Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This well-intended essay may be more convincing if it did not come across as being dismissive of the experience of those outside the transgendered community and even of the diversity within it.
Conveniently unaddressed in this essay is the elephant-in-the-room question:
Which name/gender to use in these situations is an editorial judgment call. Because of our affinity to avoid original research, we WP editors try to avoid making these calls ourselves whenever possible, and we do this by following the calls made by the editors of reliable sources. There is absolutely no reason we should not be following this tried and true method here. We have no mandate, obligation or responsibility to be more sensitive to these issues than the New York Times, the Times of London, or the San Francisco Chronicle. When the editors of such stalwart publications get on board with a new name and/or gender, then so should we. But no sooner. -- B2 C 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It should possibly be noted (and here may or may not be the place) that the portion of quotes used can, in some cases, be adjusted to avoid contradiction. For example, ""Edmund is the best unicyclist ever to juggle teapots in Nagasaki." said his aunt". could easily be changed to "Alison's aunt described her as "the best unicyclist ever to juggle teapots in Nagasaki."", and "Brown was "overawed by her applied phlebotomy lectures"" would not lose anything by being rephrased as "Brown was "overawed" by his applied phlebotomy lectures"". Thryduulf ( talk) 10:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
However, if after the name change occurs, a significant majority of reliable sources continue to refer to the person by their old name, then Wikipedia should follow the sources per WP:POVNAMING.
Any clarification on what this means?? Does it mean that a trans woman should be referred to by her male birth name in certain situations (other than trivial ones such as "Christine Jorgensen (formerly George Jorgensen)")?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this essay should be to provide an explanation of the arguments that justify mos:identity, for people looking for a rational understanding. By using emotionally loaded terms like transphobia, we risk creating a visceral rejection and thus hurt that rational analysis. Diego Moya ( talk) 01:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTPOLICY#Avoid creating essays just to prove a point was this essay made to prove a point given the relationship between the Manning article? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking through other essays on Wikipedia, and they typically aren't written in this particular question-and-answer format. I could start the work of writing this up as a real "essay" instead of something that reads more like an FAQ in the next couple days, if other people think that's a good idea. (I am, however, going to make sure that other people think this is a good idea first, as this would be a significant amount of effort.) I think I'd start in my sandbox instead of on the page proper, as I think it would take a bit to get all the information, plus some of the stuff I want to add), into a proper essay. Anyway, does anyone else think this is a good idea? Cam94509 ( talk) 03:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at a few Wikipedia talk pages about the term "male-to-female". This project says that it's important to refer to trans women as women throughout their lives. The discussion has gone to:
Still, only 3 Wikipedians have been involved in this discussion; myself, JanetWand, and Picture of a Sunny Day.
Now, JanetWand claims that the term "male" is a term that by definition unambiguously refers to anatomy, and that anyone with male anatomy is male regardless of whether the identity of the person is a man or a woman in the wrong body (a pre-operative trans woman.)
Any thoughts on what to do here?? Georgia guy ( talk) 01:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
GeorgiaGuy has never understood the difference between gender and sex. He has grossly misinterpreted what I have said. I never said, as he said, that anyone with a male body is a male. I have said that "male to female" is an appropriate way to refer to the process of transition for transsexuals. I am a transsexual and feel that georgiaguy does not understand the subject. He seems to get hung up on very trivial notions and has the tendency to miss the trees.
JanetWand (
talk) 01:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Go to Kristin Beck. I removed While presenting as a man because WP:MOS says Kristin Beck is a woman. But I was reverted. Any thoughts anyone has?? Georgia guy ( talk) 12:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
People want Alexis Reich to be moved to John Mark Karr. This means there needs to be a change somewhere on this page. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 12:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Transsexual and cissexual people fall firmly on one end of the spectrum. But I do think it's worth briefly mentioning the people nearer the middle of that spectrum, lest not mentioning them cause even more confusion. I've added a brief note to that effect. I suppose it might be helpful to explain the difference between transgender, transsexual, and transvestite as well. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 09:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
By the by, personally, I think these cases are better evaluated under a variant strict scrutiny, which is a three-pronged test for evaluating decisions that affect groups and individuals that are the subjects of discrimination. Adapted for Wikipedia, the test becomes:
When a decision or inclusion of material has the potential to harm a person from a vulnerable group, ask yourself:
Adam Cuerden ( talk) 09:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Per my knowledge, it appears that most Wikipedians who want Alexis Reich kept appear to use the argument that she's still alive. As a result, current knowledge about this essay suggests that after Alexis Reich dies (I know this is an event of the future we cannot predict; this is just a statement about when it happens) if another requested move to John Mark Karr is made, there will probably be consensus to move the article. Any thoughts on whether certain parts of this essay are restricted?? Georgia guy ( talk) 22:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
With living trans people, we can follow clearly-stated self-identification, and we can avoid speculation, and imho we should avoid speculation because it can be disrespectful, it can violate privacy, and it requires judgement calls which defy verifiability. Naming her article Chelsea Manning doesn't run into the problems that naming her article Breanna Manning would have. With historical trans people, we may not be able to avoid speculation, as with the Chevalier d'Eon, or collectively with the priestesses of Cybele. Which doesn't help with this case. Ananiujitha ( talk) 23:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask why the reference to brain structure is present in the article? Is there evidence of causation rather than correlation? Multiple studies have shown evidence that the brains of gay men, and/or lesbians have brain structures that resemble the brains of the opposite sex, e.g. Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds, Science Daily, June 18, 2008, Is homosexual behaviour hard-wired? Sexual orientation and brain structure, Psychological Medicine, New Theory: Sexual Orientation Determined by Brain Hemisphere Dominance, The Advocate but the use of biology-based strategies to advance human rights (including legal and social recognition) are controversial, to say the least. Nsw2042 ( talk) 00:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Alexis Reich is now a re-direct. But, during its last few days before being a re-direct, the rule changed for that one article. Normally, the rule is:
Per Wikipedia:Manual of style, use she/her to refer to a trans woman throughout her life.
