Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity/Archive 2

Fake or mocking pronoun declarations

There is a worrisome yet entirely predictable trend emerging in social media, where those who oppose evolving gender identity and expansive pronoun usage, people generally classified as "conservative" (among other labels) list pronoun usage in a mocking manner. What this has to do with the Wikipedia is that people are beginning to suggest that we honor these. I first encountered this at Talk:Kaitlin_Bennett#Bing/bong_pronouns in Feb, where the subject really does list herself as "bing/bong" on Instagram. Declining that one is a simple matter of noting they're not real, and noting current guidelines on the usage of neopronouns.

However, now Tucker Carlson has listed they/them at their official twitter account]. I would imagine I do not need to rehash Mr. Carson's history as a right-leaning provocateur, and if one reads their wikipedia bio, thy will note that literally everything in the twitter bio is false (did not attend Harvard, has not won an Emmy, etc...) We have legitimate editors, not WP:SPA's, supporting making the article gender-neutral. What to do? ValarianB (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we have more than those two cases at this time? With Carlson, it seems as though consensus at this time is leaning towards keeping he/him.

Regardless of the specifics with Carlson, if we do have to strengthen the requirements in this guidance, because of a spate of bad actors mocking trans and non-binary individuals, then we must ensure that we also keep this guidance as flexible as possible so that we do not cause harm to trans and non-binary BLP subjects as a side effect. We've already had one BLP subject, who was notable for their transition and detransition, have to verify their identity (I believe through VTRS), because none of the RS who would happily publish materials about their detransition will now do so as a result of their retransition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For one thing, I commented there. I am shocked that any experienced editors were in favor of a change. Perhaps there should be a rule that any self-proclamation of pronouns must be actually used by at least one reliable source. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th, you are thinking of the Shupe case, correct? Maybe VTRS could be an exception if we required at least one RS. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I am yes, though I didn't want to mention it by name to respect her privacy. While the VTRS pathway was helpful in her specific case, I do not think it would be viable for all cases where we either do not have RS or are unlikely to have RS in the future. It would require all such affected BLP subjects, ie retransitoners or prominent former transphobic individuals who later transition for the first time, to reach out to us directly via edit request in order for a change to their article to be made, and then to verify their identity through VTRS or some other means.

That process is I think too bureaucratic in order to be effective at any sort of scale, beyond one or two subjects. Not all such subjects may know how to make an edit request, nor would they all be comfortable identifying to VTRS or the WMF directly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, your proposed new rule that any self-proclamation of pronouns must be actually used by at least one reliable source seems to be at, ahem, some tension with your preference expressed at Hikaru Utada, since in that instance all recent RS use they/them, but you have clung to the use of "she/her" based entirely on ABOUTSELF sources (ones that would not be considered RS in the present context). I find your change of perspective interesting. Newimpartial (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

You think there are no sources about her using feminine pronouns? Obviously going from she -> she/they is quite different from someone allegedly going from he -> they or she -> bing/bong. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of no independent, reliable sources using "she/her" since Utada's announcement of nonbinary identity. Are you aware of any? Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Our current guidelines are fine. If bad actors want to at fake pronouns to their bio, then that's on them. Most well-adjusted people wouldn't do that, so there isn't a reason to change the guidelines to work around these fringe exceptions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No concern that editors are citing current policy to support changing a BLP's pronoun usage, in a situation where the BLP subject is obviously mocking the entire topic? ValarianB (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@MJL: I agree with @ValarianB. It would be easy to add a sentence to the MOS guideline, for example, here's a sentence I suggest: "If there is reason to believe that a person's own pronoun declaration or request is joking, sarcastic, hostile, part of a stage performance in which they take on another persona, or otherwise insincere, do not consider those pronouns to be the correct ones." Exactly what constitutes a good reason to believe that someone is not really making a sincere declaration/request might have to be left up to editors' judgment/discussion. Even so, it would be helpful to acknowledge that there can be good reasons to recognize when someone is speaking in bad faith or in a non-factual way. The MOS for Gender Identity, as it stands now, does not recognize this possibility. It treats all declarations as equally literal and sincere when we know very well that language doesn't work that way. The "Best Practices" section says only "They/them pronouns are always acceptable in article space for subjects who have stated that they prefer them." We should acknowledge that some types of statements don't count as a sincere, and therefore valid, expression of personal preference.

Again, the situation is that other WP editors suggested changing Tucker Carlson's article to use "they/them" pronouns after he, a right-wing talk show host who routinely leads anti-transgender segments, joked about wanting those pronouns. Unfortunately, it wasn't "on them" (i.e., on Tucker Carlson) to explain why WP shouldn't update his bio article to say he's nonbinary. He didn't do that work to explain his own bigoted joke. Instead, it was on me to spend an hour before breakfast explaining why it was important for WP not to buy into the trollery and not to participate in it. Thus, it would be helpful for me and other WP editors to be able to quickly refer to a one-sentence WP style or policy that essentially says to recognize and avoid participating in right-wing trolling of transgender people in this specific way. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB & Tuckerlieberman: Yes, I have absolutely no concern that editors are citing current policy [sic] to support changing a BLP's pronoun usage, in a situation where the BLP subject is obviously mocking the entire topic? because the Manual of Style isn't a policy; it's a guideline. Very rarely do I try to make that point, but WP:IAR and common sense are always going to supersede what's written in the Manual of Style.
At the end of the day, BLP is meant to protect us from defamation (that explanation is covered in this section of the policy). If a BLP subject, in their own words, wants to proclaim nonsensical pronouns as a joke, then it is not going to be a surprise when people take them at their word.
@Tuckerlieberman: As for your comment that Instead, it was on me to spend an hour before breakfast explaining why it was important for WP not to buy into the trollery and not to participate in it. That was your decision to make. Quite frankly, I am of the camp that doesn't really care if the article uses they/them or he/him pronouns. If you want something you can easily point to for the future, write an essay if you think this is going to come up again. Then you would be able to explain all your points without the need to repeat yourself nor potentially disrupt the careful balance that is MOS:GENDERID. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your distinction between a policy and a guideline. Thank you for providing it.

WP editing is indeed voluntary. I understand it is my choice that I do it.

Clearer policies and/or guidelines can support editors. As you may have also experienced, when there is a WP policy and/or guideline that fits the situation, certain topics can be less emotionally stressful, certain logical and factual arguments might not need to be had at all, and certain tasks might take less time. To some extent, it helps Tucker Carlson (or helps him not sue us), but from my perspective, it helps me do my job (albeit one that is unpaid and entirely voluntary).

I am suggesting, based on my my knowledge, experience, and perspective, that this is one of those situations where a clearer policy/guideline would support me and perhaps others in this process.

Am not really sure if you're arguing that MOS:GENDERID is important (because it has a careful balance that must not be disrupted) or unimportant (because WP:IAR and common sense will generally win the day anyway). Anyhow, to the extent the guideline can be at all useful and serves a purpose, I have already made my suggestion. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

What I am saying is that MOS:GENDERID is important, but in cases like these we have WP:IAR for a reason. While you may think that changing the guideline might make things easier for you now, I am telling you that it would simply make things more difficult for the future.

