Talk:Lia Thomas

Discussion, consensus

An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. - Raul654

I started the article and tried to make it neutral. It includes a sensitive topic. It is beneficial to discuss changes and try to find consensus on controversial elements of the article. Topjur01 (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you quoted my user page, Topjur01. I think the article is a good start, and pretty neutral. I added the blp ds notice above because, as you mention, it includes a sensitive topic. Hope you didn't feel it was passive-aggresive or anything ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi A._C._Santacruz, I read your quote earlier today, and I love it. I think every wikipedia editor should read it and keep it in mind. It guided me when I was trying to make the article neutral. Topjur01 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree, it's a fantastic quote :D A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If the article was neutral at its start, it is not neutral any more. Someone removed all statements and doubts of prominent sportsmen and sports magazines, as well as scientific research. Topjur01 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The scientific research was better placed in an article about Transgender people in sports, and the statements were summarized into generalized sentences which probably brings it more in line with MOS:QUOTE than affect its neutrality, Topjur01. It's not like their doubts have been erased, and if any citations were removed you can add them back without affecting the text. Rab V and Firefangledfeathers courtesy pinging you in case you'd like to expand on my explanation. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

First name

Prior to transitioning, (i.e., when born, then growing up as a kid, then swimming on the men's teams, etc.), I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included. I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro no. See MOS:DEADNAME. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know all the "in's and out's" of all these technical rules. But, didn't Thomas swim -- publicly, as a public figure -- for some male swim teams ... high school, college, whatever? I assume so. Is all of that "past history" erased and off-limits? I don't know all the Wiki rules. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

She was not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article prior to her transition, therefore there is no compelling reason to include her deadname. Funcrunch (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't really my question. This article is a biography of a person. That "life" / "biography" did not begin at the moment that Thomas transitioned. It began at birth. My question was: But, didn't Thomas swim -- publicly, as a public figure -- for some male swim teams ... high school, college, whatever? I assume so. Is all of that "past history" erased and off-limits? That was my question. And, since the entire controversy surrounds the topic of swimming on men's or women's teams ... Thomas's swimming history (on men's and women's teams) is certainly relevant. We should pretend that "nothing happened" in Thomas's life, before the transition? That's my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The short answer: yes. The long answer: there is no need to add her deadname to the article, as including it is not relevant to the rest of the article's content and would just serve to harass the subject. I recommend you read MOS:IDINFO for an in-depth history as to how not including a trans person's deadname in articles unless notable under the deadname reached community consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... ok ... Just so I'm clear. We're publishing a biography of a person in an encyclopedia. And we're not "allowed" to mention the person's name? And we're not allowed to mention any history prior to the transition date of 2019? And we call that a "biography"? LOL. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That is correct, we should not add their deadname unless necessary. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Says who? You don't see the "irony" in that "rule"? LOL. Who says it is "unnecessary" ... (in this specific case)? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro as someone with as many edits and as much experience as you have on Wikipedia I am seriously surprised at your views on a MOS guideline with very strong community consensus backing it. I won't continue interacting in this thread as I genuinely don't see the point in doing so as the discussion seems to have reached its natural end. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You said: The guideline says not to add a dead-name unless necessary. In response, I said: Where was it determined -- and by whom -- that in this particular case (Lia Thomas), the dead-name is or is not necessary? Seems like a valid and legitimate question, and a natural follow-up. Not sure what the problem is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It was decided by large community WP:RFCs at the talk page of MOS:BIO. Unless Lia Thomas met the standards of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO before transition and we just had neglected to have an article - which seems very unlikely - then the community's consensus is not to include it. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It was decided as a policy in general. Nothing was decided -- by anyone -- in this particular case. Hence, I brought it to this Talk Page. Appropriately. Having a policy (in general), is one thing. Applying that policy -- or not -- (in a specific case), is another. It's a valid and legitimate question, appropriate for this Talk Page. Related point ... I was "told" above that this bio "cannot" contain any info prior to 2109 (transition). Therefore, we cannot say that Thomas was born in 1999; was born in Texas; went to such-and-such high school; swam on the high school team; etc. Everything before 2019 must be deleted ... correct? In this, um, "biography". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: You were not "told" that this bio cannot contain any info prior to 2019. You asked about including her deadname, and the MOS:GENDERID policy and its application to this particular article were explained to you. Asked and answered. I do not believe you are acting in good faith at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Read above. Quote: That wasn't really my question. This article is a biography of a person. That "life" / "biography" did not begin at the moment that Thomas transitioned. It began at birth. My question was: But, didn't Thomas swim -- publicly, as a public figure -- for some male swim teams ... high school, college, whatever? I assume so. Is all of that "past history" erased and off-limits? That was my question. And, since the entire controversy surrounds the topic of swimming on men's or women's teams ... Thomas's swimming history (on men's and women's teams) is certainly relevant. We should pretend that "nothing happened" in Thomas's life, before the transition? That's my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC). Reply: The short answer: yes. The long answer: there is no need to add her deadname to the article, as including it is not relevant to the rest of the article's content and would just serve to harass the subject. I recommend you read MOS:IDINFO for an in-depth history as to how not including a trans person's deadname in articles unless notable under the deadname reached community consensus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Bottom line ... Thomas's swimming bio / history (teams, schools, divisions, awards, records, etc.) is certainly relevant and germane to this article. It's a biography of a swimmer! Furthermore, the entire crux of the controversy -- cited an millions of reliable sources -- is whether Thomas should swim on a male team or female team. So, no, the Thomas bio does not "begin" in 2019. Having a Wikipedia "policy" does not trump facts, reliable sources, and ... ummm ... common sense. In any event, it's an appropriate topic for this Talk Page. Regardless of your "beliefs" in my good faith. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Some people get really incensed about trans people's reasonable concerns around privacy. Good thing the community has already settled this and I see no new arguments here for why this article should be any different than every other article that follows wikipedia policy on the matter. Rab V (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I read the whole talk page before responding to you; you don't need to quote it. A._C._Santacruz was clearly referring only to Lia Thomas's deadname, not to the rest of her life before gender transition, in her responses to you. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Funcrunch (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This section was opened specifically asking about Lia Thomas's name: I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included. This has been answered. Note that this article already does discuss Thomas's early life, and does without mentioning the name Thomas was using at that time, as per guidelines. If any one of the three editors had thought that Everything before 2019 must be deleted ... correct? as you seem to think they do, they could have deleted that section. But they didn't. No one has, so it appears that your objections that information about her pre-transition life should not be deleted is a disagreement you are having with nobody. (And your disagreement with the name issue has been thoroughly addressed.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

