Talk:Isla Bryson case/Archive 1

Archive 1

Response from the LGBT community

Would it be appropriate to include a section on this? (testing testing 123) - the response has been either indifference or support for the Scottish Govs decision on the matter. Of course I refer to reliable sources issuing a response, such as Stonewall. SinoDevonian (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If there's anything available then I think it would be worth including. This is Paul (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns

I know that we usually refer to people by the pronouns they prefer, but should we make an exception in this case? PatGallacher (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to do here. I've referred to Bryson as "he" when discussing the subject's pre-trans life and "she" everywhere else. I don't know if that's correct though. This is Paul (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID requires we respect self-identification when it comes to pronouns. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What about WP:IAR? PatGallacher (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be a tough case to make when all sources use “she”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want a exception in this case? Per MOS:DEADNAME Bryson should not have her previous identity mentioned or male pronouns. Dougal18 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

As this is an unusual situation, and one I suspect we haven't had to address before now, I wonder if it's worth getting some wider feedback. I'll add a few thoughts here though after consulting the guidelines. The article discusses an individual in the context of a legal case rather than being a biography, and her actions (including her decision to change gender) have had a bearing on some of the events. I wonder if her previous identity is relevant here because she committed the offences and was charged under that identity, and had not legally changed her gender. It appears all she had to do was tell the prison authorities she self-identified as female. From a descriptive point of view though, using the same pronoun throughout the article works better and is less confusing. She had self-identified as female so we should reflect that in the article, but do be aware that male pronouns are still used when using direct quotes (that is relevant because we're quoting someone's words and should stay faithful to what is said). This is Paul (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME encourages editors to either paraphrase or redact pronouns that reflect pretransition gender identity, following a widely-participared RfC specifically about such quotations. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, reflecting on the use/mention distinction - there is no policy-based reason not to mention the subject's sex assignment or prior gender identity. However, the article should not use that identity by including pronouns etc. reflecting their pre-transition status. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Birth name

In "Background", I've changed the opening sentence from "Originally a male named Adam Graham" to "Previously a male named Adam Graham" as it appears "Adam Graham" may not be his birth name. Someone changed the text earlier but I've changed it back as unsourced. The discussion thread at the end of this article makes reference to a different birth name, however. The source wouldn't be regarded as reliable, and there's no way to verify it, but in case of any doubt I've altered the opening sentence in the interests of reflecting the situation as accurately as possible. This is Paul (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't seen any policy-compliant reason to introduce the Isla's deadname to this article, nor have I seen a consensus established anywhere to Ignore All Rules. Newimpartial (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You have seen a policy compliant reason. You are just ignoring it because you don't like it. I repeat, the very page you linked me to said this:

"In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name"

That is obviously the case here. This rapist was known as Adam Graham both when he was raping women and when he was initially appearing in court for those offences. I look forward to seeing your argument as to why, in those circumstances, the fact that his name, at that time, was Adam Graham, is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

As I said in one of my prior edit sunmaries, you don't seem to understand how notability is used to assess deadnames of trans people on Wikipedia. What matters is when the coverage was published, in relation to the name change. I have tried, and failed, to find any coverage of this case that included the former name that is dated prior to the name change.

Also, please stop misgendering this person. You can feel as hostile towards them as you want, but by misgendering them you are communicating - wittingly or unwittingly - hostility towards all trans editors, in violation of WP:CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I note you still offer no coherent argument as to why Adam Graham is not notable under that name, even though sources confirm that that was his name at the relevant. I struggle to see how the dates of those sources are remotely relevant.

Also, perhaps realising that you are losing the argument, you are now trying to obfuscate by attacking me for 'misgendering'. Stop it. It won't work. Firstly, you do not speak for all trans editors, so please don't act as if you do. Secondly, I think all objective editors - whether trans or not - would realise that there is a clear and obvious distinction between being hostile to rapists (which I freely admit I am) and being hostile to trans people generally. Id you cannot see that distinction, that is your problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

On your last point, please read what I actually wrote, q.v., You can feel as hostile towards them as you want. My point is that by misgendering them, you create a hostile environment for trans editors in contravention of WP:CIVIL. I do not pretend to speak for any trans editors apart from myself, when it comes to feelings about this, but the fact that misgendering (and the tolerance of misgendering by a community) contributes to a hostile environment is something that many other editors have pointed out before, notably in this ANI discussion and its sequels. There are ways to express your hostility to rapists, even as BLP subjects, without misgendering them or contravening WP:CIVIL.