Also, there is no world where Tucker Carlson sues us for using they/them pronouns while also simultaneously declaring said pronouns on Twitter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change anything. The guideline says Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. As soon as recent reliable sources report that Carlson now goes by they/them pronouns (not just that he has changed his Twitter account to say so), then we can change it. In some cases, we consider the subject to be the requisite reliable source, based on WP:SELFSOURCE. But one of the requirements there is that There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. If there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, we need other reliable sources. It's be great if this didn't turn into a huge discussion IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a very good way to look at it. We shouldn't across-the-board require third-party sources, because you do get cases where someone announces a change in pronouns well after they've left the public eye, and it's probably just not going to be covered by anyone. For instance, Ellar Coltrane changed to they/them pronouns during a long gap in receiving any media coverage, so for a time we sourced their pronouns to only their Instagram bio, and that was fine. Or consider someone whose entire article is "John Doe won the bronze medal for New Zealand in modern pentathlon at the 1980 Olympics" and then some stats. If they change to they/them pronouns, that might not be recognized in any third-party sources till their eventual obituary, and we shouldn't misgender them for decades just because they've faded into obscurity. But when there's a reasonable question as to how to interpret someone's statement about their pronouns, we should follow third-party RS. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

+1 to this. I think people get confused when an obvious situation happens to revolve around a topic with political tension. For instance, if an author says in an interview that they went to Harvard then that is generally sufficient for us to say in Wikipedia's words that they went to Harvard. If, however, this proves false, or the person is so unreliable that their public statements cannot be taken at their word, then it is removed. Aphex Twin did not live in a bank vault, drive a tank or make 1,000 unreleased songs. There is no difference here. Indeed, Carlson did not go to Harvard despite saying he did, so we do not report it; he does not use "they/them" pronouns despite saying he does, so we do not change them. — Bilorv (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the blog "Radical Copyeditor" be linked?

Many of the claims made on that blog are so blatantly ridiculous that it makes me question whether it should be used as a source. Such as claiming that both gender and biological sex are social constructs. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

A significant number of organisations consider it to be reliable and recommend it or segments of it in their own style guides. Including:

• American Chemical Society
• San José State University
• Michigan State University
• University of Denver
• Oregon Health and Science University
• University of West Florida Pressbooks
• University of Illinois Press
• San Francisco LGBT Center
• BuzzFeed News
• Columbia Journalism Review

Do you have any evidence of its unreliability? Or that it is not considered reliable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Independent blogger, no evidence of reliability (@Sideswipe9th: the onus is not on us to provide evidence of its unreliability, that is backwards from the prescriptions of WP:IRS.) Elizium23 (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  When an editor is questioning the reliability of a source, typically done at WP:RSN, evidence of unreliability must be provided. We do not operate on an assumption that all sources are unreliable until proven reliable. In any case, as you can see I have provided a list of many independent organisations who consider the Radical Copyeditor's style guide to be reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the websites you linked are from proponents of Marxism or critical theory, who cannot be considered unbiased. Also, many of them only endorsed specific claims on the website that are not controversial among reasonable people (e.g. "we shouldn't misgender transgender people"), but not the linked page or website as a whole. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of the websites Sideswipe9th links to are from universities and press centers. Your perception of bias based on your disagreement with these universities is irrelevant. This is a style guide used to a significant extent in this field and it would be beneficial to include it in the external links section. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The bias of those websites matters greatly, actually. Unless you think that a Flat Earther claiming the Earth is flat and using a bunch of FE websites as evidence would count as compelling evidence for Flat Earth. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BIASED: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Also I would not generally consider the American Chemical Society, University of Illinois Press, University of West Florida Pressbooks, or the five universities listed above as proponents of Marxism or critical theory. As an extraordinary claim, I'm going to require some extraordinary evidence to support that assertion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that WP:RS says you can sometimes use biased sources. What I object to is almost exclusively using biased sources. Also, see my reply to Rhododendrites. I'm just claiming that the authors of those specific pages are likely biased. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What part of Judith Butler's Performativity theory do you think creates a problematic bias in matters of style? I wouldn't think claiming that both gender and biological sex are social constructs is much of a candidate to disqualify anyone on style matters. Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Because when a website tries to claim that sex and gender are social constructs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it makes it a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does that one sentence claim make the rest of the guide unreliable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If a book about geology had a short statement maintaining that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, would you consider it to be a reliable source? Partofthemachine (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It would depend on the context of its use. In a general geology article, it could be acceptable in some circumstances if the remainder of the content is uncontroversial. However there would also unquestionably be better sources to chose from.

