing the start of sentences are all acceptable editorial practices to fit a quotation into its context, as long they are marked with brackets and do not change the quotation's meaning. – Smyth\talk 14:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not clear from your proposal. However, in any case the normal style would be "he [Manning]" (not an actual substitution) which I don't think we even need to mention because of course you can do that where it is helpful. It's also a convention for clarifying text out of context, not changing its meaning. So "He [Manning] wrote to his mother" might be OK if it would otherwise be unclear, but "[Manning] wrote to [Manning's] mother" would be an abuse of the convention. Your proposal seems worded to permit that, although it doesn't even require that brackets are used. Formerip (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe your last example would be an abuse. That is an acceptable way of editing a quotation which contains a pronoun whose referent is unclear without additional context. As long as the edit is acknowledged with brackets, retaining the pronoun is not required. See here for more examples. – Smyth\talk 14:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The goal should be to use the minimum intrusion into the quote needed for clarity; it goes with the spirit of direct quotation to be conveying what was actually said. As such, while there may be confusion with simply "after [Manning] wrote to his mother" in some context where there is a third person who is male involved, "after he [Manning] wrote to his mother" would be clear, and less intrusive than "after [Manning] wrote to [Manning's] mother."--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change - eliminate the bit about "sic" altogether. Sic is for "erroneous spelling or other nonstandard presentation", and referring to a person by the gender that the displayed by the time is neither. This seems to be taking the current Wikipedia standard and applying it as the generic standard, and doing so retroactively. We would not put "the preacher 'anyone born in the year 1965 A.D. [sic] deserves free cupcakes" in an article that otherwise used CE-style dating. How to view transgendered people even in the current state is not universally held to, not everyone will agree that Chelsea Manning is a "she", but would be even further inappropriate to be quoting an article from last year which said "Bradley said that he [sic] liked cookies" when that quote was done in right-to-any-standard form, using the pronoun that both reflected biological sex and how the subjected presented themselves at the time. There's nothing nonstandard about that, and it seems an odd sort of pointless POV shaming. Put a [Chelsea] if needed, or a (referring to Chelsea as "he"), but [sic] is just wrong. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd support that change. Formerip (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=572630598"