Talk:Kate Bornstein

Pronouns

This article recently was changed to reflect Kate's personal pronoun preference. It was reverted and the following discussion occurred on a user talk page. The discussion will follow below. I will be again changing Kate's pronouns to the pronouns that ze prefers. If there is documentation required to prove that ze actually uses these pronouns, see the link posted below. It is, indeed, Kate's. If PICTURES of the "About the Author" page in hir's books are needed, I can supply the one from My Gender Workbook.

_______________________________________________________

I attempted to edit Kate Bornstein's page, but my changes were reverted. The only changes I made were in the pronouns that refer to hir. Hir preferred pronouns, as stated in My Gender Workbook, hir bio page on hir website (located here: http://katebornstein.typepad.com/about.html ), and numerous interviews, are "ze" and "hir," not "she" and "her". Out of respect to hir gender identity, I feel the pronoun changes should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.223.197 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well this is an encyclopedia. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 03:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how your statement is relevant. "Ze" and "hir" are also included on the "Gender-neutral pronouns" page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gender_neutral_pronouns

• To expand on Σ's comment a bit; this project uses the Wikipedia:Manual of style and its various sub-pages as guidelines for editing. If you should have concerns with the way things are done I suggest that you engage other editors on the discussion pages of the manual of style. To unilaterally inject your preference(s) without discussion will only impede your effectiveness here. Regards Tiderolls 03:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "injecting [my] preference(s)," but using the preferred pronouns of the person hirself (linked to above). From the Manual of Style's "Grammar" section, "Identity" sub-section: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.223.197 (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to the discussion you have taken part in that resulted in the pronoun choice you added to the article? Tiderolls 03:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you inform me where it is stated that a discussion must take place prior to edits? --173.26.223.197 (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Also I think "Kate" is a girl's name, so there is no question on whether Kate's "gender might be question". --The Σ ^talk_contribs 04:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you not see the link that was posted? See: http://katebornstein.typepad.com/about.html

I'll quote it for you: "Kate was born outside of Fargo, North Dakota in a log cabin ze helped hir parents build. Hir father was a Lutheran minister, and hir mother was Miss Betty Crocker, 1939. Kate has lived in the queer ghettos of Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Seattle. Ze currently lives with hir partner--sex pioneer, writer and performance artist Barbara Carrellas--in New York City, along with their pug, three cats, and turtle." (Emphasis mine.) I've also contacted Kate hirself about this issue. --173.26.223.197 (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of redundancy; this page is not the venue for the discussion you appear to desire. 04:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will move the discussion at hand to Kate Bornstein's page. However, I will be changing the article to reflect Kate's preferred pronouns as this is not an opinion or my "view" - its simply fact stated by Kate hirself.

• What policy? Tiderolls 05:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

See the document you referred me to: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#Identity Second bullet point. --173.26.223.197 (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A guideline, not a policy. Be that as it may, the subject clearly uses a feminine name and refers to herself as "auntie". I see no need for the unfamiliar and cumbersome pronoun wonkery; if she (or he, at the subject's preference) wants to be a she, cool. Use the feminine. Tiderolls 06:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You are CLEARLY ignoring the pronouns ze refers hirself to. It doesn't matter if "auntie" is use. You do not get to decide what pronouns some one uses - which Kate clearly uses gender neutral pronouns. It doesn't matter if the name is ze "clearly uses a feminine name". A name does not define the pronouns used by a person. Just because a pronoun is "wonky" to you does not make it an invalid usage. --173.26.223.197 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Until the subject's preference coincides with Wikipedia's guidelines, I will continue to ignore it. The guideline directs editors on pronoun usage where the subject's gender choice is unclear. The subject's gender choice is clear to me. I cannot see where the pronoun choice you are espousing is relevant. I've been looking through past discussions on pronoun usage and have yet to find one on point, most likely due to irrelevance. You probably should gage the community's interest at the MOS discussion page as I previously suggested. Tiderolls 19:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the guidelines say that the only acceptable pronouns to use are masculine and feminine? Kate, despite using the name Kate, does not identify as female as you so think. Nor male. Thats why gender neutral pronouns are used. And that is why the gender neutral pronouns are relevant (beyond the fact that those are the ones Kate uses). And several places have been notified. Because this is, indeed, an issue. Such a thing is not irrelevant, especially when in regards to someone with a prominent influence in the field of Queer Studies. --Sanctusorium (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