However we aren't in the article space here, and we're not citing the style guide as policy. We're listing it as one of several that editors can read to supplement our manual of style, in an external links section. However any recommendations from those guides would inherently be overridden by our own policies and guidelines. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. When using an inline citation, you are generally only referencing a very specific section of the relevant source material, not an entire article or website. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are under the impression that performativity theory occupies the same status in scholarship as young earth creationism does, I'm afraid you are not well-informed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Of all the organisations I linked to, only one; American Chemical Society, does not link directly to the Radical Copyeditor's style guide. The ACS link to the Radical Copyeditor's site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not how WP:IRS prescribes reliability. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's a positive prescription, and indicates that sites are unreliable until we can prove otherwise. Elizium23 (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I was unaware that external links sections for MOS pages are articles. This is a style guide used significantly in this field, as evidenced by the list that Sideswipe9th pasted above, and should be included in the external links section. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. There are currently five RfCs taking place at WP:RSN on the reliability of specific sources. Of the five only one, Business Insider, has been discussed previously where at the time it was positively found to be reliable. The other four sources are operating from an assumption of reliability until proven otherwise. One of those four looks like it is heading towards deprecation as "generally unreliable". There are of course some exceptions like WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:MEDRS, however this is not a medical article so MEDRS does not apply, and QUESTIONABLE requires proof of poor reputation for fact checking and/or lack of editorial oversight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The only relevant question is whether it's a useful supplemental resource. It seems fine to me. We're not adopting it as policy, and this is not an article. That various news orgs, universities, and ... the American Chemical Society ... are dismissed as "proponents of Marxism or critical theory" (...) does not bode well for this thread (or much else). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I was not claiming that everyone at those institutions is a proponent of those ideologies. I am claiming that the most of the people who wrote pages referencing the blog post in question are. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That's some pretty harsh WP:OR in support of your prior assumptions, AFAICT. I don't see anything in that, that would support a policy-compliant decision on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And I'm sure that you've got the WP:RS you'd need in order to make that sort of statement about living people. For whats its worth as far as I can tell none of the given sources have "bias" issues vis-a-vis "Marxism or critical theory"" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Remove - the fact remains that this is a blog and is nowhere near as prominent or mainstream as the other two. There is no reason for listing it except to give unusual opinions unique to it undue weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Please see the above discussion. The website includes a blog. There is also the style guide, aka the link that was added, which is widely mentioned in the above-linked notable organization's documentation on this subject. Every point here opposing inclusion insofar has criticized the content of the blog rather than our actual rationale, which is the wide usage and mention of the style guide. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Vermont: I have not criticized the content of the blog in any way. What I'm criticizing is the fact that it is, indeed, a blog, with no editorial oversight nor a reputation for fact-checking. Elizium23 (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't address my comment and is a minor technicality. The point remains that your arguments here are treating this as a source on an article about gender, not a widely used gender identity style guide in the external links section of the MoS page for gender identity...along with similar style guides. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  So I'm perplexed about inclusion criteria for external links/resources in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If there are no criteria and editors can link to anything we darn well please, then that's fine. But it seems counter-intuitive, and it seems to fly in the face of reason that the criteria for inclusion should be more lax here than in article-space, whether it's WP:EL or WP:RS level criteria. So perhaps the inclusion criteria are ad hoc in WP namespace, but it just seems, again, counterintuitive, that editors should scrape the bottom of the barrel, reliability-wise, in coming up with resources here. Elizium23 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's not "the bottom of the barrel" or "anything we darn well please" when its referenced as a good resource on this topic (gender identity style guides) by the American Chemical Society, San José State University, Michigan State University, University of Denver, Oregon Health and Science University, University of West Florida Pressbooks, University of Illinois Press, San Francisco LGBT Center, BuzzFeed News, and Columbia Journalism Review. Thank you for shifting to discussion of relevancy, but...it is relevant. Objectively. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't appear to be the bottom of the barrel, disagreeing with a source doesn't give you license to denigrate it. Please keep your arguments factual and dispassionate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Duh. "The author said something I disagree with" is not a sound reason to exclude it. "WP:BLOG! WP:RS!!" would be an excellent argument, if we were talking about a citation for a contentious claim made in article-space. But we're talking about an external link in an explanatory essay, which is already peppered with disclaimers that it does not necessarily reflect community consensus. No one ever bothered to enshrine criteria for EL in this context, because the stakes could not possibly be any lower. Yes, Kapitan's blogpost is only useable as a source for Kapitan's opinions. No, linking it here does not constitute a general endorsement of Kapitan's blog as a reliable source for statements of fact. The question here is whether reading Kapitan's opinions would enhance an encyclopedia editor's ability to write neutrally and correctly about transgender biography subjects. Given that several organizations prop it up as a useful and influential resource, that is clearly the case. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we should keep the link. I have no idea what is "blatantly ridiculous" about the comment that biological sex is a social construct (which does not mean "not a useful idea" or "is unrelated to material reality"). The threshold we have at this essay is not close to that of a reliable source in article space, but reading past the bludgeoning by Partofthemachine in this discussion, Sideswipe9th provides evidence backed up with a compelling rationale for keeping the link. (And if Partofthemachine cannot help but to reply to my accusation of bludgeoning, this will be the opposite of proving it false...) — Bilorv (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Well it's interesting that you say that calling something a social construct is not the same as calling something useless, because most of the postmodernist types who throw around that phrase do indeed use it as just a synonym for "bad". And no, I am not engaged in blugeoning, I am just responding to demonstrably false claims. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Tangential, but ~postmodernists don't see social constructs as "bad" (and don't use the term to mean "bad"). That bad thing is presenting a concept as though it it couldn't be any other way, with some god-given, essential meaning, when its meaning is really wrapped up in complex historical, social, cultural, political, legal, institutional, linguistic, etc. contexts. That's all that these methods/schools/terms really mean -- the critical theorists, poststructuralists, lowercase-m marxists, [almost anything] theorists, critical [almost anything] scholars, and a large swath of the rest of the humanities/social sciences, which have become nearly interchangeable bogeyman for right-wing pundits, especially since Limbaugh: they take a closer look at the all the other stuff taken for granted in our words, concepts, rules, norms, customs, etc., and why things are the way they are. Doesn't mean you have to agree with the conclusions they come to, of course. Just food for thought, seeing this use of postmodernists after the marxists and critical theorists references above. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Also worth noting that such a degree of social constructionism has also received its fair share of scholarly criticism (e.g. [1]). Crossroads ^-talk- 20:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't really care that much about the link, but it doesn't make any sense to call sex a social construct. It's certainly not a social construct in non-human animals - they seem able to attract mates and reproduce quite independent of human discourses. It's like saying that evolution or the coronavirus is a social construct. Or the Round Earth as opposed to the Flat Earth. Yeah, there's a social discourse about them, but there is an underlying material reality being described in a non-arbitrary way that exists independently of humans - which isn't the case for social constructs like money or nations. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite have the head for Butler's metaphysical framework of sex and gender, but the assertion laid out in the YouTube video linked in the style guide seems to be specifically saying that it is the sex binary which is socially constructed, not sexual characteristics themselves. Individual sex traits (chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitals, breasts, prostate, etc.) do exist independently of humans, but the notion that some or all of these traits combine to define an organism's essential, immutable Sex as either "biologically male" or "biologically female" is a normative and human-made model, not a natural or canonical reflection of material reality. That's not to say that our constructed model of Sex is fundamentally irrational or baseless, but it does lead to legal, medical, and social discrimination against trans and intersex humans whose sexual characteristics may not be normatively aligned.

I think that discussion is pretty interesting, but it's not really related to the task at hand. The sole reason Kapitan brings it up is to defend describing trans women as female and trans men as male, which is already consistent with MOS:GENDERID's advice to describe trans people using the correct gendered words. Outside of moaning about postmodernism, it looks like consensus here that the link should stay. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to get too far off-topic, but it's not just individual traits like chromosomes that exist independently of humans, but the way they combine developmentally as part of a single unified phenotype that is able to accomplish sexual reproduction. Yes, there are various developmental differences that can happen in these traits, and modern medicine can modify them in trans individuals, but those basic types do and did exist before any set of humans could construct them. I still think "sex is a social construct" is a radical-sounding and hence attention-grabbing, but ultimately unhelpful, confusing, and counterproductive statement. The main point here, yeah, is that the site is not really different from GENDERID in that point, although I wonder if it is even any different from the others linked. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Baty/Irene Clyde pronouns

Hi, can anyone advise what pronouns should be used for this article: Thomas Baty. It's gone back between "he" and "they" a few times. The talk page has a few discussions on the topic Throughthemind (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Throughthemind: I believe decisions are generally made based on talk page discussion on a case-by-case basis. For John/Eleanor Rykener and James Barry (surgeon), it was decided to avoid pronouns entirely. For Elagabalus, he/him pronouns are used. Take a look at Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. You might next want to ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies or consider an RfC on the question. — Bilorv (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

RFC Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity#Neopronouns

Moved to WT:MOSBIO § Neopronouns RfC [moved]

 – -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Altering a quote that a person said?

Ishawatari also said (in 2011, when Bridget still identified as male) that Bridget was a difficult character to animate; "He has double the frames of animation"

Why do you alter the words spoken to reflect changes that did not occur at the time that the words were spoken?

Ishawatari also said that Bridget was a difficult character to animate; "She has double the frames of animation."

So, in the above example, Wikipedia insinuates that the developers considered Bridget a Woman way back in 2011? 174.247.253.85 (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be related to an Edit Request at Talk:Bridget (Guilty Gear) § Fix historical pronoun usage. The text at MOS:GENDERID advises editors to Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering. I'm not sure how long it is has been this way, but the current version of the article Bridget (Guilty Gear) (and seemingly the version you were commenting on when you left this message) correctly elides the quote as follows:

Ishawatari also said that Bridget was a difficult character to animate; she "has double the frames of animation" due to her yo-yo's movements.

In contrast to how you have reproduced it here, the text of the quote itself is unchanged, which seems entirely acceptable. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

But why do you alter what people say? And yes, even the Siliconera article that is cited (written in 2011) was updated earlier this year "This historical article was updated to reflect Bridget's current gender."

The developer did not call Bridget a girl, therefore the quote is inaccurate and the Wikipedia needs to be reverted to reflect what the developers actually said.

Facts supercede whatever bullshit you're trying to pull WP:FAPO The fact being that the quote of the developer, refers to Bridget as a boy. A developer can't misgender their own creation, if at the time of the quote, the fictional character was of the gender that the developer used.

How would you like it, if other quotes bagan to get changed?

Henry Phillip said "The cross-head screw is superior to the flat-head screw"

Henry Phillips said "The Phillips-head screw is superior to the flat head screw"

In the above example, "cross-head" has fallen out of use, in favor of the more modern nomenclature of "Phillips head" and therefore all references to "cross-head" should be replaced across Wikipedia.

