This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wikipedia's Manual of Style has guidance on presenting gender identity as part of its front presentation at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. This is useful because it is concise and easy to find. This is problematic because space is scarce here, and limited to 5-10 sentences. Another problem is this topic is the subject of popular discussion which has been getting mixed up in many places.
In establishing this style page, I wish to avoid making any changes to the current recommendations, and instead only wish to establish a place for centralized discussion. I have sought out conversations on this topic in various places and listed them here. I expect that the presentation of this list demonstrates that the conversation happens in many places and that many people have an interest in developing this topic. The infrastructure context of my starting this list and this page is that Wikipedia has no effective search function which makes all these discussions easily accessible, so in order for anyone to review past discussion and determine consensus for practice, we have to manually curate and share all the discussions in a format like this for anyone to consider.
I am putting this page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, which is the usual format for expanding off the Manual of Style. Thanks to anyone who can work this further. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I have this page tagged with {{ essay}}. It is not an essay, but instead a proposed complement to the manual of style which needs some community review. I tagged it as "essay" because I am not sure what is a better tag for an unreviewed proposal. I tried to avoid putting opinions into this, and mostly I want to share the list of prior discussions which should be objective. If anyone has an idea for a better tag then please change it. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
Draft proposal}}
; then, when it's done being drafted and is submitted to
WP:VPPRO, {{
Proposal}}
. If this were meant to stand as an essay, it would be moved out from under "WP:Manual of Style" since it isn't and wouldn't be part of MoS. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)I suggest organizing the discussions by date rather than location. I suspect many people will be interested in just seeing the newest discussions on this topic, or else in getting a picture in how the community's discussions have evolved over time. Mockup:
Alternatively, the list could be rendered as a sortable table, which might be nicer for the reader but, on the other hand, more intimidating for the editor:
Date | Discussion | Location |
---|---|---|
April 2007 | Transgender pronoun / identity | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
September 2007 | Transgender pronoun issue | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
August 2008 | Gender | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
February 2009 | Gender of gender-ambiguous persons | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
June 2009 | Gender pronouns | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
June 2010 | Manning's sexuality/gender identity | Chelsea Manning |
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
In my view there are two main areas where the MoS is not providing guidance where it ought to be. See below. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
We need to determine the consensus for how to refer to trans individuals outside of their main biographical articles (when referring to a period before they came out.)
Currently, instead of offering clear guidance, the MoS just says Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis.
Which is basically the same thing as saying "The MoS doesn't take a position on this". As a result,
one article might handle it this way: U.S. track and field athlete Bruce Jenner won
. And
another might handle it this way: the court-martial of Chelsea Manning (then Bradley Manning)
I think there needs to be another RfC on this. (The last one was in 2015.) On the MoS talk page, I proposed adding the following to the MoS to provide clarity:
[For any person whose gender might be questioned:] While former names may be judiciously mentioned, they should never be used, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. (See: use-mention distinction.) Use italics to indicate that you are mentioning but not using a name. For example, if Jane Doe won a gold medal under the name John Doe, do not write John Doe won a gold medal. Instead, you can write Jane Doe won a gold medal with a note saying she was
competing as John Doe.
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There is often controversy about how to refer to historical figures. Take the case of Dr. James Barry, who lived in the 1800s. He was assigned female at birth but lived as a man publicly and privately, from the time he was a young man until his death. He also tried to make arrangements so that his body would not be examined after death, which is to say: his dying wish was that he would be remembered as a man after he was gone. By any reasonable metric, he was of the male gender, and this should be respected. And yet his article currently awkwardly avoids using any pronouns to refer to him. For reasons I have a hard time understanding, the idea of referring to him as a male seems to upset some people's sensibilities (or should I say their cisibilities, hoho.) Anyway an RfC is likely needed on this too. I recommend adding language like this to either the MoS or to our new Gender Identity supplement:
In the case of a historical figure, if reliable sources indicate that they lived consistently as a gender other than the one assigned at birth, use the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns that reflect the gender they lived as. Avoiding pronouns altogether is awkward in English and should be avoided unless there is no other option. Avoid definitively calling someone transgender unless mainstream sources consistently do so.
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Is another area where guidance could be provided. (See: the RfCs about photos for Ortberg and the Wachowskis). Perhaps a guideline that a pre-transition photo should not be used as a lead image. And an additional guideline that pre-transition photos should be avoided altogether unless the subject and their appearance was especially well known pre-transition. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 09:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and filled out the "Recommendations" section. I consider what I wrote to be even-handed, consensus-minded, and informed by past discussions. At the same time, though, my intention was not just to neutrally summarize all the past discussions. It is called the "Recommendations" section after all, not the "Summary" section. Let me all know what you think. WanderingWanda ( talk) 23:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@ WanderingWanda: I've moved the table of discussions to a subpage of my user page, User:The Editor's Apprentice/Gender Identity Discussion Timeline, for now as a place to store it. I've also made a lot of mostly cosmetic changes to the page in preparation for its future proposal. If everything looks good and you think its ready feel free to start the proposal, or if you don't want to, I can.— T.E.A. ( Talk• Edits) 01:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
"a collection of information on Wikipedia's gender identity guidelines"because it is not that. I don't think my edits really changed the content of the page in any significant way. I would also say that the content currently contained in the "Additional recommendations" section is well rooted in previous discussion and is unlikely to be a shock to those reviewing the draft/proposal.— T.E.A. ( Talk• Edits) 19:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This edit caught my eye -- particularly the sentence reading: " He has had a large lesbian fanbase since the beginning of his career with K's Choice, but it was not until May 2002 that he officially came out to the public as lesbian." I think I see a problem in there somewhere but I'm not sure where, or even whether. If there is a problem in there somewhere, I have no idea in the world what to suggest. Perhaps someone more enlightened regarding this draft guideline proposal has a better idea than I. If so, I'm curious what that might be.