She won 2nd place in Ivy League swimming competitions at the college level. If you look up the records, the only way to verify it is if you know her birth name. Otherwise, there is zero way of proving that those accomplishments did or did not happen. Getting a 2nd place medal at the collegiate level is "notable". Just because nobody chose to write an article about her past accomplishments is another story.

Why is a woman's maiden name published? For example, if you read the article "George Washington", Martha Washington is listed as "Martha Dandridge", but 99% of the people in the world if you say the name Martha Dandridge would not know who you are talking about, but would know who you are talking about if you say "Martha Washington". There is definitely a redirect article to "Martha Washington" from "Martha Dandridge, and the article definitely says "Born Martha Dandridge June 2, 1731[1]" And she was definitely NOT notable BEFORE she married George Washington, and she would never have been notable if she had not married George Washington. Why has this practice been standard and acceptable since the beginning of Wikipedia, February 2003 for Martha Washington's Article and July 2002 for George Washington's article? That sounds "sexist" to me. That you have one set of standards for women and another set of standards for "men who transition to women". If they are truly "women", then they should be held to the same EXACT standards as women have been held to since the beginning of Wikipedia (and is current today), to include all histories of their names from birth to the end of their life. Once a person is notable to have a Wikipedia article about them, then basic information, like their name on their birth certificate is standard knowledge. Not to mention that she would not even make the front page if she had not transitioned, not to mention that she would not have won any of the swimming events she had won if she competed against men. 11:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.76.144 (talk)

Agreed. Bluecharmquark (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We refer to people by the name that they are notable under. We also note people's previous names except when here is a good reason not to. In most cases we do not mention trans people's former names as it provides no significant information and it can be distressing and demeaning, and sometimes even endangering, for them. This is not normally the case for cis people's maiden names. The exception is when a trans person was notable under their previous name. Then we have to mention it so that people know that we are talking about the same person when we talk about the events before they transitioned.

