Wikipedia talk:Gender identity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Room for improvement

This well-intended essay may be more convincing if it did not come across as being dismissive of the experience of those outside the transgendered community and even of the diversity within it.

• The concept and use of the term "gender" as being distinct from "sex" is historically speaking, a recent development, and not fully standardized. Folks who do not choose to conform with the current prefered use of gender terms are not necessarily facing confusion, and should not be depicted as being so.
• The depiction of the change of public gender as being inherently of a more personally fundamental nature than the changes that others may go through is being too dismissive of others and their lives. The suggestion that all non-transgendering name changes are "simple name change" that can be dismissed overlooks the very personal import of someone, say, shedding their "slave name".
• "A person coming out as trans is not making a change in their gender, but revealing their internal gender identity." This is stated in a way that suggests that gender identity cannot be fluid, which may be true in the strong majority of cases, but there are enough cases of gender reversion that it cannot be assumed to be so.
• It's also missing some simple clarity arguments that could avoid leaning on more contentious discussion; it can cause great confusion to be switching gender pronouns in mid-article, and there could even be cases where it would be needed mid-sentence ("He is a graduated of Lower Morton High School and the University of Southern North Dakota" becomes problematic if he switched public gender in his sophomore college year.) It's along similar lines how we generally do not switch a married woman's surname mid-article (although even that has exceptions, a la Hillary Clinton.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You raise good points. Though at this point, I am a bit out of my depth and I'm not sure what specific changes could be made to essay could be changed to address them.--Trystan (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding...

However, if after the name change occurs, a significant majority of reliable sources continue to refer to the person by their old name, then Wikipedia should follow the sources per WP:POVNAMING.

Any clarification on what this means?? Does it mean that a trans woman should be referred to by her male birth name in certain situations (other than trivial ones such as "Christine Jorgensen (formerly George Jorgensen)")?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this addition runs directly contrary to the central argument of the essay; I've removed it.--Trystan (talk) 01:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I was not intending the addition to run contrary to the argument of the essay... but even if it does, it is something that I think the essay needs to address. WP:POVNAMING indicates that when a particular name is used by a significant majority of reliable sources, we should follow the sources and use that name in Wikipedia... even if that name is seemingly biased. That does mean that there may be a few rare situations when a transwoman should be refereed to by her male birth name. It won't happen often, but it can happen and the essay needs to take those rare situations into account.

Please note that I was not trying to contradict the essay... I was trying to explain a relatively rare, but important policy based exception to it. 99 times out of 100, WP:POVNAMING won't be in play... reliable sources usually do reflect the gender identity of the subject. But there will be rare situations when reliable sources actually reject the gender identity of the subject... and in those rare situations our established policy is to follow the sources and not the personal desires of the subject himself/herself... even though that may seem biased against the subject. It's a matter of DUE WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Generally, POVNAMING refers to incidents and places. When it is used to refer to people, it's more complicated. In the cases of things like Jack the Ripper we have both the backing of the subject no longer being living and historical review to show that even if the name is biased, it is historically accepted.

But when it comes to BLPs, I don't believe POVNAMING should apply or it should apply only in very narrow circumstances. This is because using a biased name on a BLP directly violates our BLP policy. Silverseren^C 23:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

It should possibly be noted (and here may or may not be the place) that the portion of quotes used can, in some cases, be adjusted to avoid contradiction. For example, ""Edmund is the best unicyclist ever to juggle teapots in Nagasaki." said his aunt". could easily be changed to "Alison's aunt described her as "the best unicyclist ever to juggle teapots in Nagasaki."", and "Brown was "overawed by her applied phlebotomy lectures"" would not lose anything by being rephrased as "Brown was "overawed" by his applied phlebotomy lectures"". Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made a brief note of that in the relevant question. It would probably be helpful as an addition to the guideline itself as well.--Trystan (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made an addition with similar wording to the guideline, but you may wish to copyedit it - brevity is not my forte! Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

Conveniently unaddressed in this essay is the elephant-in-the-room question:

• Shouldn't we wait until the new name and gender are used more commonly than the old name and gender in current reliable sources?

Which name/gender to use in these situations is an editorial judgment call. Because of our affinity to avoid original research, we WP editors try to avoid making these calls ourselves whenever possible, and we do this by following the calls made by the editors of reliable sources. There is absolutely no reason we should not be following this tried and true method here. We have no mandate, obligation or responsibility to be more sensitive to these issues than the New York Times, the Times of London, or the San Francisco Chronicle. When the editors of such stalwart publications get on board with a new name and/or gender, then so should we. But no sooner. --B2C 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The response I would suggest to that is that we strictly follow reliable sources with regard to facts, but we set our own editorial policies. We often look at what other major publications do as instructive when setting that policy, but it's not a matter of OR to differ with other publications on a policy issue. As a substantive challenge of the current guideline, it might be better to raise that at WP:MOSIDENTITY than here.--Trystan (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I raised it here because it directly relates to the topic of this essay and because I think it should address this issue. This issue is ultimately about how much leeway we should take in general on editorial decisions about questions that can be easily answered by following usage in reliable sources. We should always follow sources when we can. WP reflects the world, as much as possible, and avoids influencing it as much as possible. This is why Cat Stevens is at that title. --B2C 20:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

With a living person though, they are considered experts on themselves. If we have great sourcing that disputes some statement we could present that as well but taking care to not harming the person. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A living person is an expert about himself as a primary source; we (strongly) prefer secondary sources. Since we follow usage in current, recent, reliable sources to decide the titles of people who change their names for religious purposes (e.g., Cat Stevens, not Yusuf Islam), why should we not follow usage in current, recent, reliable sources to decide the titles of people who change their names for the purpose of gender identity? --B2C 20:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

A living person's statement is often covered in reliable sources and those sources are often simply reporting what that living person has said. They are not mutually exclusive. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And there are a plethora of sources substantiating Cat Stevens' preference to be called Yusuf, but there our article is about him, at Cat Stevens, reflecting what those same sources call him more commonly... --B2C 23:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Cat Stevens article is a good case study to use because that article is at the title of the stage name he used at the height of his musical notability. If I am reading the article right, his personal name was Steven Demetre Georgiou from birth until he converted to Islam and became Yusuf Islam. He also appears to treat his religious conversion as a new beginning, not saying that he was always Yusuf Islam. A change of name of that sort is different from a person expressing that their true identity (not just name) has always been different from that which they presented as. Neither is more or less right, but I think that "I was Christian but am now a Buddhist" is sufficiently different to "I am a man, although my body looked female, I have realised that I have always been male" to make the article about person A a poor one to look to when deciding how to write about person B. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Made to prove a point?

Per WP:NOTPOLICY#Avoid creating essays just to prove a point was this essay made to prove a point given the relationship between the Manning article? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This essay outlines the the reasons behind this guideline, and answers common questions that are raised in regards to it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh... You are aware that WP:NOTPOLICY is an essay, not a policy, right? Cam94509 (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

lol! -sche (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create it so that I could inappropriately cite it as policy; I haven't cited it at all. If someone is citing this or any other essay as if it were a policy or guideline, that should be addressed where it is done.

My intention was to create something that summarized the arguments put forward over and over again in previous discussions regarding MOSIDENTITY, where editors repeatedly asked questions like those found in the essay. I though it would be useful for editors be able to say, "Here is an essay that in my opinion addresses some of the questions you are raising." The goal is not to stop discussion, but to capture previous discussions so that we at least aren't starting from scratch every time and retreading the same ground over and over.--Trystan (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Should this be written up in a more Essay-like format?