However, that article had a different rule:
Per Wikipedia:BLP, use he/him throughout his life.
...despite being a trans woman. I checked the archive in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to see if there's any particular kind of person Alexis Reich is that made her special here. I got the information that all reliable sources think of Alexis Reich as a man, not only as opposed to a woman in general, but as opposed to a trans woman, and that all sources that say that Alexis Reich is a trans woman are un-reliable sources. Thus, a more specific version of the above rule is:
Per Wikipedia:BLP, use he/him to refer to a person represented by reliable sources as a man although rumored to be a trans woman throughout his life.
This would be an example of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, so naturally instead of saying "Per Wikipedia:BLP" it should say "Per Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth". Per my knowledge, this phrase means that if there's info that hasn't been verified, then Wikipedia is supposed to accept without proof that it is (or at least might be) a fake rumor that might be disproven. Any thoughts on having anything related to this info anywhere in this project?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I would be cautious about misgendering anyone without very good reason. I think we also have to take into consideration that when we are writing about these people they often have spouses, families, and children, and we are posting very intimate information on the the world's top site for biographical content. We should go the extra effort to reflect a person's stated identity. We often fail spectacularly at doing so.
Sportfan5000 (
talk) 23:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
User:KoshVorlon appears to disagree with the third question in this essay. Can anyone make sure that this question's answer is written in a way so that KoshVorlon won't be able to object?? Georgia guy ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The essay begins by claiming "This essay outlines the reasons behind this guideline", which suggests that this essay is speaking for Wikipedia rather than speaking for the essay's editors. There may have been an overall consensus gained for MOS:IDENTITY, but within that consensus were many different viewpoints. The banner at the top makes it clear that this essay is the opinion of certain editors; the essay itself should not go and then muddy those waters. Perhaps something like "While many varied viewpoints were voiced in formulating that guideline, this essay outlines some of the commonly recurring views that helped shape it"? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the second question's answer in the case of genuine trans women like Christine Jorgensen. Christine Jorgensen was always a woman; she merely had the wrong body before it was changed with surgery. A well-written biography of Christine Jorgensen would use she/her to refer to Christine Jorgensen throughout her life.
However, I disagree with the second question when it comes to drag queens. Drag queens are not real women; I would support that drag queens be referred to with he/him. Drag queens are just men who simply dress as women to entertain people; they are not women. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Do some people indicate preferences otherwise?? How common are such people?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Gender is a complex issue, both in how it applies to humans and how it applies to language, and there are differing and legitimate ways to view it. If I understand the goal of this article correctly, it is to get people to understand and accept the decisions made regarding discussing trans people in Wikipedia voice. Doing this does not require saying things that suggest that there is One Correct Way for viewing gender and applying pronouns to it; the article need merely establish that
Suggesting that other ways of viewing things are wrong actually works against the goal, as it is apt to put the reader on the defensive or allow him to simply reject what is being said, as it is claiming as fact something that they feel not to be true.
Some of this same concern goes to edits of the statement about the use of the term "sic". Quotes are not subject to Wikipedia voice, and we should not be putting "sic" into a quote simply because the quoted person may have a view of gender that does not match with our decision for Wikipedia voice. If Joe McQuotable says of a transwoman "When Brenda was a boy, he liked to play Ms. Pac-Man" may not be reflecting erroneous factual knowledge but a different viewpoint on gender or on language; Joe may have a gonad-based view of gender or of language rather than a self-image based one, or he may have a point of view on how pronouns should be applied before and after public transition, and these are not "wrong" despite what we have chosen to for our style guide. To suggest that the quote should only get a "sic" if he was saying this before Brenda's transition was known is to dictate a correct point of view, which runs against our WP:NPOV standards (as well as having WP:BLP concerns.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on how this (currently absent) question's answer should be in this essay??
Isn't it confusing to use phrases such as "her testicles"??
