Talk:Chaz Bono/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Humans and gays

"Chastity Bono (born March 4, 1969) is an American actress as well as advocate for human rights and gay rights." - I'm sure this isn't intentional, but the accidental implication of the first sentence of this artlce is that human rights and gay rights are completely distinct, as though humans and gay people are two distinct creatures. A clearer wording is probably merited. -Silence 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, those are two different movements. Though one may consider advocacy of gay rights a part of human rights, it is certainly a subcategory of it. Human rights are not limited to gay rights, and I'm certain saying that she is an advocate of human rights would not correctly the movements of which she is a part of. Michael 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Second album for band "Ceremony"

CEREMONY IS A BAND , NOT A PERSON.

I merged in the material from the former article Ceremony (band) and deleted that article per the AfD close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceremony (band).

The former Ceremony (band) article indicated that the band had one 1993 album. However, I note that according to allmusic.com there was a second album in 2006 - a reunion I guess, or else a mistake by allmusic.com. I think its the latter as the song names look like punk/metal song names and are very unlike the first album. Also, allmusic.com has Ceremony categorized as "Speed Metal, Thrash, Hardcore Punk" which somehow doesn't fit with the quote in the article by Chance "We turned our back on technology...." and Bony being an acoustic guitarist on the album.

I think that allmusic.com has gotten two bands mixed up. But I could be wrong, Chastity might have gone punk/metal and put together a new band. Anybody know about this? Herostratus 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ceremony is now a Hardcore Punk band from the bay area signed to Bridge9 Records.

Fair use rationale for Image:Ceremony82.jpg

Image:Ceremony82.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A 'former' musician?

Is she really a 'former' musician? Or is she a musician who is not currently playing professionally? Paul Newman hasn't acted professionally in a long time - is he a 'former' actor? Dlabtot (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that personally I think unless an artist has made a verifiable statement to the effect that they have given up their art, then they are not a former artist. If an artist gives up their interest in public or professional display of their art that does not mean they are no longer an artist. So I would say this is a detail that would need a reference at best. So I agree with the removal. -Sykko-(talk to me) 01:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Chastity Bono did give interviews stating she was done with music. I think that might be where the "former" might have come from. I don't have links but they're easy enough to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.76.241 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronouns

Am I the only one who sees something weird about the sentence "Bono surprised many when he revealed that when he told his mother that he was a lesbian..."? Powers ^T 22:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Gender pronouns should be male in all instances as the individual identifies as a transgendered man. Trans people almost always request the use of present-day pronouns and using older/undesirable pronouns is inconsiderate and offensive. 76.71.9.37 (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Even when it's referring to something that occured before the change? For instance I can understand "he is the child of Sonny and Cher", but when it's clear that he was female when "she" revealed that when "she" told "her" mother, wouldn't you use the female pronoun in that case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.71 (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because transgendered identity is not a "change" but an actualization. He was never a woman, just a man playing one. 76.71.9.37 (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but if he was never a woman, then he was never a lesbian either. Powers ^T 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. So, Chaz isn't gay/lesbian. Just another guy now. --Kyanwan (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But in the quotation, "he" was a lesbian. Powers ^T 01:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So just because a woman cuts her boobs off and stitches a little something on, does that really make her a man? Sorry, this is a woman that is just really confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acvw (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Acvw, this is not the place for that discussion. We are discussing how to write the article, not our personal opinions of the subject or actions thereof. LadyofShalott 01:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Acvw, perhaps you should read the transphobia wikipedia article. 76.71.9.37 (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

LadyofShalott, the subject of her true gender is exactly the point of this article. Gender is biologically determined, she still genetically does not carry the 'Y' chromosome. It is my view, that her gender pronouns should reflect her DNA-determined gender, not the exterior appearence of what she wants to be.Da Killa Wabbit (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Gender is determined by what's in a person's brain, which can sometimes fail to match up with what kind of fun bits a person happens to have between their legs. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"We are discussing how to write the article, not our personal opinions of the subject or actions thereof." Quite so. And what I hear people saying is that we should forget the facts entirely and just try to make people feel good. Chaz wants to be a man, so Presto! He is! And always was, according to the article. And the reason he always was is that he wanted to be. User above assures us that "He was never a woman, just a man playing one.", but on what evidence is this judgment made? I would suggest no evidence at all, other than a desire to tell people what they want to hear. Is that Wikipedia's mission? Would I be allowed to alter the article on the 1969 World Series to say that the Orioles, rather than the Mets won, on the grounds that the Orioles weren't really losers, they were WINNERS, trapped in loser's bodies? Could a white man apply for affirmative action on the grounds that he wasn't really white, he was a black man trapped in a white body? And even if we subscribe to this reasoning, the article tries to have it both ways, by telling us that he was a lesbian at the same time he was a man. Which is it? If people are whatever they wish they were, then you may refer to me as Mr. President. BurkeDevlin (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronouns should stay consistent with who she was when she was born or Wikipedia runs the risk of taking sides in a very political issue. She is a woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.231.211 (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronouns stay consistent with a person's own choice of how to define themselves, whether that seems logical to individual users or not — that's the only position that's consistent with our WP:NPOV policy. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As with all other issues, whatever the current standard is for Wikipedia should be applied to this question, regardless of what people's beliefs might be. As best as I can determine, transgendered individuals are typically referred to by their chosen gender, NOT their biological gender, in their Wikipedia articles... even Billy Tipton, who never had any physical alterations to his biologically female form and just lived as a man, is referred to in his Wikipedia article as "he." In addition, using the individual's chosen gender pronoun is common usage, common courtesy, and common sense... and Wikipedia isn't the place to promulgate an agenda of messing with people just for the sheer joy of upsetting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.84.160 (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

People are confusing gender with sex; they always do. Try to understand that while Chaz is biologically ("biologically" as in genetically) female, and always will be, his gender is male. Gender (as historically defined by experts) is social; sex is biological. Gender identity is a person's self-conception as being male or female, and is distinguished from biological sex by a vast number of researchers/sociologists. Though, yes, people's gender identity is thought to be related to biology by some, as seen with biology of gender. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused as well. Bono's brain structure, in all likelihood, is male. Brain structure is part of a person's biology, too. So while Bono may be genetically or chromosomally female, Bono is neurologically male. So biologically Bono has some male and some female traits, a mixed phenotype.

Also, please acknowledge that the word "gender," though used differently by anthropologists and sociologists, has undergone a usage shift in ordinary speech. Colloquially, "gender" now means what "sex" used to mean, and now "sex" almost exclusively means "sexual intercourse." This doesn't mean that we have to discard the sociology definition of "gender," but it would be wise to avoid assuming how a person means the word. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good lord this is disgusting. Delusional deviants. Man's wretchedness and self delusion know zero bounds.

who wrote this?

I think a PR person was overzealous to point out the fact "Chaz" wants to be called a man and not a woman. Hey whatever floats your boat but this is so poorly written and wrought with inconsistencies. First off I would say for the sake of consistency everything up until June 11th he/she should be referred to as a girl.

"On June 11, 2009, Bono's publicist confirmed that "Chaz" (née Chastity) Bono was currently undergoing a gender change"

So logic tells us you are one or the other and if he/she is currently undergoing a change to male the supposition would be female up until that date?

Even the writer is confused on this:

"Bono came out to his parents at age 18. In her memoir Family Outing, Bono surprised many when he revealed that when he told his mother that he was a lesbian"

And the fact that he/she is known as "an American LGBT rights advocate, writer, actor and musician"...Come on here...IT should read she is the daughter of Sonny and Cher--that's it.

Even the name Chaz vs. Chastity--what is the legal name of this person.

OKAY, this comes from an interview with Chastity Bono--partial? I raise doubt about calling it a career.

"Bono began his career with a short-lived music career with his band, Ceremony."

I have nothing against he/she becoming a man. I say you gotta do what you gotta do to be happy but don't use Wikipedia as a conduit to get there. Report the truth not an interpretation of the truth.

josst10 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally think if Bono now identifies as a male then they should be refered to as he. And as for "IT should read she is the daughter of Sonny and Cher--that's it." - Many people in the gay community primarily know Bono thru being a LGBT activist, not as an entertainers child. Your here little rant seems a tad bigoted.