Perhaps something analogous to this is needed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:08, 20 May 2019 (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 that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise."I would say that Bettens falls under this policy because of his recent transition. Following the policy, the article should refer to Bettens as a man using the pronouns he, him, and his, even when referring to times before his transition. When it comes to how that particular sentence should be phrased, I would suggest something along the lines of "Before his transition and during the beginning of his work with K's Choice in 1994, Bettens had a large lesbian fanbase and publicly came out as a lesbian in May 2002." I am aware that can be a confusing sentence to read, but I'm unsure that it could be better phrased. Another thing that I noticed is that the current photo used on the page is of Sam before his transition, as mentioned in the #Photographs and #Recommendations sections of this page its inclusion may be ideal, but as noted by another user it may make sense to keep it since Bettens was notable before his transition. Do with that information what you will. — T.E.A. ( Talk• Edits) 23:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
he officially came out to the public as lesbian
is not incorrect, per se, but I worry people will read it and assume he currently identifies as a lesbian. I'm going to change it to: Before coming out as trans, there was a period where he publicly identified as a lesbian, starting in May 2002, and he has had a large lesbian fanbase since the beginning of his career with K's Choice in the 90's.
WanderingWanda (
talk) 03:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
--
Whether the lead photo is appropriate is an interesting question. Since he came out as trans this year and the photo was taken in 2016, technically speaking it goes against the proposed guideline I recently created: Don't use an out-of-date, pre-coming-out photo of a trans subject as a lead image.
But, I don't know... he comes off as masculine in the photo? I'd like to hear other perspectives, but it doesn't feel confusingly or disrespectfully out-of-date to me. Maybe it will in a few years, depending on how much his appearance changes.
WanderingWanda (
talk) 05:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Following up on the Douglas Adams snippet I linked above, a friend of mine in Colorado just sent me the following (I've wikified it a bit). I'm not sure whether or not he was serious about this being from a bill passed by the Colorado legislature.
What is listed below will be taught in Colorado grammar schools due to the controversial bill that was passed this year.
SexualitY
- Romantic Orientation- Who you are romantically attracted to meaning wanting to be in a romantic relationship with and is unrelated to sexual attraction.
- Sexual Orientation- Who you are sexually attracted to meaning who you get turned on by or who you would want to engage in sexual behaviors with.
- note all listed below are applicable also to romantic orientations. These take the prefix of the word and the ending -romantic, i.e. heteroromantic, panromantic, aromantic.
- Heterosexual- The attraction to a gender different from their own (commonly used to describe someone who is gender binary [female or male] attracted to the other binary gender).
- Homosexual- The attraction to a gender the same as their own (commonly used to describe someone who is gender binary [female or male] attracted to the same binary gender). Sometimess referred to as gay.
- Lesbian- Women who are attracted only to other women
- Bisexual- When you are attracted to two or more genders. This term is generally used to describe being attracted to men and women, but can apply to being attracted to any two or more genders. Note that you do not have to be equally attracted to each gender.
- Pansexual- When you are attracted to all genders and/or do not concern gender when you are attracted towards someone
- Bicurious- People who are open to experiment with genders that are not only their own, but do not know if they are open to forming any sort of relationship with multiple genders.
- Polysexual- When you are attracted to many genders
- Monosexual- Being attracted to only one gender
- Allosexual- When you are not asexual (attracted to at least one gender)
- Androsexual- Being attracted to masculine gender presentation
- Gynosexual- Being attracted to feminine gender presentation
- Questioning- People who are debating their own sexuality/gender
- Asexual- Not experiencing sexual attraction (note that you can also be aromantic and you do not necessarily have to be asexual and aromantic at the same time). Sometimes the term, ace, is used to describe asexuals.
- Demisexual- When you only experience sexual attraction after forming a strong emotional bond first or a romantic bond
- Grey Asexual- When you only experience attraction rarely, on a very low scale, or only under certain circumstances
- Perioriented- When your sexual and romantic orientation targets the same gender (for example being heteromantic and heterosexual or being biromantic and bisexual)
- Varioriented- When your sexual and romantic orientations do not target the same set of genders (for example being heteromantic and bisexual or being homoromantic and pansexual)
- Heteronormative- The belief that hetersexuality is the norm and that sex, gender, sexuality, and gender roles all align
- Erasure- Ignoring the existance of genders and sexualities in the middle of the spectrum
- Cishet- Someone who is both cisgendered and heterosexual. This is sometimes used as a slur.
- Polyamorous- An umbrella term referring to people who have or are open to have consensually have relationships with multiple people at the same time
- Monoamorous- People who have or or open to have relationships with only one other person at a time. The term, monogamous, is also sometimes used.
- Queer- A reclaimed slur for anybody in the LGBT+ community or who do not identify as cisgender and/or hetersexual/heteromantic
- Ally- A supporter of the LGBT+ community that does not identify as LGBT+
Gender & Sex
- Sex- Your assigned gender at birth and/or the gender of your reproductive organs
- Gender- Where you feel that you personally fall on the spectrum between male and female. Commonly people identify as male or female, but some fall in the middle or move throughout the spectrum.
- Cisgender- When you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth
- Transgender- When you identify with a gender different than that you were assigned at birth
- Transsexual- When you have had Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS) to change the sexual organs you were born with to that of a different gender.
- note that you will sometimes see an astrid after Trans (Trans*) which is meant to include both transgendered and transsexual individuals
- Male to Female (MtF)- When somebody that is assigned as a male at birth identifies as a female
- Female to Male (FtM)- When somebody that is assigned as a female at birth identifies as a male
- Binary- The genders at each end of the gender spectrum (male and female)
- Non-Binary- An umbrella term for genders that fall somewhere in the middle of the gender spectrum and are neither strictly male or female. This can be used as a gender identification without further explanation. Sometimes the term, genderqueer, is used.
- Genderfluid- Moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity
- Agender- Not identifying with any gender. Sometimes referred to as being genderless or gendervoid
- Bigender- Identifying as two genders, commonly (but not exclusively) male and female. Sometimes you feel like both genders at the same time and sometimes you fluctuate.
- Polygender- When you identify with multiple genders at once. Sometimes referred to as multigender.
- Neutrois- When you identify as agender, neither male nor female, and/or genderless
- Gender Apathetic- When you really do not identify nor care about any particular gender. You are fine passing off as whatever and you really do not have an opinion towards your own gender.
- Androgyne- This term overlaps a lot between gender identification and presentation. It can be used to describe others and as an identification. This term is used to describe people who are neither male nor female or are both male and female. Basically anyone who does not fit into a binary gender category.
- Intergender- Somebody who's gender is somewhere between male and female
- Demigender- When you feel as if you are one part a defined gender and one or more parts an undefined gender. Terms can include demigirl, demiboy, demiagender, ect.