Feel free to try to give a good answer to this question whatever way you can. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If we made the questions section headers, it might overemphasize them a bit, but it would allow folks to link directly to those questions when they are raised in discussion. On the other hands, such links would discourage reading the intro and essay disclaimer, which is a negative. So I'm split on the thought. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This essay is being cited as an excuse to go through Bruce Jenner's entire article (pending his change becoming official) and referring to him in the feminine. He has such a lengthy and prominent history going back more than 40 years representing as a male. He won his Olympic Gold Medal as a male competing against other men. He literally held the title of "World's Greatest All Around Athlete" and went on to a movie and TV career representing as a man, playing male characters. Even more recently, he played as the real life step-father to the Kardashians before an audience of millions. How can it make sense in a wikipedia article to place all of those instances in feminine terms? For another example, we have thousands of articles of women changing their names when they get married. The name on the article changes in many cases, but we don't go back and change the name on, for example, their gold medal if they did not carry that name at the time of their competition. The Olympics are quite precise about names.
As for what he is doing or has done more recently, that's not nearly as public, but I think we should be consistent with they way this individual represented themselves at the time they did something in their lives. Otherwise we will end up with some ridiculous sounding text. Trackinfo ( talk) 02:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect the gender the person is most well-known by. Do I have this right?? (Remember that I'm trying to clarify the rule Trackinfo supports and how it's different from this essay. Georgia guy ( talk) 02:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Given the recent rumors surrounding Jenner (see above section #Bruce Jenner), I thought it wise to add a section addressing how to deal with situations like this. I boldly created a section in this edit. Feedback, improvement, discussion, criticism, etc. are all welcome. Personally, I think the section is needed, but am curious what others think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
A requested move at Talk:Gregory Hemingway asking this person's article to match what this essay says was defeated. Any thoughts on which questions of this essay this particular case is related to?? Georgia guy ( talk) 15:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to know if there are any thoughts on whether the following question is reasonable for this essay:
Should we apply this rule to pictures??
Any thoughts here?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Shouldn't we wait until the name/gender change is legal?" contains a false statement: "Wikipedia's policy on article titles (see also the essay on "official names") gives no weight to legal names." WP:AT doesn't give primacy to official names, and usually prefers the WP:COMMONNAME, though they most often coincide. We do in fact move things to official names pretty often, even if they're not the most common name, where the change is thought to be helpful for some reason. One example off the top of my head is International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (which really is capitalized that way); the common name is the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (its name until 2011), and almost everyone still refers to it as the ICBN for short.
A case more the point, being a person, is Rudolf Wanderone, Jr., better known as "Minnesota Fats"; he's at his real name because Minnesota Fats is actually a fictional character whose monicker he adopted after the publication of The Hustler, after Wanderone was already known under various other nommes-de- cue, including "New York Fatty", "Chicago Fats", "Double-smart", etc. This move has survived at least three move discussions. So, no misstatement of policy is needed here: WP consensus can use whatever name consensus agrees is the best one for the article in question.
And the issue does not always arise to begin with. Genesis P-Orridge remains at that name desipite a gender change; the name did not change, and it does not always change for others, either. P-Orridge is, BTW, a good example of why one-size-fits-all approaches to gender identity do not work; this person has no known issue with the fact that they used to be male, and in a heterosexual relationship as a male, and self-identifying as male in that phase of their life, before embarking with their then-partner Paula P-Orridge on a course of body-modification aimed at merging, not switching genders. The text at that article reflects this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Added-to 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The question "Shouldn't we wait until the name/gender change is legal?", and this part of its text, "Furthermore, jurisdictions vary widely in how they regulate changes of name or gender: some jurisdictions do not recognize gender changes at all", are confusing two non-identical and not particularly comparable, but separate legal processes (where they are legal processes at all, which is probably most places for name changes, but not most places for gender changes). This should really be forked into two separate questions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The essay has a large number of reasoning problems, because it's clearly written from a WP:ADVOCACY standpoint instead of from a Wikipedian one. The "Her testicles" section, as just one example, actually skirts the entire issue raised by such shite use of language, and pooh-poohs legitimate concerns. It also mistakes how WP works and how WP is used; millions of editors per day do not read articles from top to bottom but are linked directly to particular sections, either by internal WP links, or by following external ones. I could go on, but three issues reported in a row is enough to work on. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This essay now needs info on why there's an exception to the general rule. The policy has changed, meaning that we now refer to a trans woman with male terms in articles related specifically to an event in her life when she was believed to be a man, such as the 1976 Summer Olympics article for Caitlyn Jenner (in that particular article she should be referred to with male pronouns because she was thought to be a man at that time, not a trans woman.) Any thoughts about adding an appropriate question?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, if this is the wrong place to ask, but can someone clarify the rules regarding athletes who competed pre-transition. Specifically this is regarding Balian Buschbaum article. I started a discussion on that page but no one has replied. In short:
Thank you for the clarifications, 15zulu ( talk) 06:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
"Gender is complex" - which means it has many different parts that not allways appear together. This is what we learn from the modern media. But we all know the simplest ingredient: What you see between the legs of the newborn. Then you can show the data clearly: x% of the males go "Girly" style, y% of the females have mannish appearence, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by הראש ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no evidence for something like "41% of trans kings commited suicide after years of suffering the objection of the society to accept their identity.", so this kind of 'transsomething' is not really a thing right now. It may look easy when you think about a royal degree and a slave as physically the same type of biological being, but having completely different rights and duties is exactly the definition of the difference. When we wonder someone's gender, we have to remember that men and women have to be respected equally, which means that when you can't tell the gender of a person, it is far from being the most problematic issue, at the most of the time. הראש ( talk) 13:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Transsexual is used to refer to a trans person who wants to get or has already gotten surgery, Transgender is an umbrella term that can be used to refer to ALL TRANS PEOPLE!!!