"When he told his mother he was a lesbian"

Before he realized he was a man or a trans man, he thought he was a lesbian female. In many cases, the individual with a male brain but female genitalia is confused and considers himself to be a lesbian before discovering that he is a person with a male brain and a female body. --Daviddaniel37 |T| 20:00, 11 June 2009

C| 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't the appropriate statement be "he told his mother that he was gay". Nevermind the fact that "he" is now technically a heterosexual. Robotk (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that change though. As it's written, it sounds as though a man told his mother he was a gay man; that's not what happened. I don't know what the proper way to phrase this is, but I am fairly sure the connotation of the current sentence conveys the completely wrong idea. --SuperNova |T|C| 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I fixed this without having to address the issue. It turned out that, given the preceding sentence, the phrase wasn't needed anyway. --SuperNova |T|C| 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably for the best -- this is an impossible sentence to perfectly write. Gender at the time of "outing" is central to declaring oneself a lesbian, but the insistence on retroactively changing pronouns to the male form make using the term "lesbian" nonsensical. If we cannot acknowledge "previous" gender with the appropriate pronoun, then referring to lesbianism remains a problem (ie the reference to the tabloid article outing Bono as a lesbian) Robotk (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm reading over this a bit and I've come to a bit of a conclusion. At the time, Chaz may have been female. In a historical sense - he was a she at that point. How could it be cleanly stated as such? Historically, it should be she. Would it really be detrimental to the quality of the article - or even respect for the subject ... to use the historically correct term? The state of the article at the moment looks to me like someone copy-pasted into word. After which, they did a "search-replace" to "update" the article. It's awkward and sloppy - and is a somewhat confusing read. --Kyanwan (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I need to point a cited source out. It's worded incorrectly:

Bono came out to his parents at age 18. In his memoir Family Outing, Bono surprised many when he revealed that Cher was quite uncomfortable with the news at first and "went ballistic for a few days", before coming to terms with it.

I believe it should read:

Bono came out to his parents at age 18. In his memoir Family Outing, Bono surprised many when he revealed that Cher was quite uncomfortable with the news at first and was devastated before coming to terms with it. (Family Outing, pg80)

Also, I should point out that Cher was not told by Chastity/Chaz, but rather, Cher walked in on him making out with a girlfriend in her living room (Family Outing pg78).75.42.220.248 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

citation sources

I am new around here but am I unreasonable here?

–5 total sources in the footnotes -10 citations throughout text -of those ten 7 are from interviews with her

Is this ok?

So if this is the assertion, "Bono began his career with a short-lived music career with his band, Ceremony." and it is cited that it comes from an interview with Chaz Bono...So if he says it and is cited for it its cool?

josst10 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is fine to use him as a source about himself. However, if other citations can be found to corroborate the information, that would be prefereable. LadyofShalott 00:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Any person is considered an expert on themself, if there is an exceptional claim it should be sourced independent of the person. -- Banjeboi 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Chaz Bono is a woman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.171.215 (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Gender In Article.

The gender pronouns in this article need to be addressed. I tried to effect the one I found most reasonable - Female for all events in which citation is female, thus, everything before the Gender reassignment announcement, at which point male should be used for all events and so on after. Some seem to insist his self- identification now should cover all pronoun instances, which while kind to the subject, is inherently POV, because it portrays a 'rightness' to gender reassignment; conversely, all female would be equally POV in portraying the 'wrongness' of the gender reassignment. As such, using the language of the citations used makes the most neutral sense to me. ThuranX (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Please see MOS:IDENTITY. It is longstanding precedent to respect the identity of BLP subjects, and thus refer to them by their latest pronoun preference. Rebecca (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (e.g., she fathered her first child)." I read MoS as saying "act like it didn't happen." 207.119.149.195 (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Respecting the POV of the subject is appropriate, but it becomes problematic when recording historical events. When reference is made to a Star magazine article outing Bono, one is forced to use the male pronoun. In this context, Bono denying Star's accusation that he was a lesbian was not an act of denial, but one of fact, as "he" was in fact a male and cannot be lesbian. The reality, however, is that Bono, at that time a female, was denying the revelation that he (then she) was sexually attracted to females. The intention becomes mangled when we refuse to acknowledge the gender of the individual at that time. Robotk (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (e.g., she fathered her first child).

This seems to mean "reword to avoid" to me. Would that be possible in this case? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not always, which is why a 'female per citation' until she declares gender-reassignment. She couldn't deny being a lesbian if she was a man. She did make a denial, thus responding as a female who did not want to be outed. She later 'came out' as a lesbian, not a man. It was a second coming out as a man, and we cannot responsibly write 'he came out as a lesbian, then he came out as a man.' It's non-sequitir, and irresponsible. ThuranX (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why you reword the sentence so it makes sense, as opposed to violating various guidelines and policies. Rebecca (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be best to avoid the word lesbian and simply use "homosexual". When documenting historical fact, such as a Star magazine headline stating "Chastity Bono is a lesbian", noting that Bono was considered a woman at that time would be appropriate and not offensive, IMO. This remains problematic, however, in that Bono is now a heterosexual. If Bono must be referred, retroactively, as male, should he not be referred, retroactively, as heterosexual? To do otherwise (refer to his sexual attraction to females as homosexual) would imply that he was once a female. Referring to previous gender is absolutely neccesary, in some contexts, to accurately document history.Robotk (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure a man can deny being a lesbian! (It's usually not necessary, though.) It would be confusing to write, "He came out as a lesbian," but we could write, "He told his parents that he was a lesbian." It's my understanding that, at the time, that's what he thought he was. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no way she could have fathered a child, unless scientists somewhere took her dna, removed the second x chromosome and substituted a y chromosome from her dead father, and inserted the resulting dna into a stemcell, then after exposing it to the right hormone cocktail provoked it to to grow into a pair of testes, before finally surgically implanting them into her body. because this never happened, she didnt father a child. i can appreciate political correctness, but this is an encyclopedia, and chaz bono is not a man, never has been and never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.219.122 (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Using older pronouns in this situation is pedantic at best, and transphobic at worst. This individual is a man. Denying his identity is a form of erasure. HE is HE despite his past. 76.71.9.37 (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"He" is not the correct pronoun. The government still recognizes Chaz as a female, and this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for what you think Chaz SHOULD be referred as. When they change the law, then change the article to "he". Right now, all pronoun references should be "SHE." After the reassinment surgery, one can have their gender LEGALLY changed, but not until then. And even after the surgery, until I see some proof on her drivers license or some court document Chaz is still FEMALE. Look it up, it is 100% fact. Chaz is a SHE regardless of what people in this room think is morally or ethically correct. If we were to adhere to the logic that some in this dicussion believe, then all babies born would have to be referred to as "it" until they were old enough to tell their "true" gender. And following that logic even further, everything ever written about the person up until the revealing of the true gender would suddenly become grammatically incorrect, which is utterly ridicuous. It is not erasure to refer to Chaz as a female. "He" and "She" define PHYISICAL characteristerics according to the law. It doesn't matter that you don't think that should be the case, it IS the case. If Chaz decided later after the surgery that she made a huge mistake and really was a woman all her life, does that mean all the pronouns become incorrect again? Like I said earlier, what matters is how the LAW sees her, not your views on homosexuality or being transgender.Gregoryg72 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is different from the government's. Wikipedia's policy, MOS:IDENTITY, is to use the individual's preferred gender pronoun throughout the article. In other words, it might not matter what we on this page think about the way gender works, because we're supposed to follow Bono's thinking about the way gender works. Because the policy is a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule, I wouldn't mind doing something differently if we could get a consensus that there's a good reason. My personal take is that this article is about Bono, not about gender, so we should avoid using terminology that might introduce gender politics not directly related to Bono. I believe that "he" would be a good way to do that.

As to whether gender is the result of physical characteristics, I absolutely agree with you that it is. Brain anatomy is the most important physical characteristic for determining gender, though, and it doesn't always match the person's genitals.

I wouldn't mind adding a line about whether or not Bono is legally male or female, so long as the fact can be sourced. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you are correct about the policy:

A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (e.g., she fathered her first child).

I think this is a ridiculous policy for all the reasons I mentioned in my original post, which are logically sound, but hey, I guess I am not going to get that changed here.