Is that really how the Wikipedia foundation operates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.247.253.85 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You're correct to say that the example quotations you've raised reflect an inappropriate alteration to a direct quote. Unfortunately I don't seem to be successfully conveying to you the difference between eliding a quote to remove gender pronouns, and directly modifying it. I'll just reiterate the example being discussed (which demonstrates correct application of MOS:QUOTE and MOS:GENDERID) and earnestly ask you to make note of the fact that the content inside of quotation marks (i.e. the direct quote being attributed) remains unchanged:

−

Ishawatari also said that Bridget was a difficult character to animate; "he has double the frames of animation due to his yo-yo's movements."

+

Ishawatari also said that Bridget was a difficult character to animate; she "has double the frames of animation" due to her yo-yo's movements.

It's also worth noting (but mostly beside the point) that these remarks were translated from Japanese, a language without gender pronouns. It's likely that Ishawatari did not intend to include comment at all on the character's gender, as it is not at all relevant to the quotation. Even without misgendering her in this unrelated sentence, the article accurately and successfully explains the fact that Bridget was originally depicted as having a male gender identity, and has since been depicted as a trans woman.

Applied to your own straw example (in which, for some reason, "cross-head" is deemed unacceptable in Wikivoice), we can make the desired change by paraphrasing. Out of sheer pedantry, I also find it necessary to point out that "cross-head" or cruciform actually refers to several screw drives including more than just Phillips... But I digress.

−

Henry Phillip said "The cross-head screw is superior to the flat-head screw."

+

Henry Phillip said the Phillips-head screw was superior to the flat-head screw.

Finally, for the record, The Wikimedia Foundation is a separate entity which has little editorial control over the content of English Wikipedia. The vast majority of editors you will interact with, including administrators, are volunteers who are not affiliated with Wikimedia. Wikipedia's guidelines (such as those in the Manual of Style) are generally the result of discussion and community consensus, not the Foundation. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The quote, "has double the frames of animation", is exact with no alteration (except the addition of a wikilink to film frame, which is permitted when done conservatively). I regularly summarise reviewer quotes like His acting is on par with a drunken monkey to John Smith's "acting is on par with a drunken monkey", according to Jane Doe. In this case we also elide a gendered phrase to describe the subject in our own words. It is no surprise to me that this draws exactly zero outrage except when it comes to a transgender topic. — Bilorv (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Why was my post deleted?

It was a relevant question to the discussion. 2603:9001:9200:5E96:4D3A:358:DE22:563C (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Questioning gender

When is it appropriate to question a person's gender? When is it appropriate to assume a person's gender?

• Is it always OK to assume the gender ID of someone who is referred to by gendered pronouns and who makes no other identification, according to WP:RS?

How do we apply this to historical cases, to cases of deceased people?

If a person is transgender but "in the closet", has never formally disclosed this status, and no RS calls them transgender, are we honor-bound to maintain their silence, treating them as cis-preferred-gender?

• Are we allowed to analyze photographs and make decisions about assigned-at-birth genders based on appearance? Elizium23 (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

• question/assume: never. Or rather, question all you want, but keep it out of the article, and off the Talk page (per WP:NOTFORUM).
• deceased: with caution. See, for example, the lengthy discussions in the Talk archives of James Barry (surgeon) and Albert Cashier.
• MOS:GENDERID calls for following their declared status; if nothing found, then WP:RS applies.
• photograph analysis: no, because that is clearly original research, which is forbidden.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

You say we must never assume a person's gender, and we must never analyze a photograph to ascertain it. How do we ascertain gender in the vast majority of cases of normal cisgender people, whether modern or historical? There may be a dearth of WP:RS which unequivocally states "this person is/was a man" or "this person is/was a woman" or details their gender assigned by family or by society. Because even now, sources find it redundant and superfluous to state that a cisgender person has a particular GID and sources just simply refer to them naturally by gendered pronouns. There may be nothing in sources other than their preferred pronouns. Are you saying we must never assume, whether historical or modern, the gender of anyone, even cisgender individuals who are referred to by gendered pronoun, or "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Miss"? That is a big problem because we do assume and we have been assuming and we'll need to decategorize thousands of biographies if we cannot assume cisgender people's GIDs, whether historical or modern. Elizium23 (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's put it in concrete terms: what level of support from our sources is necessary to describe George Washington as a "man"? Are gendered pronouns enough to assume his manhood? Must we cite a source that describes Washington directly as a man? Must we find a source that describes his role as a husband, father, President when women weren't elected? Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A reliable source's use of gendered pronouns/honorifics for an otherwise anonymous historical figure is a reliable source for the way that person was typically gendered. Barring any contrary evidence that a person has a different gender ID, we do "assume" that this is the correct way to gender them. MOS:GENDERID's stricter guidance applies to subjects whose gender[s] is likely to be questioned; the vast majority of historical figures ("""normal cisgender people""") don't fall into this category.

Note the distinction in this case between "the correct pronouns to use for X" and "the gender identity of X". Wikipedia uses he/him pronouns for George Washington because all of our sources describe him as a man, and he never recorded any other desire. It would be OR to use this (alone) to leap to a conclusion like Washington was assigned male at birth or Washington was cisgender. If hypothetically, Washington privately held a different gender identity, or he was secretly an AFAB trans man, but only ever confided this to his close friend and secret lover Tobias Lear, Wikipedia might accidentally use the wrong pronouns. An unfortunate casualty of time, but we are not mind-readers.

I can't help but interpret your rhetorical questions here as a WP:POINTy way of getting at some other question, or implying some double-standard, incongruence, or bias exists in the MOS's gender-related guidance. If that's the case, I hope you'll ask more plainly. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 01:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If a person presents as and is referred to as a particular gender by literally everyone and there is no evidence whatsoever that they may have a gender identity different from that, then you go with that. That covers more than 99% of people. You don't need to hold out for a specific declaration, e.g. "I, George Washington, am a man and I wish to be referred to with he/him pronouns". That would be silly and extreme, and an impossible standard, and we're obviously not going to decategorize and depronoun many thousands of biographies as though we don't know the gender of the vast majority of people. This is how reliable sources operate as well.

Regarding if someone is transgender or cisgender regarding their gender, if sources support they are transgender than we can add it; if not then OR is not permitted. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders no, I do not have ulterior motives here; I am simply curious how to extrapolate MOS:GENDERID to historical and cisgender cases, and I thank you for explaining that assuming gender ID is okay. That's mostly what I wanted ot know. Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Genders being added to articles about fictional characters

I have noticed a number of articles where a gender of "male" or "female" is being added to articles on fictional characters without any source being cited. Often this seems to be unnecessary given the pronouns in the article are already sufficient indication of gender, so why the need to expressly state it? We're not listing eye colour, height, skin colour, etc, so why gender? 83.240.178.194 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Basically, if you give someone an infobox parameter, and they will probably fill it in. The Template:Infobox character advises only including the {{{gender}}} parameter if not obvious, and you're right that in many cases it counts as inappropriate MOS:INUNIVERSE perspective, but it's harmless enough that there has not been a concerted effort to remove instances of fictional humans with "obvious" genders being tagged. The usage of this parameter was also discussed at Template talk:Infobox character/Archive_3#"Gender" field.