An individual that uses a feminine name and refers to themselves as "auntie" doesn't appear to be stting on the fence to me. Tiderolls 05:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is about Kate, but this does not mean she has totalitarian control over every aspect of the article. Furthermore, for those who don't know what "ze, hir, and etc" are, they will think someone wrote the article very badly. And there's still stuff about the MoS. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 18:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Kate may not be controlling this entry, but the MoS still says that we are to use the pronoun that the person identifies with. A user's ignorance of the pronouns IS, however, irrelevant. A simple link to the page explaining them can fix that. --Sanctusorium (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If I had my own article and called myself "Auspicious Looshpah" would that have to be used throughout the article, because it's my choice of identifying myself the Auspicious Looshpah's self with it? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 06:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The guideline says that pronoun choice is based on the subject's latest gender self-identification, not the subject's pronoun choice. Tiderolls 05:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that takes the prize for the most ridiculous bit of guidelines lawyering I have yet seen on Wikipedia, but let's run with it, shall we? Even if pronoun preference were somehow completely separate from gender self-identification, as opposed to being a part of it, what is Kate's most recent gender self-identification? I can answer that for you, being a correspondent of hirs: neither male nor female. That justifies gender neutral pronouns, according to the exact standard you've just rested your feet on. Are you satisfied, or are you going to move the goalposts now? Getheren (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitely agree, the guidelines clearly support using everyone's preferred gender pronouns, as does common courtesy. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm italian and I am a frequent user of english language wikipedia. This article is unreadable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.39.54.4 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No pronouns?