So what of maiden names? (Yeah, I don't like that term either.) We include them because almost nobody finds this objectionable and it would nearly always be possible to infer it from a subject's parents' names anyway. I'm pretty sure that we would omit the maiden name for any person who was at risk of being seriously disadvantaged by it if they were not notable under that name. Personally, I'd also be fine with us extending our policies to omit maiden names of any subject who requests us to do so, unless they are notable under that previous name.

People change their names for many reasons. If their reason is a need to put a former name behind them then it is reasonable to treat that name differently from a name change on marriage. For example, if a subject were known under a name different from their birth name because their parents were in a witness protection programme, and the family were given new names, then of course we wouldn't blab the birth name causing distress and putting the subject and their family in danger. This is a privacy issue. Similarly we don't generally include people's home addresses even though it is fine to say that Joe Biden lives in the White House because that is already a widely noted fact and does nobody any harm.

As for sexism, you are right to smell sexism but that isn't coming from us. It is coming from a society that expects women to change their surnames but not men. That's not Wikipedia's fault and its certainly not a valid excuse to have a pop at trans women. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't modify this discussion. MOS:DEADNAME is a settled issue. TenorTwelve (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Prior to transitioning to female, Lia Thomas competed for the men's swimming team as (Redacted). It seems appropriate to mention that, since the article includes mention of this person competing on Penn's men's swim team, and it's the only way to look up Lia's swim records prior to the name change. Of course, as noted, Lia was not very competitive as a male swimmer going against other men. Bluecharmquark (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Her past swimming experience is already mentioned as much as it is notable, there is no extraordinary need to include her deadname and go against established wikipedia policy. Rab V (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It is silly not to include the birth name which may still be the legal name of the person

It makes no sense to exclude mention of Lia's name prior to transitioning. It not like she had no life prior to transitioning, and the only way to find out and verify facts prior to transitioning are by looking them up using her previous name. Bluecharmquark (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is incorrect, e.g. her records on SwimCloud, and her records while swimming for the Penn men's swim team. Beccaynr (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't modify this discussion. MOS:DEADNAME is a settled issue. TenorTwelve (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Redacted) is the birth name, this is factual and historic. We cannot and should not censor facts because they hurt someone's feelings. Birth names are standard throughout Wikipedia, this page should be no exception. Include (Redacted) as the birth name. 2604:F580:14C:8000:944F:A6A3:E9DD:5A1C (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

For privacy reasons and to fight against harassment, transgender people's birth names should not be included if they weren't notable before their transition. Plan and simple. It is not because Wikipedia wants to exclude facts about their life, it is for privacy. I'd say the same thing for cisgender people who have prior names that don't establish any useful, notable information in their articles. cookie monster 755 05:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Joseph A Spadaro's observations. Lia Thomas was born as (Redacted) Thomas, and raced competitively as as (Redacted) Thomas for several years. That is essential information that needs to be included in an encyclopedia, and is just as relevant as other aspects of personal information that are already included in the article, despite the fact that they make statements about personal life prior to obtaining notability and meriting an article, e.g. "Thomas grew up in Austin, Texas, and has an older brother. She began swimming at the age of five, and was sixth in the state high school swimming championships, competing for Westlake High School." Leaving out the name (Redacted) Thomas entirely from this article strikes me more as politically motivated rather than pursuing an objective encyclopedia. If that can't be included, then as a matter of consistency nor should the other personal information that predates notability. Gregorytopov (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Im pretty sure everyone knows his former name was William. Its not a secret and calling out a man depriving women from achieving goals in womenssports isnt harassment. BritishToff (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible addition

Hi Topjur01,

Very recently sixteen of her teammates issued a letter to various media organizations regarding how "...Biologically, Lia holds an unfair advantage over competition in the women’s category, as evidenced by her rankings that have bounced from #462 as a male to #1 as a female". This has been reported by RS media, such as with headline stating, "Sixteen Penn swimmers say transgender teammate Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete".