Your removal of the parameter at Joffrey Baratheon and Jaime Lannister seems fine, although I question your edit-summary describing the inclusion as "politically motivated" (?) and ask that you assume good faith. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The editorial practice of complex gender classification suggests we need deeper methodological work on how Wikipedia should function

The editorial practices regarding gender documented here suggests we need deeper methodological work on how Wikipedia should function.

I am pretty sure Wikipedia aspires to a “neutral” or “balanced” portrayal of topics, but I do not know if a set of criteria has been codified to define what that is or how to assess if it’s being met.

Arguably, a major reason Wikipedia is not able to be “neutral” is that it is “democratic”, or rather, based on a winner-takes-all consensus. The majority appears to rule.

Surely, there must be a better way to assess what “neutrality” even is, beyond letting people duke it out, and the most powerful or active group win?

I do not think of pronouns as a surface-level, self-elected social attribute. They are some of the most fundamental, and I assume old, parts of language. They stand in for nouns. In English as in some other languages, a set of pronouns is in use which appears to correlate to some gender-related characteristics of the person being referred to.

When I say “she”, it’s my way of saying, “I am talking about *that* person”, and implicitly “they are a girl,” since these kinds of English pronouns require he / she - something to do with “gender” - to be specified.

For me, I usually ascertain sense of someone’s gender automatically - subconsciously, and intuitively. I can’t claim to have decided for a formal semantic definition of “boy” or “girl” at some point and adhered to it since then. It seems like most words that we use, we learn intuitively, through exposure and repeated experiences.

Wikipedia doesn’t accord with my understanding of the world when I read an article about what I consider to be a man and see what is to me usually reserved for females, “she”, used to refer to them. I generally love Wikipedia, that’s why it’s incumbent on me to address an editorial practice that I don’t feel was instated by people who are interested in knowledge-for-knowledge’s sake, who value impartiality, and trying to frame something in a pure way. Wikipedia is for those of us who love understanding the wide world in its breadth and variety - for open-minded people for whom learning is about having your horizons expanded - perhaps even to challenge, and better, yourself.

Wikipedia is not the place for political rivalries to stake a camp and ensure the articles are written from the first-person point of view of their political party, movement or campaign - we do not inflect our language to be sure to promote an animal-rights-centric worldview, an Islamic or Scientologist theological background, or to portray public figures in a way that would benefit them or their desire for how to be seen by the world - on the contrary, a Wikipedia entry can be brutal, in which your darkest secrets or gravest shortcomings are made public information for the world to see.

People’s personal feelings about the nature of gender should remain a personal compartment of some topic, not suffuse the whole article as if it is a ubiquitous point of view shared by all people. Like the separation of church and state, we can partake in a common medium of exchange if we remember that we can exercise our more personal convictions in our own groups, privately, not try to seize common property and make it their own.

Shouldn’t there be a deeper principle at work for deciding what Wikipedia “neutrality” should be? As of now, allowing a majority who practices self-declarative gender to rule literally the editorial practices of the entire site doesn’t feel ethically sound, or in the spirit of deep, true scholarship. 185.98.97.34 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Wikipedia aspires to a “neutral” or “balanced” portrayal of topics, but I do not know if a set of criteria has been codified to define what that is or how to assess if it’s being met. If this is the case, you should read more about Wikipedia before writing about it. Start with WP:NPOV on neutrality vs "balance"; WP:CONSENSUS on how Wikipedia is self-governed; and read some of the style guides at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Further reading, which are commonly cited in MoS discussions. — Bilorv (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not the place for political rivalries to stake a camp is entirely correct. This kind of "let's change the way the language works" hand-wringing has no place here. WP does not lead the way on language-reform activism, it follows predominant practice, even if that doesn't agree with everyone's socio-political stance. WP's handling of gender in writing has shifted a lot in the last decade, but it has been on the basis of what the majority of reliable source material is doing, not on the basis of politicized pressure to do change. (If it were the latter, WP would be written exactly like GLAAD would prefer.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

when a name is deprecated but not dead

Currently, when a notable person comes out saying they prefer a new name, but still accept their old name, MOS:DEADNAME has nothing to say about it. But I think it's very important to respect a name preference, even when the old name is not exactly "dead". This has become an issue at Suzy Izzard's page. What's the best way to reflect this in policy? Yardenac (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, MOS:DEADNAME does start out with relevant text: "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name [...] that reflect[s] the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." [emphasis in original]

Now, if that person has expressed that the prior name is, so to speak, not "dead" — that it is still acceptable to refer to that person by that name — I personally would follow THAT expressed preference, per the last quoted sentence above: the lede would start with the new name, then with "previously known as" (or "also known as" if they're still using the old name for anything), and then with whichever old names are still acceptable to the subject. The remainder of the article would rely on the new name, unless there are awards, buildings, etc., still named after an old name. Let's see what consensus says. – .Raven  .talk 06:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

it/its as a personal pronoun

More of a curiosity than anything else, though one I personally have an investment in, being an 'it' myself: This guidance is currently ambiguous as to how to describe people who use it/its as a personal pronoun, such as Arca and maia arson crimew.

The current guidance appears to suggest using he, she, or singular they according to the subject's known preferences, and to discard any neopronouns in favour of using singular they.

it/its seemingly falls through the cracks, as it is neither a 'typical' personal pronoun like he, she, or they; nor is it a neopronoun, having been a common personal pronoun in Old English. In Modern English, using 'it' to refer to humans (derogatorily and not, such as for children) or animals, even where the gender is known, is not unheard of either.

In the case of maia crimew, it would appear that 'it' is its primary preferred pronoun, consistently being listed first amongst the options presented and across a range of sources. However, the Wikipedia article resorts to using she/her, seemingly as a result of how this guidance is currently written and the ambiguous state of it/its. Would it be useful to clarify this point? beeps (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO, the derogatory usage is probably why guidance steered away from "it" as an option. It could be viewed as dehumanizing to an individual who chooses to use it/its pronouns.

I agree that "it" is not a neopronoun; I am not enough of an OE expert to speak to its ("it"'s? ) prior usage. I think in cases where a person uses it/its pronouns, we should allow it. I also think the guidance should state that it/its is acceptable only when the subject prefers its usage and not as a default/ambiguous pronoun.

Example: maia crimew, Maya Moore, and Mike Myers walk into a bar. The bartender's back was turned when one of them said that they [ambiguous] would like a glass of water. The bartender turned around, got the orders, and gave maia its Coke, Maya her glass of water, and Mike his beer. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it/its is fairly established, primarily by non-binary people who feel that the neutral expression feels right. The concern about it/its being "derogatory" is usually an outside judgment that shouldn't be given much weight. Hist9600 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree that "it" is not a neopronoun. In typical usage, "it" is not used for known, adult persons. Most people consider it offensive, and it has been used to misgender transgender people. Using "it" for a person is a new or "neo-" usage, same as noun-self pronouns. As such, it would fall under MOS:NEOPRONOUN. "She" is perfectly acceptable for both of the articles linked above per the individuals' stated pronouns. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Most people consider it offensive Does that really matter? WP:NOTCENSORED states plainly that Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. That policy is also further backed up by the Offensive material guideline, which reinforces the idea that offensive content should not be excluded solely on the grounds that someone or someones may find it offensive. Both of these PAGs seem as though in this case it would apply to readers who find the use of it/its offensive.

and it has been used to misgender transgender people. So has she/her, he/him, and they/them. There are many trans and non-binary biographies get vandalised daily by disruptive editors changing pronouns to ones that are not those that the article subject uses/used every single day, but that doesn't stop us from using the correct pronouns in most cases, neopronouns aside. Shitty people being shitty are not a reason for us to not do the right thing.