But the point about brain anatomy is irrelevant. The law only looks at outward physical characteristers to determine gender. Not DNA, brain anatomy, or testosterone levels. Gregoryg72 (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What does law have to do with it? Powers ^T 14:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Law is the ostensibly objective, uniform measure of record. If Wikipedia decides to arbritarily determine the nature of gender, it loses credibility as an objective source. If the law considers Bono a woman, then she is a woman - regardless of her claims. Robotk (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Legally, his name is still Chastity, but I don't see you contesting the move. Powers ^T 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If her name has not been legally changed to Chaz, then Chastity "Chaz" Bono would be more appropriate Robotk (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that would be against longstanding Wikipedia policy, both for the name of the article and for references to his gender. We don't go by what the law says in any of these matters; we go with the individual's wishes except where it would conflict with other policies. There's no such conflict here. Powers ^T 19:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We will just have to disagree. Prioritizing the individual's wishes at the expense of accuracy; necessitating bizarre sentences (see numerous examples above) in order to rigidly enforce gender-specific pronouns with no consideration for context is a poor policy, in my opinion.Robotk (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy does take context into consideration. The only place we disagree is over whether using masculine pronouns could be considered "inaccurate". Powers ^T 23:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Robotk, would you, eighty years ago, proclaim in a wikipedia article that women were the property of their husbands because the law said so? The law is NOT an objective source of information and many countries do not require full SRS to be legally recognized as their preferred gender (such as Canada). Your argument towards female pronouns is pedantic at best, and transphobic at worst. 99.231.123.28 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, I have removed my response, as the dialogue has become increasingly coarse and I'm not interested in debating a subject where my opinion is being labeled as "transphobic". Suffice it to say, I deeply question the objectivity of posters who use ad hominem arguments.Robotk (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Robotk, I could not agree with your posts more. LtPowers, actually, I do contest using the name Chaz if that isn't her legal name. But I picked the more important point about gender. I didn't want to argue the name point and have someone tell me that she did legally change her name to Chaz, (as i don't follow her life with a magnifying glass) which is a realtively easy thing to do. And to your question about whether I would say that women are the the property of their husbands if the law said so, yes, I would. I wouldn't agree with it, but in an encyclopedia article, I would be forced to go with it. And I am getting sick of the words pedantic and transphobic. That is the raving of someone who is self-righteous to being with. How is using "she" pedantic? There is nothing trivial or narrow about the word. It is accurate, and nothing less. If you really think it is pedantic, then let's get rid of all pronouns in every article on Wikipedia and just refer to a person by their name. Oh, wait, that is silly right? Just like calling a female a "he", which is even more silly. Thre are so many arguements that show this point one could make. If I want to be called African-American because I can prove that I had a relative eons ago that was African, and I identify with African-Aamericans, should my wishes be met in an encyclopedia article, even though I am 99% European? An encylopedia article is about accuracy, not a person's wishes. And these transphobic accusations are insulting. You fall into the category of a person who hinders free speech by calling any disagreement with non-mainstream American predjudiced, so people who have valid points are scared to make them because they are afraid to be labeled predjudiced. Calling someone transphobic because they are trying to intelligently make a point, even if they are incorrect, is a strong accusation, and one which I find repulsive. Gregoryg72 (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe current policy would support calling you African-American if that's how you identified. We're not in the business of telling people who they are. Powers ^T 12:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference in this case is that property is almost exclusively a legal concept and gender is not.

It's actually pretty common for people to self-identify as African-American even if only a small fraction of their ancestry is African (possibly cultural, possibly a holdover from the South's "one drop" laws).

If nothing else, we should respect Bono's wishes because it's polite. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, gender is a legal property. That was the point I was making in my original post. I absolutely believe you are incorrect in saying that anything that a person identifies with is what should be in an excyclopedia article. I may identify with aliens from the planet xyz and believe I am one of them sent here by my homeworld. Should my Wikipedia article state that I am from the planet xyz? We aren't in the business of telling people who they are. But we are in the business of stating factual information that transcends what a person might incorrectly believe about themself. If I believed I was African-American and I had 1% African blood, I guarantee my article would NOT state that I was African-American. It would only state that I idnetified with that population. We write articles using real world information, not information that lies inside someone's head. If Chasity gets her gender changed legally, "she" becomes a "he." Until then, Chasity is female. As to the point about politeness, this is irrelavant. This is an encyclopedia, not your house. Hey, if Chasity was in my presence and wanted to be referred as he, I would happily do so. But that doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. I am never going to win this arguement because Wikipedia policy clearly dictates how gender should be represented, as I quoted in an earlier post. Nonetheless, Chasity is female, plain and simple, until she gets it changed legally, which she has not done. Gregoryg72 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gregoryg72, I invite you to read the transphobia wikipedia article. Your views are oppressive and repudiating towards transgendered people. I used this example and I'll use it again: fifty years ago, people who were perceived to be African-American were not allowed to vote, because it was in the law books that they were not true citizens. Was the law "factual" at that time? Are you honestly saying that, like a person who is transgendered, they are only allowed personhood once the law states that they are a person? What about women pre-1920? They were, according to the law, property of their husbands. Was the law correct THEN as well? If "objective" law is so extremely subjective even around things like basic personhood, then perhaps the law is also extremely subjective around things such as gender identification? And, again, some countries don't even require full surgery for a full gender designation change on all legal documentation - a clear example of the subjective law surrounding transgendered issues. 99.231.123.28 (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what nation you're contributing from, perhaps South Africa? In America 50 years ago, blacks, in fact all non-whites, were allowed to vote. ThuranX (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Officially, perhaps, but in practice there were still enough barriers and impediments being thrown in their way that the United States Congress had to pass a Voting Rights Act far less than 50 years ago. But that's really not particularly relevant to the matter at hand. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In order for us to conclude that Chaz is "incorrect" about his own gender, we would have to completely dismiss the opinions of many scientists and social scientists about what gender is. You may believe that those academics are wrong and that gender is of course only a simply, binary matter of chromosomes and genitalia, and that a trans person is as delusional as someone who thinks they are an alien from another planet, but it is inherently POV for Wikipedia to uncritically adopt that view. Of course, it may also be POV for Wikipedia to side with the gender theorists, but the policy has us err on the side of dominant scientific theories and basic human respect, which I think makes sense.

As for the law, it deems whales to be fish and General Electric to be a person. It's not a great arbiter of nuance.--Trystan (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My views are absolutely not oppressive and repudiating. I am 100% for a persons right to be transgendered. It is you who are pushing your OPINION. I am going for statements of fact and what should be in an encyclopedia. You points about the law are compeltely moot, as you are saying that you know what is better that the people who make the laws that we elect. Women in the 1920s and African-Americans 50 years ago, it doesn't matter. Those laws were correct THEN and I would bet that the encylopedia Britannica did not say the opposite of what those laws were during those times. Yes, we learned and we know better now. But back then, they were indeed correct. Morality is not some universal aspect that you know. It changes over time. People who get outraged at this are people who don't realize that a majority of people were in agreement with those laws at the time. This obviously gradually shifted over time, just as well as current thought may shift. But right now, it is a FACT that Chastity is female. I invite you to read the Wikipedia article on female. "She" refers to female. And if you don't think it does, then I guess we should change the Wiktionary definition, because it clearly states the definition of "She" is "A female person; the previously mentioned female person". Just because you feel more enlightened than the rest of the population and you think you know what's right doesn't mean we should make encylopedia policy according to your opinions. As to the point about scientists and academics, it does not adress what I actually stated, because my point about gender is that legally Chasity is a woman. I'm not debating the more esoteric aspects of what defines gender. Scientists and academics might be right about a lot of things, and they might be wrong, but that is speculation, and once again, LEGALLY Chasity is FEMALE and "SHE" refers to female and that is the most objective way to address the issue. Gregoryg72 (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It was also an "immutable fact" that women weren't people and blacks were slaves. I mean, it was in the LAW BOOKS and EVERYTHING. 99.231.123.28 (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcasm does nothing to invalidate my arguement. You can point out atrocities all you want to make invalid points. But 50 years from now people will be saying things that we think are fine today were atrocious. Gregoryg72 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Much like your posting. 99.231.123.28 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Good comeback, you clearly have this all thought out. 68.80.176.22 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already stated my opinons many times and you refuse to accept that your comments are transphobic and discriminatory. You are using common sense narratives to explain a growing field of medical science, much like how the Church claimed the world was flat even though science claimed otherwise. I could continue this banter with you, but you've already made up your mind, and will continue to lobby for the oppression of trans people for some sort of irrelevant pedantic adoration for "objective fact in the law" when it doesn't exist. The difference between a man and a woman is not $17,000 USD and three weeks of recovery time, and if you can't figure that out, then maybe a place of learning such as this isn't the right place for you. 99.231.123.28 (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, firstly, you never actually address anything that I write, you just keep repeating the same thoughts over and over, so in my mind, you haven't even made a real arguement. You like to make sarcastic comments that you think are clever and witty, but have no logic behind them. My comments are not "transphobic and discriminatory" and the more you say they are the more it proves that you can't intelligently refute the statements that I make. I'm all for people doing whatever the hell they want to. We are talking about what deserves to end up in and encyclopedia article, not your personal opinion on the subject. As for this place not being for me, I think you need to look at yourself. When you want to make a logical arguement, then you do so. If you want to just think that anyone that says anything that you don't like is wrong, then you prove that you are supremely ignorant. Don't just say things, either use a logical arguement or don't say anything at all. Gregoryg72 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

