Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3


About this page

Wikipedia's Manual of Style has guidance on presenting gender identity as part of its front presentation at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. This is useful because it is concise and easy to find. This is problematic because space is scarce here, and limited to 5-10 sentences. Another problem is this topic is the subject of popular discussion which has been getting mixed up in many places.

In establishing this style page, I wish to avoid making any changes to the current recommendations, and instead only wish to establish a place for centralized discussion. I have sought out conversations on this topic in various places and listed them here. I expect that the presentation of this list demonstrates that the conversation happens in many places and that many people have an interest in developing this topic. The infrastructure context of my starting this list and this page is that Wikipedia has no effective search function which makes all these discussions easily accessible, so in order for anyone to review past discussion and determine consensus for practice, we have to manually curate and share all the discussions in a format like this for anyone to consider.

I am putting this page at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity, which is the usual format for expanding off the Manual of Style. Thanks to anyone who can work this further. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

At this point I think attempting to collect as many discussions as possible, both past and present, is almost definitely the best thing that can be done at this point. You mentioned that Wikipedia doesn't really have an ideal search function for finding discussions so I wanted to ask how you are most efficiently looking for discussions. I also wanted to bring up the question of a global question of gender identity as something that should be carefully be taken into consideration, since this is an English language Wikipedia and it is very is an likely for discussions to become Anglophone centric as well as focused solely on the experiences of Europeans and Americans (broader sense for people who live in North and South America). —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 01:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
The trolling the talkpage's of the articles in the lists List of transgender people and List of people with non-binary gender identities might be a good place to start. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 03:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Should this article be added to the list of Wikipedia:Centralized discussions to increase visibility? —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 02:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm pinging both @Bluerasberry: and @Fæ: because this page isn't getting very little attention in contrast to the amount of discussion that is taking place and I increasingly feel like putting adding it to Wikipedia:Centralized discussions. I can't think of a good title for its addition, so I'm wondering if either of you have ideas. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 21:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Having a separate guideline to supplement MOS makes sense. How this fits in with existing guidelines or essays that do (at least some) of the same things, like WP:TRANS? will take some thought. --Fæ (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for putting this together. A central collection of links to discussion about this topic will be very helpful. I'm not sure I see the need for it to have a recommendations or conclusion section, though. Surely the community's ultimate conclusion is whatever is presented in MOS:GENDERID? I'm also a little confused about the scope of this. Is the idea that, in the future, any discussion of how to handle gender identity will happen here, on this talk page? If so maybe the title of the article should be changed to something like "Gender identity discussion hub"? WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
My understanding so far, given what Blue Rasberry has said, and what I've observed, the information found at MOS:MULTINAMES, MOS:BIRTHNAME, and MOS:ID, the only official policies which cover the issues relevant to gender identy and the way transgender and non-binary people are refered to are neccesarily very short, as to keep the Manual of Style from becoming to long, but its shortness also makes the policies agnostic in many aspects that are much in need of standardization. I think the lack of detail in official policy has led to multiple conversations and arguments over a variety of situations, all of which could have been likely shortened or eliminated if a more detailed policy guidline existed. In that sense the reccomendations/conclusions section makes sense in the future once a consensus of consensuses found in multiple disscussions is foudn and then consolidated into possible policy. I mainly see this talk page as a meta disscussion about furthure action and goals, while the page itself represents the results of those actions. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 06:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Tagged as "essay"

I have this page tagged with {{essay}}. It is not an essay, but instead a proposed complement to the manual of style which needs some community review. I tagged it as "essay" because I am not sure what is a better tag for an unreviewed proposal. I tried to avoid putting opinions into this, and mostly I want to share the list of prior discussions which should be objective. If anyone has an idea for a better tag then please change it. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Essay -> proposal with RFC -> guideline seems logical. --Fæ (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This proper tag is {{Draft proposal}}; then, when it's done being drafted and is submitted to WP:VPPRO, {{Proposal}}. If this were meant to stand as an essay, it would be moved out from under "WP:Manual of Style" since it isn't and wouldn't be part of MoS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll change the tag then since the current end goal seems to be make reccomendatioms for changes to the Manual of Style based on preexisting disscussion. Nevermind its already been done. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 13:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Thanks yes that is the right tag. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Organization

I suggest organizing the discussions by date rather than location. I suspect many people will be interested in just seeing the newest discussions on this topic, or else in getting a picture in how the community's discussions have evolved over time. Mockup:

Alternatively, the list could be rendered as a sortable table, which might be nicer for the reader but, on the other hand, more intimidating for the editor:

Date Discussion Location
April 2007 Transgender pronoun / identity Wikipedia:Manual of Style
September 2007 Transgender pronoun issue Wikipedia:Manual of Style
August 2008 Gender Wikipedia:Manual of Style
February 2009 Gender of gender-ambiguous persons Wikipedia:Manual of Style
June 2009 Gender pronouns Wikipedia:Manual of Style
June 2010 Manning's sexuality/gender identity Chelsea Manning

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and went ahead and rearranged the list by date. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
In light of my statements in the above section about the purpose of this page and the likelihood that we are probably going to be expanding the information about each of the discussion links I think a table should be used instead, even if its harder to edit, because information is more easily accessible that way. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 18:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm a little hesitant but not completely opposed. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 14:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@WanderingWanda:It has been done, see how it looks and feels. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 17:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
T.E.A. It's definitely nicer and easier to read now, thanks. (Though we'll see how I feel once I try editing it!)
A note that I don't think we have to fill in the conclusion section for every discussion. That is, if it feels like there's nothing to say, there's no need to say it. :) WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 23:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 03:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Areas where there isn't clarity...

In my view there are two main areas where the MoS is not providing guidance where it ought to be. See below. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Outside of main biographical articles

We need to determine the consensus for how to refer to trans individuals outside of their main biographical articles (when referring to a period before they came out.)

Currently, instead of offering clear guidance, the MoS just says Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Which is basically the same thing as saying "The MoS doesn't take a position on this". As a result, one article might handle it this way: U.S. track and field athlete Bruce Jenner won. And another might handle it this way: the court-martial of Chelsea Manning (then Bradley Manning)

I think there needs to be another RfC on this. (The last one was in 2015.) On the MoS talk page, I proposed adding the following to the MoS to provide clarity:

[For any person whose gender might be questioned:] While former names may be judiciously mentioned, they should never be used, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. (See: use-mention distinction.) Use italics to indicate that you are mentioning but not using a name. For example, if Jane Doe won a gold medal under the name John Doe, do not write John Doe won a gold medal. Instead, you can write Jane Doe won a gold medal with a note saying she was competing as John Doe.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree that this should be revisited. Opening another, well prepared, RFC at least two years after the previous one is not controversial. --Fæ (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Historical figures

There is often controversy about how to refer to historical figures. Take the case of Dr. James Barry, who lived in the 1800s. He was assigned female at birth but lived as a man publicly and privately, from the time he was a young man until his death. He also tried to make arrangements so that his body would not be examined after death, which is to say: his dying wish was that he would be remembered as a man after he was gone. By any reasonable metric, he was of the male gender, and this should be respected. And yet his article currently awkwardly avoids using any pronouns to refer to him. For reasons I have a hard time understanding, the idea of referring to him as a male seems to upset some people's sensibilities (or should I say their cisibilities, hoho.) Anyway an RfC is likely needed on this too. I recommend adding language like this to either the MoS or to our new Gender Identity supplement:

In the case of a historical figure, if reliable sources indicate that they lived consistently as a gender other than the one assigned at birth, use the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns that reflect the gender they lived as. Avoiding pronouns altogether is awkward in English and should be avoided unless there is no other option. Avoid definitively calling someone transgender unless mainstream sources consistently do so.

WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 15:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

This opens an uncountable number of cans of worms. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of complexity, this would be a reasonable proposal to attempt, so long as there was significant emphasis on how any change must be guided by the credible and recent reliable sources. "Recent" may be an important factor, many of our BDPs rely on reliable sources that are several decades old, consequently the language used by older sources may be far less appropriate when measured by external (off-wiki) commonly accepted guidelines for modern writers and journalists. --Fæ (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Photographs

Is another area where guidance could be provided. (See: the RfCs about photos for Ortberg and the Wachowskis). Perhaps a guideline that a pre-transition photo should not be used as a lead image. And an additional guideline that pre-transition photos should be avoided altogether unless the subject and their appearance was especially well known pre-transition. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 09:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Recommendations

Well, I went ahead and filled out the "Recommendations" section. I consider what I wrote to be even-handed, consensus-minded, and informed by past discussions. At the same time, though, my intention was not just to neutrally summarize all the past discussions. It is called the "Recommendations" section after all, not the "Summary" section. Let me all know what you think. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I've made some changes myself mostly to phrasing, I don't think the content is that different than what you originally wrote. I also want to thank you for still coming back to this and keeping it alive. What is currently written in the recommendations section seems good and fair and could probably be pushed forward as a proposal at this point. In includes everything, as far as I can tell, thats been mention on this talkpage except how trans people should be referred to on articles where they are not the subject. Besides that I can't think of anything else that would need covering in any future proposal. With that in mind, do you think it would make sense to begin the proposal process?—T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 14:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
T.E.A.: Thanks for your edits. Before beginning the proposal process, I think we should spin the discussion timeline off into its own essay page. Would that be objectionable to anyone? The timeline is valuable but also, to me, doesn't feel like it belongs in the manual of style. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense to me, any idea on what name space or under what name it should be stored? —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 15:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda: I've moved the table of discussions to a subpage of my user page, User:The Editor's Apprentice/Gender Identity Discussion Timeline, for now as a place to store it. I've also made a lot of mostly cosmetic changes to the page in preparation for its future proposal. If everything looks good and you think its ready feel free to start the proposal, or if you don't want to, I can.—T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 01:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not mind spinning it off so long as it is clearly accessible through a link. I encourage development of a proposal but I am not sure how much participation or consensus we will find in setting a policy. The timeline includes case studies which actually reached consensus and are solid precedent; this proposal is not there yet, and I expect that many people will want this proposal to have some connection to what has come before. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
My edit did contain a link to the table, which was admittedly not in a very easy to find place, would it work to put the link in the lead section? You're right, I jumped the gun by pushing for proposal now. I think if we followed the steps outlined in WP:PROPOSAL we would have a good chance of finding individuals to participate and build consensus. With that in mind, I think we are near the end of the first step where we have had a good amount of discussion on this talk page about what we want policy to look like and would benefit in retrying to get people's attention on the talkpage for WikiProject LGBT studies in order to gain further and broader input from the Wikipedia community. The goal behind my edit was to change the presentation on the page to more clearly present the page as a draft proposal and not merely "a collection of information on Wikipedia's gender identity guidelines" because it is not that. I don't think my edits really changed the content of the page in any significant way. I would also say that the content currently contained in the "Additional recommendations" section is well rooted in previous discussion and is unlikely to be a shock to those reviewing the draft/proposal.—T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 19:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Terminology re sexual preferences of transgender persons

This edit caught my eye -- particularly the sentence reading: " He has had a large lesbian fanbase since the beginning of his career with K's Choice, but it was not until May 2002 that he officially came out to the public as lesbian." I think I see a problem in there somewhere but I'm not sure where, or even whether. If there is a problem in there somewhere, I have no idea in the world what to suggest. Perhaps someone more enlightened regarding this draft guideline proposal has a better idea than I. If so, I'm curious what that might be.

Perhaps something analogous to this is needed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: According to the page, which cites this news article which is based on this this YouTube video, on May 17th of this year Bettens came out publicly as a transgender man. I'm entirely unsure about the book you linked to, which is honestly a little over my head. Based on current policy located at MOS:GENDERID "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." I would say that Bettens falls under this policy because of his recent transition. Following the policy, the article should refer to Bettens as a man using the pronouns he, him, and his, even when referring to times before his transition. When it comes to how that particular sentence should be phrased, I would suggest something along the lines of "Before his transition and during the beginning of his work with K's Choice in 1994, Bettens had a large lesbian fanbase and publicly came out as a lesbian in May 2002." I am aware that can be a confusing sentence to read, but I'm unsure that it could be better phrased. Another thing that I noticed is that the current photo used on the page is of Sam before his transition, as mentioned in the #Photographs and #Recommendations sections of this page its inclusion may be ideal, but as noted by another user it may make sense to keep it since Bettens was notable before his transition. Do with that information what you will. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 23:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The practice isn't specific to people who are transgender: "He came out as a lesbian" is no different from common phrases like "Pope Francis was born in Buenos Aires" and "Dr. Brown earn his Bachelor's degree in 1976." This article provides the necessary context by mentioning Bettens' 2019 transition in the lead.
The specific edit in question is certainly an improvement over the previous version which seems to use "he" and "she" interchangeably in the same sentence. –dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
If mean by "this practice" you mean the use of the way that some one is currently called when discussing their life before they where referred to that way, I would say that the second example you gave does not align with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Titles of people and the first may not align with MOS:CHANGEDNAME, specifically the end about Pope John Paul I. A note to take would be that the current version of Pope Francis refers to him as "Jorge Mario Bergoglio" in the early years section contrary to what it sounds like you mean. If you are solely meaning "current first and last names are used retroactively in articles", then I agree with you.—T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 01:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

he officially came out to the public as lesbian is not incorrect, per se, but I worry people will read it and assume he currently identifies as a lesbian. I'm going to change it to: Before coming out as trans, there was a period where he publicly identified as a lesbian, starting in May 2002, and he has had a large lesbian fanbase since the beginning of his career with K's Choice in the 90's. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

--

Whether the lead photo is appropriate is an interesting question. Since he came out as trans this year and the photo was taken in 2016, technically speaking it goes against the proposed guideline I recently created: Don't use an out-of-date, pre-coming-out photo of a trans subject as a lead image. But, I don't know... he comes off as masculine in the photo? I'd like to hear other perspectives, but it doesn't feel confusingly or disrespectfully out-of-date to me. Maybe it will in a few years, depending on how much his appearance changes. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the current lead photo does come off as masculine, though not as masculine as what he looks like more currently. I would agree that at this point I am okay with keeping the photo but would encourage the use of a post-transition photo as soon as one becomes accessible. —T.E.A. (Talk•Edits) 17:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Following up on the Douglas Adams snippet I linked above, a friend of mine in Colorado just sent me the following (I've wikified it a bit). I'm not sure whether or not he was serious about this being from a bill passed by the Colorado legislature.