Just a suggestion. 108.34.231.7 (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have added this statement. Another editor tried adding the statement too, but the change was reverted because of concerns the claim was not attributed to sources. While Deseret News, which, yes, is a reliable source considers the claim valid, I think it’s reasonable to attribute it to the anonymous swim team members who allege Lia has an unfair advantage, so I have added the statement again with proper attribution. SkylabField (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Deseret News is reliable for local news only and for issues that run afoul of LDS doctrine they need to be attributed. In this case, not being about Utah and as a LGBT-related topic, the quote would need to be attributed. I'm still concerned though that we may be including false or misleading stats since no source seems to mention what rankings the letter is referring to. Rab V (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I’ve changed the sources from being Deseret News + Washington Post to instead being CNN + Washington Post. As per both of these sources, it’s the anonymous students claiming the 462 -> 1 ranking jump, so I’m wording it as worded by these reliable sources. “Allege” might not be the best word, as per WP:ALLEGE, but I’ll use it since they don’t go in to any detail which particular rankings they use, and no reliable secondary sources have directly researched this, and we can not research it ourselves when making a Wikipedia article. SkylabField (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The claim has been removed again without discussion on the talk page. I have restored it again. If the claim is inaccurate, then please link to reliable sources disputing the claim, and please discuss removing the claim here. SkylabField (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, so far inclusion looks warranted. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe the claim was removed again. Why are some of the editor(s) of this page willing to cite the section of the Nancy Hogshead-Makar letter that states Lia's teammates condemn the NCAA's legal action and not part that states her teammates feel she has an "unfair advantage"? Johnm54 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The misleading claim is still currently in the article, as discussed further on this Talk page below. Beccaynr (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

But you may have developed a way to summarize the position of the anonymous letter without including what appears to be a misleading representation of data, and I encourage you to suggest it in the Talk discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

References

There does not appear to be support for including this gossip, and as a WP:BLP, if all we have are reliable sources stating "this anonymous group makes an extraordinary claim about this living person no reliable source has verified", I think we have to leave it out. Per WP:NOTRS, unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion [...] are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Beccaynr (talk) 06:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed it, per WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN, e.g. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people. Beccaynr (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The article text doesn't say that this is what her rank was, it says that this is what the letter said, and the text of the letter is sourced to CNN and The Washington Post, which are both reliable. This is not unsubstantiated rumours or unverifiable gossip, it is pretty clear that the letter did in fact say that. Endwise (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

But the letter is unsubstantiated, so all we would be repeating is what amounts to rumor and gossip. WP:BLP policy appears to warn us against including this kind of information in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, you re-added the disputed content that was recently removed for WP:BLP reasons [1] with the edit summary, Mostly revert -- It doesn't seem like anyone on the talk page agrees with you (it is not a rumour or gossip that the letter contained this statement), but for the avoidance of doubt, it may be clearer if it is left as a quotation, but this Talk page includes diffs of a previous disputes by two other editors over the inclusion of this content. I also agree that including contentious claims that reliable sources have for whatever reason failed to verify seems problematic per WP:BLP policy. So I encourage you to self-revert and let's consider taking this to the BLP noticeboard for a wider discussion instead. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Axios, The Australian, and Boston Herald quote the figure in their own voice. From a quick google, it appears the event in question is the 200-yard freestyle. Endwise (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I did a web search and found other figures: It's 554 -> 5 (200 freestyle), 65 -> 1 (500 freestyle), and 32 -> 8 (1650 freestyle). Those look to be reliably sourced, e.g. Lohn, John. "A Look At the Numbers and Times: No Denying the Advantages of Lia Thomas". Swimming World. During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men's team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women's deck. I've started a section below about these figures, and there are directly quoted. SkylabField (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If you go back on the archives for that article, it used to say 554 -> 1 for the 200-yard: soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle) in men’s competition to the top-ranked swimmer in women’s competition ... Thomas still holds the top time in the country in the 200-yard freestyle[2] Did she have the top time previously but then slipped down to 5th? Swimming world also quotes a seperate petition which claims 462 -> 1 in the 200, and 65 -> 2 in the 500: Lia has gone from being ranked #462 in the country in the men’s 200 yard freestyle, to #1 in the women’s 200 yard freestyle. She has gone from being #65th in the men’s 500 yard freestyle to being #2 in the women’s 500 yard freestyle.