While you're entitled to think whatever you want of 99's rhetorical style, 99 is correct on the issue of "what deserves to end up in an encyclopedia article": for very good reasons which have already been explained in depth, we conform to a transgender subject's self-identification, not to some nebulous reification of the legal status of gender — and continuing to insist that we do otherwise while simply ignoring the reasons that have already been explained more than once is beginning to look like you have an agenda rather than a concern for "objectivity". Kindly stay on topic, please. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "nebulous" about the "reification of the legal status of gender." But whatever you say. Gregoryg72 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gender pronouns

Okay... There are things that are going to help and there are things that are not going to help. Accusing people of being transphobic/silly/brainwashed by the liberal media? Not going to help. There's plenty of doubt and debate regarding what really makes men men and women women, but that's not the issue at hand right here. This page is about Chaz/Chastity Bono and only Chaz/Chastity Bono.

It's Wikipedia's policy to use the preferred, most recent gender pronoun of the subject of a biographical article throughout that article. However, because Wikipedia has guidelines and not laws, we can do things differently if we can reach a consensus that there is a good reason to do so. Would anyone like to suggest such a reason? Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My take on the matter is that we should go with "he." It's polite, respectful and at the very least as accurate as "she" in Bono's case. The line "he came out as a lesbian" was a bit awkward, but we've managed to reword that pretty well. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Darkfrog. I'd just like to add that arguments aimed at advocating change to the MOS:IDENTITY guideline itself are much better suited to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Gender_pronouns. This talk page is really for discussing the article, which may include how to apply that guideline to this article and whether there is any unique circumstances that suggest we should diverge from it.--Trystan (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So our next questions seem to be 1. Are there any other parts of the article that are confusing? and 2. How can we adjust the wording to correct this? I'm sure we can find a way to make it clear that Bono was raised as a little girl and then later discovered-he-was/decided-to-live-like-a/whatever-you-want-to-call-it a man after becoming an adult. Thoughts, all? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I repeat my assertion that based on the available sources, Chastity Bono referred to herself, for decades, as a female. She now refers to herself as male. Our article should reflect the pronoun in use at the time of the events related, as the majority of citation is contemporaneous with the event, and thus gender/pronouns match events, or occurred later, but still during a time when Chastity represented herself as female, and thus is is not outside MOS to use them. Further, her entire Equal rights activist section should be removed, should we go with the 'she's always been male' version, as it would be impossible for a male, self-identifying as a lesbian while in a heterosexual relationship with a woman, to be arguing and petitioning for his rights as a lesbian. that sort of lunacy gets sent, quite rightly, to a sanitarium. Instead, we should report the accurate facts. Chastity Bono was a woman, living as a lesbian in a lesbian relationship, who later reassessed herself and decided to move towards gender reassignment, identifying herself as a male. The facts are simple: She was a female in every way before her declaration - her actions, her discussions, her published thoughts, all identify her as a woman. I see no sensible reason to create the most bizarrely architectured sentences to hide the fact she was born a female. Focus on facts, not on the risk of offending the sensibilities of some class of people, and you wont' have to worry. Facts are difficult to argue with. ThuranX (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"He." And yes, facts are hard to argue with, much like how women aren't people (FACT), and all people of colours are subhuman slaves (FACT). Also remember that gays cause AIDS (FACT) and are pedophiles (FACT) and that the earth is also flat (FACT). 99.231.123.28 (talk) 00:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines state that we should use the proper pronouns throughout their life out of respect, and this case is no different. The article makes quite plain that Bono was living as a woman in the period that you discuss; that, while living as a woman, he became involved in lesbian rights activism doesn't change the fact that he is in fact a man. The article quite clearly doesn't hide the fact she was assigned female at birth; it just treats its subject with the respect we are required to accord him as fundamental policy. Rebecca (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Because Bono identified as a woman through most of his life, the article should make it clear that Bono identified as a woman through most of his life. Bono's actions as a feminist and lesbian activist are sane and rational once one takes into account that Bono believed himself to be a lesbian woman at the time.

Think of it this way: Say that most of our sources on famous actress Jane Smith report that she was born in Memphis, TN. Then, when digging through an attic, Smith finds a copy of her birth certificate. To her surprise, she finds that, despite what she, her fans and her closest friends had believed to be true, she was really born in Nashville and just raised in Memphis, TN. Now we don't have to throw out everything that we got from our old sources, but we do have to acknowledge that certain data are out of date and must be replaced by newer, more accurate material.

It's the same with Bono's gender. In this one respect, the sources are out of date. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I read this stuff and it makes me want to rip my face off. Just because you call your dog a cat doesn't make it so. Even if you teach it to mew and feed it cat food, it's a dog. Blue is blue. Just because you identify it as red doesn't make it so. It's blue. No matter how much effort you put forth to deny it, the primary definition of gender is sex/ If Bono commits a murder while "identifying" as a male, and DNA evidence shows that the only DNA found was that of a female, would that automatically make Bono *not* a suspect? It can't be "him" becuase "he" is a "male". This, once again, shows why the Wiki cannot and should not be looked to as anything more than very interesting entertainment. It is not an encyclopedia, it is a collection of hyperbole, fact, and urban legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.164.199 (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just replace controversial pronouns with "Bono"? Ilkali (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It's bad grammar, and an attempt to evade the quite clear guideline on the subject - that we respect the person's preference. Rebecca (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think someone already got most of them, Ilkali. There are what, three "he's" left in this thing? Rebecca's right, though. It would be poor writing to replace them all. "Bono" does cover the "Chastity or Chaz" issue, though. Outside of Iceland, it's proper to use a person's last name rather than his or her given name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it depends on the context. Obviously we should avoid sentences like Bono said that Bono's mother hit Bono. Ilkali (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with grammar. It might be bad style in some instances, but I think usually it's fine. And the guideline is a guideline. In the trickier cases, which tend to arise when talking about the person's history, it can be entirely sensible to sidestep the issue. Ilkali (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see - yes, in those cases, I have no problem with using "Bono" - avoids confusing prose that way. I had read your previous remark as suggesting replacing it across the board. Rebecca (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So if Chaz had a boyfriend when he had a female body, since we insist that his current gender identification is considered proper, would we say that said boyfriend had a homosexual experience on his wikipedia page if he has one (limits of taste notwithstanding)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.3.8 (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the entire pronoun thing ridiculous. When telling about events that happened when Chaz was Chastity, they SHOULD use the female pronoun; everything after becoming Chaz should have the male pronoun. Not using the female pronoun at all is misleading and it comes out as denial about the fact that he used to be a woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.149.57.206 (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What you all seem to be forgetting or ignoring is that he cannot come out as a lesbian considering the consensus of GLBT is that nobody turns homosexual or transgender, that they always were. This would mean that he was a he even when he was a she, from birth, therefor he could never have come out as a lesbian considering men can't be lesbians. If you want to refer to him as a man throughout the article then at lest take out parts that are logic impossibilities, such as every mention as him being a lesbian at any point in time. At best you could say he came out as straight. The quagmire clusterfuck this policy has caused in relation to the already confusing and arbitrary gender identity is asinine. Editors want to take both sides, that he was a he therefor referring to him as a male prior to any gender change BUT also including facts that are only facts if he was a she. Pick a side and edit accordingly. Mattbrown04 (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

She may refer to herself as "he" that does not mean she is a "he". You are either a man or a woman and SHE is a woman. You either have XX chromosomes in which case you are a FEMALE, XY in which case you are MALE. While some people do have different sex chromosomes(intersexed) that is extremely rare and is not the case in this situation. She was born with XX chromosomes and is therefore a FEMALE. This article should refer to HER as a FEMALE. --Jimv1983 (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