I've been looking through other essays on Wikipedia, and they typically aren't written in this particular question-and-answer format. I could start the work of writing this up as a real "essay" instead of something that reads more like an FAQ in the next couple days, if other people think that's a good idea. (I am, however, going to make sure that other people think this is a good idea first, as this would be a significant amount of effort.) I think I'd start in my sandbox instead of on the page proper, as I think it would take a bit to get all the information, plus some of the stuff I want to add), into a proper essay. Anyway, does anyone else think this is a good idea? Cam94509 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the FAQ style as the points are contained and usually brief. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

To explain why I'm advocating moving away from the FAQ style: As far as I can tell, this the only essay that is of a Q&A form. I might have missed one, but I don't think I have. Additionally, I think the article would be more compelling in an essay format. Cam94509 (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(Now arguing with myself!) I'm not as sure now as I was before, having found a little more history on this essay (namely, the discussion in WikiProject LGBT studies) that this should be rewritten. Cam94509 (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it could work well in either format. My original intention was to create it as a standard essay, but i started writing down notes in question-and-response form and was too lazy to change course.--Trystan (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Male-to-female

There's a discussion going on at a few Wikipedia talk pages about the term "male-to-female". This project says that it's important to refer to trans women as women throughout their lives. The discussion has gone to:

• Talk:Christine Jorgensen
• User talk:JanetWand (a user I keep trying to tell that the term "male-to-female" uses the point of view that trans women actually were men (as opposed to women in the wrong body) before the surgery operation but all she ever does in response is telling me that I don't understand.)
• Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject LGBT studies

Still, only 3 Wikipedians have been involved in this discussion; myself, JanetWand, and Picture of a Sunny Day.

Now, JanetWand claims that the term "male" is a term that by definition unambiguously refers to anatomy, and that anyone with male anatomy is male regardless of whether the identity of the person is a man or a woman in the wrong body (a pre-operative trans woman.)

Any thoughts on what to do here?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

GeorgiaGuy has never understood the difference between gender and sex. He has grossly misinterpreted what I have said. I never said, as he said, that anyone with a male body is a male. I have said that "male to female" is an appropriate way to refer to the process of transition for transsexuals. I am a transsexual and feel that georgiaguy does not understand the subject. He seems to get hung up on very trivial notions and has the tendency to miss the trees. JanetWand (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Show us the sources. Surely there has to be some psychiatric organism that counts as a reliable source publishing a glossary or guideline with preferred terms? Can you please link it for us so that we can assess what experts have said? Diego Moya (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• As another trans person, my thoughts are as follows: the XTY notation is useful in that, when written out, any idiot can understand what's being said. There's no room for confusion; it's a great notation for talking to people who don't know anything about trans issues. That said, there is a certain level of inaccuracy to it. Trans(preferred gender) is substantially more precise, because it doesn't imply the person ever was there birthsex in any mental capacity. I'd says there's room for both phrases, and I'd lean toward Wikipedia using Trans(preferred gender), because that format is more precise, I think there may be places and times where the XTY notation should be used, as it's easier to understand. Also, Diego, finding an up to date list of preferred terms? That's a noble cause, but one I expect will be fruitless. Cam94509 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  Does XTY mean mention both genders with T (standing for "to") in between?? To clarify what's being said, I really want to know why XTY terminology doesn't mismatch what Wikipedia:Gender identity says about how to refer to transgender people. The term "male-to-female" literally implies that she was a man before the surgery event and a woman after it, as opposed to someone who was a woman throughout her life only in the wrong body before the surgery event. Georgia guy (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's what I meant. I'll write a more extended post in a bit. Cam94509 (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  I understand your post as meaning that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in respect to the following points of view:

• Point of view #1: Trans women have been women all along; only in the wrong body before their surgery operation.

  Point of view #2: Trans women are women only after their surgery operation; before their operation, they actually were men.

• Point of view #1 is the point of view of people who understand transgenderism very well. Georgia guy (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm saying that "transwoman" (since we appear to be discussing female trans people in particular right now) is something of a term of art. You and I both use it, but we're experts compared to the general populace. Still, you have to take viewpoint one to even understand the term "transwoman" accurately, otherwise you'll become confused. Viewpoint one requires some expertise on the topic, expertise that the vast majority of the populace simply doesn't have. MtF (an example of the aforementioned XtY notation) is a very easily understood term: If you're an expert, you'll understand it, but if you'll not an expert, you just need to it spelled out that it means "Male to Female" to understand it. I'll certainly concur that it not precise, and some of it's implications are FALSE. But... I don't like saying that we should always use a term of art, especially in a context when a significant part of the population is not an expert.

My actual viewpoint here is as follows: We should use XtY notation a maximum of once a page, and they should be used like this "is MtF (that is to say, is a transwoman)" and only for pages where people who are reading are likely to have no understanding of trans issues to begin the page with. It's a useful tool for describing, but it is less accurate. Cam94509 (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you write transwoman as one word instead of two words (trans woman)?? Writing it as one word indicates a third gender. Georgia guy (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Because "transwoman" is a fairly common way of writing it, and its a shortening for either "transgender woman" or "transsexual woman" to start with, so shortening out the space doesn't seem unreasonable to me? I mean, there's nothing wrong with "trans woman", I just learned to spell it "transwoman". Cam94509 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Now, what I really want to know is if anyone can add info to this project page (the project page this is the talk page of) to include info on why "male-to-female" isn't inconsistent with what this project page says?? It says to refer to trans women in a way consistent with the statement that they were women all along, only in the wrong body befor being fixed with surgery. Georgia guy (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure. I could take a stab at writing this, but you saw that I'm actually not a big fan of using "male-to-female" to describe trans women. In all honesty, I'm not sure that really needs to be said *here*, per say, although if anyone can write up the defense in a compelling manner, they're welcome to give it a stab before I try it. Cam94509 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I really think it would be nice if someone did, but please don't leave it up to me. If you do, User:JanetWand will revert me. Georgia guy (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, isn't that what WP:BRD is for? You make a bold edit, someone who disagrees reverts it (and it might be me, not User:JanetWand, if it's poorly explained), and then we have a discussion and, if everything goes well (and I think it will, as everyone here probably has a willingness to compromise to make the article the best we can), we reach a consensus, and a better solution than any one of us can come up with! Cam94509 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

While presenting as a man...

Go to Kristin Beck. I removed While presenting as a man because WP:MOS says Kristin Beck is a woman. But I was reverted. Any thoughts anyone has?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

She was a woman presenting herself / being perceived by others as a man. -sche (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich

People want Alexis Reich to be moved to John Mark Karr. This means there needs to be a change somewhere on this page. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Nothing here needs to change. Heck, Alexis Reich will remain at Alexis Reich, nobody is going to find a consensus to change anything right now. Cam94509 (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

People who want the article moved are trying too hard to show that they don't want the article at Alexis Reich. (See the discussion at the talk page for details.) Georgia guy (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It's irritating. Why did we so readily accept celebrities like Chaz Bono or Lana Wachowski, but not Manning and Reich? Startswithj (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's not forget genderqueer.

Transsexual and cissexual people fall firmly on one end of the spectrum. But I do think it's worth briefly mentioning the people nearer the middle of that spectrum, lest not mentioning them cause even more confusion. I've added a brief note to that effect. I suppose it might be helpful to explain the difference between transgender, transsexual, and transvestite as well. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

By the by, personally, I think these cases are better evaluated under a variant strict scrutiny, which is a three-pronged test for evaluating decisions that affect groups and individuals that are the subjects of discrimination. Adapted for Wikipedia, the test becomes:

When a decision or inclusion of material has the potential to harm a person from a vulnerable group, ask yourself:

1. Is there a compelling encyclopedic purpose? [Answer should be yes]
2. Is the attempt to serve that encyclopedic purpose overbroad, that is, does it go far beyond what's needed to serve that purpose? [Answer should be no]
3. [Was the decision made / Is the material provided written] in such a way to cause the least potential harm to the individual?