- Greygender- Somebody with a weak gender identification of themselves
- Aporagender- Somebody with a strong gender identification of themselves that is non-binary
- Maverique- A non-binary gender that exists outside of the orthodox social bounds of gender
- Novigender- A gender that is super complex and impossible to describe in a single term
- Designated gender- A gender assigned at birth based on an individuals sex and/or what gender society percieves a person to be
- AFAB- Assigned Female At Birth
- AMAB- Assigned Male At Birth
- Gender roles- Certain behaviors an activities expected/considered acceptable of people in a particular society based upon their designated gender
- Gender Presentation- The gender you present yourself to others. This is sometimes referred to as gender expression
- Transitioning- The process of using medical means to change your sex
- Intersex- A biological difference in sex that is when people are born with genitals, gonads, and/or chromosomes that do not match up exactly with male or female. Intersex individuals can have any romantic/sexual orientation and can have any gender identification. Intersex individuals are about as common as redheads.
- Dyadic- Someone who is not intersex and when their gentinals, gonads, and chromosomes can all match into either a male or female category
- Trans Woman- Someone who is assigned as a male at birth, but identifies as a woman
- Trans Man- Someone who is assigned as a female at birth, but identifies as a man
- Trans Feminine- Someone who identifies as feminine, but identifies as neither a man nor a woman. They must also be assigned male at birth.
- Trans Masculine- Someone who identifies as masculine, but identifies as neither a man nor a woman. They must also be assigned female at birth.
- Social Dysphoria- Discomfort experienced when acting in ways socially different than your gender or being addressed in ways different to your gender
- Body Dysphoria- Discomfort experienced because of the difference between gender and your sex, role, or gender expression
- Butch- A term used to describe someone who's gender expression is more masculine than feminine. This is commonly used in describing women or lesbians.
- Femme (Fem)- A term used to describe someone who's gender expression is more feminine than masculine. This is commonly used in describing women or lesbians.
- Binarism- Putting gender strictly into two categories (male and female) and refusing to acknowledge genders outside of male and female.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the article about Zoë Quinn and I was trying to read it. After a little time I realized that there weren't sentences missing that would mention an extra person, but it uses "they" as a singular pronoun for Quinn. So once again, like in the cases of censoring transgenders' birth names, the overly zealous LGBT+ lobbying hinders the article's original purpose, i.e. conveying information. If Wikipedia is to continue with this pronoun-madness (which looks like it cannot be changed), then I would suggest creating a template which could be included at the top of each article, describing which pronoun will be used, for the ease of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.158.28 ( talk) 11:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be written assuming "people are capable of figuring things out". Besides, you are wrong about that. Most readers of English wiki are non-native speakers who don't speak English very well, and most readers are probably also not gender woke new age thinkers, and they will have trouble understanding it. If you're going to use language that's strictly worse for the reader, at least explain it. Or maybe you could draw the line somewhere. Let transgenders choose their own gendered pronoun, but don't let every idiot choose an arbitrary one just because it's trendy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.54.150 ( talk) 10:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata also has the fundamental problem of representing gender broadly but there is overlap in scope.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if it's needed, but added the gender templates to the list in the See also section. These templates aren't useful for writing articles, but they are useful for referring to editors on Talk pages. So whether they belong in that section or not, depends on what the scope of this guideline proposal is. Is it meant to refer solely to article space, or to guidelines for discussion on Talk pages as well? I would think it should be both, but not my call. If it's intended to cover article space solely, then the templates should be removed from that section. Mathglot ( talk) 03:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Why should trans people even get the special treatment of not having their former names shown? Non-trans celebrities, such as Muhammed Ali, do have their former name shown. So why not trans folk as well?
The obvious answer for Wikipedia would be 'because it reveals their gender which is dehumanising to them'. A fair point, maybe.
Yet that doesn't always follow. Take the name of Aimee Challenor, for example. This person's original first name was Ashley! We all know that's a girl's name as well as a boys name. So why did AC feel the need to change it? And why, considering this is more or less a same-gender name change, does Wikipedia choose to withhold the old name regardless?
And what if the trans person changes their name again to another of their gender? Gallovidian85 ( talk) 14:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Also consider those who had birth names not of their gender. John Wayne for instance. Original first name? MARION. Numerous celebrities will change their name because they don't like their original one. So they won't want to see their original name on a Wikipedia page either. Why should there be any difference between trans and non-trans on this matter? Gallovidian85 ( talk) 14:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
See these two diffs: 1, 2. And this thread: User talk:Manifestation#Assigned sex
Is there ever a reason to differentiate between assigned sex and gender identity? Because if a person is transgender, then the gender they want to transition to is arguable their 'true' gender, i.e. assigned at conception. I know that we have to go with what reliable sources tell us, and the phrase assigned sex is commonly used to refer to the gender 'assigned' (i.e. observed) by a nurse after delivery or during an ultrasound. But the phrase is arguably meaningless, because someone's physical gender may not be in accordance with someone's gender identity.
