Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale

Tree asked politely to be referred to by the pronoun "Tree".

“I don’t want to go by ‘he’ anymore, I just want to go by ‘tree.’" Shouldn't that be enough to go through and edit the article to change all the pronouns from he/his to tree? I don't know how wikipedia is regarding these kinds of things, but tree seems to have been fairly clear in what tree said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northerner1073 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#When_the_preferred_pronoun_is_not_a_pronoun. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived. Anyone wishing to read it can find it here › Mortee _talk 22:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This is blatantly transphobic imo, there is absolutely no reason for the article to avoid using "tree" pronouns for Lonsdale, especially considering the linked MOS discussion did not come to a clear conclusion, and contained multiple insults towards people who use pronouns like "tree", which makes it rather biased. If confusion is the issue, the article could clarify that "tree" is tree's preferred pronoun, which should clear things up for anybody confused. 73.142.199.151 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

hi so tree uses tree/treeself pronouns and transphobes were changing it to he/him could we officially get it changed to trees correct pronouns thanks 2603:6011:780E:D455:A1AE:D677:2992:C503 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the previous discussion on this matter here. Schazjmd (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

change Lonsdale’s pronouns to trees new tree/trees/treeself pronouns 71.176.161.70 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See request immediately above yours. Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I made some changes to the article yesterday, such that it now mentions in "Personal life" that Lonsdale uses the "tree" pronoun, but does not use any pronouns to refer to Lonsdale throughout. As a note to other editors—"they" is an incorrect pronoun in this case. While it's a reasonable choice when a subject's pronouns are unknown or when a subject has said they use they/them pronouns, it is not a usable option for those who have specified different pronouns.

I am hoping this can strike a workable balance between not using incorrect pronouns for Lonsdale, but also satisfying those who do not think neopronouns ought to be used in Wikipedia articlespace. I know the article on the musician and producer SOPHIE takes a similar approach, as SOPHIE did not use pronouns at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No, they is perfectly correct. There's no evidence whatsoever that the subject has "specified different pronouns", nor that what they said was anything other than some goofy joke; Lonsdale and his PR people uniformly refer to him as he -- see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221#When_the_preferred_pronoun_is_not_a_pronoun, and if they wasn't available I'd be arguing for he. The idea that tree is a pronoun is, bluntly, idiocy. The straightforward quote of what he said, as you have it in the article now, is fine, but that's different from twisting the article into a pretzel because of some whimsical ha-ha the subject tossed off one day. EEng 22:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That Lonsdale's PR firm uses different pronouns is an interesting point. Where does Lonsdale use the different pronouns? I'm not seeing it linked in that discussion. I wonder if there have been more recent interviews where Lonsdale has mentioned a preference. That said, I disagree that the article has been "twisted into a pretzel", or that we should use pronouns that differ from Lonsdale's stated preference when there is no RS indication that Lonsdale was joking. The WT:MOS discussion consensus to me appears to be that we should not use "tree" pronouns—not that we should use some specific other pronoun—and I am respecting that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• That Lonsdale's PR firm uses different pronouns is an interesting point – It sure is, and in a sane world it'd be dispositive.
• I disagree that the article has been "twisted into a pretzel" – I didn't say it had. I was trying to say (but didn't say very clearly) that it should not be, and in particular it should not affect the Sophie-like tin-eared pretension of avoiding all pronouns on the subject's whim.
• Lonsdale's stated preference – All the evidence is that he was joking, or talking out of his ass, or whatever you want to call it. I submit that the idea that someone wants people to pretend tree is a pronoun is an exceptional claim under WP:ABOUTSELF and that we need a serious, reliable source (i.e. not Billboard) to tell us that's really the case before we rework the article in the image of all this silliness.