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"calling out" transphobia

The purpose of this essay should be to provide an explanation of the arguments that justify mos:identity, for people looking for a rational understanding. By using emotionally loaded terms like transphobia, we risk creating a visceral rejection and thus hurt that rational analysis. Diego Moya (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

We are not helping people by holding back information. As a general rule those who are engaging in the behavior are the ones who most object to the label as well. I don't expect that they will be won over by reasoned arguments when their thinking is led by irrational fears including the fear of the unknown. Trans people are no longer boogeymen just as gay people, despite the religious right's campaigning, are no longer assumed to be recruiters and molesters of children. If anything we should include why some actions are considered transphobic to help those who are open-minded understand the issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

But you're not "including why some actions are considered transphobic", you're just applying the label, which amounts to name-calling; that won't help those who are open-minded either. If you copied there the parts of the Transgender article that explain why the behavior is considered undesirable, that would be different. Diego Moya (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It will help people who are trying to understand the issues and many or even most will understand we are not name-calling but pointing out actions - intended or not - that are considered transphobic. More might be needed but a bare minimum is a place to start. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: it's not helping me understand it, and I'm as open-minded as anyone. The essay says that we shouldn't oppose to the notion of changing one's public gender identity, but not why we shouldn't. Merely stating "it's transphobic" is not an explanation. How would you explain it to me? Diego Moya (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not really an argument against saying "it's transphobic", just an argument that the statement in question needs more explanation. (That's not to say that I see a particularly strong reason to keep the statement about transphobia in there, accurate or no, it doesn't really contribute to the argument.) Should someone write a section on why it's inappropriate to oppose name changes on "a basic opposition to the notion of changing one's public gender identity"? I can try to write something up, if you'd like. Cam94509 (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You know what, I'm gonna be bold and write that section. Someone can revert if they think it doesn't strengthen the essay. Cam94509 (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And it's written. Does that look better than the essay did previously? Cam94509 (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It does. I've also added a specific point about how transphobia plays into all this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"As a general rule those who are engaging in the behavior are the ones who most object to the label as well." I have been the most vocal against use of this label without evidence. If you cannot find evidence of me using transphobic language, please listen to Cam94509 and Diego Moya and remove it.--v/r - TP 13:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The phrase of concern has already removed. I'm not familiar with your edits and I have no interest in hunting comments down. Hopefully no one will ever need this essay again, but I doubt it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Living trans people or all trans people??

Per my knowledge, it appears that most Wikipedians who want Alexis Reich kept appear to use the argument that she's still alive. As a result, current knowledge about this essay suggests that after Alexis Reich dies (I know this is an event of the future we cannot predict; this is just a statement about when it happens) if another requested move to John Mark Karr is made, there will probably be consensus to move the article. Any thoughts on whether certain parts of this essay are restricted?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

With living trans people, we can follow clearly-stated self-identification, and we can avoid speculation, and imho we should avoid speculation because it can be disrespectful, it can violate privacy, and it requires judgement calls which defy verifiability. Naming her article Chelsea Manning doesn't run into the problems that naming her article Breanna Manning would have. With historical trans people, we may not be able to avoid speculation, as with the Chevalier d'Eon, or collectively with the priestesses of Cybele. Which doesn't help with this case. Ananiujitha (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this is one area where BLP restrictions should extend to not misgendering a person. They will likely have spouses, children, family, etc. who are still living who will suffer harm. There is zero benefit to moving the name, and it serves only to further what seems to be a transphobic goal - reverting someone who has made a gender identity change back to that which they have moved away from - it's also a slap against trans* people in general. We'd be supporting the same offense that Jewish people feel when it is found out Mormons baptize their deceased family so they can enter a Mormon heaven. Disrespecting the dead is also offensive to the living. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Brain structure

Can I ask why the reference to brain structure is present in the article? Is there evidence of causation rather than correlation? Multiple studies have shown evidence that the brains of gay men, and/or lesbians have brain structures that resemble the brains of the opposite sex, e.g. Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds, Science Daily, June 18, 2008, Is homosexual behaviour hard-wired? Sexual orientation and brain structure, Psychological Medicine, New Theory: Sexual Orientation Determined by Brain Hemisphere Dominance, The Advocate but the use of biology-based strategies to advance human rights (including legal and social recognition) are controversial, to say the least. Nsw2042 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

Alexis Reich is now a re-direct. But, during its last few days before being a re-direct, the rule changed for that one article. Normally, the rule is:

Per Wikipedia:Manual of style, use she/her to refer to a trans woman throughout her life.

However, that article had a different rule:

Per Wikipedia:BLP, use he/him throughout his life.

...despite being a trans woman. I checked the archive in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to see if there's any particular kind of person Alexis Reich is that made her special here. I got the information that all reliable sources think of Alexis Reich as a man, not only as opposed to a woman in general, but as opposed to a trans woman, and that all sources that say that Alexis Reich is a trans woman are un-reliable sources. Thus, a more specific version of the above rule is:

Per Wikipedia:BLP, use he/him to refer to a person represented by reliable sources as a man although rumored to be a trans woman throughout his life.

This would be an example of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, so naturally instead of saying "Per Wikipedia:BLP" it should say "Per Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth". Per my knowledge, this phrase means that if there's info that hasn't been verified, then Wikipedia is supposed to accept without proof that it is (or at least might be) a fake rumor that might be disproven. Any thoughts on having anything related to this info anywhere in this project?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Reich article was an exception, and I feel, was being used as a wedge, to make a point in the Chelsea Manning naming dispute. Reich's last documented take on her gender was that she was a woman, and we have evidence she had discussed these issues previously. Ultimately I felt it was better to get rid of the article as hopelessly non-BLP compliant as it stood, then to bother going many more successive rounds of arguing every nuance of every source. So that article did not have a different rule as much as a tendentious editor who was more invested in their version. I think I chose the sensible route, and the article was deleted and salted.

I would be cautious about misgendering anyone without very good reason. I think we also have to take into consideration that when we are writing about these people they often have spouses, families, and children, and we are posting very intimate information on the the world's top site for biographical content. We should go the extra effort to reflect a person's stated identity. We often fail spectacularly at doing so. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon

User:KoshVorlon appears to disagree with the third question in this essay. Can anyone make sure that this question's answer is written in a way so that KoshVorlon won't be able to object?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should KoshVorlon's feelings on this matter be taken into account when he is topic-banned from such topics for very good reasons? Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

KoshVorlon should not be commenting on this at all. However, I've made some minor tweaks.--v/r - TP 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This essay outlines the reasons behind this guideline

The essay begins by claiming "This essay outlines the reasons behind this guideline", which suggests that this essay is speaking for Wikipedia rather than speaking for the essay's editors. There may have been an overall consensus gained for MOS:IDENTITY, but within that consensus were many different viewpoints. The banner at the top makes it clear that this essay is the opinion of certain editors; the essay itself should not go and then muddy those waters. Perhaps something like "While many varied viewpoints were voiced in formulating that guideline, this essay outlines some of the commonly recurring views that helped shape it"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your proposed wording comes much closer to capturing the spirit of the essay; I support the change.--Trystan (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Drag queens

Yes, I agree with the second question's answer in the case of genuine trans women like Christine Jorgensen. Christine Jorgensen was always a woman; she merely had the wrong body before it was changed with surgery. A well-written biography of Christine Jorgensen would use she/her to refer to Christine Jorgensen throughout her life.

However, I disagree with the second question when it comes to drag queens. Drag queens are not real women; I would support that drag queens be referred to with he/him. Drag queens are just men who simply dress as women to entertain people; they are not women. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we not use language like 'x is a real woman and Y is not a real woman' - this is a highly debated space and since we don't have an agreed upon societal definition of 'woman' it's irrelevant to make claims about who is a real one and who isn't. Instead we should just say 'in case X, it is best to use pronoun x, and in case Y better to use pronoun Y.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Do some people think drag queens are real women?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The term "real woman" is pretty much meaningless. If a person is a woman, then she's a woman, and that's all there is to it. In order for the term to make sense, there must exist "women who aren't real women". A person declaring someone who identifies as a woman "not a real woman" is presumptuously declaring another person's gender invalid, which, in this context, flies in face of the very first point of this essay ("Why do we refer to people based on their gender self-identification?"). Regarding drag queens, I can't speak for every drag queen ever, but generally speaking, drag queens don't identify as women, but rather as drag queens. -- Irn (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If they are merely dressing like women during the period that they are entertaining, then this article doesn't apply, because a character one is playing is not assumed to reflect one's identity, and statements made in character voice are not presumed to reflect the individual, any more than Anthony Hopkins is presumed to eat people's livers. This article is about people who self-identify with a given gender; that may apply to some who do drag work, but it is not inherent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"...unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise"

Do some people indicate preferences otherwise?? How common are such people?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Some indicate that they prefer alternate pronouns like "hir". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this pronounced as a homophone of hire?? It obviously needs a separate pronunciation from her if it's a pronoun for agender people, which I believe it most likely is. Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's pronounced as a homophone of here. And it's a pronoun for anyone who has a nonbinary gender identity/expression and wishes to use it. Funcrunch (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That's how an agender person's identity can be described; such an identity is neither male nor female. Georgia guy (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Gender-specific_and_gender-neutral_pronouns#Invented pronouns will help? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Hir" can also be used by people of other gender identities such as bigender and pangender, as well as cisgender people who prefer not to use gendered pronouns. Funcrunch (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

New question for this essay

Any thoughts on how this (currently absent) question's answer should be in this essay??