At ICD-11#Gender incongruence, I opted for a middle-ground solution, and wrote "assigned physical sex", in lieu of "assigned sex". It may be useful to have some guidance on the use of this phrase, but this MOS proposal talks almost exclusively about how to write about individual people. Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Should trans people who have no notable events under their deadname have said deadname published? 3nk1namshub ( talk) 01:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm not responding to this in the right place. As I feel that many of the people who may be affected by this are not present on Wikipedia as editors, I would like to create a change.org petition (or something on another site) to show the interest and agreement from the trans community who may not be present on Wikipedia. Please let me know whether or not this is allowed for an RfC. 3nk1namshub ( talk) 01:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions: do these guidelines also apply to articles translated in other languages? I’m asking this because (just to make an example) the Italian Wikipedia page about Sam Smith doesn’t respect their preferred pronouns or gender identity. I tried to fix it, as other people before me did, but my changes were refused as well. Though I understand that Italian languages is tricky when it comes to pronouns, since we don’t have “they/ them” as in English, I’m quite upset, being myself a non-binary person. I don’t want to make this personal, it’s mostly about Wikipedia quality standards. How do they apply on Wikipedia pages in other languages? I also see there isn’t a version of this page in Italian. How do I create one? Superfreakmorticia ( talk) 12:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
MOS:DEADNAME is about to get updated due to two recently closed RFCs on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. This implements several of the suggestions from this page, though I hadn't noticed this page before closing the RFCs. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Implementing deadname RFCs. -- Beland ( talk) 15:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Presume that a public figure comes out as non-binary, but does not provide any preferred pronouns. What would be the preferred way of handling this situation regarding editing pages? Currently there is a minor editing war happening under this situation on the page for Utada Hikaru. Because it is possible that referring to Utada as they/them could technically be misgendering due to Utada not providing preferred pronouns, as "non-binary" does not automatically mean that the person uses "they/them", I have been operating under the presumption that the pronouns used in the article should remain as they were prior until the person's preferred pronouns can be confirmed, but other editors (mostly anonymous ones) seem to disagree. I can understand there being arguments for defaulting to they until confirmed otherwise as well, but as far as I can see, this situation is not covered anywhere in the MOS. How can this be handled more smoothly in the future? - Wohdin ( talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment - the thing is, most nonbinary people do not use the gendered pronouns associated with their previous gender identity. Some do, usually alongside they/them, some forgo gendered pronouns entirely, and some use new "transitioned" gendered pronouns (q.v. Elliot Page). Where we have a reliably sourced announcement of nonbinary identity but no pronouns, "defaulting to the previous pronouns" will misgender the subject more often than not, and is incompatible with MOS:GENDERID. On the other hand, defaulting to they/them pronouns in this situation, as is the 21st century practice any time gender or pronouns are unknown, carries very little risk of misgendering and coheres with the spirit of both MOS:GENDERID and WP:GNL. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
the vast majority of humans alive today. For nonbinary people who have not explicitly expressed a pronoun preference, we should default to they/them, because it minimizes the risk of misgendering as discussed immediately above your comment. Retaining pre-transition pronouns when someone has announced a nonbinary identity (but not named pronouns) is clearly counter to MOS:GENDERID, and rushing to "opposite-gendered" pronouns would also result in misgendering a non-negligible proportion of the time. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
Does Wikipedia have a consensus on what to do when someone has expressed their desire to use multiple pronouns. A recent editor has changed some but not all of the pronouns on the page Paige Layle from "she" to "they" so that the page now uses both in accordance with the fact that the subject's Instagram lists her pronouns as "she/they". I am of the opinion that it is more readable/understandable to the average reader for pages to consistently use the same gendered pronouns throughout, but was wondering if there was consensus on this and also if there is consensus as to how to decide which of the two (or more) pronouns to use.
(My understanding is that using multiple pronouns used to primarily mean that someone was comfortable with either being used to describe them, but now it seems to be shifting towards some people insisting that others switch between both/all pronouns when speaking/writing about them. Not sure which case applies to Layle. I noticed that Elliot Page uses he/him pronouns (see that page's footnote) instead of he/him and they/them for consistency and so am leaning towards the same sort of thing for Layle.)
Samsmachado ( talk) 20:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Subject's preferred pronouns are Spivak pronouns, and we have a source that e prefers them. What is MOS guidance on using these pronouns that readers may not be familiar with, where phrases like "Eir work features themes of..." may also prompt edits claiming misspelling (example: [1])? — C.Fred ( talk) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
{{{1}}}
pronouns to refer to its subject. (There's also {{
pronouns editnotice}}, which I slap on most biographies when I run into pronoun-warring.) --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they) 22:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
pronouns=none
option for cases where that's the subject's actual preference, or at least our best-guess interpretation of their preference (
Sophie Xeon,
Vi Hart, etc.). --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding pronoun hat notes: one thing to be aware of while drafting an article hat note of this nature, is the related talk page template {{ Article pronouns}}. Articles and Talk pages have different target readerships of course, and template {{ Article pronouns}} is targeted to editors rather than to readers, and thus may appear on Talk pages. Its purpose is to guide editors what pronoun to use while working on an article, and is (or at least, should be) based on subject preference, consistency, and clarity for our readership. The template is descriptive, and not prescriptive. See Talk:Leslie Feinberg for an example. Besides the different audience (and an option for sourcing), the talk page template generates an underlying maintenance category structure (e.g., see Category:Articles tagged for gendered pronoun usage). In another difference from the proposed hat note, the talk page template does not exclude binary pronouns because of its goal of editor guidance; thus the presence of templates recommending a binary pronoun at Talk:Rebecca Sugar and Talk:Cavetown (and Feinberg) for example. Because on their somewhat different goals and target audiences, I imagine some topics may end up with both a hat note on the article as well as an article pronoun template on the Talk page, others will have just one or the other. One type of situation where one might have a Talk page template but not an article hat note might be for a few articles where Wikipedia avoids the use of gendered pronouns as much as possible, such as at Albert Cashier or James Barry (surgeon). Mathglot ( talk) 16:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this is disrespectful non-binary identities. It's equivalent to using gendered pronouns associated with their previous gender identity, or saying "He is a trans man who used to be a woman." I think stating that someone is/was "assigned male/female at birth" should be avoided unless the individual has personally stated that they identify with their assigned gender in some way. — InEventOf ( talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The phrase "Gender-affirming surgery" is used in a decent number of articles to refer to female-to-male or male-to-female genital surgery (henceforth "bottom surgeries"). To me it seems squarely at odds with MOS:EUPHEMISM. What is a gender-affirming surgery? Any surgery a transgender person undergoes in search of gender euphoria, even one that is not per se a transgender surgery, could be called a gender-affirming surgery. To the extent that it's a term of art, it's far from a universally-used one. So in general one would say that we should stick with the non-euphemistic term that our own article on the subject, Sex reassignment surgery, uses.
Except that term isn't precise, either. It's most frequently used to refer to bottom surgeries, but our article on it uses the broader definition of any surgery that is part of a medical transition (even if most of the article is then about bottom surgeries).
This is half a GIDINFO matter, half an MOS:MED one, but more the former, I think, since medical articles will tend to use more clinical terms. So, can this essay provide any guidance to editors?
My inclination would be to recommend using the medical term if established in reliable sources (vaginoplasty, phalloplasty, metoidoplasty, etc.). If RS are ambiguous (i.e. they just say "sex reassignment surgery", "gender-affirming surgery", etc.), then I'm not sure. "Bottom surgery" is a bit colloquial, but is unambiguous. And Bottom surgery redirects to Sex reassignment surgery § Genital surgery. Genital reassignment surgery is more formal, but somewhat obscure, currently almost never used in articles. (For good measure, though, I've refined it to the same target as Bottom surgery.)