Bornstein is entitled to use pronouns of Bornstein's choosing in Bornstein's writing and website. We don't have to go along with that usage, as we need to be neutral and not an advocate for unusual English usage. I suggest that the article be rewritten to avoid personal pronouns. Call the person "Bornstein" and the books and plays "Bornstein's work." Cullen328 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This option would definitely avoid the MOS problems. Tiderolls 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What would be the point? I accept that the subject prefers "xe/xer". However, just as that is no reason to write an article about the subject using those terms, so too it is not a reason to rewrite the article to avoid standard English as used at Wikipedia, in accordance with our style guide. It would very reasonable to remove any undue usage of "she/her", but there should be no attempt to stretch that to exclude every instance of those terms. While sympathetic to the views of the subject, the fact remains that Wikipedia follows (not leads) standard English, and until some prominent media outlets use those terms in an ordinary article about the subject, Wikipedia should not either. By "ordinary article", I mean one mentioning the subject—not a speciality article that might be written on the terms "xe/xer", and which might use them as an illustration. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't particularly difficult to do so. If we cannot accept the subject's use of non-standard English for purity reasons (note that the MOS is a guideline, not a policy, and certainly not a holy writ), we can at least make the trivial effort not to use incorrect pronouns. Feel free to rework any particularly awkward passages or note them so that I can rework them for flow. --Danger (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative (I agree with your statement, generally, Johnuniq); if the changes could be made without making the prose stilted or difficult to parse, Cullen's suggestion would avoid pronoun debate by avoiding pronouns. One may make a case that this is a solution looking for a problem (the MOS, IMO, addresses the issue adequately), however, for a short article the suggestion might function well and satisfy the concerns of everyone. Tiderolls 04:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit just made by Danger (diff) is excellent: it improved the English and removed a bunch of she/her. There is no problem with a good result, so long as there is no "rule" that future edits must omit the standard pronouns. Johnuniq (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you John. I note that there is no standard pronoun usage which doesn't introduce a POV into the article. Bornstein is obviously "he" from the standpoint of many people, being a person born with, presumably, the standard male anatomical configuration and obviously "she" from the standpoint of those pointing to the feminine name, use of some feminine appellations, and procurement of sex-reassignment surgery. In the case of transgendered subjects, the MOS bypasses the enternal argument by deferring to the subject's preference, but this does not help us with POV in this case. So we have two options that do not introduce a POV (either affirming or denying the validity of transgendered identities): we can use the pronouns preferred by a subject, perhaps with an explanatory hatnote like those on biographies with family name first, or we can not use pronouns. If English novels can be written without the letter e, an encyclopedia article can be written without pronouns. --Danger (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is written for its readers, not for its subject. When someone attempted to rewrite the Gadsby article as a lipogram, that nonsense was firmly stopped. Attempts to write this article with neologistic pronouns would be equally unhelpful to the average reader. Jonathunder (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The article has not been written with neologistic pronouns, so this is beside the point. Danger (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it had those, but now it has no pronouns at all, which sounds stilted overall, and downright awful in places. "Resides with partner..." is awkward to the point of being broken English. Jonathunder (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but not to the extent that it is wrong and needs fixing. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is just fine now without gender specific pronouns, and avoiding them also avoids controversy about which ones to use. Slight adjustments to make the prose flow more smoothly are fine, but it seems to me that we have a consensus here, and there is no need to rock the boat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just piping in that I agree with Cullen that the article reads fine with no/minimal pronouns, and that that avoids the controversy about Kate's preferences. Personally, I'm comfortable using hir actual pronouns, but I realize that WP's audience is global, and it could be confusing to some readers. Hopefully, 'ze' and 'hir' will catch on with a wider readership soon. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

_________________________________________

I want to inject a bit of sanity here. Many articles, by the nature of their subject, introduce terms and usages that are not standard English or are relatively abstruse enough that the average reader is not likely to understand them -- and yet the article can't simply talk around them without doing injustice to the subject. An example might be the special usage of clear in a Scientology context, or damn near any legal term of art you care to name. The generally accepted practise, and it's a good one, is to link such a term's first appearance in an article to the relevant Wikipedia or Wiktionary entry. Why should gender-neutral pronouns be any different? I accept that the general run of readers is unfamiliar with them, but

(1) the general run of readers is not going to be seeking out an article about Kate Bornstein, nor falling onto it accidentally;

(2) those that do arrive at hir page (see how easy that was?), without that knowledge in hand, can immediately access it; and

(3) those who come with a fervent agenda for saving the English language specifically from this one particular bit of impurity (motivated by who-knows-what unspoken agenda) can just piss up a rope for all I care.

Linking the first appearance of the pronoun to Gender-neutral pronouns seems to be the best approach here. It should satisfy everyone -- except, of course, those who will not to be satisfied by anything less than grinding every gender-neutral pronoun into dust. And frankly, I have very little concern for such people's opinions on the matter. Getheren (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We could mention Bornstein’s pronoun preference while describing hir gender identity, then use ze and hir throughout the rest of the article. But though I’d be in favor, we would likely have language purists frequently trying to replace them. We’ll have a more stable article if we just avoid pronouns and/or use the more standard epicene pronouns singular “they” and “their” instead. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No pronouns, revisited

The use of pronouns in this article was a point of controversy going back several years, and the issue is back. Some editors, taking into consideration the presumed purpose of Bornstein's surgery, the common gender identification of the name "Kate", the identification with lesbian communities, and so on, would prefer to use feminine pronouns. Other editors, aware that Bornstein explicitly rejects either male or female identity for Bornstein's self, and also aware that Bornstein uses and promotes innovative pronouns for transgendered or ungendered people, believe that this article should also use those pronouns.