All these numbers are very similar, so possibly these numbers were accurate before (the fact that reliable sources quote them in their own voice is probably good enough), but she slipped a few rankings in the 200-yard and gained a ranking in the 500-yard. Endwise (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to verify the letter and not just the reporting networks. However, if the letter is truly unsubstantiated, why is it even mentioned in this article to begin with? Johnm54 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion about the data presented by the letter and whether it should be included is being discussed in this section of this Talk page: Lia Thomas ranking: Men's Swim Team vs. Women's Swim Team. I think you may have a good compromise approach about how to generally include information about the letter without the potential BLP problem of repeating poorly-sourced sensationalist claims related to the data. Referring to the letter as including a concern about an unfair advantage seems like a reasonable summary of the position taken by the authors. Beccaynr (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Boston Herald piece is not written by a reporter, the Australian is subscription blocked, and Axios appears to be blogging, not reporting. If the reference is to one race, then that seems like an additional reason to remove the quote immediately, because it seems misleading in the context of the reliably-sourced information about her career that is in the article. That is the other problem with inclusion - we already appear to have reliable reporting that contradicts the letter. Beccaynr (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Axios is a high quality, reliable source (see WP:RSP), they just have a different format to other news websites; it's definitely not blogging. The article in The Australian reads The 22-year-old had previously competed for the university as [deadname] for three years and was ranked No.462 in the NCAA (it's not very hard to get around newspaper paywalls these days...). I think Wendy Murphy is an opinion columnist, so we probably shouldn't use that, though:[3].

Two sources which are listed as reliable at WP:RSP using the numbers in their own voice makes this a far cry from gossip or rumour. Endwise (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the rank jump should be discussed. Right now, I've added a blatantly WP:SYNTH violating note that the 462 -> 1 looks inaccurate, adding a reference with a different number, but WP:BLP trumps WP:SYNTH in my opinion. Maybe it shouldn't be discussed in the context of that letter, but it has been reliably sourced and it violates WP:N to not mention the ranking jump at all. There are WP:BLP concerns which means we need to be very accurate about the contentious claim, but the claim is reliably sourced, so we can include it, but accuracy is the goal here. SkylabField (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I edited for WP:SYNTH and WP:WIKIVOICE. I also think there is nothing to indicate that Axios reported the numbers, especially with the misleading nature of the number without context of which race is being discussed. Similarly, I don't think we can rely on a news outlet that prints deadnames for information contradicted by reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Changing of the term "female"

I changed the term "female swimmer" to the more biologically correct term "collegiate women's swimmer" According to Merrriam-Webster's Dictionary a female is "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs"[4] which a transgender woman is not. The Cambridge dictionary provides a similar definition. [5] Bluesfan86 (talk) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Both dictionaries include definitions that explicitly show females also refer to trans women. Also per wiki policy MOS:GENDERID female is also a correct term for trans women. Rab V (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Female" can refer to sex or to gender, depending on context. In this context it is being used to refer to gender, so there is not a factual issue with the text. However, as some people prefer to keep "woman" referring exclusively to gender and "female" referring exclusively to sex, "collegiate women's swimmer" is probably clearer for readers. Endwise (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, 'female' refers exclusively to sex. The corresponding gender is 'feminine'. Thomas is not female. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM, Fahrenheit. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Endwise, there's no need to bend our backs so much when just "female" is clear enough. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

They are both fine. Endwise (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

She's on the "women's" team, so "collegiate women's swimmer" is self-consistent. That identifies her significance and context; it's unrelated to saying she "is a woman" or "is female", discussing the person as a person. DMacks (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. This even goes against the main definition of female you find in Wikipedia which reads: is the sex of an organism that produces the large non-motile ova (egg cells), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete during sexual reproduction.

Using females makes things more confusing because it suggests gender and sex are the same. 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:F686:FA38:54E9:F889 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

In section "transgender status and swimming," change "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and one transgender man transitioning from female to male (without hormones), Iszac Henig" to "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and Iszac Henig, a transgender man (transitioning from female to male without hormone therapy)." Tayuro (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

✅ Done. Thanks for the suggestion! -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

Under “swimming” Thomas is quoted as swimming for “Penn State” which is a different university than the “University of Pennsylvania”. 107.127.49.142 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for catching that. Funcrunch (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

It says “member of the LGBTQ+”

If someone with the permissions could please change this to “member of the LGBTQ+ population” or similar, I would appreciate it. 2601:600:9A80:2360:4033:BA26:FE3F:74C6 (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I just took it out as her sexuality didn't seem that relevant. Maybe others would disagree though. Endwise (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I could see this being a category. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The IP was referring to Erica Sullivan, who we included a quote from, not Lia Thomas. Endwise (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Not correct

This article is written not reflecting the individual’s current gender identity. This needs to be rewritten. 71.121.252.121 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? X-Editor (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

There had been some disruptive edits in the article at the time the IP left this message. Those have been fixed. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying! X-Editor (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Change the pronouns and do not use the dead name. It is Lia, not (Redacted). And her pronouns are she/her. 92.247.187.191 (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. This article calls her Lia and uses she/her pronouns. Endwise (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The offending edits had already been reverted, and the editor who made them has been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I originally thought that's what they were talking about, but those edits had been reverted many hours before the IP left their comment. So I didn't understand. Endwise (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Height.. 6.1 or 5.7??