EEng 22:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding you–are you okay with the article's current form? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am. But if the article grows larger it's going to become increasingly awkward to avoid pronouns entirely, and I'm saying we shouldn't do that. EEng 23:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've got to say, I'm wholly perplexed by this discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should follow, not lead. "All reliable sources say x, but we should say y" seems like a baffling position to ever find yourself arguing from. Reliable sources use "he", but at the very least the singular "they" is never wrong – unless we have specific reason to think that using it would be offensive like we did for SOPHIE, I see no reason why the mess a lack of pronouns introduces shouldn't just be avoided with the use of the singular they. Volteer1 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. As far as I'm aware, the Billboard interview is the most recent self-designation, unless you know of something I don't. As for "they", using "they" for someone who has specified a different pronoun is misgendering. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

GENDERID, like all of MOS, is to be applied with common sense, and common sense applied to the interview and all that followed it is that he was joking or being fey. He himself uses he, and his PR people use he -- what more do you want??? And even if not, let's get real: tree is now a pronoun? WTF? Are there no limits to this nonsense? EEng 17:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: I asked this above but maybe it was lost in other discussion. Where does Lonsdale use "he"? As for deciding what's a "real" pronoun, I have no interest in that. I'm not arguing that we need to use "tree" in the article outside of the quote, but I am saying that we should not be using pronouns that differ from the ones Lonsdale has specified without a solid confirmation that Lonsdale was joking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That is upside down: We need a solid confirmation that Lonsdale wasn't joking. The 'tree'-pronouns claim is based on one single interview from several years ago. Without any more recent or confirming comments from the person, we really should just use the same pronouns as most other sources do. St.nerol (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID says to use a person's self-designation, not to assume they're joking unless they give some other interview saying "no, really". So far I've seen no RS suggestion that Lonsdale was joking, only editors' personal opinions. That RS don't use the specified pronouns isn't that surprising to me, nor do I take it as indication Lonsdale was joking--the whole reason MOS:GENDERID includes the clause "even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources" is because a lot of publicationss are notoriously bad with pronouns, especially neopronouns.

Look at it this way:

• Scenario 1: Lonsdale was joking, and actually uses he/him pronouns. If the article uses he/him pronouns, then it is accurate and it reads slightly easier. If the article uses they/them pronouns, we've got the pronouns wrong, because Lonsdale doesn't use them. If the article avoids pronouns it reads slightly more awkwardly but is still correct.
• Scenario 2: Lonsdale was joking, and actually uses they/them pronouns. If the article uses he/him pronouns, then we've got the pronouns wrong. If the article uses they/them pronouns, then it is accurate and it reads slightly easier. If the article avoids pronouns it reads slightly more awkwardly but is still correct.
• Scenario 3: Lonsdale was being quite sincere. If the article uses he/him pronouns, then we've got the pronouns wrong. If the article uses they/them pronouns, then we've got the pronouns wrong. To make it worse, we've contributed to the ridicule often faced by people who use neopronouns. If the article avoids pronouns it reads slightly more awkwardly but is still correct.

The benefits of avoiding slightly awkward wording to me do not come near outweighing the risks here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

And then there's Scenario 4: Wikipedia makes itself look like a confederacy of dunces, and exposes itself to well-deserved ridicule, by giving serious consideration either to the possibility of actually using tree as a pronoun, or to idea that they should be eschewed in favor of numbingly repeating Lonsdale over and over and over and over because, well, asking to be called tree really might make sense and so using they really might therefore be offensive.

To be honest, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I said He himself uses he, since that would mean he's talking about himself in the third person. But here's his PR firm's website [1]; the Billboard interview was 9/2018 and every release since (not to mention before) refers to the subject as he. All this gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair is just unbelievable. What -- his own PR firm is misgendering him (or, you might say, mistergendering him)? EEng 21:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is going to look like a confederacy of dunces for wishing to respect a person's pronouns, and given that there are other, longer bios where we've avoided pronouns I don't see why that's not an option here—though my understanding was that you were okay with the current wording (though I take it St.nerol is not). As for going by Lonsdale's PR firm, I'm not really sure what the best path is there. The MOS is pretty specific about going by the subject's self-ID, but I suppose I could start a discussion there. As for gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair, I feel like I've been pretty calm and polite in this conversation and so I'm unsure why you're seeing fit to use such hyperbole. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• No one is going to look like a confederacy of dunces for wishing to respect a person's pronouns – They will if the "pronoun" is tree.
• my understanding was that you were okay with the current wording – Yes I am but, as already mentioned, that's only because the article's relatively short – short enough that the avoidance of pronouns isn't excessively awkward.
• As for going by Lonsdale's PR firm... MOS is pretty specific about going by the subject's self-ID – Oh come on! A PR apparatus projects, by definition, what the client wants projected. If he really wanted to be called tree they'd be calling him that, but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope. What his PR firm does is his self-ID.
• unsure why you're seeing fit to use such hyperbole – Because hyperbole is fun, and anyway I wasn't talking about you. Probably I should have said handwringing (also not about you, at least not in particular).