There is an on-wiki distinction between verifiability and notability. There is no doubt that this person's former name is verifiable, and has been frequently mentioned. However, this isn't a policy-based reason to include the former name of a trans person in a WP article: the threshold is, was this person written about in multiple reliable sources, using their former name, before the name change based on their gender identity? I haven't seen any evidence presented showing that this test had been met in this case, nor have I seen any consensus to ignore all rules because they are a convicted rapist. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Lets look at the sources shall we. We have the source in the article itself (which you keep trying to censor). In addition, we have the following:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-two-rapes-scamming-courts-says-wife/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23302287.confusion-sturgeon-refers-double-rapist-she-her/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/four-of-five-trans-inmates-in-womens-prisons-are-murderers-pbfvdqqft

As you can clearly see, mainstream respectable sources consistently mention Adam Graham's original name. Why? Because it is so obviously and patently relevant. Because - as everyone but you seems to understand - where a man rapes women as a man, and appears in court as a man, and then sudden;y claims (without evidence) to be a woman (raising the completely obvious suspicion, which even the First Minister has articulated, that he is simply faking it to get access to vulnerable women - it is vital that his original identity is remembered and acknowledged.

And whinge about 'misgendering' all you want, but when someone rapes people, their subjective stance about what gender they suddenly are doesn't mean very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether multiple respectable sources mention the subject's pretransition name, according to WP policy, if they only do so in reports published after their transition (which all these reports you have linked seem to be). The current article version most certainly does "remember and acknowlege" the convicted rapist's prior gender identity, it simply does so without violating WP policy (by using male pronouns or mentioning the former name).

Also, I'd advise you not to accuse other editors of "whinging about 'misgendering'", especially trans editors: that is clearly a CIVIL violation and probably a reliable WP:NOTHERE indicator as well. But if you have edited Wikipedia previously, you should know this. Newimpartial (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that 'previously known as Adam Graham' should be included in the first sentence because that is what the person was known as when they did their most notable act (the rapes). It is therefore similar to the examples of Chelsea Manning and Elliot Page which is mentioned in MOS:DEADNAME Munci (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s not similar because the subject was not notable under their previous name, unlike Chelsea Manning and Elliot Page who both had notoriety/fame under their previous names. The only rationale I can see for including the previous name would be if reliable sources adopt the stance that the subject’s transgender identity was faked (cf. Sturgeon’s comment). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess we'll find out in time if that's the case, but it's worth noting that the name everyone is using here doesn't appear to be the person's birth name (see here for example). This is Paul (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

As of right now, the article is not neutral and unbiased

Could there be an active effort to provide both sides of the debate? JDBauby (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

An accused person isn't under obligation to declare the information to a college or university if they enrol at that institution, so this is one area where both sides of the argument can be included, but I doubt we'll find anything supporting the decision to send a convicted rapist to a women's prison. This is Paul (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"The prospect of a convicted rapist serving a sentence in a women's prison sparked heated political debate"

If there is a debate, I do not see those who don't oppose it in the article, only those who oppose Bryson in a women's prison. JDBauby (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps "strong criticism from a number of sources" would be better, as that's basically what's happened. This is Paul (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! So far I haven't seen anything defending the decision to send her to Cornton Vale, if anyone knows of it please bring it to our attention. The college was hardly in a position to search through court rolls about cases pending, point taken, although some might question if a transwoman should have been allowed on a course like this. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite. The only thing the LGBT community+allies and trans groups have had to say about this is "this is the correct decision, case by case, but don't let this become a blanket rule" etc.--SinoDevonian (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Further information

I haven't edited this article for a while, because instinct told me it was possibly wise not to do so since any topic involving transgender people appears to be quite divisive these days. But I shall be doing more work on it once the sentencing hearing takes place. In addition to that information I think we'll also need to reflect Sturgeon's comments here and possibly find a rebuttal to them (if there is one). I'll copyedit a couple of the sections as well, but don't propose to take anything out other than some repetitive stuff (for example, the 10 Downing Street spokesman's comments are also reflected by Dominic Raab, so that could be merged). When I've finished I'll submit it for a WP:COPYEDIT as I'm sure it could do with an experienced copyeditor taking a look at it. This is Paul (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

When was she first arrested?

I know she started transitioning in 2020, but the page doesn't say if that was before or after she was accused of rape. I think that detail is relevant to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.152.110 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe she was arrested and charged before she started transitioning. Certainly the crimes were committed before she started transitioning. This is Paul (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

People can be curious about various things, but what matters in terms of possible inclusion of a former name is whether the BLP subject met Wikipedia's notability standards pre-(social)transition. Neither committing a crime nor being arrested for it matters in that determination; only the publication of sources does. Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A lot of sources mention the previous name, so it's a matter of public record. It seems quite strange that we can discuss the history of someone like David Carrick, but can't do the same in this case. This is Paul (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Conservatives' statement

As I noted in an edit summary, false statements about the law should not be included even with good sources, when other sources - as good or better - exist contradicting them. This is a WP:BLP, which raises the threshold for inclusion. If this is to be re-added, sources clarifying the law should also be added.