Isn't it confusing to use phrases such as "her testicles"??

Feel free to try to give a good answer to this question whatever way you can. Georgia guy (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

How's this (using phrasing like question 6's):

Won't some readers be confused by phrases such as "her testicles"?

• Articles rarely have occasion to discuss people's genitals. In September 2014, fewer than 170 of Wikipedia's 4.6 million articles used the phrase "his testicles", and only a third of those were about real people — the rest were about fictional characters, who MOS:IDENTITY does not affect. Only 3 articles use the phrase "her testicles". When an article does discuss someone's genitals, it is often possible and clearer to use a surname or article rather than a pronoun: suffered lacerations of the (not his or her) penis, the album cover featured Smith's (not his or her) testicles.
• Even if Wikipedia switched to gendering people according to their genitals, phrases like "her testicles" could still occur, in reference to hermaphrodites, chromosomally atypical people (XY females, XX males, etc), post-SRS transsexual people (if Wikiedia gendered people according to natal sex — though see question 4 for why that would be impossible to do in most cases), and fictional characters. All 3 of the aforementioned articles which use the phrase "her testicles" are about fictional characters and hence would remain even if MOS:IDENTITY were changed.
• Some readers would be confused and/or offended to see someone being misgendered (referred to using pronouns that do not correspond to the person's gender identity). See question 6.

-sche (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who are curious, here's more data : in search, the phrase "his testicles" gets 165 hits (out of WP's 4,597,620 articles), of which 2 don't use the term and many are duplicates (the same article turned up multiple times for some reason). Of the first 78 hits which do use the phrase, only 27 (33% of hits, 5.8 out of every million articles) refer to real people. 43 (including a lot of discussions of the same incidents in different articles) refer to TV or other fictional characters, 4 refer to mythological figures, 1 refers to a horse, and 2 refer to generic people ("a form of CBT in which a man has his testicles kicked", "if a man suffers an injury [to] his testicles").

When I say that phrases like "her testicles" could still occur in reference to post-SRS trans people, even if Wikipedia switched to gendering people according to natal sex, I am thinking of (as a hypothetical example) a trans man who undergoes SRS and then is injured and suffers lacerations of what Wikipedia would term, if it were basing pronouns on natal sex, "her penis".

-sche (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Really, I think the answer is we're unlikely to use such a phrase except in a context where we have already discussed the subject's transgender status. As such, while the phrase may seem unusual or non-standard, it would not actually cause any confusion. The reader would be clear who or what we were talking about. It is not phrasing that we need to use in other context; that if we're discussing ovarian cancer, saying "the patient may have to have her ovaries removed" is fine, we needn't say "his or her ovaries".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Her ovaries" is not an example of a phrase of the kind this section focuses on. "Her testicles" and "his ovaries" are examples of such phrases. Georgia guy (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's good to stave off the next question (especially if you picture that as a rejoinder from someone who is trying to attack what you say). I'm just saying that it is okay to not "his or her" every discussion of biological characteristics when the individual is not specified. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But this section doesn't focus on the phrase "his or her". It focuses on phrases such as "her testicles" or "his ovaries". Georgia guy (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What section? There is no section yet. I'm trying to formulate a response to the suggested question that doesn't simply create another question that is left unanswered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This section of this talk page (not to be confused with the project page this is a talk page of.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn't suggest an answer to the question because it might not match the answer that you wold suggest? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm trying to see if you can come with a satisfactory answer to the question in the essay so that this question can be added to the essay. Georgia guy (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, how about:

Won't some readers be confused by phrases such as "her testicles"?

• Articles are unlikely to discuss a trans person's genitals without having first discussed that the person is trans. (Indeed, articles are unlikely to discuss a person's genitals at all; in September 2014, fewer than 170 of Wikipedia's 4.6 million articles used the phrase "his testicles" and only 3 used the phrase "her testicles". Notably, all of the latter were about fictional people and would thus remain even if the MOS were changed.) Thus, while the phrase "her testicles" may seem unusual, it will not cause confusion in context. Furthermore, it will usually be possible and clearer to use a surname or article rather than a pronoun: Jones suffered lacerations of the (not his or her) testicles, the album cover featured Smith's penis.
• Some readers would be confused and/or offended to see someone being misgendered (referred to using pronouns that do not correspond to the person's gender identity). See question 6.

(The last bullet point makes the important point that the alternative wording, "his testicles", is not less confusing.) -sche (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

So do you have any suggestions on what order the question being discussed in this section of the talk page should go on in the essay?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I opined below that it "could be inserted under that header in between the current Q4 and Q5". I am open to other suggestions. -sche (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Intersex" should be used in the human context, not "hermaphrodite". Funcrunch (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

On bullet point 1, I'd replace "it will not actually cause confusion" with "it won't cause confusion in context". I kind of feel that bullet point 2, while interesting in itself, dilutes and pulls away from answering the question; you're sort of saying "the phrase may be used in context where things are confusing" (or at least "complicated when viewed from the simplicity of the most common conditions"), which doesn't sell the idea that it's not confusing. In the final bullet point, we'll want to get rid of the See Q6 phrasing, perhaps just starting it "as discussed above", with above wikilinked to the proper section. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, how's this. The "question 6" wording is there since the page still uses numbered questions, but of course I intend that it (and the other references to "see question x" throughout the page) will be switched to section links once the page is switched to use headers. -sche (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been quite a while now. Are we yet ready to add this question to the essay?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've added the question. It can be tweaked / discussion further as needed. -sche (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions as headers

If we made the questions section headers, it might overemphasize them a bit, but it would allow folks to link directly to those questions when they are raised in discussion. On the other hands, such links would discourage reading the intro and essay disclaimer, which is a negative. So I'm split on the thought. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If we just wrapped the questions in ==, the headers would be way too long (and at the large font headers are styled in, hard to read), IMO, and links to them would break if they were reworded. But shorter headers (==Question 1==) would be too opaque. Maybe we could add section {{anchor}}s plus {{shortcut}}: {{shortcut|WP:GENDERIDENTITYQ1}}, etc. But we should come up with a shorter shortcut than WP:GENDERIDENTITY, first. I don't like WP:GIFAQ, because WP:GI is something else; ditto WP:GENDER ... what about WP:GENDID, and then WP:GENDID1, etc? -sche (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, using numbers in the shortcuts (as in WP:GENDID1) would lock in the order of the questions, and make it hard to add new questions in 'logical' order, or remove existing questions, without breaking links. :/ We could make the anchor+shortcut names descriptive, e.g. Q1 could be "WP:GENDID-WHYGSI", Q3 could be "WP:GENDID-LEGAL", Q10 could be "WP:GENDID-FRANCE", etc... what do you think? -sche (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a good functional solution; I'm a bit more uncomfortable with frequent shortcutting in essays than in guidelines, for reasons I cannot fully articulate at the moment (at least in part because it makes things look more official than they are). I'd be a bit more comfortable if we were to do headers that were some summary of the question topic (i.e., "Legal name change", "Surgical change", "President of France"), which would generate a beneficial TOC. I'd prefer to avoid numbers altogether, both for maintenance reasons and because numbers suggest that there is some logical order to them which is not particularly the case here; text that says "Also, see our answer to the earlier question on legal name changes" with a Wikilink is clearer than "see our answer to question 3"; the reader likely won't even have to go see what question that was, because the descriptor will have reminded him what question we're talking about far better than a number would. --17:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response; I didn't see your reply until now. I admit I'm not sold on my idea of adding a bunch of {{shortcut}}s, particularly because this essay's 'sections' are mostly short and all the {{shortcut}} boxes would probably pile up on top of each other and look un-pretty. I like the idea of short topical headers. They'd allow questions to be reworded and reordered without problems, and even the headers themselves could be tweaked with invisible {{anchor}}s employed to prevent existing links from breaking. Headers would also allow the questions which are currently numbered 7, 8 and 9 to be grouped, as I think they probably should be (because I think they're basically the same question asked from three slightly different angles). -sche (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So, let's think about possible headers. For the question currently labelled Q1, maybe Self-identification or Gender self-identification? Q2: "Really" a man (or omit the quotation marks?). Q3: Legal name change. Q4: Sex reassignment surgery. Q5: I'm not sure; maybe Retroactive pronouns? Q6: I have no idea how to summarize this question in only a few words. I thought about Reader confusion, but I don't like that idea, because the testicle question also deals with reader confusion. Q7,8,9: Just Common name? Q10: President of France. Q11: Direct quotations. Q12: Transphobia. Q13: Sexuality. And I think the previous section's question about "Her testicles" could be inserted under that header in between the current Q4 and Q5. -sche (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to lay down some basic possibilities to get the conversation rolling:

1. Self-identification
2. Scientific gender
3. Legal name
4. Surgical change
5. Retroactivity
6. More retroactivity (just put in here to keep the numbering, should be lumped with question 5)
7. Common name
8. More common name
9. Still more common name
10. I'm the King of Spain
11. Direct quotations
12. Transphobia not sure this question belongs in essay, but that's a separate question for a different time
13. Sexuality Sort of ditto, but this one could be rewrit to make it clear that you should not use gender identity as source for statements or suggestion of sexuality in articles

--Nat Gertler (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note the slight difference between #7 and #8. Q#7 focuses on why the rule isn't to stick with the most common name used by sources in general. Q#8 focuses on why the rule is to adopt the new name even if the old name is used more frequently in post name-change sources. Shortly before Q#8 was added, User:Blueboar briefly wrote in a message saying that although Q#7 is okay, (what later became) Q#8 is wrong. He wrote that Wikipedia should stick with the old name if most reliable sources continue to use the old name after the name change. His edit was quickly reverted, followed by the addition of what is now Q#8. Georgia guy (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying (and it seems -sche is similarly not saying) "these are the same question and should be removed for redundancy" but "these are aspects of a single subtopic and can work within a single subtopic." The section would not be so long that people looking for what's being referenced would not quickly find it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I did say earlier in an edit summary that I was considering merging Qs 7–9, but I've since been persuaded that it's best to leave them as separate questions — but group them under one header. @NatGertler, good point that Q6 should be grouped with Q5. That solves the question of what header to use for it. :) -sche (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Another comment. "Scientific gender" is not a satisfactory description of Q#2. Taken literally, it implies that transgenderism doesn't scientifically exist, and is thus less natural than it would have been if transgender people were people who arbitrarily fake or lie about their gender. It needs a more satisfactory description like "chromosomal sex". Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we're trying to describe the question, not the answer, because that's what people will be more likely looking for. The answer is the place to explain that gender is not as simple under science as they assume (and I do think that science is a clearer/more recognizable term for the discussion than chromosomes; the biological understanding of gender certainly predates the discovery of the chromosome, and I expect there's a large portion of humanity whose understanding of gender is grounded in gonads rather than chromosomes.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the question is based on the point of view that trans women are really men, even after their bodies are altered with surgery. This statement uses the point of view that chromosomes are the proper difference between genders, and this why I support that this question needs the description of "chromosomal sex". Georgia guy (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it? I think it addresses both the point of view that trans[sexual] women are really men (even after surgery), and the point of view that trans[gender] women are really men (regardless of surgical status). See also my comments below. -sche (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

So, combining Nat's suggested headers and mine...

Q1: "Self-identification"

Q2: Nat suggests "Scientific gender", Georgia guy suggests "Chromosomal sex", I think that the question does and should handle both people who think a pre-op or non-op trans woman is "really a man", and people who think a post-op trans woman is "really a man", and hence I suggest we sidestep the issue of gonads vs chromosomes and use the question's phrase "Really a man". (I also think "scientific gender" is an awkward phrase, since one more often pairs "scientific" with "sex", and "gender" with "social".)

Q3: "Legal name"

Q4: "Sex reassignment surgery"

Q5,6: "Retroactivity"

Q7,8,9: "Common name"

Q10: "I'm the King of Spain". I had switched the question to, and suggested as a header, "I'm the President of France", but I'm fine with switching to "King of Spain"; I'd just prefer to avoid "King of France" (which is what the question was a month ago) for reasons I'm finding it difficult to articulate, but which have to do with France not being a monarchy.

Q11: "Direct quotations"

Q12: "Transphobia"

Q13: "Sexuality"

-sche (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This article and issue isn't just about trans women. There are people who think a pre-, post-, or non-op trans man is "really a woman", too, so I wouldn't use "Really a man" as a question header. "Really a wo/man", perhaps. Funcrunch (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think Really a man? as a header works fine, as it makes clear what sort of argument we're talking about. Besides, if we're worried about inclusiveness, it's not clear whether it's short of "Is he really a man?" (which would be asked of a trans man) or "Isn't she really a man?" (which would be asked of a trans woman); it's not saying that someone is really a "wo/man", whatever that would be. My preference for "King of Spain" has two reasons, one logical, one not; it seems to me that, at least in common depictions, people are more likely to declare themselves to be royalty (whether out of intent to deceive, intent to make a point, or due to failing mental health) than to declare themselves holding an elected office. The less logical reason is my weakness for this song. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggested "Really a wo/man" as shorthand for "Really a man/really a woman", to be more in parity with the current wording of question 2. I admit I'm a bit sensitive on this subject as many people who question the legitimacy of a trans person's gender are often thinking solely of trans women, and forget (or don't realize) that trans men (as well as nonbinary people) also exist. Funcrunch (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the headers should be short, so just "Really a man?" should be OK; it has the ambiguity Nat describes, and we can use an {{anchor}} to allow people to link to it as "Really a woman" in discussions where they'd rather have that wording. The question itself can be longer and can explicitly mention trans men, trans women and nonbinary people — indeed, it already mentions the first two; I'll add the last one. -sche (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have switched from numbered questions to headers. -sche (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Jenner

This essay is being cited as an excuse to go through Bruce Jenner's entire article (pending his change becoming official) and referring to him in the feminine. He has such a lengthy and prominent history going back more than 40 years representing as a male. He won his Olympic Gold Medal as a male competing against other men. He literally held the title of "World's Greatest All Around Athlete" and went on to a movie and TV career representing as a man, playing male characters. Even more recently, he played as the real life step-father to the Kardashians before an audience of millions. How can it make sense in a wikipedia article to place all of those instances in feminine terms? For another example, we have thousands of articles of women changing their names when they get married. The name on the article changes in many cases, but we don't go back and change the name on, for example, their gold medal if they did not carry that name at the time of their competition. The Olympics are quite precise about names.