EEng 04:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, it sounds like we've got a workable solution then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is not quite correct in saying it was a Billboard interview, it was actually an Instagram Live Q&A with fans. Billboard just reported it. It was also picked up by Gay Times [2], who quote this: Keiynan clarified: “Okay, this might sound stupid, but I don’t care. I don’t think this is offensive, but I don’t want to go by “he” anymore. I just want to go by “tree”. Appears sincere, not joking, but says that "he" is not offensive. I don't believe it has been mentioned anywhere again since this Q&A, and there is no evidence that Lonsdale has objected to the "he" pronoun since then. I have also been unable to find "tree" ever being used by another publication. P-K3 (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Good catch on the Instagram Live vs. Billboard error, I've gone ahead and fixed that. Regarding but says that "he" is not offensive: where is this? I'm not seeing that printed in either the Billboard or Gay Times sources. Is it something Lonsdale said in the Live? I tried to watch the embedded YouTube video (which I assume was a recording of the Live) on both sources and am seeing "Video unavailable". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I took I don't think this is offensive, but I don't want to go by "he" anymore to mean Lonsdale didn't find being referred to as "he" offensive, even if it wasn't preferred. Maybe "don't think this is offensive" is actually referring to his wish to be referred to as "tree"? I'm unsure now.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I interpreted that the latter way, though I see how it can be read in the way you originally did. I'm not sure either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

What's with the sudden rekindling of the issue on 20 March 2021 (based on page history)? Did Lonsdale mention it again somewhere? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: because of this twitter thread, in my understanding. Volteer1 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe this is correct. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Where is the evidence that Lonsdale has ever used "tree" as a pronoun outside of a single Instagram video from 2.5 years ago? On the contrary, there is evidence that Lonsdale does not in fact use the pronoun. Here, LGBT site PinkNews refers to "His welcomed casting announcement in Step Up". MTV also uses "his", etc. As noted above, so does Lonsdale's PR firm. The MOS' direction is meant to avoid misgendering and to show respect for people's gender, but we use common sense and what sources say when applying it. I don't think a possibly-nonserious social media post from years ago that reliable sources don't take as a serious pronoun preference means that we need to write the article as "Lonsdale...Lonsdale...Lonsdale..." According to policies, we are supposed to follow reliable sources, not act like we know better. Twitter people policing others' actions don't set our standard. This may need to be an RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Lonsdale has used the terms "man" and "boy" but has afaik not used either tree or any other pronouns (which is unsurprising given most people don't often talk about themselves in the third person). But we can't assume that because someone refers to themselves as a man, they use he/him pronouns (or vice versa). As I've explained above, I do not think avoiding the slightly awkward wording caused by not using pronouns is worth potentially using the wrong pronouns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

But we can't assume that because someone refers to themselves as a man, they use he/him pronouns (or vice versa). For the vast majority of people, we and reliable sources both can and do assume such. In this case he did say something else that gave us pause, but most people, including historical personages, never actually say "my pronouns are..."; but the identity and terminology to use is clear from what sources use and from the person's behavior (edit:) regarding their reaction or lack thereof to how others treat them or talk about them. I still mentioned that as further evidence that he identifies as male and thus that "he" is appropriate. Now as for the statement he/him pronouns are not "male pronouns" [3] - I'm sorry, what? The whole reason it's important to get pronouns right is that they are gendered. Reliable sources are clear that "he" is in fact a male pronoun. [4][5] Crossroads ^-talk- 19:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC) clarified "behavior" Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

SreySros - ^ there's my RS. And I didn't look hard. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to continue the discussion assuming one's pronouns from their gender identity (or vice versa) I'm happy to, but it's presumably a moot point at this point given the pronoun issue has been settled, so I won't go deeper into it unless you ask me to.