Also, This is Paul, the article text you re-added[1] makes the additional error of attributing to Police Scotland - as a factual statement - what is actually prented in the source as a political demand by the Scottish Conservatives. Newimpartial (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Police Scotland did say they would record this crime as having been committed by a man (see here). Indeed, the Scotsman says A police spokesman confirmed Bryson was arrested and charged as a man and the crimes would be recorded as such. So what is wrong with including that? The law also states that only a man can commit rape (find me a law book that doesn't say that). Also, with regard to your statement that sources clarifying the law should also be added, those sources would need to be discussing that in the context of this case, otherwise it would constitute original research, which we must leave to the academics and the media.

One of the problems with this article is that people are so busy trying to be politically correct and/or worrying about offending someone that it now ignores the basic facts of the case. This person was a man when they committed their crimes. This person was charged as a man, and initially appeared in court as a man. This person only chose to undergo transgender therapy after they were charged. The very controversy of this case is that a person with male genitalia, who had committed a violent sexual crime against two women, was sent to a women's prison, prompting a political storm. Had Bryson not been sent to a women's prison (and just gone straight to Barlinnie or somewhere similar) then this article wouldn't exist because there would have been no reason to write it. Now let's turn to the question of when anonymity should apply. While transgender people deserve anonymity and the respect of us all, should we really be extending that to criminals, especially when the crime they committed was committed before they transitioned. If the answer is yes, then the article cannot be impartial because it doesn't reflect what actually happened and can't faithfully report the events in an impartial way. In fact, we appear to be getting to the situation where it can't reflect what happened because there's a danger of someone kicking off about it. It's also worth mentioning that our gender policy suggests that a previous identity should only be mentioned if the person was famous before they underwent transitioning. I'd argue that we should extend that to people who commit serious crime, where the crime was committed before the person transitioned. I've no doubt this will come up again at a future point with a future article, and it needs to be addressed. This is Paul (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage the participation of other editors, so I have tried to concentrate on key points:

• Concerning Police Scotland did say they would record this crime as having been committed by a man - yes, and the article text on this was untouched by my edit.
• Concerning The law also states that only a man can commit rape - For purposes of Wikipedia, a non-opinion source on Scottish law would be required so this is not simply original research - for instance, Police Scotland says something different: The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 states that rape occurs when a person intentionally or recklessly penetrates another person’s vagina, anus or mouth with their penis, where the victim does not consent and the person responsible has no reasonable belief that the victim is giving consent.
• Concerning This person was a man when they committed their crimes. This person was charged as a man, and initially appeared in court as a man. This person only chose to undergo transgender therapy after they were charged. The very controversy of this case is that a person with male genitalia, who had committed a violent sexual crime against two women, was sent to a women's prison, prompting a political storm. - yes, and both the current version of this article and all previous versions I've looked at communicate this clearly, as far as I can tell.
• Concerning It's also worth mentioning that our gender policy suggests that a previous identity should only be mentioned if the person was famous before they underwent transitioning. I'd argue that we should extend that to people who commit serious crime, where the crime was committed before the person transitioned. I've no doubt this will come up again at a future point with a future article, and it needs to be addressed. - This was discussed recently at the relevant policy page with respect to a different case (of a convicted sex offender) that raised related issues. The proposal to change MOS:GENDERID was in that instance WP:SNOW closed in the discussion found here (closed but not yet archived). That Talk page would be the preferred location to seek a change to the relevant guideline (as a new discussion).

Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the discussion and look at opening a new one. I'm concerned you think the Scotsman article is an opinion piece. Is it not a piece of journalism reporting what somebody said, which is slightly different. An opinion piece would be if someone wrote an op-ed discussing the case. There are plenty of those to be found, but this isn't one of them. This is Paul (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my writing wasn't clear. The piece that I removed is WP:RS journalism, but the claim it was used for, that the crime was recorded as it was because "in law, rape can only be committed by a male" does not appear as a statement of fact in the source. We don't have a non-opinion source presenting this as fact.

The assertion also does not appear, as it did in the version you re-added,[2] as a statement by Police Scotland. Rather, it is a statement by the Scottish Conservatives: But the Tories said SNP ministers must give the police “unequivocal direction” that rapists must always be recorded as male criminals because “in law, rape can only be committed by a male”. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

While The Scotsman's article is reporting, the "in law, rape can only be committed by a male" quotation seems to be from the Scottish Tory party, or possibly from Russell Findlay who is quoted in the following paragraph. That would therefore be the opinion of either the anonymous party spokesperson or Findlay, depending on who actually said it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m fairly sure when I wrote this article I found something supporting the statement as it appears here, but I don’t recall the title now. I probably thought the Scotsman the more credible of the two sources, so should double check in future. It may be the other article was amended because it was misinterpreting what was said, but I guess the original text is lost now. I did spend some time Googling some key words, but without success. Having said that, the Scotsman source does say that Bryson's crimes would be recorded as having been committed by a male, so it should be a legitimate source to support that statement. At the moment there's no reference to support that sentence, and there should be one in an article like this. This is Paul (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough; I have added the ref for the relevant statement. Newimpartial (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)