Trans is also preferred to as it doesn’t specify the identity of the person in question. Atlantic Ranter 9705 ( talk) 18:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Here’s a partial list of times when they used the word transsexual
Oh good news! (Or should I say bad?), I found MORE pages that use the word transsexual, when transgender is “preferred”
( Atlantic Ranter 9705 ( talk) 12:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC))
Say a person becomes notable only after death. All we have is the word of some anonymous friends as to their self identification. That would not seem to meet the usual wikipedia standards for substantiation. Are there guidelines on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjxj ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The "King of Spain" section made me think of Emperor Norton, who really did self-identify as royalty. The article lists his title as "Self-proclaimed 'Emperor of the United States'", and while it obviously doesn't claim that he really was an emperor, it also doesn't state the contrary. This suggests that Wikipedia gives some weight to sincerely-held self-identification, even in the example that's brought up to sound completely ridiculous. Would this be worth noting in the essay? Gladius-veritatis ( talk) 22:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Who is the intended audience of this essay? People who already believe in gender ideology will find nothing new here and those who don't will not be convinced - the essay just lists a bunch of things gender activists believe with no justification, argumentation or proof. I fail to see how anyone can learn something from this page. It is also clearly in violation of WP:SOAP and an extreme example of WP:EPOV, since gender ideology doesn't have much traction outside of the English-speaking world. 45.84.40.160 ( talk) 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a serious problem in that WP:GENDERID sacrifices information and violates typical encyclopedic conventions of POV, in exchange for appeasing a small minority of people who are represented among Wikipedia editors, and there's a new discussion to be had over whether or not that's justified for a project this wide-reaching.
I think we are all in agreement that gender identity representation is an issue of self-image. My complaint can be summarized with an example:
If there was an article that served as a biography for somebody with other views about their self-image (e.g. let's say they believe that they look exactly like Leonardo DiCaprio), we would include information about these beliefs in the article, but never in a way that states those views as if they were fact from narrator POV. That is, we wouldn't literally write "[person]'s appearance resembles that of Leonardo DiCaprio". We would instead write "[person] has publicly stated to multiple media outlets that their appearance resembles that of Leonardo DiCaprio."
Following that same logic, to preserve as much information as possible and ensure the article will be understood across cultures, it would make more sense for biographies of transgenders to include and use the pronouns for their real sex, then respectfully explain that they identify differently in the opening paragraph by citing where they made the statement.
The current policy is a reflection of very current ethical views of a specific demographic, and this same weight isn't given out very frequently on Wikipedia. It seems to me like this article was forged by fire, written to address specific controversies in the past, and if anything, I think people have been afraid to challenge it for all this time due to the controversial nature of the subject, especially among Wikipedia editors. But the responsible thing is to acknowledge that it simply doesn't fit and is very hard to justify. MisleadingAccountName ( talk) 22:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Beira's Place page is a mess and I have been banned from editing even as I started talk pages regarding edits I see I've been banned, cause ya'll can't tell the difference between sharing established facts to fix a wikipage and a "forum", I did not present anything for debate.
I've now seen part of the problem. You have defined all gender by "sex assigned at birth" as a datum for universal reference. This erases noncolonial third genders and intersex people entirely from the zone of exclusion Rowling wishes to develop. There are intersex persons, assigned female at birth who look exactly like Rowlings bias of cismen and vice versa, some may change sex on birth certificates when they find out as many intersex people arent even aware they are intersex, but such folks do not usually identify as trans subsequently, rather more often as cisgender. 3rd gender persons should not by defined at all in relation to "assignment at birth" as this constitutes an ethnocentric erasure. It's also a weasely way to assert a hegemonic definition over a vulnerable minority and marginalised group.
The Beira's Place article is a testament to your blind spots. Ive read some of your other edits, you just seem to be absolutely clueless on this topic and I would request you find someone with more experience then the few articles you've been involved with. Beira's Place looks like if you have Rowling (the owner/director) the page to copy/paste her own content.
There's literally a mountain of scholarship on this topic including established scientific consensus around the 3G concept that is far more relevant than a copy/paste of Beira's advertisement, which is misleading to 3rd gender and intersex persons.
77.183.164.73 ( talk) 08:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)talonx
When I read some of the articles, an idea comes to my mind - is Wikipedia prone to replace gender-neutral terms (or use them more frequently)? Like, e.g., when refering to pregnancy, the female and the womanly terms are automatically assigned, rather than focusing solely on the topic of pregnancy. e.g. "Stillbirth can cause trauma in a mother's psyche [in someone's psyche]"
I just think that, (1) even if people aren't informed that much, they automatically think about a certain gender (2) introducing gender-neutrality in Wikipedia has a mind-opening value. Pingijno ( talk) 10:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This well-intended essay may be more convincing if it did not come across as being dismissive of the experience of those outside the transgendered community and even of the diversity within it.