And I changed it back per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP. Dem's the rulez, sorry. While we're discussing chromosomes, take a look at De la Chapelle syndrome and Swyer syndrome, just for fun. Also, ALL CAPS looks like you're shouting - Alison ^❤ 07:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

While there are a few rare gender-ambiguous outliers, the argument is that one born a de facto gender can't change it, not really. It raises all sorts of pragmatic issues, such as the fact that most straight women wouldn't be interested in Bono, and that her physiology and biochemistry are female save for a few injected chemicals and bodily mutliation. Michael Jackson had vitiligo and bleached his skin, but we still called him black rather than white, and would ostensibly have continued to do so even if he had demanded we identify him as white. However, Wikipedia policy is clear on this matter, and we'd have to draft a proposal to change it - and I'm guessing it wouldn't get the impetus it needed since the pronoun's accuracy is not usually relevant (although "he came out as a lesbian" is one such example where it IS relevant) - and the idea of "changing" one's gender is now firmly enough engrained in society that to not accord with the pronoun wishes of the subject would be seen as somehow stripping them of their identity. Shiggity (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Grammatics

I'm not concerned too much about the "he said/she said" stuff. It IS awkward to say "he admitted to being a lesbian." We understand the situation. My only irk is not proofing what is written before "saving page". Case in point, first section: "Bono was named "Chastity" was after the title of Cher's first feature film..."

Since this page is currently 'locked' or protected or what have you, someone needs to proof the article, remove any grammatical errors and probably fix all the pronouns to fix flow--either use "she" or "he."

Well, I personally don't think "he" is the right term. I would understand if IT gets reassignment surgery, then "he" MIGHT be appropriate, but I don't think if I walk around calling myself the opposite sex that I was born as (assuming i did not have reassignment surgery yet), all pronouns in the entire world referring to me should be reversed. If there is this much debate, then don't use pronouns at all. Just say Chaz or Chasity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.176.22 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! 66.218.202.125 (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The page isn't locked; it's semi-protected. You can edit it if you log in or create a user ID. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, under absolutely no circumstances do you ever refer to a person, transgender or not, as "it" rather than he or she. And secondly, gender pronouns are defined by a person's public gender presentation, not necessarily by what's between their legs — unless you're in the habit of sticking your hand down the pants of everybody you walk past on the street to physically confirm whether they have a penis or a vagina, you don't actually have any way to verify what's between their legs except by assuming that it matches up to whether their overall presentation reads as male or female. So if a person presents and identifies as male, we use male pronouns for him. Period. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I clicked on the discussion page because this article is really terrible right now. I understand all the points people have made, and I thank all the genteel people who've kindly added links to the various Wikipedia policies.

I think we can follow the Identity policy and still clean this up. The important thing about Bono's history is, indeed, that (1) Bono is the child of celebrities; (2) Bono was outed as a gay woman in the 1990s; (3) Bono described on record a life that was female and lesbian that's relevant to the article and available online; (4) Bono has started the process of transitioning to being a man.

Writing-wise, I think many of the passage could be changed to become non-gender specific. Such as, "Bono did ____ and ___" rather than "Bono did ___ and HE" etc. Also, because the identity policies is over-ridden when quoting sources, it would be easy enough to quote moments on record to clarify when Bono was presenting as female and lesbian in the past discuss Bono currently as Bono presents now. JazzyGroove 22:50, 11 june 2009 (PST)

Certainly there are ways that we can rewrite the article to avoid pronouns in sentences where they might be more confusing, but the original poster basically suggested that a person's own gender identity isn't relevant to the question at all — and threw in at least one direct use of the pronoun it, instead of he or she. That's what I was responding to. Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct. I don't believe that a person's own gender identity is relevant to the question. I believe I am a Martian. Should my encyclopedia article reflect that? No, obviously. 68.80.176.22 (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A person's own gender identity is utterly inseparable from the question. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV both require us to respect a person's own choice of how to define themselves. Or would you suggest that it's okay to move a racial category to a derogatory term for that group on the grounds that it's not up to the people being categorized to decide what words we can or can't use?

And your Martian metaphor isn't comparable — the fact that there has never been any documented or verified evidence of sentient life on Mars means we can objectively and neutrally say "oh, but you're not". The burden of evidence is on you, because you're making an extraordinary claim that the current state of what we know about the universe simply cannot corroborate. Whereas gender identity disorder is a documented and recognized and real phenomenon. The burden of evidence has already been met, because science has already shown that it is possible for a person's brain to be gendered differently than their body — and science has already shown that the only cure for that mismatch is for the person to live as the gender dictated by what's in their heads rather than the one dictated by what's hanging between their thighs. Which is precisely why NPOV requires us to respect Chaz Bono's own self-identification as a man, but not yours as a Martian. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As an example of where I don't think this is working well, "Bono recalls being a tomboy as a child, and when he appeared on The Sonny & Cher Comedy Hour he insisted on being dressed to match Sonny rather than Cher." This is confusing by itself - when does a male identify as being a tomboy? It makes sense using female pronouns, or needs to be rewritten to remove provide context. --Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 13:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The article makes this quite clear. If a man is being seen as a woman, it's probably not surprising that he's going to identify as a tomboy... Rebecca (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference between “he” and “she” is not analogous to neutral or derogatory racial terms. Or, more bluntly, the difference between “he” and “she” is not equivalent to the difference between “black” and “coloured.” Bearcat, give it a rest. – joeclark (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew it was a bad idea to sign in again after all this time. Please excuse my ignorance and stupidity to raise such a point. --Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Rebecca in this case. Maybe the line would be confusing by itself, but it occurs right after we say that Bono identifies as a trans man. We should keep an eye on it, though. It might need to be reworded if the article gets bigger. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

. There are ways of following the policy AND keeping things clear. Just adding a little more descriptive phrasing can help. For example "Growing up, while still presenting as female, he was often called a tomboy." Maybe that sentence can be made a tad smoother, but my point is it contains ample explanation for connecting a "he" to a label of "tomboy.". jg (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this exactly. If there is an ambiguity, it's far better to reword it so as to explain. Rebecca (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the gender pronouns on the gender reassignment quote. Even if one does not agree with the gender assertions reflected, it is still a direct quote, and therefore it should keep the pronouns originally used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.141.219 (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Article title

I'm not sure the article should be titled "Chaz Bono" rather than "Chastity Bono". The subject's legal name is still Chastity Bono. Also, WP:NAME requires that "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" which, despite recent media attention, is still Chastity Bono. I propose that the article be moved back to "Chastity Bono" per official Wikipedia policy and per subject's legal name but I don't want to undo the recent move without some input by others. Thoughts? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that any new English-language sources being written are using his preferred name almost exclusively; that pulls the new title within our guidelines. Powers ^T 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement on Wikipedia to use an article subject's legal name, if that isn't the same as the name that the person actually uses in their personal and/or professional life. Our articles on various famous rappers are located at LL Cool J, Ice-T and Jay-Z, for example, not at the names that are on those performers' birth certificates. And since the name Chastity redirects here anyway, there's absolutely no problem created by the fact that Chaz isn't yet the name by which the average reader would currently recognize him. When it comes to transgender people, in any dispute on how to refer to them we have to fall on the side of the person's right to define themselves. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as Chasity Bono redirects here I think this is the logical title. This is likely to one of the highest profile gender transitions and in light of June being Pride month for hundreds of cities Chaz will be the talk of the town for the next few months including every single anything he does. If we're lucky he'll date Paris Hilton and throw us all into a media frenzy. -- Banjeboi 23:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur. "Chaz" should be the title of the article and "Chastity" should redirect. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