If the BLP subject doesn't find it offensive (whom I think we should weigh significantly higher than a group of potentially outraged readers), and the usage is verifiable, then aside from the contested point with regards to NEOPRONOUN is there actually a policy or guideline that says not to do this? None that I'm aware of.

So yes, I would support the use of it/its pronouns in articles where the subject uses them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Also just to hammer home the point with regards to NOTCENSORED, some of the same readers who find the use of it/its offensive will also find the mere concept of trans and non-binary people offensive, let alone whole articles dedicated to both the topic and related people. Again, consider how much vandalism and how many edit requests we receive daily stating that [insert BLP subject here] is not a man/woman/non-binary, he/she/they are [insert assigned sex at birth here]. Should we remove all mentions of non-cisgender gender identities, simply because transphobes are particularly vocal about their being offended by people different than them? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th I agree that "the same readers who find the use of it/its offensive will also find the mere concept of trans and non-binary people offensive." My concern is that if we use it/its pronouns without a clear statement that the subject prefers those pronouns, we inadvertently fuel their fire by making them think we see the trans people as somehow less than. That said, we usually provide a usage note for they/them, so I assume we'd do the same for it/its. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that when using they/them or it/its pronouns, it would be best for the article to clarify that those are the individual's preferred pronouns. That seems respectful to the subject of the article (respecting their pronouns), and also considerate about how readers may interpret the article itself. Hist9600 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

After the neopronoun RfC back in October/November, we added text to the guideline stating that where a BLP subject uses neoprouns, those should be mentioned in prose or a footnote. Extending that so that we more clearly codify that it/its and possibly they/them pronoun usage by the article subject should be mentioned in prose (presumably in a personal life section) or linked footnote (presumably by the first use) would cover that potential problem nicely I think.

We could, if we're feeling bold, add a pronoun use note in prose or a footnote to all BLP subjects, regardless of which pronouns they use. It's pretty common in most workplaces now to voluntarily have pronouns mentioned in work bios, email footers, and name badges. Though I suspect those same people who find trans people offensive, and get outraged by the display of pronouns like this would also get similarly angered by such a move. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of the neopronoun RfC result was that on enwiki we mention, but not use, such pronouns. I support exactly that approach to it/its as preferred pronouns.

While I recognize that other pronouns have been used to misgender people (including he/him, she/her, and even the/them), it/its pronouns have also been used to dehumanize trans, nonbinary and gender nonconforming people - online and offline - in a way that is simply not possible with he/she/they. While I personally respect - with some difficulty - the pronoun preferences of those who use it/its, in personal communication, the encouragement that anti-trans forces would take from the use of these pronouns "officially" in a reference work (enwiki) will predictably cause much more harm to living people than the use of (say) tree or g (through mocking imitation and make-believe misunderstanding)odhood pronouns, while posing the same or greater problems as other neopronouns for readers.

As someone who has in fact been attacked and dehumanized both in person and online through the use of it/its pronouns, I simply cannot see a valid reason to treat them differently from other neopronouns (which, used in this way, they unmistakably are). Newimpartial (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This is going to be entirely anecdotal, but hopefully it provides a new point of view: a lot of people who use it/its pronouns do so explicitly because of its dehumanising nature. This could be because of misanthropic sentiment and a desire to distance oneself from humanity at large; a rejection or lack of recognition of one's own personhood; or having a self-identity that is not human in nature, such as being otherkin (my personal intention) or therian (this being the case for maia crimew).

In those latter cases, the use of it/its is not just operating as a gender neutral pronoun, but also to communicate an invisible aspect of one's wider identity. Using a gender neutral pronoun like 'they' as a replacement isn't equivalent; though I realise this is then seeping outside of the scope of gender identity.

I entirely understand not wanting to provide ammunition to transphobic groups. I would rather not do that too.

I disagree that 'it' should be considered a neopronoun. 'It' as a third-person neuter pronoun predates the existence of singular 'they' by hundreds of years. That use may be archaeic and relatively uncommon in contemporary society (outside of babies), but it's certainly not new to refer to a person as 'it'. beeps (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not new to refer to a person as "it", but it is new for a person to choose to be referred to as "it" (as is the case for other otherkin or posthumanist pronouns). Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

With regards to the neopronoun RfC, I was more thinking of adapting the part of its closure that lead to the insertion of MOS:NEOPRONOUN section to MOS:GENDERID. Prior to that RfC, there was no guidance in GENDERID for how to handle use or mentions of neoprounouns in articles, and in some cases we did not state anywhere in the article that the subject uses a neopronoun.

So if we do find there is a consensus to use it/its pronouns in articles, and not just mention them, we should at the same time add text to GENDERID that states that if an article uses it/its pronouns because the article subject uses them, then it should be stated (preferably) in prose or a footnote that these are the pronouns that the subject uses. I believe this would sidestep the dehumanisation issues that would be inherent in using it/its without such a statement, because it makes it clear to the reader that these are the pronouns that the subject uses, and that we are following their wishes on how to be referred to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Any addition of "it/its" to refer to a person on Wikipedia, and especially to MOS, will need a clarifying RfC at MOS:BIO, to the effect of something like "Are it/its pronouns for referring to an individual person considered neopronouns, falling under MOS:NEOPRONOUNS?" (Obviously we'd polish the question first.) Otherwise, it very much strikes me as a loophole. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What? If a consensus forms here to allow for use of it/its pronouns in articles, why would we need an RfC? If we were deadlocked, and unable to form a consensus with the editors present, sure I could see why we'd want to do that. But I don't think we're at that point yet, and holding a RfC for the sake of holding an RfC on this seems like a pointless waste of editorial time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the small number of contributors to this discussion compared to the Neopronoun RfC (in which I did not notably participate), I think some measure of broader input would be expected before offering affirmative guidance for the use of it/its in Wikivoice - it seems to be that such guidance would go against the spirt, at least, of that RfC close, the latter having a higher WP:CONLEVEL than this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Reflects my thoughts pretty much exactly. I understand that preferences vary, but "it" has too much of a dehumanizing history to use in formal writing, and I would pretty strenuously oppose "popularizing" it. I'm also not aware of any formal style guide that would permit it.

I agree that it's a neopronoun when used in this sense; even its use to refer to babies has largely gone out of style, and that was likely a legacy of babies being historically seen as non-conscious until a certain age. DFlhb (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

[D]erogatory usage is probably why guidance steered away from "it" is surely correct, along with the fact that writing that uses "it" as a personal pronoun can be diffcult to write in a way that is easy for the reader to correctly parse. In the case of maia crimew, it would appear that 'it' is its primary preferred pronoun, consistently being listed first amongst the options presented, but it is not the only option, therefore we should probably avoid it for the above reasons. the Wikipedia article resorts to using she/her [for crimew]: That does seem not justified, unless that is also one of the subject's preferred pronouns; I would default to they/them in any case of doubt, because that's pretty much a univerally acceptable approach these days for dealing with gender generically or in cases of doubt. I do not agree that "it" is not a neopronoun. In typical usage, "it" is not used for known, adult persons. Agreed. The word is not a neologism, but the usage toward persons is neologistic, just like the case of that person who said their personal "pronoun" was tree. WP should not refer to a person as tree or it, because this makes for very confusing reading. The concern about it/its being "derogatory" is usually an outside judgment that shouldn't be given much weight. Yeah, "[citation needed]". I just two months or so ago had a discussion about this with an enby person, and they were basically livid about the idea of anyone being called "it" unless that specific person demanded it in no uncertain terms (and even then would seek an alterantive like they if it was okay with the subject), specifically because of generations of derogatory usage. I trust my ground truth much more than yours.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion

Hello, I've just asked a question as to the meaning of GENDERID at WT:MOS/BIOGRAPHY. I figured notification here would be appropriate--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

"Fae" pronouns in a Wikipedia article

Rivers Solomon. Is the use of these "fae" pronouns according to policy? Equinox ◑ 20:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the article's subject also lists "they/their" as acceptable - which are actual English-language pronouns - I think it was a mistake to switch to neopronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

As it will be a completely new construction to most readers, we at least need a note on its first usage, not just the prose of the first sentence in "Personal life". WP:ASTONISH might be the most relevant part of policy for choosing between "they/them" and "fae/faer", and it would lean us towards the former. I can guarantee some readers will be confused about whether "Fae" (used capitalised at the start of some sentences in the article) is Solomon's surname, or some sort of pen name. Remember that almost no readers read most articles top to bottom, or even scan the page from top to bottom. However, we don't sacrifice correctness or precision of language (e.g. "one die, two dice") even when it can cause reader confusion, and maybe Solomon has indicated that fae prefer "fae/faer". — Bilorv (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No it is not, and I have fixed it. To be frank, language exists to communicate; there must be some limits to the pronouns that we can expected to use for a person. For example, there was this incident where someone at one point said something about being called "tree". There was also another person who put "beep/bop/boop" in her Twitter profile at one time. Both of these people are equally evidently cisgender, but one was criticized for ridiculing transgender people, while the other had an army of Twitter fans earnestly policing others to use the neopronoun, and making edits and edit requests here. Go figure. Blaire White, a trans woman, has in her Twitter profile "Pronouns: that/bitch". Now, a reasonable person would understand that is not meant to be taken seriously - especially if you know White's viewpoints.

Clearly, the line has to be drawn somewere. And the clearly sensible cutoff is that we only use pronouns that are recognized as such by English-language dictionaries. Anything else is WP:RGW language reform attempts that are not appropriate for article text. MOS:GENDERID says to use pronouns that fit someone's gender identity; it does not say that pronoun self-choice is unlimited. Our language has "he" for male identities, "she" for female ones, and "they" for non-binary ones. That is all-inclusive.

Therefore, even if someone said that their preferred pronouns are only "fae/faer" or something else like that, those should not be used in an article. While "they" can be a preferred pronoun, it is also used to refer to people regardless of gender, and could be used in such situations. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would obvious jokes affect the rules we have? We don't treat BLPs as unreliable for the information of their birthday just because some of them have running jokes that involve lying about it. Why would we even be looking to make rules based on hard cases? Your supposed "clearly sensible" solution doesn't even cover many of the jokes made by transphobes, who sometimes pretend for some rhetorical flourish or perceived gotcha! moment to use either he/him or she/her pronouns, whichever is the opposite of what they actually use. In summary, the cases you raise are already addressed by existing common sense protocols that we manage to successfully apply in all other (politically uncontroversial) scenarios, and the "solution" you propose would not address the cases you raise. — Bilorv (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course for binary pronouns we disregard mockery when sources treat it as such - that is unchanged by what I said. However, "obvious jokes" is not a usable cutoff for neopronouns. For example, is 'call me tree' a joke or not? To EEng, it was an "obvious joke", but someone hauled him to ANI for treating it as such. How can we tell that is or is not a joke when that person is just as evidently cisgender as the person who put "beep/bop/boop" and who was unserious? (The "tree" person later called himself a he.) And just what is the cutoff then? What "rules we have" permit use of "fae" as a pronoun? "English Wikipedia should only communicate in English words" shouldn't be a controversial position. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, why you're trying to revive a conflict from six months ago involving an editor unrelated to this conversation, or what relevance any of this has to Solomon. You're asking me how to tell if a person is making a joke? — Bilorv (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am speaking in a general sense, as the heading does. This isn't the article for Solomon, but an explanatory supplement essay, and therefore is more general. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

WP doesn't use neo-pronouns. WP does use singular-they, which is a perfectly appropriate choice (and what the average newspaper now does) for any TG/NB subject who does not use standard-English pronouns. If a notable subject is known to use neo-pronouns, then our article would likely note this (and what they are), but not actually use this non-standard idiolect in its own voice. This has been discussed repeatedly at WT:MOS and subpages thereof, as well as at many article talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: can you point me to three discussions that obtained local consensus that neo-pronouns could not be used despite them being the subject's preferred choice, or one discussion that obtained consensus that we should never use neo-pronouns? There's a lot of assertions you've made but no evidence beyond "some MOS discussions somewhere". — Bilorv (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a cursory glance at MOS:IDINFO and the essay WP:GENDERID. I don't see any explicit discussion of neopronouns there or elsewhere (with the proviso that I have not looked very hard), which is a little surprising to me. I actually can't seem to find any guidance on the use of neopronouns at all. It surely cannot be the case that this has never come up before, notwithstanding that neopronouns are pretty uncommon. As has been pointed out above, we do have the singular they (or avoiding pronouns) as options, if consensus cannot be reached. I would however like to see some more explicit guidance in the MOS re neopronouns, one way or the other; and I feel that SMcCandlish's opinion above – that we should mention the article subject uses neopronouns without using them in text, as they are not part of standard English grammar and we write in standard English (and we do not try to restructure the English language to right great wrongs), which gives us the option of using "they" as a singular pronoun (objected to only by pedants) – is likely to be as close to consensus as we get. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

We have a search function for a reason :-) [2]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

To throw in my own tuppence, as someone who's been an openly queer person my whole adult life, with a heavily queer-leaning social circle and a decent amount of participation in mainstream and other queer culture, I am tangentially aware of what neopronouns are. Meaning, as a piece of fairly esoteric academic knowledge that I possess, I know they exist, and could name a handful of them. I cannot begin to imagine how abstruse they would seem to 99% of our readership – hell, even to 99% of our queer readership, because frankly I read more abstruse LGBT+ content than most, and neopronouns virtually never appear.