What is listed below will be taught in Colorado grammar schools due to the controversial bill that was passed this year.

SexualitY

  • Romantic Orientation- Who you are romantically attracted to meaning wanting to be in a romantic relationship with and is unrelated to sexual attraction.
  • Sexual Orientation- Who you are sexually attracted to meaning who you get turned on by or who you would want to engage in sexual behaviors with.
  • note all listed below are applicable also to romantic orientations. These take the prefix of the word and the ending -romantic, i.e. heteroromantic, panromantic, aromantic.
  • Heterosexual- The attraction to a gender different from their own (commonly used to describe someone who is gender binary [female or male] attracted to the other binary gender).
  • Homosexual- The attraction to a gender the same as their own (commonly used to describe someone who is gender binary [female or male] attracted to the same binary gender). Sometimess referred to as gay.
  • Lesbian- Women who are attracted only to other women
  • Bisexual- When you are attracted to two or more genders. This term is generally used to describe being attracted to men and women, but can apply to being attracted to any two or more genders. Note that you do not have to be equally attracted to each gender.
  • Pansexual- When you are attracted to all genders and/or do not concern gender when you are attracted towards someone
  • Bicurious- People who are open to experiment with genders that are not only their own, but do not know if they are open to forming any sort of relationship with multiple genders.
  • Polysexual- When you are attracted to many genders
  • Monosexual- Being attracted to only one gender
  • Allosexual- When you are not asexual (attracted to at least one gender)
  • Androsexual- Being attracted to masculine gender presentation
  • Gynosexual- Being attracted to feminine gender presentation
  • Questioning- People who are debating their own sexuality/gender
  • Asexual- Not experiencing sexual attraction (note that you can also be aromantic and you do not necessarily have to be asexual and aromantic at the same time). Sometimes the term, ace, is used to describe asexuals.
  • Demisexual- When you only experience sexual attraction after forming a strong emotional bond first or a romantic bond
  • Grey Asexual- When you only experience attraction rarely, on a very low scale, or only under certain circumstances
  • Perioriented- When your sexual and romantic orientation targets the same gender (for example being heteromantic and heterosexual or being biromantic and bisexual)
  • Varioriented- When your sexual and romantic orientations do not target the same set of genders (for example being heteromantic and bisexual or being homoromantic and pansexual)
  • Heteronormative- The belief that hetersexuality is the norm and that sex, gender, sexuality, and gender roles all align
  • Erasure- Ignoring the existance of genders and sexualities in the middle of the spectrum
  • Cishet- Someone who is both cisgendered and heterosexual. This is sometimes used as a slur.
  • Polyamorous- An umbrella term referring to people who have or are open to have consensually have relationships with multiple people at the same time
  • Monoamorous- People who have or or open to have relationships with only one other person at a time. The term, monogamous, is also sometimes used.
  • Queer- A reclaimed slur for anybody in the LGBT+ community or who do not identify as cisgender and/or hetersexual/heteromantic
  • Ally- A supporter of the LGBT+ community that does not identify as LGBT+

Gender & Sex

  • Sex- Your assigned gender at birth and/or the gender of your reproductive organs
  • Gender- Where you feel that you personally fall on the spectrum between male and female. Commonly people identify as male or female, but some fall in the middle or move throughout the spectrum.
  • Cisgender- When you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth
  • Transgender- When you identify with a gender different than that you were assigned at birth
  • Transsexual- When you have had Gender Reassignment Surgery (GRS) to change the sexual organs you were born with to that of a different gender.
  • note that you will sometimes see an astrid after Trans (Trans*) which is meant to include both transgendered and transsexual individuals
  • Male to Female (MtF)- When somebody that is assigned as a male at birth identifies as a female
  • Female to Male (FtM)- When somebody that is assigned as a female at birth identifies as a male
  • Binary- The genders at each end of the gender spectrum (male and female)
  • Non-Binary- An umbrella term for genders that fall somewhere in the middle of the gender spectrum and are neither strictly male or female. This can be used as a gender identification without further explanation. Sometimes the term, genderqueer, is used.
  • Genderfluid- Moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity
  • Agender- Not identifying with any gender. Sometimes referred to as being genderless or gendervoid
  • Bigender- Identifying as two genders, commonly (but not exclusively) male and female. Sometimes you feel like both genders at the same time and sometimes you fluctuate.
  • Polygender- When you identify with multiple genders at once. Sometimes referred to as multigender.
  • Neutrois- When you identify as agender, neither male nor female, and/or genderless
  • Gender Apathetic- When you really do not identify nor care about any particular gender. You are fine passing off as whatever and you really do not have an opinion towards your own gender.
  • Androgyne- This term overlaps a lot between gender identification and presentation. It can be used to describe others and as an identification. This term is used to describe people who are neither male nor female or are both male and female. Basically anyone who does not fit into a binary gender category.
  • Intergender- Somebody who's gender is somewhere between male and female
  • Demigender- When you feel as if you are one part a defined gender and one or more parts an undefined gender. Terms can include demigirl, demiboy, demiagender, ect.
  • Greygender- Somebody with a weak gender identification of themselves
  • Aporagender- Somebody with a strong gender identification of themselves that is non-binary
  • Maverique- A non-binary gender that exists outside of the orthodox social bounds of gender
  • Novigender- A gender that is super complex and impossible to describe in a single term
  • Designated gender- A gender assigned at birth based on an individuals sex and/or what gender society percieves a person to be
  • AFAB- Assigned Female At Birth
  • AMAB- Assigned Male At Birth
  • Gender roles- Certain behaviors an activities expected/considered acceptable of people in a particular society based upon their designated gender
  • Gender Presentation- The gender you present yourself to others. This is sometimes referred to as gender expression
  • Transitioning- The process of using medical means to change your sex
  • Intersex- A biological difference in sex that is when people are born with genitals, gonads, and/or chromosomes that do not match up exactly with male or female. Intersex individuals can have any romantic/sexual orientation and can have any gender identification. Intersex individuals are about as common as redheads.
  • Dyadic- Someone who is not intersex and when their gentinals, gonads, and chromosomes can all match into either a male or female category
  • Trans Woman- Someone who is assigned as a male at birth, but identifies as a woman
  • Trans Man- Someone who is assigned as a female at birth, but identifies as a man
  • Trans Feminine- Someone who identifies as feminine, but identifies as neither a man nor a woman. They must also be assigned male at birth.
  • Trans Masculine- Someone who identifies as masculine, but identifies as neither a man nor a woman. They must also be assigned female at birth.
  • Social Dysphoria- Discomfort experienced when acting in ways socially different than your gender or being addressed in ways different to your gender
  • Body Dysphoria- Discomfort experienced because of the difference between gender and your sex, role, or gender expression
  • Butch- A term used to describe someone who's gender expression is more masculine than feminine. This is commonly used in describing women or lesbians.
  • Femme (Fem)- A term used to describe someone who's gender expression is more feminine than masculine. This is commonly used in describing women or lesbians.
  • Binarism- Putting gender strictly into two categories (male and female) and refusing to acknowledge genders outside of male and female.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wtmitchell, is there a specific question that you have the terms or the bill? I would also encourage you to be skeptical about the information that your friend sent you and do more research into to whether or not it is accurate since it includes the phrase "controversial" which by itself is not a red flag, but makes me suspicious that whoever wrote it has a particular agenda in mind and may be trying to create feelings of anger in the reader. Also, the misspelling of words like "percieves", "gentinals", and "astrid" as well as the the likely intentionally lengthy list of definitions makes me suspicious of its professionality and therefore officialness. I would try to find a specific and reputable source mentioning and describing the bill as well as an official copy of its text. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Need template to clarify pronoun