I acknowledge that language evolves with changes in usage, and that it is possible that mainstream 21st century English language usage might eventually come to embrace these or comparable pronouns embracing gender ambiguity, or the identities of people who don't identify with any gender. I have no problem with people using and promoting such alternative pronouns in any free speech venue, and I respect those efforts to change usage. Here on Wikipedia, as reliable sources comment on evolving changes in accepted pronoun usage, we certainly should report on such changes.

But Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or an activist advocate for change. By its very nature as an encyclopedia, it is a tertiary source, accurately summarizing what the range of sources say on a topic. And the language we use in articles should be standard usage, not innovative or experimental usage.

Consider the nature of this encyclopedia article about Kate Bornstein. In a thoughtful post worthy of consideration, Getherin wrote, "those that do arrive at hir page", clearly meaning "those that arrive at Bornstein's page". Leaving entirely aside the issue of pronouns and gender identity, this comment reveals a misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia biographies of living people. This is not Bornstein's page. It is a neutral Wikipedia article about Bornstein. Bornstein does not control this page and neither do Bornstein's friends and allies. Any attempt to make this "Bornstein's page" will be rejected by all experienced Wikipedia editors.

Accordingly, I see it as entirely appropriate to write a neutral, well-referenced section regarding Bornstein's activism on pronouns. But I oppose using those pronouns in Wikipedia's voice, at least until we have solid evidence that usage of these pronouns has achieved widespread, accepted usage.

Accordingly, as I did in 2011, I continue to advocate no usage of pronouns in Wikipedia's voice in this article, at least with regards to Bornstein. This seems to me the only viable compromise solution. Why would any of us, no matter how we feel about the pronoun issue, object to calling Bornstein Bornstein? Accordingly, I encourage my fellow editors of the widest variety of gender identities to accept this compromise, which has been pretty stable for two years.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As Getherin said, in articles that broach on physics that require words that aren't in most current dictionaries and which the majority of the current population have never heard before, we use those words rather than finding work arounds. We do that because those are the correct words to use, and a word doesn't have to be known by the whole population before it becomes acceptable to use. So why, in an article that is broaching on the subject of non-binary gender, are we not using the words used by the experts in the field of gender (i.e. trans*people and gender theorists)? MartinLevine.91 (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is no broad agreement about the "correct" pronouns even among transgender people and gender theorists. Some use completely different pronouns like "v" or a variety of other alternatives, while others avoid pronouns. There is general agreement that Wikipedia prose should, whenever possible, be accessible and readily understandable by non specialist readers. This is especially true for general knowledge topics like biographies as opposed to highly technical scientific topics. So this is a consensus editorial decision, and I see no consensus for use of these pronouns at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is very broad consensus within the trans* community (and among gender theorists who aren't trans-exclusionary) that pronoun preference (right down to the spelling) is decided by the person they're referring to. There is some variation on thought on how one should act before being given a pronoun preference, but that's not the situation we're in now. I don't see how using "zi/hir" would make the article inaccessible, given that there appears to be consensus that if we were to do that, the first instance would include a link to the article on gender neutral pronouns. Can you elaborate on why you think non-specialist readers may struggle with this? I agree there is no consensus for the pronouns right now, but there's also no consensus for leaving the article as is. MartinLevine.91 (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that you are a relatively new editor, MartinLevine.91. Welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your thoughtful input. The stable version of the article for two years has left out the pronouns. If you read this entire talk page, and also User talk:82.22.18.121, you will see that there is a significant group of editors each opposing and supporting use of these pronouns. So my motivations are several. As an experienced Wikipedian with over 20,000 edits, I know that these disputes on a wide range of topics have the potential of creating great acrimony, which too often leads to bitterness, and intransigent editors being blocked or banned. We already have a new IP editor being threatened with blocks because of edit warring, which is not permitted.