Thoughts? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 12:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Wikipedia's Manual of Style has guidance on presenting gender identity as part of its front presentation at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. This is useful because it is concise and easy to find. This is problematic because space is scarce here, and limited to 5-10 sentences. Another problem is this topic is the subject of popular discussion which has been getting mixed up in many places.
In establishing this style page, I wish to avoid making any changes to the current recommendations, and instead only wish to establish a place for centralized discussion. I have sought out conversations on this topic in various places and listed them here. I expect that the presentation of this list demonstrates that the conversation happens in many places and that many people have an interest in developing this topic. The infrastructure context of my starting this list and this page is that Wikipedia has no effective search function which makes all these discussions easily accessible, so in order for anyone to review past discussion and determine consensus for practice, we have to manually curate and share all the discussions in a format like this for anyone to consider.
I am putting this page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, which is the usual format for expanding off the Manual of Style. Thanks to anyone who can work this further. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I have this page tagged with {{ essay}}. It is not an essay, but instead a proposed complement to the manual of style which needs some community review. I tagged it as "essay" because I am not sure what is a better tag for an unreviewed proposal. I tried to avoid putting opinions into this, and mostly I want to share the list of prior discussions which should be objective. If anyone has an idea for a better tag then please change it. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
Draft proposal}}
; then, when it's done being drafted and is submitted to
WP:VPPRO, {{
Proposal}}
. If this were meant to stand as an essay, it would be moved out from under "WP:Manual of Style" since it isn't and wouldn't be part of MoS. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 05:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)I suggest organizing the discussions by date rather than location. I suspect many people will be interested in just seeing the newest discussions on this topic, or else in getting a picture in how the community's discussions have evolved over time. Mockup:
Alternatively, the list could be rendered as a sortable table, which might be nicer for the reader but, on the other hand, more intimidating for the editor:
Date | Discussion | Location |
---|---|---|
April 2007 | Transgender pronoun / identity | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
September 2007 | Transgender pronoun issue | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
August 2008 | Gender | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
February 2009 | Gender of gender-ambiguous persons | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
June 2009 | Gender pronouns | Wikipedia:Manual of Style |
June 2010 | Manning's sexuality/gender identity | Chelsea Manning |
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
In my view there are two main areas where the MoS is not providing guidance where it ought to be. See below. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
We need to determine the consensus for how to refer to trans individuals outside of their main biographical articles (when referring to a period before they came out.)
Currently, instead of offering clear guidance, the MoS just says Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis.
Which is basically the same thing as saying "The MoS doesn't take a position on this". As a result,
one article might handle it this way: U.S. track and field athlete Bruce Jenner won
. And
another might handle it this way: the court-martial of Chelsea Manning (then Bradley Manning)
I think there needs to be another RfC on this. (The last one was in 2015.) On the MoS talk page, I proposed adding the following to the MoS to provide clarity:
[For any person whose gender might be questioned:] While former names may be judiciously mentioned, they should never be used, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. (See: use-mention distinction.) Use italics to indicate that you are mentioning but not using a name. For example, if Jane Doe won a gold medal under the name John Doe, do not write John Doe won a gold medal. Instead, you can write Jane Doe won a gold medal with a note saying she was
competing as John Doe.
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There is often controversy about how to refer to historical figures. Take the case of Dr. James Barry, who lived in the 1800s. He was assigned female at birth but lived as a man publicly and privately, from the time he was a young man until his death. He also tried to make arrangements so that his body would not be examined after death, which is to say: his dying wish was that he would be remembered as a man after he was gone. By any reasonable metric, he was of the male gender, and this should be respected. And yet his article currently awkwardly avoids using any pronouns to refer to him. For reasons I have a hard time understanding, the idea of referring to him as a male seems to upset some people's sensibilities (or should I say their cisibilities, hoho.) Anyway an RfC is likely needed on this too. I recommend adding language like this to either the MoS or to our new Gender Identity supplement:
In the case of a historical figure, if reliable sources indicate that they lived consistently as a gender other than the one assigned at birth, use the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns that reflect the gender they lived as. Avoiding pronouns altogether is awkward in English and should be avoided unless there is no other option. Avoid definitively calling someone transgender unless mainstream sources consistently do so.
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Is another area where guidance could be provided. (See: the RfCs about photos for Ortberg and the Wachowskis). Perhaps a guideline that a pre-transition photo should not be used as a lead image. And an additional guideline that pre-transition photos should be avoided altogether unless the subject and their appearance was especially well known pre-transition. WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 09:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and filled out the "Recommendations" section. I consider what I wrote to be even-handed, consensus-minded, and informed by past discussions. At the same time, though, my intention was not just to neutrally summarize all the past discussions. It is called the "Recommendations" section after all, not the "Summary" section. Let me all know what you think. WanderingWanda ( talk) 23:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@ WanderingWanda: I've moved the table of discussions to a subpage of my user page, User:The Editor's Apprentice/Gender Identity Discussion Timeline, for now as a place to store it. I've also made a lot of mostly cosmetic changes to the page in preparation for its future proposal. If everything looks good and you think its ready feel free to start the proposal, or if you don't want to, I can.— T.E.A. ( Talk• Edits) 01:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
"a collection of information on Wikipedia's gender identity guidelines"because it is not that. I don't think my edits really changed the content of the page in any significant way. I would also say that the content currently contained in the "Additional recommendations" section is well rooted in previous discussion and is unlikely to be a shock to those reviewing the draft/proposal.— T.E.A. ( Talk• Edits) 19:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This edit caught my eye -- particularly the sentence reading: " He has had a large lesbian fanbase since the beginning of his career with K's Choice, but it was not until May 2002 that he officially came out to the public as lesbian." I think I see a problem in there somewhere but I'm not sure where, or even whether. If there is a problem in there somewhere, I have no idea in the world what to suggest. Perhaps someone more enlightened regarding this draft guideline proposal has a better idea than I. If so, I'm curious what that might be.