As for what he is doing or has done more recently, that's not nearly as public, but I think we should be consistent with they way this individual represented themselves at the time they did something in their lives. Otherwise we will end up with some ridiculous sounding text. Trackinfo (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo, in the case you mention, editors should not be citing this essay (unless it's for further information); they should be citing MOS:IDENTITY since the latter is a guideline. As you likely know, WP:Essays do not have the same standing as WP:Policies and guidelines. But Jenner should not be referred to by feminine pronouns until, or unless, he confirms the matter of his gender identity. That is why StAnselm made this revert, and why Tenebrae made this revert. As for the rest of what you stated, look at the Chelsea Manning case for an example; also see this discussion where I cited past Chelsea Manning debates. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Trackinfo supports a rule that's more like the following:

Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect the gender the person is most well-known by. Do I have this right?? (Remember that I'm trying to clarify the rule Trackinfo supports and how it's different from this essay. Georgia guy (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe I am suggesting the issue is questioned. I'm willing to accept self-identification as the definition of their identity. I am questioning the timing. There has got to be a reasonable limit to the ex post facto declaration. This would be a rewrite of history. This person has a lengthy public career representing as male. I suggest that history should not be erased. We can include a segment discussing this individual's personal feelings back to whatever point in time they identify having these feelings, if such a thing is revealed (obviously all of this is subject to WP:RS). But as far as changing their gender back through history would (to steal an example from the talk page) make as much sense as to say Neil Armstrong was the first dead person to walk on the moon, because "dead" is his current status. Trackinfo (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

We just had a similar discussion on Laura_Jane_Grace's talk page but if someone reads the article (instead of picture captions), in the second paragraph, Grace's name and gender change is reported. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A trans woman was always a woman even if she was known publicly as a man for the first 20, 40, or 60 years of her life. Editing pronouns accordingly isn't rewriting history, it's correcting it. None of this will be relevant to Bruce Jenner's article, however, until or unless Jenner publicly declares a change in gender identity. Funcrunch (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that this discussion from the Bruce Jenner talk page sheds light on what Trackinfo means about rewriting history; besides people generally being confused about the topic of transgender, people are confused about the "first man to win the Men's decathlon" aspect. They wonder if it should be phrased as "the first woman to win the Men's decathlon" or something similar. Jenner will always be cited as "the first man to win the Men's decathlon," especially in older texts, with or without Wikipedia wording the matter that way. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Created "Rumors" section

Given the recent rumors surrounding Jenner (see above section #Bruce Jenner), I thought it wise to add a section addressing how to deal with situations like this. I boldly created a section in this edit. Feedback, improvement, discussion, criticism, etc. are all welcome. Personally, I think the section is needed, but am curious what others think. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I like it. I also think, when it comes time, we should follow what was done in the Laura Jane Grace article: The first sentence in the lede gives the birth name and current name, second paragraph explains the name change with a date of when this occurred. Also, in the info box, give the birth name on top. (Of course birth name will redirect to current name.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

For folks are who very famous and well known by their birth name, I think that's okay. For folks like Laverne Cox, just name should be in lead imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Gregory/Gloria Hemingway

A requested move at Talk:Gregory Hemingway asking this person's article to match what this essay says was defeated. Any thoughts on which questions of this essay this particular case is related to?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The only section that would seem applicable is "common name"; most of the rest of this essay is about pronouns and gendered terms, neither of which is the name. When it comes to supporting using the new name, the arguments here are that this new name will be the common name, and that using the old name will harm the person being referred to. It's hard to apply either of these. Given that the subject is dead, there has been time to see what common name is actually used (I haven't reviewed the information to make sure that the claims made in the discussion were accurate in that regard), and the individual is beyond being harmed by it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Time for a new question

I would like to know if there are any thoughts on whether the following question is reasonable for this essay:

Should we apply this rule to pictures??

Any thoughts here?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not fully clear on what you're asking; is it "should we only have photos of people that reflect their latest expressed gender identity", I don't think that can be addressed here without reworking the intent of this article, which is to explain reasoning behind an existing guideline. This isn't the place to create a guideline... but if that guideline were generated in the appropriate place, this might be shaped to reflect that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming this is related to Caitlin Jenner and the discussion on that talk page. Ideally the image should reflect the individual's gender expression. But free images take time to surface. Some have argued that showing part gender expiration is misgendering, but to me it's just an old pictures. In Jenner's case, even if the image is old, it's still her. Her appearance doesn't change that. I'd be completely sympathetic to any request by the subject of the article to remove an old image, but only if that's their wish. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NatGertler hits the nail on the head. The place to propose changing MOS:IDENTITY to make it apply to images would be WT:MOS, but I wouldn't make such a proposal; in my opinion, it would be an overreach and would likely backfire, given the number of people who dislike how much MOS:IDENTITY already covers, and the even larger number of people who have commented that they are OK with the current MOS:IDENTITY but don't think it should or sensibly can cover pictures. -sche (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Confused question

The question "Shouldn't we wait until the name/gender change is legal?", and this part of its text, "Furthermore, jurisdictions vary widely in how they regulate changes of name or gender: some jurisdictions do not recognize gender changes at all", are confusing two non-identical and not particularly comparable, but separate legal processes (where they are legal processes at all, which is probably most places for name changes, but not most places for gender changes). This should really be forked into two separate questions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

False statement about policy

Re: "Shouldn't we wait until the name/gender change is legal?" contains a false statement: "Wikipedia's policy on article titles (see also the essay on "official names") gives no weight to legal names." WP:AT doesn't give primacy to official names, and usually prefers the WP:COMMONNAME, though they most often coincide. We do in fact move things to official names pretty often, even if they're not the most common name, where the change is thought to be helpful for some reason. One example off the top of my head is International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (which really is capitalized that way); the common name is the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (its name until 2011), and almost everyone still refers to it as the ICBN for short.

A case more the point, being a person, is Rudolf Wanderone, Jr., better known as "Minnesota Fats"; he's at his real name because Minnesota Fats is actually a fictional character whose monicker he adopted after the publication of The Hustler, after Wanderone was already known under various other nommes-de-cue, including "New York Fatty", "Chicago Fats", "Double-smart", etc. This move has survived at least three move discussions. So, no misstatement of policy is needed here: WP consensus can use whatever name consensus agrees is the best one for the article in question.

And the issue does not always arise to begin with. Genesis P-Orridge remains at that name desipite a gender change; the name did not change, and it does not always change for others, either. P-Orridge is, BTW, a good example of why one-size-fits-all approaches to gender identity do not work; this person has no known issue with the fact that they used to be male, and in a heterosexual relationship as a male, and self-identifying as male in that phase of their life, before embarking with their then-partner Paula P-Orridge on a course of body-modification aimed at merging, not switching genders. The text at that article reflects this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Added-to 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

New question

This essay now needs info on why there's an exception to the general rule. The policy has changed, meaning that we now refer to a trans woman with male terms in articles related specifically to an event in her life when she was believed to be a man, such as the 1976 Summer Olympics article for Caitlyn Jenner (in that particular article she should be referred to with male pronouns because she was thought to be a man at that time, not a trans woman.) Any thoughts about adding an appropriate question?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The Goal

Gender is a complex issue, both in how it applies to humans and how it applies to language, and there are differing and legitimate ways to view it. If I understand the goal of this article correctly, it is to get people to understand and accept the decisions made regarding discussing trans people in Wikipedia voice. Doing this does not require saying things that suggest that there is One Correct Way for viewing gender and applying pronouns to it; the article need merely establish that

1. there is a benefit to Wikipedia to have a standards;
2. that the standard was reached through consensus;
3. that the standard is not irrational (obviously the big part of the article).

Suggesting that other ways of viewing things are wrong actually works against the goal, as it is apt to put the reader on the defensive or allow him to simply reject what is being said, as it is claiming as fact something that they feel not to be true.