I stumbled upon the article about Zoë Quinn and I was trying to read it. After a little time I realized that there weren't sentences missing that would mention an extra person, but it uses "they" as a singular pronoun for Quinn. So once again, like in the cases of censoring transgenders' birth names, the overly zealous LGBT+ lobbying hinders the article's original purpose, i.e. conveying information. If Wikipedia is to continue with this pronoun-madness (which looks like it cannot be changed), then I would suggest creating a template which could be included at the top of each article, describing which pronoun will be used, for the ease of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.158.28 (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I think most readers are capable of figuring things out using context clues, but I think articles should normally include a brief mention that a person uses "they" pronouns in the introduction. I added this to Quinn's entry. Nblund talk 15:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it shouldn't be written assuming "people are capable of figuring things out". Besides, you are wrong about that. Most readers of English wiki are non-native speakers who don't speak English very well, and most readers are probably also not gender woke new age thinkers, and they will have trouble understanding it. If you're going to use language that's strictly worse for the reader, at least explain it. Or maybe you could draw the line somewhere. Let transgenders choose their own gendered pronoun, but don't let every idiot choose an arbitrary one just because it's trendy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.54.150 (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Similar page at Wikidata

Wikidata also has the fundamental problem of representing gender broadly but there is overlap in scope.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Gender pronoun templates

Not sure if it's needed, but added the gender templates to the list in the See also section. These templates aren't useful for writing articles, but they are useful for referring to editors on Talk pages. So whether they belong in that section or not, depends on what the scope of this guideline proposal is. Is it meant to refer solely to article space, or to guidelines for discussion on Talk pages as well? I would think it should be both, but not my call. If it's intended to cover article space solely, then the templates should be removed from that section. Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Issue regarding former names

Why should trans people even get the special treatment of not having their former names shown? Non-trans celebrities, such as Muhammed Ali, do have their former name shown. So why not trans folk as well?

The obvious answer for Wikipedia would be 'because it reveals their gender which is dehumanising to them'. A fair point, maybe.

Yet that doesn't always follow. Take the name of Aimee Challenor, for example. This person's original first name was Ashley! We all know that's a girl's name as well as a boys name. So why did AC feel the need to change it? And why, considering this is more or less a same-gender name change, does Wikipedia choose to withhold the old name regardless?

And what if the trans person changes their name again to another of their gender? Gallovidian85 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gallovidian85: Things are handled on a case-by-case basis. If you have a suggestion for any particular article, then you should bring it up on the article talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gallovidian85: Please see Wikipedia:Gender identity which addresses these issues. Funcrunch (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Also consider those who had birth names not of their gender. John Wayne for instance. Original first name? MARION. Numerous celebrities will change their name because they don't like their original one. So they won't want to see their original name on a Wikipedia page either. Why should there be any difference between trans and non-trans on this matter? Gallovidian85 (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, we would do it out of deference and respect. Generally, consensus has been that if a person was independently notable under their birth name, then we just mention both. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Marion is generally considered to be a unisex name. Funcrunch (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Also for what it's worth, according to John Wayne's Wikipedia page his stage name was chosen by a studio executive and he wasn't even present for the discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Assigned sex

See these two diffs: 1, 2. And this thread: User talk:Manifestation#Assigned sex

Is there ever a reason to differentiate between assigned sex and gender identity? Because if a person is transgender, then the gender they want to transition to is arguable their 'true' gender, i.e. assigned at conception. I know that we have to go with what reliable sources tell us, and the phrase assigned sex is commonly used to refer to the gender 'assigned' (i.e. observed) by a nurse after delivery or during an ultrasound. But the phrase is arguably meaningless, because someone's physical gender may not be in accordance with someone's gender identity.

At ICD-11#Gender incongruence, I opted for a middle-ground solution, and wrote "assigned physical sex", in lieu of "assigned sex". It may be useful to have some guidance on the use of this phrase, but this MOS proposal talks almost exclusively about how to write about individual people. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Following reliable sources, we should use assigned sex and not replace it or qualify it with additional adjectives like physical or biological. As you note, everything is biological. Assigned sex conveys a limited observation of an external observer, which is why it is the term used within the scientific and medical communities.--Trystan (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about publishing the deadnames of trans people

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wikipedia already has a guideline regarding this: MOS:DEADNAME