William Jefferson Clinton redirects to Bill Clinton. What's your point? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a question for me? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 04:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is addressed to you, who seems to have an agenda with this non-issue. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that Big Bird has an agenda (from what I have seen so far in this section). As I stated below, I was going to bring up this topic as well (and I certainly have no agenda on this matter). But I do not want to get into some heated debate regarding what Big Bird's intentions were on this, and will instead back off on that front. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I get Big Bird's point and originally came to this article today, after hearing about Chaz's gender reassignment, to see if its title had been changed from Chastity Bono. I was going to bring up WP:Common name, but I see that Big Bird basically has. Big Bird's point, of course, is that Chaz's common name is Chastity Bono, just like William Jefferson Clinton's common name is Bill Clinton. But in Chaz's case, Bearcat has pretty much given valid reason for the change in title. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bearcat's argument applies to whether to call him a he or a she. It's a seperate case from the title of the article. Chastity Bono is still the common name, and the guideline is pretty clear that it should be the title of the article, with Chaz Bono as a redirect. Despite that, the first words in the header paragraph should be "Chaz Bono". Awkward, I know, but that's what the guidelines say. Unfortunately, unlike most trans people he become known before the transition. Bill Clinton is a good comparison. The title is Bill Clinton, the first words are "William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton". I think out of due respect for the identity issue, we can just say "Chaz Bono", and later in the header say that he was born and originally known as "Chastity". Exactly as it currently is. Just with the different article title. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia doesn't require an invariable application of "most common name" in all cases; the naming convention, in fact, explicitly states that there are sometimes legitimate exceptions where other naming considerations need to override what's "most common" — and that "most common name" is therefore the guideline of last resort, not the trump card, in a naming dispute. Bearcat (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WTWAG, I would ask you nicely to please remember to apply WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL each and every time before you accuse an editor of having an agenda. Unless you have proof - and I know you don't - that my intention was anything but to try to improve this article, you should really not engage in such attacks. I made a single solitary edit in which I presented my own opinion and asked other editors for theirs; there's no agenda in this. To answer your question of what my point was since William Jefferson Clinton redirects to Bill Clinton, my answer is that one of those terms is more commonly used and recognized than the other and the less commonly used term redirects to the more commonly used one. My intepretation of WP:NAME led me to believe that Chaz Bono should redirect to Chastity Bono until such a time when Chaz Bono is the more commonly used term of the two.

Anyways, I wasn't trying to suggest that a legal name by itself should determine an article's title, I was trying to come up with an alternate sufficient reason for the title being Chaz Bono if it failed WP:NAME by virtue of Chastity Bono being the more commonly used term. But Bearcat's reasoning with regards to transgender people's right to self-define makes a lot of sense and I think there appears to be sufficient consensus that an article title of Chaz Bono with a redirect from Chastity to Chaz is logical. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"AttackS"...haha that's a good one 66.214.218.24 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that currency and respecting self-identification justify override commonness in this case. It might be worth it to propose an amendment to the guideline itself for similar cases.--Trystan (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I missed this. Wikipedia:Common_name#Do_not_overdo_it. It says that in a case where the common name may be considered offensive, like "Mormon Church", you should make an exception. So the article title should indeed be "Chaz Bono". -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would calling the Mormon church "mormon church" be offensive? 66.214.218.24 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cermony (band)

Why does Ceremony (band), get redirected to here? There is no commonality between the two subjects.

The band article used to exist but was deleted. What remains is the most notable aspect of the band, Bono's involvement. Thus it redirects here for those looking for the information. -- Banjeboi 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of confusing and unclear pronouns

A sentence that reads "Bono's publicist confirmed that he was undergoing female-to-male gender transition" makes it sound like the publicist is changing gender. It's simply poor English, and changing it to "he" just for the same of introducing another male pronoun into the article is inappropriate. Furthermore, MOS suggests in cases like this that the use of gender-specific pronouns be avoided where that might be confusing, so substituting a possessive noun such as "the author's" for "his" when talking about someone coming out as lesbian seems like a very reasonable compromise to avoid confusion. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"He" makes a heck of a lot more sense than "the activist" in this context. Rebecca (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another suggested wording: "Bono is undergoing female-to-male gender transition, as confirmed by his publicist in June 2009" and "Bono is in the process of undergoing a gender transition which had begun mid-2008, as confirmed by his publicist in June 2009". Siawase (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. Rebecca (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewording the sentence in a different way to make the antecedent clearer would certainly be valid, but replacing the pronoun with "the activist" is a stilted and odd construction which makes the sentence even worse than what it's trying to correct — it reads far more like a pointed attempt to degender him than an attempt to clarify that Bono, rather than the publicist, is the one who's transitioning. Siawase's suggestion is a better solution. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jason that 1. the sentence is confusing as-is and 2. we should not reword sentences specifically to insert pronouns. While "the activist" does make sense logically, it's not the most graceful way to phrase it. Siawese has made some good suggestions. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read this article and the "he" was very confusing. Just a little clarification here, the MOS:IDENTITY is a "guideline", not a wikipedia policy. it does not need to be strictly adhered to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.130.129 (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh 71... How I wish that were how it worked. As for adherence, I'd say that we can do something other than what the guideline says if we can reach a consensus that there is a good reason to do so. I don't think there's a good reason in this case, but mine is not the only opinion that counts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronouns Part 2

Continued discussion from archive:

People are confusing gender with sex; they always do. Try to understand that while Chaz is biologically ("biologically" as in genetically) female, and always will be, his gender is male. Gender (as historically defined by experts) is social; sex is biological. Gender identity is a person's self-conception as being male or female, and is distinguished from biological sex by a vast number of researchers/sociologists. Though, yes, people's gender identity is thought to be related to biology by some, as seen with biology of gender. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused as well. Bono's brain structure, in all likelihood, is male. Brain structure is part of a person's biology, too. So while Bono may be genetically or chromosomally female, Bono is neurologically male. So biologically Bono has some male and some female traits, a mixed phenotype.

Also, please acknowledge that the word "gender," though used differently by anthropologists and sociologists, has undergone a usage shift in ordinary speech. Colloquially, "gender" now means what "sex" used to mean, and now "sex" almost exclusively means "sexual intercourse." This doesn't mean that we have to discard the sociology definition of "gender," but it would be wise to avoid assuming how a person means the word. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not insist that I am confused on this subject. I have studied the topic of transgender extensively, as well as other various topics (which I often lend my "voice" to on Wikipedia), and I have been very close to two transgender individuals in my lifetime thus far (in addition to battling "transgender feelings" myself since childhood). You act as though it is a "done deal" that most scientists and researchers believe that the initial makeup of the brain determines gender. I simply do not act as though that is the case. Most scientists and researchers believe that gender is determined by a combination of things, including environment, which is exactly how they feel about sexual orientation (as seen with Biology and sexual orientation). So, yes, while biology may play a part in some individuals' gender identity, it does not mean that it plays a part in all individuals' gender identity.

Also, I know how gender is colloquially used. But "colloquially" does not mean correct usage, as is often seen with the term Pedophilia. I, of course, was going by how gender is distinguished from biological sex by a vast number of researchers/sociologists and as, even the Gender article makes clear, "historically, within the social sciences, including political economy, it refers to specifically social differences."

As for the correct pronouns being used in this article, it is nice to see that Chaz is being referred to as "he" and that this article now seems stable. Flyer22 (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Something else that I wanted to add is my other main reasoning for differentiating sex from gender: Sex and gender are often differentiated by doctors and the transgender community for a reason -- to better help people understand that just because someone is male does not mean that person identifies as a man and just because someone is female does not mean that person identifies as a woman. Biological sex does not necessarily determine gender identity, which is what I was trying to explain to the people here who kept insisting that Chaz be referred to as a woman or as a she simply because Chaz is genetically female/was born a female. As Darkfrog24 pointed out, it is believed that Chaz could have been born with the "brain sex" of a male. For anyone else who still does not quite get what I am saying, this link called The Biology and Psychology of Gender should help.

If you felt that I was insulting the transgender community in any way, Darkfrog24, that was not my intention at all. My intention was as I said above -- to differentiate something that is not the same thing (no matter the two overlapping and often correctly equating a person's sex with that person's gender) in order to help people better understand this subject. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be the first to agree that colloquial usage is not always correct, but in this case, the colloquial definition is one of four correct definitions: 1. A type or kind (archaic) 2. a type of word (grammar) 3. the state of being male or female (colloquial) and 4. gender identity (sociology and anthropology), not always listed in that order. [1] I feel that we should use the most encyclopedic speech possible rather than the terms that the community uses. In most cases, those terms will be the same. In this case, I recommend assuming that the reader is familiar with the colloquial definition of "gender."Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel that you've insulted transgenders here. However, I am used to sociologists and anthropologists oversimplifying the biology to the point where they're no longer correct about it. "Biology" is too big and covers too many different things for us to say that a transgendered person is "biologically male" when what we really mean is that the person has a penis or has XY chromosomes. A woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome has breasts, female external genitalia and male DNA. Her "biology" has traits from both genders. Unlike some scientific words, like "theory," "biology" hasn't yet developed a clear alternative definition. "Biology" is still just biology. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, Darkfrog24, which is why I often say "genetic" or "genetically" to get across the points I mean about "biological" or "biologically" when speaking of transgender topics, but I know that saying "genetic" or "genetically" still poses an issue for some people and in some cases. That said, saying "biological" or "genetic" is an easier (usually easier) or quicker way to specify male or female DNA or what we are usually trying to get across about birth sex rather than saying that the person has a penis or has XY chromosomes.