Some of this same concern goes to edits of the statement about the use of the term "sic". Quotes are not subject to Wikipedia voice, and we should not be putting "sic" into a quote simply because the quoted person may have a view of gender that does not match with our decision for Wikipedia voice. If Joe McQuotable says of a transwoman "When Brenda was a boy, he liked to play Ms. Pac-Man" may not be reflecting erroneous factual knowledge but a different viewpoint on gender or on language; Joe may have a gonad-based view of gender or of language rather than a self-image based one, or he may have a point of view on how pronouns should be applied before and after public transition, and these are not "wrong" despite what we have chosen to for our style guide. To suggest that the quote should only get a "sic" if he was saying this before Brenda's transition was known is to dictate a correct point of view, which runs against our WP:NPOV standards (as well as having WP:BLP concerns.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Any way you want this interpreted?? You appear to be thinking that it's a perfectly okay point of view to think that trans women actually were men before their bodies were changed with surgery. Anything you want me to realize here?? You must note that you're saying that people who have this not-so-flexible point of view are not necessarily people who don't understand transgenderism well. We should generally use the point of view of people who understand transgenderism well. Any problems you have?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If the goal of this essay is to excoriate the reader for their point of view rather than to try to generate understanding with regard to Wikipedia style standards, then I have deeply misunderstood the point of it. I don't have a problem with self-image being used to define female or male, but I don't think that people who have views of those terms based around gonads or chromosomes or public presentation are being inherently unreasonable for that, and I don't see the need for their views to be insulted, either by this essay or by adding "sic" to their quotes. Experts in transgenderism are not the only people to use these terms, and do not have the only legitimate point of view on how they should be used. --16:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In general, WP:NPOV means favor a neutral point of view when there are 2 points of view, both of which are opinion-based. Here, there are 2 points of view, one of which is educated with transgenderism and one of which is not. So why should Wikipedia treat both points of view as opinion-based?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As to the use of language? Yes. Transgender experts are not the ones who define words like "woman", "male", etc. They may have their views on how they are best used, but that is a language disagreement, and transgender experts are hardly the only ones with an informed view of language. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Transgender experts are not the ones who initially define the terms, but they're the ones who have a highly informed view of language appropriate to use when talking about transgender people. What's wrong here?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then why not take the advice of experts on both language and gender: sociologists. Since West and Zimmerman there has been a convention of what language to use when distinguishing between sex (male/female) and gender identity (man/woman) and gender expression (masculine/feminine). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In general, I support gender (the brain) should determine the terms to use to refer to a trans woman, meaning that a trans woman should be referred to using words like "woman", "she", "her", "girl", "daughter", "sister", "aunt", "niece", "wife", "stepmother", or "adopted mother" the same way a cisgender woman should. But sex (the body) should determine the terms to refer to gonads of a trans woman, meaning we don't use terms like "vagina", "vulva", or "ovary" to refer to a trans woman's gonads before her body is changed with surgery. Georgia guy (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure when we'd be talking about their genitals, but yes, you can say "her testicles were removed" if it's somehow relevant. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you make a complete list of all the terms at User:EvergreenFir/Gender and sex terms?? Be sure to separate the terms for the female gender from the terms for the female sex; see my above list (there's one word I forgot in the female sex terms; this word is "womb".) Georgia guy (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing at all wrong with that convention; that convention is probably used commonly within academic writing in certain feels (Note, I meant to type "fields". This is an audio-based brain buffer error, not suggestion that we're dealing with certain feelings - Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) ), and it brings convenience and clarity. However, it does not seem to be the common parlance (dictionary definitions define woman in terms of being female, so they aren't reflecting that convention as being one of the most common use); that it's a good convention doesn't make other uses wrong. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the goal of this essay should be to help people understand and accept why Wikipedia writes about trans people the way it does. And I agree that it would be good to avoid alienating people and turning them off to the essay by making it (for lack of a better phrase) so convinced of the rightness of one way of viewing gender that it no longer manages to persuade people who have different views — who are the people most likely to be sceptical of the consensus Wikipedia has established on how to write about trans people. A recurring issue in discussions of gender is that some editors — including many whose entire comments amount to "penis=male, vagina=female", but also including a few of those who accept transgender people's existence — act so convinced of their rightness of their views, and so surprised at the thought of disagreement, that their efforts to persuade other people are ineffective / counterproductive.

I appreciate your edits which have helped to bring the essay closer to this goal. :)

Regarding "[sic]": what can we say about it that is stronger than "this should be used with caution", yet does not pack too many hard-and-fast rules (which would IMO represent too great a level of detail and still be likely to have exceptions) into the bullet point? I feel there probably are circumstances where "[sic]" would be helpful and its biggest effect would be to make a quotation easier to parse; for example (writing about a trans woman), Smith's father said she had been "depressed for a long time before coming out; as a woman, he [sic] was a lot happier". -sche (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we're likely to do less damage simply not recommending sic; that doesn't rule out its usage, but encouraging it seems to encourage faulting a point of view; even in the example you cite, which would presumably be in the context of discussing someone who we had already revealed was transitioned, so I don't think it risks generating confusion so much as reflects the way the speaker thinks about the person involved. It doesn't look like a transcription error; the usage is not our standard but I don't think it reaches the point of being non-standard. That would be different from a quote someone referring to someone who had transitioned from Brenda to Brian as "Brinda", where I think we would want a sic, to make clear that it wasn't a transcription error but rather the speaker's pseudo-clever blending. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Any specific objection to me excising the "sic" suggestion? Or can I go ahead with it? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh, go ahead. -sche (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Overall logic problem

The essay has a large number of reasoning problems, because it's clearly written from a WP:ADVOCACY standpoint instead of from a Wikipedian one. The "Her testicles" section, as just one example, actually skirts the entire issue raised by such shite use of language, and pooh-poohs legitimate concerns. It also mistakes how WP works and how WP is used; millions of editors per day do not read articles from top to bottom but are linked directly to particular sections, either by internal WP links, or by following external ones. I could go on, but three issues reported in a row is enough to work on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Many trans people retain the genitals they were born with, even indefinitely, and gender confirmation surgery is, as a rule, only performed on minors, not adults. So it's perfectly possible for a trans woman (let alone girl) to have testicles or a penis, or for a trans man (let alone boy) to have a vagina, uterus or ovaries – to say nothing of intersex people, who still exist even if you refuse to accept (non-intersex) transgender people's gender identities as valid. People just have to get used to the fact that anatomy does not determine gender, and that gender is more complicated than conventional notions surrounding gender. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There are issues in talking about intersex people without good familiarity with the issues. Literature on actual intersex people tends never to refer to "her testicles". Literature may refer to "her gonads" or sometimes "her testes".But you also need to be aware that the prevalence of intersex medical interventions typically means that testes in intersex women are frequently, possibly typically, removed. Are those intersex women transgender? Often not: for example, women with complete AIS (and so born with testes) will always be assigned female at birth and will typically identify and live as women. This fits the standard definition of cisgender. Trankuility (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Athletes & old names

Sorry, if this is the wrong place to ask, but can someone clarify the rules regarding athletes who competed pre-transition. Specifically this is regarding Balian Buschbaum article. I started a discussion on that page but no one has replied. In short:

• He already had article, under old name, before transition. Article is primarily about his pole vaulting which he competed in under his old name. Majority of Wikipedia articles that mention him use his old name. Yet his old name is not mentioned in his own article, instead getting repeatedly removed since it's a "dead name". Since the old name is used in majority of articles mentioning him, why must the old name be removed from the primary article on the person?
• I find it confusing that nowhere in the article it mentions that Buschbaum competed in women's pole vault. I believe that is relevant because when listing his placements, those weren't in the men's events (which given his gender, would be assumed). Looking at Caitlyn Jenner's article, it specifically clarifies "men's decathlon", "men's events", etc.

Thank you for the clarifications, 15zulu (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is just an essay explaining some of the reasoning behind MOS:GENDERID. Potentially better places to seek more input are the MOS talk page or WT:LGBT.--Trystan (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If a trans person, athlete or otherwise, was notable under their previous name, then that name can be mentioned once in their bio. The rest of the article should use their transitioned name and the entire article should use their chosen pronouns, with clarifying remarks if needed. Funcrunch (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"Really a man"

"Gender is complex" - which means it has many different parts that not allways appear together. This is what we learn from the modern media. But we all know the simplest ingredient: What you see between the legs of the newborn. Then you can show the data clearly: x% of the males go "Girly" style, y% of the females have mannish appearence, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by הראש (talk • contribs) 13:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

"I'm the King of Spain"

There is no evidence for something like "41% of trans kings commited suicide after years of suffering the objection of the society to accept their identity.", so this kind of 'transsomething' is not really a thing right now. It may look easy when you think about a royal degree and a slave as physically the same type of biological being, but having completely different rights and duties is exactly the definition of the difference. When we wonder someone's gender, we have to remember that men and women have to be respected equally, which means that when you can't tell the gender of a person, it is far from being the most problematic issue, at the most of the time. הראש (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

WHY DOES WIKIPEDIA USE THE WORD TRANSSEXUAL RATHER THAN TRANSGENDER!?!?