There is obviously no central authority on what acceptable neopronouns are (yes this is also true for standard English pronouns, but neopronouns are so far from common use that we cannot even entertain the idea of there being a cultural consensus on what "standard" ones are), so it's perhaps not even a meaningful question to ask how many there are. Sort of like asking how many non-English words could hypothetically exist. In any case, I've never come across anyone in any context who actually used them. I do strongly suspect they're obscure and unknown to the overwhelming majority of queer people, who will just use standard English vocabulary and grammar to express themselves, rather than confusing linguistic innovations that put me in mind of Esperanto – well-intentioned but poorly executed proposals to solve problems that might better be solved in other ways, without a clear idea of what they're trying to accomplish or an unambiguous USP over alternatives. Fundamentally, they ignore that language is a collective phenomenon, and individual speakers of a language cannot simply create their own private grammar. They also kinda remind me of xkcd's take on the perennial problem of "look how many problems there are with the existing standards; why don't we just invent a new one?" Archon 2488 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A point I'm surprised nobody has yet raised is that we, after much discussion, accommodate the preferences of those such as bell hooks who prefer their names to be spelled in lowercase, often as a similar personal choice to neopronouns. — Bilorv (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a minor personal eccentricity, which I'd argue is a significantly smaller departure from standard English grammar (it doesn't even affect the spoken language) than trying to add new subject pronouns to the language. Might as well introduce new demonstrative pronouns, verbal inflections, noun cases, or intermediate-definiteness articles, if that is what the subject of the article believes in. Point is, we don't typically defer to the personal eccentricities of the subject of an article in determining how it should be written. But regardless, "bell hooks" is typically spelled that way by WP:RS, so we don't really need to have the discussion. I am not aware of RS that typically use neopronouns as a matter of house style. Archon 2488 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no departure whatsoever from standard English grammar, just the introduction of new words—it is the case that hooks' preference actually departs from standard grammar (e.g. in capitalisation of the first letter of a sentence), but not that neopronouns do (they are used in the exact same manner as other pronouns without changing word order or conjugations or so on). Is your position that we should use neopronouns for a person if and only if most reliable sources do? Or something different? — Bilorv (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not trying to speak for anyone else, but my view is that we should report that a person prefers neopronouns, but not actually use them as pronouns in Wikivoice. We should use "they/them" unless the person has explicitly objected to they/them, and in that case we should write without pronouns (they said reluctantly). Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think refusing to capitalize a proper noun is a departure from standard English grammar (hence why you can't tell the difference in the spoken language), but only from standard English orthographic conventions. Sort of like insisting your name has to be written in the Cyrillic alphabet; if she'd insisted on writing her name "Бел хукс" that would be eccentric, but not a difference that would be reflected in spoken language. English is English whether it's written in upper or lower case Latin letters or back to front Cyrillic letters. Nor is using a name from a different language a violation of English grammatical rules, because we can just treat it the same as any other loanword. It's telling that pronouns are very rarely ever loanwords; they're an integral part of how a language works, every language (AFAIK) has them together with well established and usually firm grammatical and social rules around their use, and they tend to be quite resistant to linguistic change. By way of comparison, some languages use gendered first- and second-person pronouns, and others like Finnish do not have gendered pronouns at all, so this entire discussion would be pretty much inconceivable to a Finn. I mean this as evidence of how deeply embedded a language's pronoun system is in its grammar; you can't simply chop and change and add random bits to it, for reasons of ideology or practicality or whatever – not because of any conspiracy to suppress innovation in pronouns, but because that's realistically not how linguistic evolution works. People have attempted to effect social change by changing language for centuries – and it rarely achieves the desired result. Mainly because tinkering with the technicalities of language does little to change the reality that language describes.

You write they are used in the exact same manner as other pronouns without changing word order or conjugations or so on – I mean, this might be true when they are used, which is so vanishingly rarely that it is genuinely hard to infer in a verifiable way how people actually would use them in real life. And if people can just coin their own pronouns, why not coin other grammatical innovations too, like new verbal inflections for the new pronouns? What constrains this? If you have as many pronouns as people, is there actually a point in them? Is there any difference at that point between a "pronoun" and a "name"? Point is, language doesn't work like that. The only times I have ever come across neopronouns have been in the context of what are in effect aspirational statements to the effect that the author believes having a wider collection of (invariably third-person singular) pronouns would somehow enrich the English language. Sort of like how it might be nice if everyone learned Esperanto as an auxiliary language. Maybe, but living on planet Earth, Esperanto is a fringe interest that nobody without a personal link to the community of speakers or who is not a language nerd knows about.

In any case, that neopronouns "should" be used more is a defensible POV maybe, but I do not think it an appropriate POV to endorse in WP's voice. WP does not care about what "should" be the case but what is the case – and mainstream use of neopronouns decidedly is not. Indeed, per WP:FRINGE I am very wary of giving undue weight to such a marginal linguistic use, especially in a context where vanishingly few if any of our WP:RS do. So I guess this answers your question: we are so far away from it being the consensus of RS to use neopronouns that at present it is a purely hypothetical situation. If the wider cultural consensus does change and neopronouns are adopted into wider usage (i.e. are anything less than totally obscure in real life) then that would be a circumstance in which there might be something to discuss here. But I think it unlikely, to be quite honest. And before then, I do feel that any attempt to enforce wider neopronoun use on WP will be seen as POV-pushing, and any such proposal will likely be dead on arrival. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Archon here. Heck, some people even insist on spelling their names in weird ways or choosing pen/stage names just to be different like "Jaxon" instead of "Jackson" or "Aydyyn" rather than "Aiden". So, I think hooks' spelling is just more of a creative take on that idea, and less of the usual "departure from standard English grammar" you would normally see people do with names. Huggums537 (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Some copy editors do in fact capitalize her name. The Chicago Manual of Style Online also states that some publications ignore the preference. Language Log also argues that it is not necessary to ignore the usual capitalization rules for such individuals. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of blanket statements on the matter (it's a really sensitive topic). However, in my limited experience, there are very few people who use neo-pronouns who would find the use of they/them extremely objectionable. With arguments like a neopronoun might get confused for being the subject's surname (which would obviously be compounded if the neo-pronouns were treated like proper nouns), I am a lot more sympathetic to (for example, I thought this was a discussion about a specific user's pronouns until I read past the headline). If a subject has expressed preference against use of they/them, then the article should be re-written to avoid pronouns altogether until it can be shown that a majority of WP:RS use the neo-pronouns (which at that point, we are kind of obligated to follow as well) while writing about the person. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Use they / them Somewhere in the article mention one time the person's preferred pronouns, then switch to they / them as the neutral choice which is supposed to apply to the many pieces that are not part of the majority binary. The point of Wikipedia is to communicate and be understood. English Wikipedia editors also have some duty to make information suitable for migration into Wikidata and translated into other languages. Consequently, we should minimize the use of neologisms which will be little understood here and less understood in other contexts. If someone wants to set pronouns for broad online recognition, the place for that is Wikidata, where there is unlimited opportunity to name pronouns and define them within the pronoun ontology.

In the future I expect the solution will be to put "fae" pronouns in Wikidata, those will migrate to the English Wikipedia infobox through meta:Wikidata Bridge, but the prose in English Wikipedia should be they/them as the right balance between precision and understability.

I support change of our Manual of Style to be more accommodating in the future, but for that to happen, someone needs to collect some examples and draft a proposal. It would not be productive to support a change in practice without published guidance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Many aspects of BLP require us to absolutely take the subject at face value. When a living person says they have bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, we report that as fact. When a living person says they had an African-American slave great-great grandmother, we report that as fact. When a person reports a new gender identity every week, we update the article and report that as fact.

If a subject of a BLP is a joker or a liar or an otherwise unreliable narrator about their own life, we have little to no mechanisms to stop believing them and redact information they have professed in reliable secondary sources. (See Pictures for Sad Children etc.) It is well-known that some artists such as Robert Smith (musician) don't think much of the press covering them and therefore lie incessantly, nay compulsively, to interviewers and the press ends up with a quite patchwork of falsehoods about the given person.

I don't know a good solution to unreliable narrators or people making jokes with biographical elements, but it's clear that we are often duty-bound on Wikipedia to treat them seriously, take them at face value, and stick to what the WP:RS and even WP:SPS say about them regardless of our own opinions. Elizium23 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable narrators are pretty rarely a concern here. The only case I can think of that pertains to gendered-language questions was someone (a musician, as I recall) saying their preferred pronoun was tree, and we don't call them tree. I do remember someone asserting that if we didn't call them tree that we were doing a wrong, and than anyone who disagreed should be punished (basically), but it turns out that the subject's own press managers call that person he (not even they) and don't take tree seriously, nor do reliable independent sources, so WP shouldn't either. In short: follow the sources to determine if the "narrator" is reliable, and MOS:GENDERID is already following the sources stylistically in defaulting to they when there is doubt.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)