Either way, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, and for explaining your earlier feelings in response to my earlier comment. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you want to be understood, but "biology," unlike "gender" still only has the one correct definition. Saying "biology" when you only really mean one small aspect of biology, in the long run, makes the public more confused, not less. If you think people won't understand, then you're better off saying, "genetically, by which I mean the DNA," or something with a similar brief explanation. It's like when they say, "obesity is genetic" when they really mean "obesity isn't due to overeating and laziness."

Would you like to move this theoretical discussion, as R puts it, to another page? Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, I often use "genetically" to refer to transgender topics, but I sometimes use "biologically" without thinking too much about its implications or lazily use it due to feeling that people know what I am talking about when I do (even if they are not thinking about aspects of the brain). I am sure that they understand that I am talking about DNA and the biological makeup of sexual organs.

And, LOL, I hope that people who say that obesity is genetic realize that obesity is somewhat due to overeating and laziness in some cases. A person may have inherited the "obese gene," but that does not mean that their being overweight cannot be prevented. The wrong type of diet (as in mainly eating fattening foods) may be the case, in addition to the "obese gene," rather than simply overeating and laziness. But, yeah, you can take this to my talk page if you want. It is fun, as well as nice, talking with you. I love good discussion and debates. Flyer22 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you two take the theoretical discussion somewhere else, as it doesn't pertain to the content of this article? Rebecca (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Rebecca, sorry about that, though I do feel that it is relevant to this article. Yeah, I know about WP:NOTAFORUM, but my initial response was to people talking about what pronoun Chaz should be referred to based on sex or gender. I do see that this discussion between Darkfrog24 and I has gone away from discussion of Chaz, and that this is not the place for that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is there so much discussion here? The IDENTITY|manual of style already has guidelines that say we use 'he' and 'his' in this article. There isn't really any need for further discussion; people who think that the manual of style should be changed should go discuss it there, shouldn't they? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Worldview

This article was offensive to me as a reader so I had several gay and lesbian people read it. It is felt that while Chastity or Chaz Bono has every right to transform, etc. There is no distinction in this article between what is a Lesbian and What is a FTM Transexual. This article suggests that by nature any Lesbian automatically wishes to become male. And on that same hand that any gay man automatically wants to become female. There are quotes in the article about Bono coming out as a Lesbian but nothing that eludes that there is a difference between being attracted to the same sex vs. wanting to change one's sex. More citations are desperately needed and a wider point of view must be represented in this article. 76.167.73.93 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the "worldview" template you added isn't meant for this purpose. An example of what it is for would be if the article Prime Minister, which is of international significance because dozens of countries around the world have them, talked exclusively about the Prime Minister of Australia and failed to mention Canada or France or the United Kingdom at all. It's for topics where there are many international aspects but our article is only talking about one of them. What you're proposing is a POV issue, not a "worldview" issue.

And for what it's worth, I don't really see how the article even begins to imply what you're saying it implies, but that's an issue for discussion — the template is just the wrong one for the issue you're raising. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Worldview or Neutrality

This article was offensive to me as a reader so I had several gay and lesbian people read it. It is felt that while Chastity or Chaz Bono has every right to transform, etc. There is no distinction in this article between what is a Lesbian and What is a FTM Transexual. This article suggests that by nature any Lesbian automatically wishes to become male. And on that same hand that any gay man automatically wants to become female. There are quotes in the article about Bono coming out as a Lesbian but nothing that eludes that there is a difference between being attracted to the same sex vs. wanting to change one's sex. More citations are desperately needed and a wider point of view must be represented in this article.

The citations form GLAAD and other organizations should not indicate that they praise her for being a lesbian who wants to transform, but for realizing that s/he is transgendered and having the courage to speak openly about it. The GLAAD citations here are perhaps the most degrading to any lesbian or gay man because it does not distinguish what the individual initials stand for in LGBT & "Q" (Questioning / NOT "queer!")

Some one has removed the worldview template saying it does not belong on this article. It does! World view of Transgender vs. Gay or Lesbian is the issue here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.73.93 (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've already explained, the "worldview" template is for "this article talks only about Australia but fails to mention that the same topic has Canadian and British and French and Dutch aspects too" situations, such as an article about a political office. It isn't for what you added it here for. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

' Worldview' is actually an anthrolopological and sociological term which would be correct in discussing this article! HOWEVER, one realizes that Wiki templates may have been designed for a specific purpose and to avoid argument among editors this article is now tagged with Neutrality. It really needs to be clarified that Bono is not a Lesbian. She may have believed herself to be a lesbian for many years but transforming one's self makes Bono Transgendered and there are many terms which apply to this. As I am not an expert on Transgendering but am one on Gay and Lesbian issues I will hope that the article can be improved by those who know what the correct terms are. There is nonetheless a huge difference between Lesbian and Transman (or transguy or FTM Transexual!) This article needs to be very clear. I might suggest getting a clearer citation from GLAAD. 76.167.73.93 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Biological anthropologist I feel further pressed to state that while transgendered people should have equal rights, no amount of body modificaiton or transformation will give a Birth female a Y-Chromosome or a Birth Male two X-Chromosomes while removing the Y. Hopefully this is made clear in this Encyclopedia which should be neutral and reflect all facts! 76.167.73.93 (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The sum total of comments from LGBT groups presented is GLAAD and the Empowering Spirits Foundation were quick to offer praise and support for his announcement. Not one word suggests Wikipedia is presenting or omitting anything thus presenting a POV. This is a short article and we cover this information in both the lede and its own section. We have been quite careful to only include relevant and neutrally presented content with reliable sources. To suggest in any way Bono's views on lesbianism should likely come from Bono directly without synthesis, likewise his opinions on gender transitioning. Transman remains the modern term for one who is gender transitioning as Bono is doing. On a BLP we adhere closely to a person's preferred gender expression. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not seeing what the IP was so upset about regarding this matter. It was already clarified that Bono is not a lesbian when the IP started these discussions. It said and currently says that he used to identify as a lesbian. Additionally, it is not our job to inform people that "no amount of body modificaiton or transformation will give a Birth female a Y-Chromosome or a Birth Male two X-Chromosomes while removing the Y." People who, for whatever reason, do not know or have not concluded this all on their own can read about some of it through our related articles or educate themselves on the matter some other way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's manual of style, transgendered people are correctly referred to by the pronoun with which they identify themselves. That's a Wikipedia-wide guideline, and doesn't only apply to this article, so users who think that guideline should be changed should discuss it at the manual of style talk page- style guidelines don't get changed by discussion on the talk page of an individual article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Image placeholder

I think the general consensus, minus one editor, is that the article doesn't gain much from File:Replace this image male.svg being placed in the infobox and that, aesthetically speaking, the article is better off without it. It's been removed a few times and then added back with only discussion coming in the form of edit summaries. I would like some second and third opinions before further edits are made on this. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove image placeholders - especially on BLPs where an image being available is actually quite likely. Removing these from biographies of non-living people who dies before photography was widely available is acceptable. This was brought up an ANI against one of the editors mass-removing them as disruptive mainly because ... they didn't like them. Until they are replaced with something better which has not been forthcoming this is what we use. And the reason we keep using them is that these work. The OTRS folks process numerous image requests every week. If this didn't work you would have a strong case for removing them, but they do work. And we do want an image. -- Banjeboi 19:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus to leave them on articles, either. So it really isn't worth editwarring over. And incidentally, as I've said in other iterations of this discussion, I've never seen any evidence that articles with the placeholder image have a noticeably higher rate of getting properly-licensed images added to them than articles without the placeholder image do. So it's not clear that it's actually the placeholder working, so much as the overall wikiprocess. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think there is a loose consensus to do so as the only thing the RfC over these established was that a lot of people don't like them but had no replacement and beyond the aesthetic changes already made had no alternative. Ergo this is the latest and best we have for now. And, the biggest reason there was a split is that they do work, it was pointed out in the RfC and last time at ANI OTRS volunteers pointed this out as well. - these placeholders are very successful at getting us free photographs. We get on the order of several dozens of photograph submissions per week for articles that have such placeholders. A new RfC was proposed suggesting that OTRS present some statistics and that part of the RfC "ask people if they would accept the placeholder if it simply looked cooler?" I don't think anything has moved forward on that front. Meanwhile this is something that is getting images for the project. I suppose a beneficial study, if someone is up for such a thing, would be to track a set of several hundred(?) BLPs and see how many that employ the placeholders until replaced - versus prematurely removed - a compared to BLP that never have the image placeholders actually get images over a reasonable length of time. -- Banjeboi 02:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional citations?