... 80.43.94.149 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any sourcing for Thomas's height. So it won't be included on the article until a proper source is found. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

^[Humor] In any case, 5.7 or 6.1cm is quite small for an athlete so I don't expect any to come up with this result, Iamreallygoodatcheckers. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

She's apparently 6'1, so says The Washington Post.[6] Endwise (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've added the height parameter cited to WaPo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• @TenorTwelve: can you please elaborate on your removal of the height parameter? [7] Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I guess it could be there; I was concerned it could lead to perceptions or assumptions about her physicality TenorTwelve (talk) 04:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Context could be incorporated into the article as prose, in the Public debate section - for example, the source states, "Thomas’s Ivy League records this season at Penn coupled with her 6-foot-1 frame initially seem like an overwhelmingly unfair advantage — until you remember that Missy Franklin is 6-foot-2 and 165 pounds. For each researcher who presents certainty that the adolescent pulses of testosterone confer a “legacy” advantage in size and strength even after hormone therapy, there is the reasonable work of a Joanna Harper, a medical physicist who counters that it’s not that simple: There are disadvantages, too." We need to be careful with BLPs and we must get the article right. Beccaynr (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

“Misgendered”

The article states Gov. Desantis “misgendered” Lia and then provides the following quote, “…a male identifying as a woman.”

If “male” refers to Lia’s biological sex and Desantis settlement included, “identifying as a woman”, then how did Desantis “misgender” her? 136.49.95.71 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see your point on this, but we have to follow RS. Right now it says "misgendered," and I think that particular word is a bit loaded and should be avoided primarily because it does not appear in the reference. The Hill source says, In a statement posted to Twitter, DeSantis incorrectly said Thomas is a “male identifying as a woman,” and criticized the NCAA for failing to protect its female athletes. I think we should alter the misgendered verbiage to say: During a March 22 press conference, Florida governor Ron DeSantis incorrectly described Thomas as "a male identifying as a woman" and declared second-place finisher... This would be more consistent with the RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict) The source of the text states, In a statement posted to Twitter, DeSantis incorrectly said Thomas is a “male identifying as a woman,” (emphasis added). Misgendering is a paraphrase of DeSantis making this incorrect statement and links to relevant encyclopedic content. Context from earlier in the paragraph includes: In February 2022, Vicky Hartzler, a Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, featured Thomas in a campaign advertisement asserting that "Women's sports are for women, not men pretending to be women", which was described by CNN as "a transphobic trope belittling trans women". (source). Beccaynr (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Misgendered is a tricky word that has some undertones. That' kind of like if an RS said "these comments were racially charged" and we wrote "these comments were racist". There some words, like misgendered and racist, you just don't use when paraphrasing. I think using incorrectly, like my proposition above, is probably the most neutral thing to do. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters refers to Fox News anchor Shannon Bream calling transgender athlete CeCe Telfer a "biological male who now identifies as a woman" as misgendering and states "The practice goes against journalistic standards, the Associated Press Stylebook, and The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage". I think it is possible to rely on the sources, including the journalistic standards cited by Media Matters, and use the wikilink per WP:IMPARTIAL. There is encyclopedic context available for the DeSantis statement, both already in the article and at another article via the wikilink, so it seems helpful for readers. Given the weight of the journalistic standards, this seems like an WP:MNA situation, e.g. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This part of the section reflects my sense about including the wikilink: It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in-depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Media Matters is a partisan advocacy group that is not considered reliable at WP:RSP. I wouldn't say pulling the word out of the air is in line with the neutral point of view. Can you please explain what’s so egregiously wrong with my proposition? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not an egregious proposition, and I appreciate you discussing this complex topic with me. I see the wikilink as a "brief, unobtrusive pointer" but we don't have a consensus on its use, so removing the wikilink and using the term 'incorrect' seems like a good compromise. Beccaynr (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason for this inflammatory quote at all. It is not the point of the sources being cited; DeSantis attempting to declare a new winner is. This isn't the article for picking sound bites to dunk on DeSantis, especially when they could be insulting to the BLP who is the main topic. The article using "incorrectly" could be considered WP:UNDUE or mistaken as it does get tricky describing biological sex, but anyway, there's no reason to include this and certainly WP:ONUS for it is not met. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I know this is a bit of late response, but Crossroads is right that the quote is probably not worth mentioning. I don't see it as particularly WP:DUE or even beneficial to the article. Right now the quote is not present, and that's how it should stay. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify my view, I did not believe there was a need for the quote and had not added it to the article. I had used the wikilink to summarize content from the article and to create encyclopedic content based on the source [8]. Another editor removed the wikilink and added the quote [9], and I tried to collaborate with this edit by returning the wikilink to the article [10]. From my view, based on this discussion and the content of the Public debate section, the quote and/or the addition of encyclopedic content related to the quote may be more clearly WP:DUE if there is further media attention or commentary. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Lia Thomas ranking: Men's Swim Team vs. Women's Swim Team