In my view, there is an element of ownership of the article involved in your proposal, namely that each notable transgendered person gets to decide which innovative pronouns are used in that person's article, or that that person's friends and allies can insist on such usage. I am very uncomfortable with that in any context, and have also discussed that issue on the IP editor's talk page and my own talk page. Wikipedia articles are written and edited by all editors, of every background and point of view, as long as they are committed to the neutral point of view. I am certain that many editors would see this pronoun usage as advocacy, which is commonly called soapboxing and is clearly contrary to policy.

Accordingly, I propose that we avoid use of the pronouns in Wikipedia's voice and instead write a well-referenced paragraph describing Bornstein's preferences. That could include a direct quotation from a reliable source discussing Bornstein that uses these pronouns, to illustrate their usage in prose. In my view, that would be an reasonable and encyclopedic step that could gain consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have read the whole talk page, as well as the MOS:Identity , and have now read that user talk page. I haven't made very many edits to this wiki, but have been an active member of other wikis in that past, so you don't need to worry about me being disruptive here, I'm just trying to help consensus reach a less non-binary-gender erasing standpoint. Bornstien's gender identity is not a political standpoint or something that is up for general debate, so attempting to adjust the wikipedia page about hir to reflect hir gender isn't an advocacy issue, it's about how we represent facts. I'm aware that some editors may see all trans* issues as a political agenda, but that is more of a reflection of their understanding of gender than on the issues in question.

I can see how you might think that there is a hint of ownership in the this standpoint, but that comes from a slight misunderstanding of what's being said. It is not that Bornstein has a right to control how hir article is written, it is that the correct pronoun set to use when talking about hir is the one that zi has specified.

This attitude is reflected in the MOS when it says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification". Whilst of course the MOS is just a guide, it is a fair pointer to what consensus probably is. Bornstein's use of the zi/hir pronoun set when referring hirself is in itself an expression of gender identity and an indicator of what the correct pronoun set is. Links have been provided in previous talk that shows this to be the case.

I don't think that zi should be referred to by hir surname because doing so is erasing of non-binary trans* people. It's an explicit statement that zir identity is not normal enough for everyday readers to be able to handle. Which is sacrificing neutral point of view to advocate binary gender norms.

Apart from the issue of ownership, which hopefully I've explained sufficiently, I'm not sure I understand your objections to using gender neutral pronouns. You indicated earlier that your objection to the use of non-binary pronoun sets is that they will be unnecessarily confusing to the average reader. Could you explain how you think it would be unnecessarily confusing? (If a link was provided to the gender neutral pronoun set page). MartinLevine.91 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your thoughtful response, which provokes sincere self-reflection on my part, and a reluctance to respond in a "binary" way. I do not recall making an argument based either on "politics" whatever that means in this context, or "confusing" readers, except for the general principle that our prose, in Wikipedia's voice, ought to be written in standard English. If I was the one (among many) advocating use of overtly feminine pronouns in this article, then your point might be more valid. I don't advocate that. No one is advocating any erasing of Bornstein's assertion of self identity outside binary gender norms. Clearly, that rejection is a major aspect of Bornstein's identity that must be reflected in the article, and I don't see why my proposal of a compromise to avoid dissension is perceived as "erasing". But, when I wear another hat, that of an advocate rather than a neutral encyclopedist, it is easy to see how you would take that stance. On Wikipedia, I am not an advocate, and no good editor should be one. I find it interesting that you have chosen not to address my suggestion of writing a section describing Bornstein's pronoun preferences, including a quote or even two using the pronouns describing Bornstein. So, do you wish to achieve consensus and build a better article based on input from editors with a range of opinions? Or do you prefer to take an activist stance? Or is there a non-binary stance? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my response in good faith. It is clear here that neither party sees themselves as advocating anything but a NPOV and all see the other as biased. I will try to be more clear as to why your suggest does not feel neutral to me.