Should trans people who have no notable events under their deadname have said deadname published? 3nk1namshub (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm not responding to this in the right place. As I feel that many of the people who may be affected by this are not present on Wikipedia as editors, I would like to create a change.org petition (or something on another site) to show the interest and agreement from the trans community who may not be present on Wikipedia. Please let me know whether or not this is allowed for an RfC. 3nk1namshub (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Strongest oppose. As a rule we should omit deadnaming as it causes real world harm. If a person became notable, by Wikipedia standards, under their deadname then it likely should be included but only minimally and in the least impactful way. This generally aligns with WP:Deadname, which only covers the WP:Lead; another sentence spelling out to minimize deadnaming overall might help these cases.
  • Also, any offsight campaigning and organizing is both unneeded and likely disruptive. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Note - such a petition would be a clear violation of WP:CANVASSING and would likely lead to the RfC being disregarded. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)*Note - such a petition would be a clear violation of WP:CANVASSING and would likely lead to the RfC being disregarded. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 02:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. I'm not sure if my input is taken into account as I created the RfC, but I agree completely with Gleeanon409. In addition, it's incredibly difficult for trans people to not have their deadname published these days, as certain communities take pleasure in doing so. The last thing trans victims of harassment need is to be deadnamed on Wikipedia after an onslaught of abuse. Thank you to Gleeanon409 and CactusJack for letting me know of the canvassing issue, I had written the post (but not posted anything online) before reading about canvassing. I would like to make it clear, however, that every trans person I've talked to about Wikipedia has reacted with distaste due to Wikipedia's lack of a policy banning unnecessary deadnaming. 3nk1namshub (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. @3nk1namshub:, if you see any examples of trans people being deadnamed when not notable under their deadname please post them here, or even on my talk page, and I’ll be happy to check on them, I’m sure others will help. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I haven't noticed any so far, but I haven't been looking for even a day yet. I just noticed the Wikipedia has no concrete policy regarding a person's deadname wrt lack of notable events, and thought maybe an RfC would be helpful to clear things up. 3nk1namshub (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Oh, that's fantastic, I hadn't seen that, and several discussions around trans people lead me to believe otherwise. I will now close the RfC. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
LokiTheLiar, actually, it is not policy, but a guideline, as is the rest of the WP:MOS. Elizium23 (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment: Gleeanon409 stated, "If a person became notable, by Wikipedia standards, under their deadname then it likely should be included but only minimally and in the least impactful way. This generally aligns with WP:Deadname, which only covers the WP:Lead." Yes, per MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, we include the name if the person became WP:Notable under that name. We actually don't leave that name out in those cases. I also consider including the name in the lead far from "least impactful." But if the person was never notable under that name, we leave it out of the lead. It's also typical for that barely known or unknown name to not be included at all. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment: This discussion was recently closed on the grounds that this is already a guidelime MOS:DEADNAME, but this discussion seems to concern a broader topic (whether to include a deadname anywhere in an article?) than that guideline (which is strictly speaking only about the "lead sentence"). -sche (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The Lead section. I think we need to be clear that deadnaming in the rest of the article, or on other articles is forbidden, except in the cases of deadname being notable, then strict minimal use. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I do think this proposal expands WP:DEADNAME. To be clear, I believe the section was closed by the original poster, but the signature never showed up - my initial response to seeing that it had closed quickly was that it may have been tendentious, but that wasn't the case. SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Other languages

I have a couple of questions: do these guidelines also apply to articles translated in other languages? I’m asking this because (just to make an example) the Italian Wikipedia page about Sam Smith doesn’t respect their preferred pronouns or gender identity. I tried to fix it, as other people before me did, but my changes were refused as well. Though I understand that Italian languages is tricky when it comes to pronouns, since we don’t have “they/ them” as in English, I’m quite upset, being myself a non-binary person. I don’t want to make this personal, it’s mostly about Wikipedia quality standards. How do they apply on Wikipedia pages in other languages? I also see there isn’t a version of this page in Italian. How do I create one? Superfreakmorticia (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

In general, each language wiki has its own policies, reflecting the reality of that language but also the consensus of each community of editors. Decisions made on the English-language wiki are not, as a rule, binding on others. Newimpartial (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep, different communities apply different standards. The wikis aren't just translations from/to the English articles, but completely separate encyclopediae. However, I'm sure the Italian Wikipedia has similar ways to get further input and identify policy-based resolutions to disputes if this is a case of people edit warring to reinstate misgendering and refusing to discuss the matter. — Bilorv (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Feb 2021 update

MOS:DEADNAME is about to get updated due to two recently closed RFCs on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. This implements several of the suggestions from this page, though I hadn't noticed this page before closing the RFCs. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Implementing deadname RFCs. -- Beland (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns for non-binary people who have not expressed preferred pronouns

Presume that a public figure comes out as non-binary, but does not provide any preferred pronouns. What would be the preferred way of handling this situation regarding editing pages? Currently there is a minor editing war happening under this situation on the page for Utada Hikaru. Because it is possible that referring to Utada as they/them could technically be misgendering due to Utada not providing preferred pronouns, as "non-binary" does not automatically mean that the person uses "they/them", I have been operating under the presumption that the pronouns used in the article should remain as they were prior until the person's preferred pronouns can be confirmed, but other editors (mostly anonymous ones) seem to disagree. I can understand there being arguments for defaulting to they until confirmed otherwise as well, but as far as I can see, this situation is not covered anywhere in the MOS. How can this be handled more smoothly in the future? -Wohdin (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should their last known pronouns until the subject themselves, and not just articles talking about the subject, directly confirms their preferred pronouns. Some non-binary people predominantly use grammatically correct pronouns, such as Rebecca Sugar and Miley Cyrus. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd retain the 'last known' pronouns until there was a reliable source that they should be changed. This could be a statement by the person (WP:ABOUTSELF), or statements by a reliable secondary source that "X uses they/them pronouns" (since RS fact-check statements they make, or their status as RS should be revisited!). Articles merely about the coming-out but which don't state "X uses they/them pronouns" might just be defaulting to "neutral" pronouns, so I'd prefer to wait for clearer sources. Some non-binary people don't change pronouns. (Conversely, some people—like Halsey (singer)—use e.g. she/they pronouns but have not identified as non-binary.) However, that applies "until there was a reliable source that they should be changed", and if a person states they should not be referred to with gendered words (as seems to be the case here?), that'd be a basis for changing to a neutral pronoun or avoiding pronouns, though I personally would wait a while to see if a statement directly about pronouns is forthcoming. -sche (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Crossroads -talk- 23:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - the thing is, most nonbinary people do not use the gendered pronouns associated with their previous gender identity. Some do, usually alongside they/them, some forgo gendered pronouns entirely, and some use new "transitioned" gendered pronouns (q.v. Elliot Page). Where we have a reliably sourced announcement of nonbinary identity but no pronouns, "defaulting to the previous pronouns" will misgender the subject more often than not, and is incompatible with MOS:GENDERID. On the other hand, defaulting to they/them pronouns in this situation, as is the 21st century practice any time gender or pronouns are unknown, carries very little risk of misgendering and coheres with the spirit of both MOS:GENDERID and WP:GNL. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