Perhaps something analogous to this is needed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:08, 20 May 2019 (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 that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise."I would say that Bettens falls under this policy because of his recent transition. Following the policy, the article should refer to Bettens as a man using the pronouns he, him, and his, even when referring to times before his transition. When it comes to how that particular sentence should be phrased, I would suggest something along the lines of "Before his transition and during the beginning of his work with K's Choice in 1994, Bettens had a large lesbian fanbase and publicly came out as a lesbian in May 2002." I am aware that can be a confusing sentence to read, but I'm unsure that it could be better phrased. Another thing that I noticed is that the current photo used on the page is of Sam before his transition, as mentioned in the #Photographs and #Recommendations sections of this page its inclusion may be ideal, but as noted by another user it may make sense to keep it since Bettens was notable before his transition. Do with that information what you will. — T.E.A. ( Talk• Edits) 23:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
he officially came out to the public as lesbian
is not incorrect, per se, but I worry people will read it and assume he currently identifies as a lesbian. I'm going to change it to: Before coming out as trans, there was a period where he publicly identified as a lesbian, starting in May 2002, and he has had a large lesbian fanbase since the beginning of his career with K's Choice in the 90's.
WanderingWanda (
talk) 03:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
--
Whether the lead photo is appropriate is an interesting question. Since he came out as trans this year and the photo was taken in 2016, technically speaking it goes against the proposed guideline I recently created: Don't use an out-of-date, pre-coming-out photo of a trans subject as a lead image.
But, I don't know... he comes off as masculine in the photo? I'd like to hear other perspectives, but it doesn't feel confusingly or disrespectfully out-of-date to me. Maybe it will in a few years, depending on how much his appearance changes.
WanderingWanda (
talk) 05:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Following up on the Douglas Adams snippet I linked above, a friend of mine in Colorado just sent me the following (I've wikified it a bit). I'm not sure whether or not he was serious about this being from a bill passed by the Colorado legislature.
What is listed below will be taught in Colorado grammar schools due to the controversial bill that was passed this year.
SexualitY
- Romantic Orientation- Who you are romantically attracted to meaning wanting to be in a romantic relationship with and is unrelated to sexual attraction.
- Sexual Orientation- Who you are sexually attracted to meaning who you get turned on by or who you would want to engage in sexual behaviors with.
- note all listed below are applicable also to romantic orientations. These take the prefix of the word and the ending -romantic, i.e. heteroromantic, panromantic, aromantic.
- Heterosexual- The attraction to a gender different from their own (commonly used to describe someone who is gender binary [female or male] attracted to the other binary gender).
- Homosexual- The attraction to a gender the same as their own (commonly used to describe someone who is gender binary [female or male] attracted to the same binary gender). Sometimess referred to as gay.
- Lesbian- Women who are attracted only to other women
- Bisexual- When you are attracted to two or more genders. This term is generally used to describe being attracted to men and women, but can apply to being attracted to any two or more genders. Note that you do not have to be equally attracted to each gender.
- Pansexual- When you are attracted to all genders and/or do not concern gender when you are attracted towards someone
- Bicurious- People who are open to experiment with genders that are not only their own, but do not know if they are open to forming any sort of relationship with multiple genders.
- Polysexual- When you are attracted to many genders
- Monosexual- Being attracted to only one gender
- Allosexual- When you are not asexual (attracted to at least one gender)
- Androsexual- Being attracted to masculine gender presentation
- Gynosexual- Being attracted to feminine gender presentation
- Questioning- People who are debating their own sexuality/gender
- Asexual- Not experiencing sexual attraction (note that you can also be aromantic and you do not necessarily have to be asexual and aromantic at the same time). Sometimes the term, ace, is used to describe asexuals.
- Demisexual- When you only experience sexual attraction after forming a strong emotional bond first or a romantic bond
- Grey Asexual- When you only experience attraction rarely, on a very low scale, or only under certain circumstances
- Perioriented- When your sexual and romantic orientation targets the same gender (for example being heteromantic and heterosexual or being biromantic and bisexual)
- Varioriented- When your sexual and romantic orientations do not target the same set of genders (for example being heteromantic and bisexual or being homoromantic and pansexual)
- Heteronormative- The belief that hetersexuality is the norm and that sex, gender, sexuality, and gender roles all align
- Erasure- Ignoring the existance of genders and sexualities in the middle of the spectrum
- Cishet- Someone who is both cisgendered and heterosexual. This is sometimes used as a slur.
- Polyamorous- An umbrella term referring to people who have or are open to have consensually have relationships with multiple people at the same time
- Monoamorous- People who have or or open to have relationships with only one other person at a time. The term, monogamous, is also sometimes used.
- Queer- A reclaimed slur for anybody in the LGBT+ community or who do not identify as cisgender and/or hetersexual/heteromantic
- Ally- A supporter of the LGBT+ community that does not identify as LGBT+
Gender & Sex
- Sex- Your assigned gender at birth and/or the gender of your reproductive organs
- Gender- Where you feel that you personally fall on the spectrum between male and female. Commonly people identify as male or female, but some fall in the middle or move throughout the spectrum.
- Cisgender- When you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth
- Transgender- When you identify with a gender different than that you were assigned at birth
- Transsexual- When you have had Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS) to change the sexual organs you were born with to that of a different gender.
- note that you will sometimes see an astrid after Trans (Trans*) which is meant to include both transgendered and transsexual individuals
- Male to Female (MtF)- When somebody that is assigned as a male at birth identifies as a female
- Female to Male (FtM)- When somebody that is assigned as a female at birth identifies as a male
- Binary- The genders at each end of the gender spectrum (male and female)
- Non-Binary- An umbrella term for genders that fall somewhere in the middle of the gender spectrum and are neither strictly male or female. This can be used as a gender identification without further explanation. Sometimes the term, genderqueer, is used.
- Genderfluid- Moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity
- Agender- Not identifying with any gender. Sometimes referred to as being genderless or gendervoid
- Bigender- Identifying as two genders, commonly (but not exclusively) male and female. Sometimes you feel like both genders at the same time and sometimes you fluctuate.
- Polygender- When you identify with multiple genders at once. Sometimes referred to as multigender.
- Neutrois- When you identify as agender, neither male nor female, and/or genderless
- Gender Apathetic- When you really do not identify nor care about any particular gender. You are fine passing off as whatever and you really do not have an opinion towards your own gender.
- Androgyne- This term overlaps a lot between gender identification and presentation. It can be used to describe others and as an identification. This term is used to describe people who are neither male nor female or are both male and female. Basically anyone who does not fit into a binary gender category.
- Intergender- Somebody who's gender is somewhere between male and female
- Demigender- When you feel as if you are one part a defined gender and one or more parts an undefined gender. Terms can include demigirl, demiboy, demiagender, ect.