Conveniently unaddressed in this essay is the elephant-in-the-room question:
Which name/gender to use in these situations is an editorial judgment call. Because of our affinity to avoid original research, we WP editors try to avoid making these calls ourselves whenever possible, and we do this by following the calls made by the editors of reliable sources. There is absolutely no reason we should not be following this tried and true method here. We have no mandate, obligation or responsibility to be more sensitive to these issues than the New York Times, the Times of London, or the San Francisco Chronicle. When the editors of such stalwart publications get on board with a new name and/or gender, then so should we. But no sooner. -- B2 C 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
It should possibly be noted (and here may or may not be the place) that the portion of quotes used can, in some cases, be adjusted to avoid contradiction. For example, ""Edmund is the best unicyclist ever to juggle teapots in Nagasaki." said his aunt". could easily be changed to "Alison's aunt described her as "the best unicyclist ever to juggle teapots in Nagasaki."", and "Brown was "overawed by her applied phlebotomy lectures"" would not lose anything by being rephrased as "Brown was "overawed" by his applied phlebotomy lectures"". Thryduulf ( talk) 10:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
However, if after the name change occurs, a significant majority of reliable sources continue to refer to the person by their old name, then Wikipedia should follow the sources per WP:POVNAMING.
Any clarification on what this means?? Does it mean that a trans woman should be referred to by her male birth name in certain situations (other than trivial ones such as "Christine Jorgensen (formerly George Jorgensen)")?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of this essay should be to provide an explanation of the arguments that justify mos:identity, for people looking for a rational understanding. By using emotionally loaded terms like transphobia, we risk creating a visceral rejection and thus hurt that rational analysis. Diego Moya ( talk) 01:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTPOLICY#Avoid creating essays just to prove a point was this essay made to prove a point given the relationship between the Manning article? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking through other essays on Wikipedia, and they typically aren't written in this particular question-and-answer format. I could start the work of writing this up as a real "essay" instead of something that reads more like an FAQ in the next couple days, if other people think that's a good idea. (I am, however, going to make sure that other people think this is a good idea first, as this would be a significant amount of effort.) I think I'd start in my sandbox instead of on the page proper, as I think it would take a bit to get all the information, plus some of the stuff I want to add), into a proper essay. Anyway, does anyone else think this is a good idea? Cam94509 ( talk) 03:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at a few Wikipedia talk pages about the term "male-to-female". This project says that it's important to refer to trans women as women throughout their lives. The discussion has gone to:
Still, only 3 Wikipedians have been involved in this discussion; myself, JanetWand, and Picture of a Sunny Day.
Now, JanetWand claims that the term "male" is a term that by definition unambiguously refers to anatomy, and that anyone with male anatomy is male regardless of whether the identity of the person is a man or a woman in the wrong body (a pre-operative trans woman.)
Any thoughts on what to do here?? Georgia guy ( talk) 01:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
GeorgiaGuy has never understood the difference between gender and sex. He has grossly misinterpreted what I have said. I never said, as he said, that anyone with a male body is a male. I have said that "male to female" is an appropriate way to refer to the process of transition for transsexuals. I am a transsexual and feel that georgiaguy does not understand the subject. He seems to get hung up on very trivial notions and has the tendency to miss the trees.
JanetWand (
talk) 01:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Go to Kristin Beck. I removed While presenting as a man because WP:MOS says Kristin Beck is a woman. But I was reverted. Any thoughts anyone has?? Georgia guy ( talk) 12:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
People want Alexis Reich to be moved to John Mark Karr. This means there needs to be a change somewhere on this page. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 12:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Transsexual and cissexual people fall firmly on one end of the spectrum. But I do think it's worth briefly mentioning the people nearer the middle of that spectrum, lest not mentioning them cause even more confusion. I've added a brief note to that effect. I suppose it might be helpful to explain the difference between transgender, transsexual, and transvestite as well. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 09:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
By the by, personally, I think these cases are better evaluated under a variant strict scrutiny, which is a three-pronged test for evaluating decisions that affect groups and individuals that are the subjects of discrimination. Adapted for Wikipedia, the test becomes:
When a decision or inclusion of material has the potential to harm a person from a vulnerable group, ask yourself:
Adam Cuerden ( talk) 09:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Per my knowledge, it appears that most Wikipedians who want Alexis Reich kept appear to use the argument that she's still alive. As a result, current knowledge about this essay suggests that after Alexis Reich dies (I know this is an event of the future we cannot predict; this is just a statement about when it happens) if another requested move to John Mark Karr is made, there will probably be consensus to move the article. Any thoughts on whether certain parts of this essay are restricted?? Georgia guy ( talk) 22:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
With living trans people, we can follow clearly-stated self-identification, and we can avoid speculation, and imho we should avoid speculation because it can be disrespectful, it can violate privacy, and it requires judgement calls which defy verifiability. Naming her article Chelsea Manning doesn't run into the problems that naming her article Breanna Manning would have. With historical trans people, we may not be able to avoid speculation, as with the Chevalier d'Eon, or collectively with the priestesses of Cybele. Which doesn't help with this case. Ananiujitha ( talk) 23:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask why the reference to brain structure is present in the article? Is there evidence of causation rather than correlation? Multiple studies have shown evidence that the brains of gay men, and/or lesbians have brain structures that resemble the brains of the opposite sex, e.g. Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds, Science Daily, June 18, 2008, Is homosexual behaviour hard-wired? Sexual orientation and brain structure, Psychological Medicine, New Theory: Sexual Orientation Determined by Brain Hemisphere Dominance, The Advocate but the use of biology-based strategies to advance human rights (including legal and social recognition) are controversial, to say the least. Nsw2042 ( talk) 00:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Alexis Reich is now a re-direct. But, during its last few days before being a re-direct, the rule changed for that one article. Normally, the rule is:
Per Wikipedia:Manual of style, use she/her to refer to a trans woman throughout her life.