To address your compromise solution directly: When wikipedia is describing people of normative, binary genders, wikipedia treats them in a certain way. We are happy to use the appropriate pronouns when describing binary folks, rather than explaining their pronoun preference at the top, including a quote where they've use their own preference and then referring to them without pronouns for the rest of the article. By refusing to treat people of non-binary genders in the same way, we are actively setting them apart, highlighting that they are not normal enough for us (and therefore do not have a valid identity). The only way to treat people of non-binary genders in an equal fashion is to treat them in the same fashion, and use the pronouns they identify with rather than a work around.

I am not an advocate for Bornstein, I do not know hir, nor any of hir friends. I would like to achieve consensus, but I would like that consensus to be one that does not carefully pick out and mark non-binary folks as different and not quite as worthy.

A rush towards the easiest consensus in not always the best option, it is better to be correct than to get the answer quickly.

Also, I would really like you to explain what your reasons are for your feeling that the non-binary pronoun are not appropriate to use. They are words used by gender theorists (as well as the trans* community and it's allies) to describe non-binary genders. They are as valid as any other specialist words you might find on wikipedia. Once they have been introduced to readers, I don't see how their use would be confusing (especially given that most pronoun sets have easily read conjugations even if you might not have guessed how to conjugate them). MartinLevine.91 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronouns, once more

Seeing as Kate's website now refers to her as she/her in the bio, could we embrace that in the article, rather than this clunky lack-of-pronoun nonsense? 143.44.68.47 (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you quote specific examples? Perhaps I missed them, but the only pronouns I saw on that website are first person. Jonathunder (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

From the first paragraph of the page it's lead to after clicking the "welcome" button:

Celebrated transgender trailblazer Kate Bornstein has—with humor and spunk—ushered us into a world of limitless possibility through a daring re-envisionment of the gender system as we know it. Kate lives on the edge of paradox: she is not a man, and not a woman. She looks beyond the binary to see gender as both a conscious practice, and a playful journey.

According to this October 2015 Huffington Post interview: "Kate Bornstein uses the pronouns 'she/her' and 'they/their' interchangeably." The bio using 'zi/hir' dates from 2006 at the latest. MOS:GENDERID says to use the person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Since the most recent sources (including Bornstein's current website) use 'she' and 'they', it seems like we should as well. Kaldari (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jonathunder, Funcrunch, and Cullen328: Any thoughts on this? Kaldari (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The 2011 bio via the wayback machine containing the sentence "Kate was born outside of Fargo, North Dakota in a log cabin ze helped hir parents build" should not be used as a source. I do see the use of standard pronouns in the subject's current writing: let's go with those. Jonathunder (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on this new information, I have no objection to changing the pronouns. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I would use she/her pronouns per the most recent usage on Bornstein's own web site. Funcrunch (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kate Bornstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812035308/http://lgbtjewishheroes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Kaye-Bornsteins-Gender-and-Genre-Bending.pdf to http://lgbtjewishheroes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Kaye-Bornsteins-Gender-and-Genre-Bending.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812035308/http://lgbtjewishheroes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Kaye-Bornsteins-Gender-and-Genre-Bending.pdf to http://lgbtjewishheroes.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Kaye-Bornsteins-Gender-and-Genre-Bending.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://gaycitynews.com/articles/2011/06/18/gay_city_news/arts/doc4deff12e07c77397352961.txt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004225421/http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/gender-outlaw-moves-into-new-territory.htm to http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/gender-outlaw-moves-into-new-territory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Daughter

Who? And by whom? Valetude (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Notability

Qualifications rather dubious. Has the notability been questioned? Valetude (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Her book Gender Outlaw?

I'm not a Wikipedia editor or anything, but somehow any discussion of Gender Outlaw has been left out of the text. Given that it's her most well-known work (by far), hopefully this can be corrected?

It's listed under Works, but not discussed in the article text.

Thanks! 71.231.85.24 (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)