I have found two reliable sources discussing Ms. Thomas's ranking in swimming, comparing her ranking when she [swam for the Men's Swim Team] to her current ranking [on the Women's Swim Team]:

• Singh, Samarveer. "What Rank Did Lia Thomas Stand at While Competing in the Men's Swimming Division?". Lia Thomas competed in the men's division, in 2018-19. There, she ranked 554th in the 200-yd freestyle, and she is now fifth in the event this year. Furthermore, in the 500-yd freestyle, Thomas was 65th in the country. Now, she ranked first place in the event this year. Finally, in the 1650 freestyle, she is now eighth in the nation, as opposed to 32nd in the men's division.
• Lohn, John. "A Look At the Numbers and Times: No Denying the Advantages of Lia Thomas". Swimming World. During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men's team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women's deck.

Some points:

• The number isn't 462 -> 1. It's 554 -> 5 (200 freestyle), 65 -> 1 (500 freestyle), and 32 -> 8 (1650 freestyle)
• The numbers are reliably sourced (if not, take it to WP:RSN)

SkylabField (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

SkylabField, I have refactored your comment similar to the way I edited your additions to the article, per MOS:GENDERID and the contents of the article. Please stop using the term "male" to refer to Thomas when she swam on the Penn Men's Swim Team, and please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Beccaynr Thank you for bringing up these concerns. I think the important thing here is this: Lia has a lower rank on the men's team than when on the women's team. This fact has been mentioned in many many WP:RS so can be mentioned even though we have to be -- and I am -- careful about WP:BLP concerns. The MOS:GENDERID wording concerns are important, yes, because I have seen a lot of bad faith edits being made going against those concerns, including one I reverted but I am hoping that it's understood that wording was made in good faith to describe a real concern which many have. This is a contentious debate and a lot of bad-faith black and white thinking is going on which I am working to counteract. While many with concerns are acting in bad faith, there are good faith concerns about the jump in rank, and it does not serve the Wikipedia to try and sweep those issues under the rug; they have been discussed in reliable sources. SkylabField (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, SkylabField, I had considered adding more to my comment about how I clearly recognize your contributions are made in good faith, so I appreciate the opportunity to confirm that is my understanding. I also think it is helpful to add reliably-sourced content about the rank changes and I appreciate your research and work to add this context to the article. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to caution you against refactoring people's talk comments per WP:BLPTALK as I mentioned on the BLPN.[11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have responded at the BLPN, including about how WP:BLP policy applies to Talk pages. [12] Beccaynr (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The number isn't 462 -> 1. It's 554 -> 5 (200 freestyle), 65 -> 1 (500 freestyle), and 32 -> 8 (1650 freestyle) This is incorrect, they are not contradictory, and I have made it explicit why in the article. The Swimming World piece is quoting statistics for her final races in March 2022 in which she came 5th; if you look at the article as it was published in February via archive.org, the numbers were different (they quoted 554 -> 1, actually), and then updated after her races. The rankings don't contradict each other and the rankings in the letter were probably accurate at a time; she probably was 462nd in the 200-yard free at some point swimming for the men's team and we know she was 1st in the 200-yard free at some point swimming for the women's team, and other reliable sources -- e.g. Axios (see its RSP entry) and The Australian (see its RSP entry) -- were happy to quote that in their own voice. So I think it's fine as it's worded as of writing this comment. Endwise (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your good faith edits. Regarding the 462-1 statistic, can we mention that it has been disputed? Source -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Blogs like that are not reliable sources, so no. To be clear, we do have a source for 554 -> 1, though. You may agree with the editor-in-chief of Swimming World and think it makes more sense to quote a more recent ranking of 554 than a (presumably) prior ranking of 462, but 554 and 462 are not really substantively different, so I don't think there's an issue leaving the attributed quote of the letter. Endwise (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"462 to 1" appears to be misleading because it does not refer to a specific race, and two outlets uncritically parroting the claim does not make it less misleading. I think the entire quote from the letter should be removed from the article, and the reliably-sourced statistics published in sections about her career. If secondary sources were paying critical attention to the letter, I would have a different view. But here, I think WP:SCANDAL/WP:BLP applies - it is a poorly-sourced sensationalist claim, so it should not be included. Beccaynr (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand... if at least 554 -> 1 is accurate, how is 462 -> 1 scandalous and "sensationalist"? Endwise (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Just writing "462 to 1" without reference to a specific race/event appears misleading, now that it is clear that rankings refer to specific races/events (e.g. via USA Swimming Top Times/Event Rank). "554 to 1" would also be misleading if it is not referring to a specific event. It's not the numbers, it's how the numbers are presented without necessary context that make it sensationalist. Beccaynr (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