However, that article had a different rule:
Per Wikipedia:BLP, use he/him throughout his life.
...despite being a trans woman. I checked the archive in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to see if there's any particular kind of person Alexis Reich is that made her special here. I got the information that all reliable sources think of Alexis Reich as a man, not only as opposed to a woman in general, but as opposed to a trans woman, and that all sources that say that Alexis Reich is a trans woman are un-reliable sources. Thus, a more specific version of the above rule is:
Per Wikipedia:BLP, use he/him to refer to a person represented by reliable sources as a man although rumored to be a trans woman throughout his life.
This would be an example of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, so naturally instead of saying "Per Wikipedia:BLP" it should say "Per Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth". Per my knowledge, this phrase means that if there's info that hasn't been verified, then Wikipedia is supposed to accept without proof that it is (or at least might be) a fake rumor that might be disproven. Any thoughts on having anything related to this info anywhere in this project?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I would be cautious about misgendering anyone without very good reason. I think we also have to take into consideration that when we are writing about these people they often have spouses, families, and children, and we are posting very intimate information on the the world's top site for biographical content. We should go the extra effort to reflect a person's stated identity. We often fail spectacularly at doing so.
Sportfan5000 (
talk) 23:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
User:KoshVorlon appears to disagree with the third question in this essay. Can anyone make sure that this question's answer is written in a way so that KoshVorlon won't be able to object?? Georgia guy ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The essay begins by claiming "This essay outlines the reasons behind this guideline", which suggests that this essay is speaking for Wikipedia rather than speaking for the essay's editors. There may have been an overall consensus gained for MOS:IDENTITY, but within that consensus were many different viewpoints. The banner at the top makes it clear that this essay is the opinion of certain editors; the essay itself should not go and then muddy those waters. Perhaps something like "While many varied viewpoints were voiced in formulating that guideline, this essay outlines some of the commonly recurring views that helped shape it"? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the second question's answer in the case of genuine trans women like Christine Jorgensen. Christine Jorgensen was always a woman; she merely had the wrong body before it was changed with surgery. A well-written biography of Christine Jorgensen would use she/her to refer to Christine Jorgensen throughout her life.
However, I disagree with the second question when it comes to drag queens. Drag queens are not real women; I would support that drag queens be referred to with he/him. Drag queens are just men who simply dress as women to entertain people; they are not women. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Do some people indicate preferences otherwise?? How common are such people?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Gender is a complex issue, both in how it applies to humans and how it applies to language, and there are differing and legitimate ways to view it. If I understand the goal of this article correctly, it is to get people to understand and accept the decisions made regarding discussing trans people in Wikipedia voice. Doing this does not require saying things that suggest that there is One Correct Way for viewing gender and applying pronouns to it; the article need merely establish that
Suggesting that other ways of viewing things are wrong actually works against the goal, as it is apt to put the reader on the defensive or allow him to simply reject what is being said, as it is claiming as fact something that they feel not to be true.
Some of this same concern goes to edits of the statement about the use of the term "sic". Quotes are not subject to Wikipedia voice, and we should not be putting "sic" into a quote simply because the quoted person may have a view of gender that does not match with our decision for Wikipedia voice. If Joe McQuotable says of a transwoman "When Brenda was a boy, he liked to play Ms. Pac-Man" may not be reflecting erroneous factual knowledge but a different viewpoint on gender or on language; Joe may have a gonad-based view of gender or of language rather than a self-image based one, or he may have a point of view on how pronouns should be applied before and after public transition, and these are not "wrong" despite what we have chosen to for our style guide. To suggest that the quote should only get a "sic" if he was saying this before Brenda's transition was known is to dictate a correct point of view, which runs against our WP:NPOV standards (as well as having WP:BLP concerns.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Any thoughts on how this (currently absent) question's answer should be in this essay??
Isn't it confusing to use phrases such as "her testicles"??