- Greygender- Somebody with a weak gender identification of themselves
- Aporagender- Somebody with a strong gender identification of themselves that is non-binary
- Maverique- A non-binary gender that exists outside of the orthodox social bounds of gender
- Novigender- A gender that is super complex and impossible to describe in a single term
- Designated gender- A gender assigned at birth based on an individuals sex and/or what gender society percieves a person to be
- AFAB- Assigned Female At Birth
- AMAB- Assigned Male At Birth
- Gender roles- Certain behaviors an activities expected/considered acceptable of people in a particular society based upon their designated gender
- Gender Presentation- The gender you present yourself to others. This is sometimes referred to as gender expression
- Transitioning- The process of using medical means to change your sex
- Intersex- A biological difference in sex that is when people are born with genitals, gonads, and/or chromosomes that do not match up exactly with male or female. Intersex individuals can have any romantic/sexual orientation and can have any gender identification. Intersex individuals are about as common as redheads.
- Dyadic- Someone who is not intersex and when their gentinals, gonads, and chromosomes can all match into either a male or female category
- Trans Woman- Someone who is assigned as a male at birth, but identifies as a woman
- Trans Man- Someone who is assigned as a female at birth, but identifies as a man
- Trans Feminine- Someone who identifies as feminine, but identifies as neither a man nor a woman. They must also be assigned male at birth.
- Trans Masculine- Someone who identifies as masculine, but identifies as neither a man nor a woman. They must also be assigned female at birth.
- Social Dysphoria- Discomfort experienced when acting in ways socially different than your gender or being addressed in ways different to your gender
- Body Dysphoria- Discomfort experienced because of the difference between gender and your sex, role, or gender expression
- Butch- A term used to describe someone who's gender expression is more masculine than feminine. This is commonly used in describing women or lesbians.
- Femme (Fem)- A term used to describe someone who's gender expression is more feminine than masculine. This is commonly used in describing women or lesbians.
- Binarism- Putting gender strictly into two categories (male and female) and refusing to acknowledge genders outside of male and female.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the article about Zoë Quinn and I was trying to read it. After a little time I realized that there weren't sentences missing that would mention an extra person, but it uses "they" as a singular pronoun for Quinn. So once again, like in the cases of censoring transgenders' birth names, the overly zealous LGBT+ lobbying hinders the article's original purpose, i.e. conveying information. If Wikipedia is to continue with this pronoun-madness (which looks like it cannot be changed), then I would suggest creating a template which could be included at the top of each article, describing which pronoun will be used, for the ease of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.158.28 ( talk) 11:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be written assuming "people are capable of figuring things out". Besides, you are wrong about that. Most readers of English wiki are non-native speakers who don't speak English very well, and most readers are probably also not gender woke new age thinkers, and they will have trouble understanding it. If you're going to use language that's strictly worse for the reader, at least explain it. Or maybe you could draw the line somewhere. Let transgenders choose their own gendered pronoun, but don't let every idiot choose an arbitrary one just because it's trendy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.54.150 ( talk) 10:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata also has the fundamental problem of representing gender broadly but there is overlap in scope.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if it's needed, but added the gender templates to the list in the See also section. These templates aren't useful for writing articles, but they are useful for referring to editors on Talk pages. So whether they belong in that section or not, depends on what the scope of this guideline proposal is. Is it meant to refer solely to article space, or to guidelines for discussion on Talk pages as well? I would think it should be both, but not my call. If it's intended to cover article space solely, then the templates should be removed from that section. Mathglot ( talk) 03:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Why should trans people even get the special treatment of not having their former names shown? Non-trans celebrities, such as Muhammed Ali, do have their former name shown. So why not trans folk as well?
The obvious answer for Wikipedia would be 'because it reveals their gender which is dehumanising to them'. A fair point, maybe.
Yet that doesn't always follow. Take the name of Aimee Challenor, for example. This person's original first name was Ashley! We all know that's a girl's name as well as a boys name. So why did AC feel the need to change it? And why, considering this is more or less a same-gender name change, does Wikipedia choose to withhold the old name regardless?
And what if the trans person changes their name again to another of their gender? Gallovidian85 ( talk) 14:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Also consider those who had birth names not of their gender. John Wayne for instance. Original first name? MARION. Numerous celebrities will change their name because they don't like their original one. So they won't want to see their original name on a Wikipedia page either. Why should there be any difference between trans and non-trans on this matter? Gallovidian85 ( talk) 14:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
See these two diffs: 1, 2. And this thread: User talk:Manifestation#Assigned sex
Is there ever a reason to differentiate between assigned sex and gender identity? Because if a person is transgender, then the gender they want to transition to is arguable their 'true' gender, i.e. assigned at conception. I know that we have to go with what reliable sources tell us, and the phrase assigned sex is commonly used to refer to the gender 'assigned' (i.e. observed) by a nurse after delivery or during an ultrasound. But the phrase is arguably meaningless, because someone's physical gender may not be in accordance with someone's gender identity.