Transsexual is used to refer to a trans person who wants to get or has already gotten surgery, Transgender is an umbrella term that can be used to refer to ALL TRANS PEOPLE!!!

Trans is also preferred to as it doesn’t specify the identity of the person in question. Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic Ranter 9705: where do you see that transsexual is used over transgender? Wikipedia has articles on both terms and this essay mostly uses the word "trans". clpo13_(talk) 18:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a partial list of times when they used the word transsexual

1. Causes of transsexuality
2. Homosexual transsexual
3. Wendy Williams (pornographic actress)
4. Shemale
5. Transamerica (film)
6. Androphilia and gynephilia
7. Dating
8. Miriam (TV personality)
9. Benjamin scale
10. Evil Angel (studio)
11. Pope Benedict XVI (Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC))

Items 1 and 2 make sense for that term since they're specifically about it. #4 for makes sense given that the terms is about a pornographic genre that involves bottom surgery (or the lack thereof). I'll look at the others. Edit: The person for #3 appears to use the label "transsexual" for herself, so it's okay there. I fixed #5. Number 6 and #9 are more of a legacy use of the term from psychology and it would be incorrect to change it to transgender. Fixed #7. Number 8 uses "transsexual" in show titles and we should not change those. #10 is again about the porn genre. Number 11 is questionable... the source uses both terms. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The Transgender and Transsexual articles are clear that some transsexual people prefer to be called transsexual. Also, the terms are sometimes distinguished. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh good news! (Or should I say bad?), I found MORE pages that use the word transsexual, when transgender is “preferred”

• Tamil sexual minorities
• Harisu
• Condom
• Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code
• Pedro Almodóvar
• Holly (Red Dwarf)
• Funky Cold Medina
• Andrew Jackson Libby
• Jack Halberstam
• Bad Education (film)
• Myra Breakinridge (both articles)
• LGBT history
• Professional wrestling in Puerto Rico
• Timeline of LGBT history in the United Kingdom

(Atlantic Ranter 9705 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC))

substantiating the self identification of a deceased person.

Say a person becomes notable only after death. All we have is the word of some anonymous friends as to their self identification. That would not seem to meet the usual wikipedia standards for substantiation. Are there guidelines on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjxj (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Intended audience

Who is the intended audience of this essay? People who already believe in gender ideology will find nothing new here and those who don't will not be convinced - the essay just lists a bunch of things gender activists believe with no justification, argumentation or proof. I fail to see how anyone can learn something from this page. It is also clearly in violation of WP:SOAP and an extreme example of WP:EPOV, since gender ideology doesn't have much traction outside of the English-speaking world. 45.84.40.160 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

It's trying to outline the Wikipedia policy for writing about gender and answering questions people might have when writing about gender-related subjects or gender variant people. For instance, you'd use the pronoun the subject identifies with when writing an article about them. Bkatcher (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

My impression was that MOS:GENDERID sets out the rules, and this page tries to justify them. But the justification suffers from all the problems outlined above 45.84.40.160 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Any suggestions for improving the explanation of why MOS:GENDERID takes the approach it takes would be welcome. The audience of the essay is neither gender activists nor people concerned about “gender ideology”, but people looking in good faith for further explanation as to why MOS:BIO takes the approach it takes. Whether they agree with that explanation or not, that seems like a useful objective. It was previously not uncommon for perennial debates on WP to retread the same questions over and over. Public awareness of trans issues has increased greatly in the past eight years, so it is possible that the essay is not as needed as it once was.--Trystan (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Problems with this policy and the issues it creates in encyclopedic integrity and POV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a serious problem in that WP:GENDERID sacrifices information and violates typical encyclopedic conventions of POV, in exchange for appeasing a small minority of people who are represented among Wikipedia editors, and there's a new discussion to be had over whether or not that's justified for a project this wide-reaching.

I think we are all in agreement that gender identity representation is an issue of self-image. My complaint can be summarized with an example:

If there was an article that served as a biography for somebody with other views about their self-image (e.g. let's say they believe that they look exactly like Leonardo DiCaprio), we would include information about these beliefs in the article, but never in a way that states those views as if they were fact from narrator POV. That is, we wouldn't literally write "[person]'s appearance resembles that of Leonardo DiCaprio". We would instead write "[person] has publicly stated to multiple media outlets that their appearance resembles that of Leonardo DiCaprio."

Following that same logic, to preserve as much information as possible and ensure the article will be understood across cultures, it would make more sense for biographies of transgenders to include and use the pronouns for their real sex, then respectfully explain that they identify differently in the opening paragraph by citing where they made the statement.

The current policy is a reflection of very current ethical views of a specific demographic, and this same weight isn't given out very frequently on Wikipedia. It seems to me like this article was forged by fire, written to address specific controversies in the past, and if anything, I think people have been afraid to challenge it for all this time due to the controversial nature of the subject, especially among Wikipedia editors. But the responsible thing is to acknowledge that it simply doesn't fit and is very hard to justify. MisleadingAccountName (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beira's Place and colonial bias

Beira's Place page is a mess and I have been banned from editing even as I started talk pages regarding edits I see I've been banned, cause ya'll can't tell the difference between sharing established facts to fix a wikipage and a "forum", I did not present anything for debate.

I've now seen part of the problem. You have defined all gender by "sex assigned at birth" as a datum for universal reference. This erases noncolonial third genders and intersex people entirely from the zone of exclusion Rowling wishes to develop. There are intersex persons, assigned female at birth who look exactly like Rowlings bias of cismen and vice versa, some may change sex on birth certificates when they find out as many intersex people arent even aware they are intersex, but such folks do not usually identify as trans subsequently, rather more often as cisgender. 3rd gender persons should not by defined at all in relation to "assignment at birth" as this constitutes an ethnocentric erasure. It's also a weasely way to assert a hegemonic definition over a vulnerable minority and marginalised group.

The Beira's Place article is a testament to your blind spots. Ive read some of your other edits, you just seem to be absolutely clueless on this topic and I would request you find someone with more experience then the few articles you've been involved with. Beira's Place looks like if you have Rowling (the owner/director) the page to copy/paste her own content.

There's literally a mountain of scholarship on this topic including established scientific consensus around the 3G concept that is far more relevant than a copy/paste of Beira's advertisement, which is misleading to 3rd gender and intersex persons.

77.183.164.73 (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)talonx

cis-centrism and gender-neutrality

When I read some of the articles, an idea comes to my mind - is Wikipedia prone to replace gender-neutral terms (or use them more frequently)? Like, e.g., when refering to pregnancy, the female and the womanly terms are automatically assigned, rather than focusing solely on the topic of pregnancy. e.g. "Stillbirth can cause trauma in a mother's psyche [in someone's psyche]"

I just think that, (1) even if people aren't informed that much, they automatically think about a certain gender (2) introducing gender-neutrality in Wikipedia has a mind-opening value. Pingijno (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Except that, in the example you're giving, we're likely citing a source that specifies "mothers", that doesn't enter into the question about whether male-identifying birthing parents can experience that trauma. While that certainly seems most probably the case, we're fuzzing data to state that it is. If it's from a study that's before quite recent times, it is likely that male-identifying parents would have been excluded (due to being outliers or seen as having other problems) or simply not included (due to relative scarcity.) More and more medical sources are using gender-neutral terms in such situations, and we should absolutely embrace that where it is available, and we should recognize when we are using a source which is actually fuzzier than it may look (such as older uses of "he" not just as male but for gender-unknown persons, where we might use a "he or she" or a "they" today.) Also, your example appears to be a quote given the use of bracketing, and the bar should be much higher for futzing with quotes than for adapting what we do in Wikipedia's voice. When working in Wikipedia's voice, where it can be clear (and there will be arguments whether anything is as clear as "mother") and not lose precision, yes we should embrace gender-neutral terms. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)