They/Them should be the default for anyone known to be nonbinary or who has explicitly expressed no pronoun preference. Using the old pronouns would be an obvious mistake for 90% of cases where a subject has come out as nonbinary. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
By "explicitly expressed no pronoun preference", you mean 'people who have explicitly said they have no preference', right? Because if this meant 'people who have never explicitly said what their pronouns are', then we're they/them-ing the vast majority of humans alive today, and nearly all historical persons. That is obviously not practical and is completely out of step with how the language works in practice.
Even so, I see no need to change to they/them if they have specifically said they have no preference. No preference means no basis to change it based on GENDERID or any policy. Crossroads -talk- 04:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This discussion concerns nonbinary people only: sadly, we are not in fact the vast majority of humans alive today. For nonbinary people who have not explicitly expressed a pronoun preference, we should default to they/them, because it minimizes the risk of misgendering as discussed immediately above your comment. Retaining pre-transition pronouns when someone has announced a nonbinary identity (but not named pronouns) is clearly counter to MOS:GENDERID, and rushing to "opposite-gendered" pronouns would also result in misgendering a non-negligible proportion of the time. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • If they have clearly stated they are nonbinary but have said nothing about pronouns, I would go with they / them, on the basis that they / them are generally accepted as "default" pronouns for a nonbinary person and, therefore, a statement that they're nonbinary is effectively a statement that they prefer they / them pronouns unless they've said otherwise, just like we don't eg. require an unambiguous statement that someone prefers 'he / him' if they identify as male. If they specifically say they have no preference, on the other hand, then I would default to whatever most recent high-quality sources use to describe them; a specific indication that they have no preference frees us from the MOS:GENDERID requirement to follow their preference, but the default without that is "follow the sources", not "use their birth pronouns." --Aquillion (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

She/They

Hi all,

Does Wikipedia have a consensus on what to do when someone has expressed their desire to use multiple pronouns. A recent editor has changed some but not all of the pronouns on the page Paige Layle from "she" to "they" so that the page now uses both in accordance with the fact that the subject's Instagram lists her pronouns as "she/they". I am of the opinion that it is more readable/understandable to the average reader for pages to consistently use the same gendered pronouns throughout, but was wondering if there was consensus on this and also if there is consensus as to how to decide which of the two (or more) pronouns to use.

(My understanding is that using multiple pronouns used to primarily mean that someone was comfortable with either being used to describe them, but now it seems to be shifting towards some people insisting that others switch between both/all pronouns when speaking/writing about them. Not sure which case applies to Layle. I noticed that Elliot Page uses he/him pronouns (see that page's footnote) instead of he/him and they/them for consistency and so am leaning towards the same sort of thing for Layle.)

Samsmachado (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll assume that Layle has given no more detail than using "she/they" pronouns in their Instagram bio, the current source given. I don't believe there's a consensus on what to do in such situations. Any of these three options are possible, dependent on the outcome of case-by-case discussion: using "she/her" throughout; using "they/them" throughout; using a mixture.
I would oppose the latter as unnecessarily confusing, and I do not agree whatsoever that you have to use some mixture when someone identifies with more than one pronoun. I would prefer "they/them" throughout, and probably no footnote is needed in a short article that will explain the full situation in "Personal life".
However, I think "they/them" is treated as a plural for the purposes of grammar ("they are", "they use"), not singular like the article currently does. — Bilorv (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with you regarding mixtures. I do wonder why you would prefer to write "they" in this case. I know sometimes people will put, say, "they/she" in their profile, in that order, and then I could see a case for it (although I'd still want to see how recent RS write), but not in this case. Crossroads -talk- 05:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I hold the minority position of preferring gender-neutral language wherever possible, viewing gendered language as inherently non-neutral. I additionally think that in a majority (but not totality) of cases where a person prefers "X/they" pronouns (the more common linguistic construction to "they/X") and was assigned X at birth, the person prefers "they" otherwise they would not have deviated from their assigned gender at birth pronouns, as almost all people don't. For what it's worth, this is the case with myself, where I suggest "he/they" pronouns on my userpage (though I'm not offended by any/all). Maybe I should change it to "they/he", which has never occurred to me. — Bilorv (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
FWIW as a non-binary trans person myself, when I see someone list multiple pronouns I assume that the first is preferred unless otherwise specified, regardless of gender or assignment at birth. So if someone lists their pronouns as "she/they" I would refer to her as she, consistently. Funcrunch (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Spivak pronouns and other pronouns outside the he/she/they gamut

Subject's preferred pronouns are Spivak pronouns, and we have a source that e prefers them. What is MOS guidance on using these pronouns that readers may not be familiar with, where phrases like "Eir work features themes of..." may also prompt edits claiming misspelling (example: [1])? —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In general I think that we should honor any good-faith pronoun request except maybe for nounself ones (rock/rockself, etc.), where the concern of readability may cut in favor of a surname-only approach. (On the other hand, see of Montreal for a non-gender-related case where we rather brutally prioritize "using the right words" over "writing in a way that won't confuse readers.")
It strikes me that these situations are not dissimilar from that of articles that don't use a standard (by anglocentric standards) family naming scheme. We solve that with a hatnote template. I'm not sure why we couldn't do the same with articles for people who take pronouns other than he/him and she/her. Even they/them articles get a decent number of good-faith "corrections" (although they're often hard to distinguish from bad-faith edits snarkily invoking the name of grammar), and hatnotes explaining this would be no more obtrusive than family name hatnotes, and would likely clarify things for readers more, and stop more mistaken edits, than them. Just a concise This article uses {{{1}}} pronouns to refer to its subject. (There's also {{pronouns editnotice}}, which I slap on most biographies when I run into pronoun-warring.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I had not thought about the hatnote, but I like that as an elegant solution. On the technical side, it would be easy to do standard templates for things like they/them and maybe more common situations like Spivak, as well as a custom template for other situations where we need to fill in the details. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor or a neopronoun user, but as the one who originally raised the concern about erasing pronouns in the article in question, I would consider this an excellent solution. Autumn on Tape (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@C.Fred and Autumnontape: Okay, I've drafted a hatnote at User:Tamzin/Pronoun hatnote. Keeping in mind WP:NODISCLAIMERS (a guideline I generally think is overkill but agree with here), MOS:GENDERID, and general decency, one thing I've tried to stress in the documentation that this would not be just for tagging an article's subject as trans, but rather for clarifying wording that may confuse readers. It's one thing for someone to be confused by they / them pronouns or especially neopronouns, but if someone's "confused" about an article on a trans man using he / him pronouns, that's usually just code for "I don't think he's a real man", so I don't think any template should cater to that. I also don't think that this should be used in articles where pronouns are ambiguous and editors have compromised on (or failed to reach a consensus other than) avoiding pronouns entirely, as that's an editorial decision, not a matter of the correct way to refer to the subject. But there is a pronouns=none option for cases where that's the subject's actual preference, or at least our best-guess interpretation of their preference (Sophie Xeon, Vi Hart, etc.). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: This is very good! There's nothing I would change at first reading. (I wouldn't immediately consider something like this necessary for the singular they, but you probably have more perspective on what's surprising to Wikipedia readers than I do.) I think a hatnote like this would be a great way to help readers understand a relatively new linguistic phenomenon like neopronouns in articles where it's important. Autumn on Tape (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, tbh I am also on the fence about they. I could add a note to the documentation saying to use it on a case-by-case basis, for instance on articles where readers have expressed confusion in good faith in the past, or on articles well removed from LGBTQ topics... But I dunno. I also wouldn't strongly object to cutting it outright and making this purely a neopronoun hatnote. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of pronoun sets I would add to the list, of course, like ey/em (distinct from e/em), fae/faer, ze/zir, and it/its. I don't know how exactly exhaustive the list should be initially, since more can always be added later. Autumn on Tape (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Tamzin, stress in the documentation that this would not be just for tagging an article's subject as trans is actually my biggest concern here. Nobody should be using this on LaVerne Cox or even Caitlyn Jenner. I think you've solved that with the binary pronouns disabled? valereee (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding pronoun hat notes: one thing to be aware of while drafting an article hat note of this nature, is the related talk page template {{Article pronouns}}. Articles and Talk pages have different target readerships of course, and template {{Article pronouns}} is targeted to editors rather than to readers, and thus may appear on Talk pages. Its purpose is to guide editors what pronoun to use while working on an article, and is (or at least, should be) based on subject preference, consistency, and clarity for our readership. The template is descriptive, and not prescriptive. See Talk:Leslie Feinberg for an example. Besides the different audience (and an option for sourcing), the talk page template generates an underlying maintenance category structure (e.g., see Category:Articles tagged for gendered pronoun usage). In another difference from the proposed hat note, the talk page template does not exclude binary pronouns because of its goal of editor guidance; thus the presence of templates recommending a binary pronoun at Talk:Rebecca Sugar and Talk:Cavetown (and Feinberg) for example. Because on their somewhat different goals and target audiences, I imagine some topics may end up with both a hat note on the article as well as an article pronoun template on the Talk page, others will have just one or the other. One type of situation where one might have a Talk page template but not an article hat note might be for a few articles where Wikipedia avoids the use of gendered pronouns as much as possible, such as at Albert Cashier or James Barry (surgeon). Mathglot (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