Regarding "male pronoun": Plenty of nonbinary people use he/him pronouns, for example. Here are some contradictory sources to yours: [6], [7]. To return to the specific issue here, there is no benefit to saying "male pronoun" over just saying that he used the pronoun "him". GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Lonsdale uses "him"

"I’m now living authentically and not so afraid, I felt like I had finally returned home to myself, the version of me that wasn’t here before. I tried to work so hard to change him, which we all can do in some ways." - 2020 interview

"Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources" - MOS:GENDERID

Credit to Genericusername57 for finding this. Any reason not to use he and him pronouns in this article, given his clear recent preference and the use of them by other sources (as shown above)? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That seems usable. If this change is made, we'll probably want a talk page FAQ or something. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good find. In the interim, I am a bit puzzled about the above reasoning for why "they" is inappropriate. Subject preference and ambiguity aren't the only times that "they" is appropriate, imo. Though this seems a bit moot with this new source. Urve (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"tree" isn't a real pronoun. LeticiaLL (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Careful now. You might get blocked for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

So we're in agreement to use "him"? If so, I'll start updating the article -- using no pronouns at all makes this article a terrible read. — Czello 18:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Would you not also want to update the "Personal life" section with that 2020 interview? Although, obviously, what he says in it is less "interesting". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Either that or remove the 2018 quote. Otherwise it may be unclear to the reader why we're using he/him pronouns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts entirely. Maybe it's better to leave out "tree-gate" altogether. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Czello, yes, please go ahead. And I'd say we either should update the section with the 2020 interview statement or remove the 2018 bit altogether. Maybe the latter per WP:NOTNEWS if there has not been coverage since then. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not real to you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I must admit it's not real to me either. Nor to any Wikipedia editor who follows WP:MoS? It may have been real to Lonsdale three years ago. But even that now seems to be somewhat in doubt? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It might not have been real to him either, could have just been a joke. We will continue to use him for the time being. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and created an FAQ for the top of this page, and added a {{pronoun editnotice}}, to hopefully reduce confusion among folks who end up at this talk page from outside venues such as Twitter. Feel free to edit if you think I have missed something or didn't accurately reflect the rough consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Cut all the text from article about his pronouns as WP:UNDUE

• Support as proposer. The 2018 interview is not needed per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTDIARY; it's an old interview with no recent coverage. Without that, the 2020 bit about his pronouns is also not needed. The whole thing together is undue weight. We'll still have the FAQ on the talk page and could add a hidden note saying "see the FAQ on the talk page" for the first occurrence of "he". We don't need to cover this in the article itself; reliable sources just use "he" without comment and so should we. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support – I think the whole point of including the quote in the first place was to signal to the reader why there were no pronouns in the article, which was already kind of dubious given the lack of media coverage over the interview and even more dubious with the FAQ now on the talk page. The "him" interview has both of those problems but worse. We have three options: a) include both, giving a huge amount of clearly undue weight to these unnoteworthy snippets of interviews, b) include only the "tree" interview, which is probably undue, but will leave many readers scratching their head thinking we're misgendering him, or c) solve all of those problems by nuking the section and leaving the FAQ up. Seems to be a clear winner to me. As a side note, we probably want to move the FAQ up to the top of the talk page. --Volteer1 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support – only 7 days (or possibly 7 months) too late. But nobody could have predicted how contentious this might become. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Partial Support. It is definitely WP:UNDUE with how much there is right now, but a single line about it can't hurt. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons given above. BushelCandle (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. You can all thank me later. EEng 04:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  They can only thank you if they can load your talkpage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Deep lol-ness. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)