"Necessary context" is decided by the RS reporting it. If we are presenting it as they do, then there is nothing to fix. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The sources that parrot "462 to 1" appear to be repeating the claim without fact-checking the necessary context that is otherwise established by actual reliable sources. A ranking of "462 to 1" does not appear to exist without reference to a specific event/race. I think it should simply be removed, as noted in the Possible addition Talk discussion above with Johnm54, and replaced with their suggestion about rephrasing it as a concern over an unfair advantage. That appears to be the gist of the misleading presentation of the data. We need to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE, and need to use the WP:BESTSOURCES per WP:NPOV policy. Beccaynr (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Critics

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-swimmer-trans-ncaa-b2042715.html Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Height, 5’8 not 6’1

Her height being 6’1 is not accurate, she is 5’8 86.6.92.66 (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Endwise (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

More to the point, do you have a source more reliable than the Washington Post? That's where we're currently getting her height. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with WaPo? Endwise (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think C's point is that WaPo is quite reliable and the potential that a less reliable source lists her height as 5'8" would not override the status quo. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my bad for misunderstanding. Endwise (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

surgery

Marsha Blackburn mentioned Lia in the Jackson hearing as a "biological male." Presumably this means she hasn't had bottom surgery. I'm very surprised that we can't turn to her wikipedia article to verify the truth or falsity of Blackburn's claim. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC65:5329:2995:AF03:6699:1569 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Biologically male" is a transphobic codephrase/dogwhistle which means "person believed to have been assigned male at birth". It does not imply anything specific about a person beyond that, apart from the obvious implication of the speaker's contempt for them. The sort of person who would use that phrase to describe a woman is not concerned with surgery, hormones or anything else. As far as they are concerned birth sex is the only thing that matters. It is used indiscriminately to apply to trans women (and sometimes to cis women who they refuse to believe are cis) regardless of surgery. There is no reason to assume that Marsha Blackburn intended to imply anything specific about Lia Thomas's surgery and, even if she did, how would she even know? It would only be a matter of her idle supposition.

The broader question here is why we are not covering what surgery Lia Thomas might have had? There are two answers here: 1. We don't know. 2. We are not here to pry into people's private medical records. If she decides that she wants to talk about it, and/or if reliable sources cover it, then we can add it to the article in an appropriate manner, which is to say not lurid, overblown or sensationalised. If she doesn't want to talk about (and who could blame her) then that's her business, not ours. If other people are speculating about it then that is worth nothing to us. Speculation and innuendo are not information. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "biological male" is not "phobic". It's just what some people believe: their honest opinion. We don't call Flat-Earthers "phobic" just because they disagree with the accepted wisdom of the Earth being a sphere. 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:3C33:8A17:1A91:8985 (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with calling him a biological male as he's literally a man and you cant change you gender. He still has XY chromosomes. BritishToff (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)