Is there any consensus to remove the "additional citations needed" tag? The article now seems well sourced, to me, anyway. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

For the size of the article it does seem rather well sourced. If it weren't for the {{citation needed}} tags being placed throughout the article on every little detail i would completely agree to remove the tags at the top. Star Magazine doesn't have an archive online from what i have found and i don't know where one would find the particular issue from January 1990. Sadly, until someone who has that issue can include the ref it will be a futile attempt. The tag would just be put back in the article by someone else. delirious & lost ☯ ^TALK 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Planted a tree with the placenta?

This really is not appropriate in the first paragraph of the article. Oh well, I'm not going to be the one to delete it :-) Rock on Wikipedia! Gandydancer (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

Bono has a new book...

Transition - The Story of How I Became a Man (2011) ISBN 9780525952145

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780525952145,00.html?Transition_Chaz_Bono —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.174.28 (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

First time I've ever been on Wikipedia to speak, though I spend hours browsing it, thrilled by the erudition and lunacy/idiocy. In other words, I feel like I'm with family here. Note that I do not presume to correct the article. I don't see that as my place to do. Note also that I know I use a lot of fragments. But they are the kind that do not impair an understanding of what I write, so I don't care about fragmentation here.

My heart goes out to this man. (Chaz). He's done some difficult things

Two things:

1. See if you can get a better picture of him. He says he's a man. That should be good enough for general social purposes. He says it, thus he is. Now, as to the better photo. I'm not being funny. He looks like he has lipstick. Nope, men don't wear lipstick. Don't encourage it, ok? The traditional male model leads to a healthier society in general. Without the majority of men in this country acting like the majority of men have always acted in this country, you'll have lots of dysfunction in the US. Lipstick matters. Plus, he'll look more like a man and will be better accepted with a better photo. Now if he (or someone else) says he always wears lipsticks because it is who he is, and the photo must be that way, I'd throw up my hands and say 'it's your call Chaz; I get your honesty, but maybe little white lies can help a society as well as individuals. This society has given you a lot of freedom. Now YOU show some respect and adapt to typical social mores. If my kids come here, I'd prefer you not be wearing lipstick. Think about that, ok?’ If everyone will quit being so ostentatiously courageous and bend on the unimportant things we'll have a happier more accepting society. (4 to 1 that the lipstick photo stays. That's a shame.)

2. Might see if you can get a quote with tighter logic to it. Might even contact him for it. Likely he has seen this article and read it, so maybe he'll supply one. The article says:

Bono came out to both parents as lesbian at age 18. In Family Outing, Bono wrote that, "as a child, I always felt there was something different about me. I'd look at other girls my age and feel perplexed by their obvious interest in the latest fashion, which boy in class was the cutest, and who looked the most like cover girl Christie Brinkley. When I was 13, I finally found a name for exactly how I was different. I realized I was gay."[10]

Every sentence in there might be true, but the 'A' of no interest in fashion, which guy was cutest, and who looks like CB has no bearing on the B of being gay. Had he said she liked girls as part of A, well, fine. That leads to B. No, that IS B! But the stated premises, without the more of liking girls, would be more likely to be found in a free thinking high-school girl who likes boys and who brighter straight guys might find interesting. If you can't find or get a tighter quote, I'd suggest just pulling this one. Not my call though. (1 to 1 that this is fixed)

Thanks for letting me talk a bit.

That’s it.173.57.49.124 (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has spent hours perusing wikipedia, I'm sure you're well aware of the host of guidelines and policies that we follow to ensure articles are as objective as possible and of the most encyclopedic tone as possible. Of paramount importance are that what we represent here should be free of personal bias and reflect only what is states in reputable sources, notbased on our own research/opinions/logic/etc. Sometimes this may seem counter-intuitive, but it is essential to how Wiki operates. To address your points: 1) We cannot pick and choose which picture to show based on whether you agree with his choice of wearing lipstick. We are not in the business of social engineering or censorship. I understand and respect your right to an opinion on how this man's choice of lip covering may somehow impact society as a whole based on a traditionalist view of what men and women should or shouldn't be. However, please recognize that is your view, not a universal truth. It's an inherently subjective thing. As such, we can't favor one view over another. If he wears lipstick the majority of the time, then that's the most representative picture of him. Conversely, if he didn't, and someone wanted to only use a picture showing him in lipstick to promote another agenda, it would be equally incorrect. Wiki reflects what is, not what we want things to be. 2) Regarding the quote, again, we use the actual quote, or a reputable source. We cannot apply our own logic, our own research, or own personal feelings on the subject to shade what we include. This is what he said, and is what it should be reflected. Again, and I'm certainly not assuming any bad intent on your part, I'd ask you to reflect on the fact that we are not here to censor, or to promote a certain viewpoint. We are here to mirror what is said in reputable sources; we are editors, not content providers. Just as you would ask other editors to assume Good Faith in discussing your proposed changes, please accord us the same courtesy. Making comments about how likely you think somehting is to be changed, and "it's a shame" is not productive, and unlikely to win people over. I suggest we leave both propsed changes as they currently are, because they do not meet the letter or spirit of wiki policy and guideline. I do than kyou for discussing them, though, instead of making unilateral changes.204.65.34.145 (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.82.68.38, 13 May 2011

Date of birth is March 2, 1969 (not Mar 4)

74.82.68.33 (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 04:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.39.244.89, 13 May 2011

Chaz's girlfriend Jennifer's last name is Elia, per Piers Morgan's show that I'm watching now.

96.39.244.89 (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Not that I don't believe you, but please provide a source. This is strictly required for articles on living people CTJF83 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Source CTJF83 15:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't He/She She/He or It be a better pronoun?

Im very partail to it but people generly arn't referd to as such.Is there any word even slang that would be approprite?Because i see this artical as very confusing 66.175.172.233 (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The pronouns are correct, as by the Wikipedia policies of MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Using surname rather than pronouns for the most part seems to be the easiest way to avoid being innaccurate when a person has been well known pre and post transition.RafikiSykes (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If a pronoun is to be used, for anything in the current, it should be "he". Using the last name is fine, but stylistically, it starts to get repetitive, if it's replacing he/his/etc it could easily show up multiple times in a sentence. In any case, he/she is a slightly archaic, and generally unwelcome term as far as I can tell. I don't know if it's "offensive" per se, but seems like using "oriental" instead of "asian", but maybe with a little more prejorative implication. Just like racial self-identification (i.e. we call children of mixed heritage what they identify as...be it one of the two, or biracial, etc.), if he identifies as male, given his situation, he's male.204.65.34.145 (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"He/she" is a highly offensive term to use in describing a man, especially a trans man like Chaz. There is no need to use any other pronouns in describing Chaz other than "he," "him," "his," and "himself." To do it any differently, to treat Chaz any differently in this manner than one would treat any other man, is at best ignorant and at worst extremely discriminatory and bigoted. Rebecca (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki links

I was interested to see that where 'transgender' is mentioned in the first line of the article, the link does not in fact take one to the correct page (which would be here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender ) but instead to a page on LGBT rights by country.

Any idea why this might be ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth1984 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have been fixed by another user. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Engagement

Can someone who isn't transphobic like the author of the hateful comment I removed add information about Chaz's new special on OWN, Being Chaz, and his proposal to his girlfriend? http://www.aoltv.com/2011/11/27/chaz-bono-fiancee-being-chaz/ 76.204.91.45 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What about photo images?

I was thinking that perhaps there should be a photo of Bono from his childhood days. There should be a photo from that time, as he was really visable with his parents. I think people like myself remember him as a child as a child on the Sonny and Cher TV shows. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)