Feel free to try to give a good answer to this question whatever way you can. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If we made the questions section headers, it might overemphasize them a bit, but it would allow folks to link directly to those questions when they are raised in discussion. On the other hands, such links would discourage reading the intro and essay disclaimer, which is a negative. So I'm split on the thought. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
This essay is being cited as an excuse to go through Bruce Jenner's entire article (pending his change becoming official) and referring to him in the feminine. He has such a lengthy and prominent history going back more than 40 years representing as a male. He won his Olympic Gold Medal as a male competing against other men. He literally held the title of "World's Greatest All Around Athlete" and went on to a movie and TV career representing as a man, playing male characters. Even more recently, he played as the real life step-father to the Kardashians before an audience of millions. How can it make sense in a wikipedia article to place all of those instances in feminine terms? For another example, we have thousands of articles of women changing their names when they get married. The name on the article changes in many cases, but we don't go back and change the name on, for example, their gold medal if they did not carry that name at the time of their competition. The Olympics are quite precise about names.
As for what he is doing or has done more recently, that's not nearly as public, but I think we should be consistent with they way this individual represented themselves at the time they did something in their lives. Otherwise we will end up with some ridiculous sounding text. Trackinfo ( talk) 02:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect the gender the person is most well-known by. Do I have this right?? (Remember that I'm trying to clarify the rule Trackinfo supports and how it's different from this essay. Georgia guy ( talk) 02:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Given the recent rumors surrounding Jenner (see above section #Bruce Jenner), I thought it wise to add a section addressing how to deal with situations like this. I boldly created a section in this edit. Feedback, improvement, discussion, criticism, etc. are all welcome. Personally, I think the section is needed, but am curious what others think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 06:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
A requested move at Talk:Gregory Hemingway asking this person's article to match what this essay says was defeated. Any thoughts on which questions of this essay this particular case is related to?? Georgia guy ( talk) 15:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to know if there are any thoughts on whether the following question is reasonable for this essay:
Should we apply this rule to pictures??
Any thoughts here?? Georgia guy ( talk) 23:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: "Shouldn't we wait until the name/gender change is legal?" contains a false statement: "Wikipedia's policy on article titles (see also the essay on "official names") gives no weight to legal names." WP:AT doesn't give primacy to official names, and usually prefers the WP:COMMONNAME, though they most often coincide. We do in fact move things to official names pretty often, even if they're not the most common name, where the change is thought to be helpful for some reason. One example off the top of my head is International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (which really is capitalized that way); the common name is the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (its name until 2011), and almost everyone still refers to it as the ICBN for short.
A case more the point, being a person, is Rudolf Wanderone, Jr., better known as "Minnesota Fats"; he's at his real name because Minnesota Fats is actually a fictional character whose monicker he adopted after the publication of The Hustler, after Wanderone was already known under various other nommes-de- cue, including "New York Fatty", "Chicago Fats", "Double-smart", etc. This move has survived at least three move discussions. So, no misstatement of policy is needed here: WP consensus can use whatever name consensus agrees is the best one for the article in question.
And the issue does not always arise to begin with. Genesis P-Orridge remains at that name desipite a gender change; the name did not change, and it does not always change for others, either. P-Orridge is, BTW, a good example of why one-size-fits-all approaches to gender identity do not work; this person has no known issue with the fact that they used to be male, and in a heterosexual relationship as a male, and self-identifying as male in that phase of their life, before embarking with their then-partner Paula P-Orridge on a course of body-modification aimed at merging, not switching genders. The text at that article reflects this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Added-to 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The question "Shouldn't we wait until the name/gender change is legal?", and this part of its text, "Furthermore, jurisdictions vary widely in how they regulate changes of name or gender: some jurisdictions do not recognize gender changes at all", are confusing two non-identical and not particularly comparable, but separate legal processes (where they are legal processes at all, which is probably most places for name changes, but not most places for gender changes). This should really be forked into two separate questions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The essay has a large number of reasoning problems, because it's clearly written from a WP:ADVOCACY standpoint instead of from a Wikipedian one. The "Her testicles" section, as just one example, actually skirts the entire issue raised by such shite use of language, and pooh-poohs legitimate concerns. It also mistakes how WP works and how WP is used; millions of editors per day do not read articles from top to bottom but are linked directly to particular sections, either by internal WP links, or by following external ones. I could go on, but three issues reported in a row is enough to work on. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This essay now needs info on why there's an exception to the general rule. The policy has changed, meaning that we now refer to a trans woman with male terms in articles related specifically to an event in her life when she was believed to be a man, such as the 1976 Summer Olympics article for Caitlyn Jenner (in that particular article she should be referred to with male pronouns because she was thought to be a man at that time, not a trans woman.) Any thoughts about adding an appropriate question?? Georgia guy ( talk) 14:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, if this is the wrong place to ask, but can someone clarify the rules regarding athletes who competed pre-transition. Specifically this is regarding Balian Buschbaum article. I started a discussion on that page but no one has replied. In short:
Thank you for the clarifications, 15zulu ( talk) 06:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
"Gender is complex" - which means it has many different parts that not allways appear together. This is what we learn from the modern media. But we all know the simplest ingredient: What you see between the legs of the newborn. Then you can show the data clearly: x% of the males go "Girly" style, y% of the females have mannish appearence, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by הראש ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no evidence for something like "41% of trans kings commited suicide after years of suffering the objection of the society to accept their identity.", so this kind of 'transsomething' is not really a thing right now. It may look easy when you think about a royal degree and a slave as physically the same type of biological being, but having completely different rights and duties is exactly the definition of the difference. When we wonder someone's gender, we have to remember that men and women have to be respected equally, which means that when you can't tell the gender of a person, it is far from being the most problematic issue, at the most of the time. הראש ( talk) 13:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Transsexual is used to refer to a trans person who wants to get or has already gotten surgery, Transgender is an umbrella term that can be used to refer to ALL TRANS PEOPLE!!!