  • There was a recent discussion about this above on this page. Most editors there were opposed to using neopronouns in article text. I support writing the article without pronouns, though our language already has pronouns that are neutral and/or non-binary in regards to gender - singular they/them/their. These would be fine to use, as I see no evidence our subject has objected to them. Neopronouns do not appear in dictionaries and are not a part of the standard language, and will hinder understanding by those unfamiliar with them (which is most readers, especially those who speak English as a second language).
    WP:HATNOTE is clear that they are for navigation only. Surname hatnotes are controversial and it seems that lately there's been movement to replace them with footnotes. I'm not sure what the current status of that is and will likely report back, but I've seen some be replaced. A hatnote is undue weight on pronouns - even in some cases where in-article explanation is considered necessary, a footnote is used, as at Rebecca Sugar. Crossroads -talk- 03:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Using they/them pronouns after saying in the same article that e uses Spivak pronouns would be (and was) totally inappropriate. Autumn on Tape (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      I certainly don't think we should use pronouns that aren't preferred, but I can also see the argument that we shouldn't be using neopronouns in Wikivoice. There are a lot of neopronouns, and I'm sure there are any number of people who switch from one set to another for various reasons, and frankly I could see people making this into some sort of game: How long does it take Wikipedia to change all your pronouns from ze to e this week after you quietly make that change on your insta profile? The quicker the response time, the more important you are! Ready? Go! valereee (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      People make this sort of transphobic "game" out of the concept of being transgender e.g. Zuby (rapper). We have no problem gendering Zuby correctly. Similarly, I've seen cases of celebrities deliberately giving wrong birthdays, or bragging that Wikipedia holds false information that they originated. None of our systems should take this into account at the point of policy/guideline/essay. There is already IAR if nothing else to deal with nonsense. — Bilorv (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      Yeah, that game is just as possible with he/him and she/her as it is with any other gamut of pronouns. And in fact, there are people who legitimately switch between different pronoun sets in different situations, or with different people, or on different days, which again is already possible without getting neopronouns involved. But that doesn't mean they expect the encyclopedia to be rewritten for them every time their mood changes. "They could be unreasonable about it, though" always seems to come up in discussions about showing respect to trans people, and it's a pretty vacuous statement. People can always be unreasonable, whether you're making an effort to refer to them by their proper pronouns or not. Autumn on Tape (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      Scenario: An actor who by all previous indications is cisgender says, because "we all come from trees" and "everyone's a tree" (!?), that his pronouns are "tree". Is this mockery of being transgender or something sincere and reasonable, and why? This situation already resolved itself (there was some edit warring from IPs, the article went to no pronouns and then later to "he" when it turned out the person referred to himself as a he at a later date), but this is the sort of thing that does happen. Crossroads -talk- 06:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      If this already happens with a policy of not using pronouns to refer to people who use neopronouns, then I don't suppose allowing neopronouns in articles will make it worse. It also makes it possible to ask the question: Is it something that happens enough and is a big enough problem to affect policy questions that would apply to the entire wiki? Autumn on Tape (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      Sorry, Crossroads, is there a non-rhetorical question in here that you want answering? It appears you already know how the situation was resolved (as I do). I don't get what you're trying to add to the discussion—maybe I'm subtext-deaf and just need it spelled out as text. — Bilorv (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Someone must have this written down on their Bingo card of Wikipedia cliches, but WP:HATNOTE is a guideline, meant to describe best practice rather than construct it. If it is out of date or out of line with reality (they are not for navigation only) then propose that it be updated. — Bilorv (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    It's still misgendering to use they/them for someone who you are aware does not use they/them pronouns. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • So the way I see it, there are two questions here:
    1. When should articles use neopronouns for subjects who take them?
      1. Never.
      2. Only if the subject clearly indicates that they are uncomfortable with any other set of pronouns.
      3. Only if the subject does not also take she/he/they pronouns
      4. Always.
    2. Assuming the answer to Q1 is A2 or A3, to what extent should an article explain its usage of neopronouns?
      1. Not at all.
      2. By in-text reference, if the person taking neopronouns is discussed at length in the article.
      3. By in-text reference, always.
  • I think the question of what form that in-text reference should be—hatnote, footnote, clause after first usage—is a tertiary question to the above two. Personally, I'd give A3 to Q1: That is to say, use the better-known three sets of pronouns when the subject says they're okay with it, even if their preference would be a neopronoun, but don't require people to explicitly rule out non-neopronouns. And I'd give A2 to Q2. A passing mention of someone who takes ze / hir pronouns might not need explanation (although might benefit from a {{not a typo}} for editors), but an article using those pronouns repeatedly probably should have a note in some form. Even setting aside the surname hatnotes, I don't think that this is any different from defining technical, easily-misunderstood, or controversial terms used in articles. For instance, an article on a contested geographical area might say "Here referring to lands actually controlled by $country".
    Also, @Bilorv, I actually already got Bingo on "Someone brings up Treegate in a pronouns discussion". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    I would give A3 to Q1, too, with the addition that if the neopronoun can be nonawkwardly avoided, I'd prefer to avoid it. A passing mention of someone, you may not even need it. And I would say definitely not A4. It would be pointy to use neopronouns when the person has said they don't mind they, even if they is their second choice.
    For Q2, I would say A3. I don't think we can just leave "Jesse Jones gave Smith one of eir cat's kittens." without leaving some indication behind that no, this is not a typo. (Not the best example, as we could argue that "Jesse Jones gave Smith one of Jones's cat's kittens." was actually clearer, but you get the drift.) And I'd use a footnote instead of a hatnote for anyone who wasn't the actual article subject, actually. Even one member of the subject band probably is better dealt with on first mention with a footnote. The top of the page is just really valuable real estate. valereee (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    Do we need to ask for closure on this? Also, I tried to set up archiving and it didn't work, but I think it would be good to set that up. Can someone else figure it out? valereee (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Valereee: This doesn't have enough activity to need automated archival, but I've archived some of the stuff that's over a year old manually. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you! valereee (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying a non-binary person was "assigned male/female"