At ICD-11#Gender incongruence, I opted for a middle-ground solution, and wrote "assigned physical sex", in lieu of "assigned sex". It may be useful to have some guidance on the use of this phrase, but this MOS proposal talks almost exclusively about how to write about individual people. Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 21:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Should trans people who have no notable events under their deadname have said deadname published? 3nk1namshub ( talk) 01:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if I'm not responding to this in the right place. As I feel that many of the people who may be affected by this are not present on Wikipedia as editors, I would like to create a change.org petition (or something on another site) to show the interest and agreement from the trans community who may not be present on Wikipedia. Please let me know whether or not this is allowed for an RfC. 3nk1namshub ( talk) 01:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions: do these guidelines also apply to articles translated in other languages? I’m asking this because (just to make an example) the Italian Wikipedia page about Sam Smith doesn’t respect their preferred pronouns or gender identity. I tried to fix it, as other people before me did, but my changes were refused as well. Though I understand that Italian languages is tricky when it comes to pronouns, since we don’t have “they/ them” as in English, I’m quite upset, being myself a non-binary person. I don’t want to make this personal, it’s mostly about Wikipedia quality standards. How do they apply on Wikipedia pages in other languages? I also see there isn’t a version of this page in Italian. How do I create one? Superfreakmorticia ( talk) 12:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
MOS:DEADNAME is about to get updated due to two recently closed RFCs on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. This implements several of the suggestions from this page, though I hadn't noticed this page before closing the RFCs. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Implementing deadname RFCs. -- Beland ( talk) 15:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Presume that a public figure comes out as non-binary, but does not provide any preferred pronouns. What would be the preferred way of handling this situation regarding editing pages? Currently there is a minor editing war happening under this situation on the page for Utada Hikaru. Because it is possible that referring to Utada as they/them could technically be misgendering due to Utada not providing preferred pronouns, as "non-binary" does not automatically mean that the person uses "they/them", I have been operating under the presumption that the pronouns used in the article should remain as they were prior until the person's preferred pronouns can be confirmed, but other editors (mostly anonymous ones) seem to disagree. I can understand there being arguments for defaulting to they until confirmed otherwise as well, but as far as I can see, this situation is not covered anywhere in the MOS. How can this be handled more smoothly in the future? - Wohdin ( talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment - the thing is, most nonbinary people do not use the gendered pronouns associated with their previous gender identity. Some do, usually alongside they/them, some forgo gendered pronouns entirely, and some use new "transitioned" gendered pronouns (q.v. Elliot Page). Where we have a reliably sourced announcement of nonbinary identity but no pronouns, "defaulting to the previous pronouns" will misgender the subject more often than not, and is incompatible with MOS:GENDERID. On the other hand, defaulting to they/them pronouns in this situation, as is the 21st century practice any time gender or pronouns are unknown, carries very little risk of misgendering and coheres with the spirit of both MOS:GENDERID and WP:GNL. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
the vast majority of humans alive today. For nonbinary people who have not explicitly expressed a pronoun preference, we should default to they/them, because it minimizes the risk of misgendering as discussed immediately above your comment. Retaining pre-transition pronouns when someone has announced a nonbinary identity (but not named pronouns) is clearly counter to MOS:GENDERID, and rushing to "opposite-gendered" pronouns would also result in misgendering a non-negligible proportion of the time. Newimpartial ( talk) 13:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all,
Does Wikipedia have a consensus on what to do when someone has expressed their desire to use multiple pronouns. A recent editor has changed some but not all of the pronouns on the page Paige Layle from "she" to "they" so that the page now uses both in accordance with the fact that the subject's Instagram lists her pronouns as "she/they". I am of the opinion that it is more readable/understandable to the average reader for pages to consistently use the same gendered pronouns throughout, but was wondering if there was consensus on this and also if there is consensus as to how to decide which of the two (or more) pronouns to use.
(My understanding is that using multiple pronouns used to primarily mean that someone was comfortable with either being used to describe them, but now it seems to be shifting towards some people insisting that others switch between both/all pronouns when speaking/writing about them. Not sure which case applies to Layle. I noticed that Elliot Page uses he/him pronouns (see that page's footnote) instead of he/him and they/them for consistency and so am leaning towards the same sort of thing for Layle.)
Samsmachado ( talk) 20:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Subject's preferred pronouns are Spivak pronouns, and we have a source that e prefers them. What is MOS guidance on using these pronouns that readers may not be familiar with, where phrases like "Eir work features themes of..." may also prompt edits claiming misspelling (example: [1])? — C.Fred ( talk) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
{{{1}}}
pronouns to refer to its subject. (There's also {{
pronouns editnotice}}, which I slap on most biographies when I run into pronoun-warring.) --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they) 22:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
pronouns=none
option for cases where that's the subject's actual preference, or at least our best-guess interpretation of their preference (
Sophie Xeon,
Vi Hart, etc.). --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding pronoun hat notes: one thing to be aware of while drafting an article hat note of this nature, is the related talk page template {{ Article pronouns}}. Articles and Talk pages have different target readerships of course, and template {{ Article pronouns}} is targeted to editors rather than to readers, and thus may appear on Talk pages. Its purpose is to guide editors what pronoun to use while working on an article, and is (or at least, should be) based on subject preference, consistency, and clarity for our readership. The template is descriptive, and not prescriptive. See Talk:Leslie Feinberg for an example. Besides the different audience (and an option for sourcing), the talk page template generates an underlying maintenance category structure (e.g., see Category:Articles tagged for gendered pronoun usage). In another difference from the proposed hat note, the talk page template does not exclude binary pronouns because of its goal of editor guidance; thus the presence of templates recommending a binary pronoun at Talk:Rebecca Sugar and Talk:Cavetown (and Feinberg) for example. Because on their somewhat different goals and target audiences, I imagine some topics may end up with both a hat note on the article as well as an article pronoun template on the Talk page, others will have just one or the other. One type of situation where one might have a Talk page template but not an article hat note might be for a few articles where Wikipedia avoids the use of gendered pronouns as much as possible, such as at Albert Cashier or James Barry (surgeon). Mathglot ( talk) 16:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this is disrespectful non-binary identities. It's equivalent to using gendered pronouns associated with their previous gender identity, or saying "He is a trans man who used to be a woman." I think stating that someone is/was "assigned male/female at birth" should be avoided unless the individual has personally stated that they identify with their assigned gender in some way. — InEventOf ( talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The phrase "Gender-affirming surgery" is used in a decent number of articles to refer to female-to-male or male-to-female genital surgery (henceforth "bottom surgeries"). To me it seems squarely at odds with MOS:EUPHEMISM. What is a gender-affirming surgery? Any surgery a transgender person undergoes in search of gender euphoria, even one that is not per se a transgender surgery, could be called a gender-affirming surgery. To the extent that it's a term of art, it's far from a universally-used one. So in general one would say that we should stick with the non-euphemistic term that our own article on the subject, Sex reassignment surgery, uses.
Except that term isn't precise, either. It's most frequently used to refer to bottom surgeries, but our article on it uses the broader definition of any surgery that is part of a medical transition (even if most of the article is then about bottom surgeries).
This is half a GIDINFO matter, half an MOS:MED one, but more the former, I think, since medical articles will tend to use more clinical terms. So, can this essay provide any guidance to editors?
My inclination would be to recommend using the medical term if established in reliable sources (vaginoplasty, phalloplasty, metoidoplasty, etc.). If RS are ambiguous (i.e. they just say "sex reassignment surgery", "gender-affirming surgery", etc.), then I'm not sure. "Bottom surgery" is a bit colloquial, but is unambiguous. And Bottom surgery redirects to Sex reassignment surgery § Genital surgery. Genital reassignment surgery is more formal, but somewhat obscure, currently almost never used in articles. (For good measure, though, I've refined it to the same target as Bottom surgery.)
Thoughts? -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 12:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)