Trans is also preferred to as it doesn’t specify the identity of the person in question. Atlantic Ranter 9705 ( talk) 18:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Here’s a partial list of times when they used the word transsexual
Oh good news! (Or should I say bad?), I found MORE pages that use the word transsexual, when transgender is “preferred”
( Atlantic Ranter 9705 ( talk) 12:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC))
Say a person becomes notable only after death. All we have is the word of some anonymous friends as to their self identification. That would not seem to meet the usual wikipedia standards for substantiation. Are there guidelines on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjxj ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The "King of Spain" section made me think of Emperor Norton, who really did self-identify as royalty. The article lists his title as "Self-proclaimed 'Emperor of the United States'", and while it obviously doesn't claim that he really was an emperor, it also doesn't state the contrary. This suggests that Wikipedia gives some weight to sincerely-held self-identification, even in the example that's brought up to sound completely ridiculous. Would this be worth noting in the essay? Gladius-veritatis ( talk) 22:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Who is the intended audience of this essay? People who already believe in gender ideology will find nothing new here and those who don't will not be convinced - the essay just lists a bunch of things gender activists believe with no justification, argumentation or proof. I fail to see how anyone can learn something from this page. It is also clearly in violation of WP:SOAP and an extreme example of WP:EPOV, since gender ideology doesn't have much traction outside of the English-speaking world. 45.84.40.160 ( talk) 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a serious problem in that WP:GENDERID sacrifices information and violates typical encyclopedic conventions of POV, in exchange for appeasing a small minority of people who are represented among Wikipedia editors, and there's a new discussion to be had over whether or not that's justified for a project this wide-reaching.
I think we are all in agreement that gender identity representation is an issue of self-image. My complaint can be summarized with an example:
If there was an article that served as a biography for somebody with other views about their self-image (e.g. let's say they believe that they look exactly like Leonardo DiCaprio), we would include information about these beliefs in the article, but never in a way that states those views as if they were fact from narrator POV. That is, we wouldn't literally write "[person]'s appearance resembles that of Leonardo DiCaprio". We would instead write "[person] has publicly stated to multiple media outlets that their appearance resembles that of Leonardo DiCaprio."
Following that same logic, to preserve as much information as possible and ensure the article will be understood across cultures, it would make more sense for biographies of transgenders to include and use the pronouns for their real sex, then respectfully explain that they identify differently in the opening paragraph by citing where they made the statement.
The current policy is a reflection of very current ethical views of a specific demographic, and this same weight isn't given out very frequently on Wikipedia. It seems to me like this article was forged by fire, written to address specific controversies in the past, and if anything, I think people have been afraid to challenge it for all this time due to the controversial nature of the subject, especially among Wikipedia editors. But the responsible thing is to acknowledge that it simply doesn't fit and is very hard to justify. MisleadingAccountName ( talk) 22:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Beira's Place page is a mess and I have been banned from editing even as I started talk pages regarding edits I see I've been banned, cause ya'll can't tell the difference between sharing established facts to fix a wikipage and a "forum", I did not present anything for debate.
I've now seen part of the problem. You have defined all gender by "sex assigned at birth" as a datum for universal reference. This erases noncolonial third genders and intersex people entirely from the zone of exclusion Rowling wishes to develop. There are intersex persons, assigned female at birth who look exactly like Rowlings bias of cismen and vice versa, some may change sex on birth certificates when they find out as many intersex people arent even aware they are intersex, but such folks do not usually identify as trans subsequently, rather more often as cisgender. 3rd gender persons should not by defined at all in relation to "assignment at birth" as this constitutes an ethnocentric erasure. It's also a weasely way to assert a hegemonic definition over a vulnerable minority and marginalised group.
The Beira's Place article is a testament to your blind spots. Ive read some of your other edits, you just seem to be absolutely clueless on this topic and I would request you find someone with more experience then the few articles you've been involved with. Beira's Place looks like if you have Rowling (the owner/director) the page to copy/paste her own content.
There's literally a mountain of scholarship on this topic including established scientific consensus around the 3G concept that is far more relevant than a copy/paste of Beira's advertisement, which is misleading to 3rd gender and intersex persons.
77.183.164.73 ( talk) 08:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)talonx
When I read some of the articles, an idea comes to my mind - is Wikipedia prone to replace gender-neutral terms (or use them more frequently)? Like, e.g., when refering to pregnancy, the female and the womanly terms are automatically assigned, rather than focusing solely on the topic of pregnancy. e.g. "Stillbirth can cause trauma in a mother's psyche [in someone's psyche]"
I just think that, (1) even if people aren't informed that much, they automatically think about a certain gender (2) introducing gender-neutrality in Wikipedia has a mind-opening value. Pingijno ( talk) 10:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)