I think this is disrespectful non-binary identities. It's equivalent to using gendered pronouns associated with their previous gender identity, or saying "He is a trans man who used to be a woman." I think stating that someone is/was "assigned male/female at birth" should be avoided unless the individual has personally stated that they identify with their assigned gender in some way. — InEventOf (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on context.
  • If it's just a reference to someone and their gender assigned at birth isn't obviously relevant, definitely no. J. Doe, a nonbinary activist assigned female at birth, said they opposed the law.
  • If it's in someone's biography and it can't be reliably sourced, then it should be treated similar to deadnames as a privacy interest. Worth noting that simply showing someone used to identify as male or female does not prove that that's the gender assigned at birth. Doe was assigned female at birth<ref>Tweet from five years ago: "My name is Jane Doe and I take she/her pronouns"</ref>
  • If it's in someone's biography and it can be reliably sourced at the same standard expected of a deadname, then I think it's fair game to mention in an "Early life" section, and if applicable later sections (say, "Sports career"), but in most cases would not be something to mention in the lede. Ideally it would be mentioned in a context where it's relevant, rather than just as Doe was born January 1, 1990, in Springfield, USA. They were assigned male at birth
    • Doe, who was assigned male at birth, was on the baseball team at St. John the Evangelist High School and batted .400 in their senior season..
    • Doe, who was assigned female at birth, said in an interview in 2015 that they "never felt like a girl" growing up.
Also worth considering that "assigned X at birth" does not mean "has bodypart associated with X". My first example would still be inappropriate if the hypothetical law in question concerns uterine health, simply because "assigned female at birth" does not actually tell you whether someone has a uterus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Gender-affirming surgery" and "Sex reassignment surgery"

The phrase "Gender-affirming surgery" is used in a decent number of articles to refer to female-to-male or male-to-female genital surgery (henceforth "bottom surgeries"). To me it seems squarely at odds with MOS:EUPHEMISM. What is a gender-affirming surgery? Any surgery a transgender person undergoes in search of gender euphoria, even one that is not per se a transgender surgery, could be called a gender-affirming surgery. To the extent that it's a term of art, it's far from a universally-used one. So in general one would say that we should stick with the non-euphemistic term that our own article on the subject, Sex reassignment surgery, uses.

Except that term isn't precise, either. It's most frequently used to refer to bottom surgeries, but our article on it uses the broader definition of any surgery that is part of a medical transition (even if most of the article is then about bottom surgeries).

This is half a GIDINFO matter, half an MOS:MED one, but more the former, I think, since medical articles will tend to use more clinical terms. So, can this essay provide any guidance to editors?

My inclination would be to recommend using the medical term if established in reliable sources (vaginoplasty, phalloplasty, metoidoplasty, etc.). If RS are ambiguous (i.e. they just say "sex reassignment surgery", "gender-affirming surgery", etc.), then I'm not sure. "Bottom surgery" is a bit colloquial, but is unambiguous. And Bottom surgery redirects to Sex reassignment surgery § Genital surgery. Genital reassignment surgery is more formal, but somewhat obscure, currently almost never used in articles. (For good measure, though, I've refined it to the same target as Bottom surgery.)

Thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 12:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your inclination to recommend using the specific medical term if it is established in a reliable source. Though this can get tricky in the case of top surgery, as male chest reconstruction is (somewhat) different from mastectomy, and the former is definitely considered to be gender-affirming even though it does not involve the genitals.
In any case, I think it's important to stress that surgery should only be mentioned in a BLP if the subject themself has brought it up, and not just incidentally. Too often coverage of trans people focuses more on what surgeries we have or haven't had than anything else about our lives... Funcrunch (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, with regard to a general term for bottom surgery (which I see on re-reading is your actual question, so you can ignore my comment about top surgery), relatively few transmasculine people get phalloplasty or metoidoplasty, but hysterectomy and oophorectomy are also considered (by some, anyway) to be bottom surgeries, as well as gender-affirming. The term "genital surgery" would not include these procedures, however. Funcrunch (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
From my own reading of medical sources on this, the recent sources (post 2017/18) will use "gender affirming surgery" or "gender affirmation surgery". Anything pre-2017 will use the older "sex reassignment surgery". While it's not universal, there is to my knowledge a greater number of sources using gender affirmation versus sex reassignment in post-2017 medical literature on this topic. And though I no longer have access to it as the links are now dead, from memory of the draft chapters, the upcoming WPATH 8 SoC, exclusively uses gender affirming/affirmation surgery in its surgery chapter. By and large this coincides with a series of terminology changes that happened circa-2015 or so.
I'd personally be in favour of re-naming the article to represent modern usage, with a redirect for the older usage, and where possible a hat or footnote explaining the terminology shift. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I think @Tamzin was referring to MOS:GENDERID guidance, not renaming the Sex reassignment surgery article itself (which FWIW has had two unsuccessful move attempts, most recently in January 2020). Funcrunch (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. But would renaming sex assignment surgery to gender-affirming/affirmation not address the underlying euphemism claim more directly, as we can then say "Not a euphemism, it's current terminology for this class of surgery"? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Possibly, but I'm reluctant to start a new move discussion on that page myself. Funcrunch (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Fair. It would require some pretty thorough groundwork to demonstrate the shift in terminology over the last five years, which would be especially necessary to address what appears to my reading to be a repeated use of total number comparisons in that past RM (ie that an older term will almost always have greater total usage than a newer term) to oppose the move. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity/Archive_1&oldid=1135850475"