Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity

< Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity

This Style Guide is Transphobic.

This style guide is mandating misgendering, and does no justice nor gives any respect to people who's pronouns happen to be neopronouns. If a person's pronouns are ze/zir, then zir Wikipedia article should continuously reflect that, and should not misgender them by using the singular they. 67.241.70.141 (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What gender does ze/zir denote? What gender does the singular they denote? What is the difference? Mitch Ames (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends? I don't have sources; I doubt there... Are many. Forgive me for talking about what is 100% original research.

My neopronouns (ve/ver/verself) sort of reflect the fact that my understanding of my gender is as a sort of floating signifier; I have a gender, absolutely, and it is not male nor female nor in between and it is signified only by itself, and I suppose by me. This is in contrast to they/them, which doesn't actually resonate as truly neutral to me; it feels like it doesn't reflect 'ambiguity', but rather a gender that is signified by a particular sort of ambiguity; and that gender feels as alien to me as maleness or femaleness.

I've heard other trans people who dislike they/them, or prefer other pronouns over they/them say similar things, fwiw. 136.35.180.148 (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this is just blatant bigotry. Wikipedia is mandating that neopronoun users be misgendered, and this is just completely unacceptable for anyone who has morals. How is Wikipedia supposed to be a source of trusted information if users are required to misgender trans people? I exclusively use neopronouns. My pronouns are not they/them. Misgendering me and other trans people who use neopronouns is not "professional", it's just blatant bigotry, and is just going to make it harder for trans people to gain acceptance in our society if Wikipedia is going to forcibly hold people back from learning the most basic form of respect for us! Using our pronouns! 73.21.37.82 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this!!! I'm lucky in that I'm okay with they/them pronouns as well as my neopronouns, but that is not the case for everyone.

For example: author Maia Kobabe, who exclusively uses e/em/eir pronouns.

It's unacceptable that e is repeatedly misgendered on the wiki page for eir book, Gender Queer, despite that book literally being about eir gender journey. How is it professional to completely ignore the background of an autobiography?

When was this arbitrary decision about what is and isn't proper even made? (SEE EDIT)

It's not like we can't just put a footnote after the pronoun to clarify. It's used on pages for people who use they/them pronouns (e.g. Lil Uzi Vert) so I don't see why we couldn't do the same for neopronouns.

EDIT: Alright, there was a discussion had about this some time ago, but the conclusion supposedly reached does not align with what I've seen neopronoun users say.

If one were refer to someone who only uses she/her pronouns with they/them pronouns, that would still be misgendering. Same with someone who exclusively uses he/him pronouns. I don't see why neopronouns are an exception. Sure, it's not conventional, but being nonbinary isn't either. What's so hard to respect?

Rainbowlack (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of they / them is that those words are not gendered - the words "avoid reference towards a particular sex or gender". You cannot misgender someone by using a term that has no gender. Referring to someone as "they" instead of he/she/e is no more misgendering than referring to them as a person instead of a male/female/..., or referring to someone as a "police officer" instead of a policeman or policewoman, or referring to me (a cisgender male) as "that Wikipedia editor" instead of "him". They/them might not be a person's preferred pronouns but those words are not misgendering anyone. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• This dispute hinges on the meaning of the word 'transphobic'. Is the idea that the use of the singular they is "transphobic" a logical idea? Well, the singular they was invented so that subject's gender is not identified. So is it transphobic to not identify the subject's gender at all because they do not prefer he/him or she/her pronouns? That depends on the meaning of the word "transphobic". If it is transphobic, then a further question is: what is the weight of that transphobia? Does it outweigh the need for consistency and readability? JM (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  The section is This Style Guide is Transphobic, but the OP's statement is that This style guide is mandating misgendering ... Wikipedia article ... should not misgender them by using the singular they. "Transphobic" and "misgendering" are not the same thing. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Pronoun consistency

If a subject uses multiple pronouns with no defined preference, e.g. Emma Seligman using both she/her and they/them pronouns, should the article consistently use the same pronouns for the subject, and how to determine which to use? Bklibcat67 (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There isn't a hard-and-fast rule, nor should there be, but in general we should use the one they most favor, or if there's no stated preference then the one they list first. In rare cases where there's no consistent order in which they list pronouns (which in fairness I did for a while, on purpose), then I would treat it like MOS:ENGVAR or MOS:ERA: just use whatever the first editor of the article uses. As to consistency, the only time I can think of where it would make sense to be inconsistent is if the subject requests it and gives some well-defined rule, e.g. "I take she/her pronouns, or they/them for times prior to my transition" or "I take he/him pronouns in my personal capacity, but she/her when pertaining to my drag career". We should not, say, be alternating between she and they in an article just because a subject takes she/they. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Failing to be consistent with the usage of a subject's pronouns in an article would make it extremely confusing as to whom any particular instance of a pronoun is referring. JM (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:Celia Rose Gooding#RfC on pronouns attempted to address a preference for any pronoun over another pronoun, and resolved without a clear consensus, but it seems pretty clear that alternating between pronouns was not considered as a strong option. There was some support for the idea that pronoun order is relevant (the RFC closer suggested that there was dispute on this, but as far as I can tell, that was a mistake). — HTGS (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Photo Example

User:Mathglot and others,
The section concerning pre-coming-out photos states "The article about The Wachowskis, for example, is better without any pre-coming-out photos since the way they looked is not well known as they shied away from public appearances.", but the article concerning them has pre-coming-out photos, this, so I think it is a bad idea to have contradictory information.
So I think that either the example should be changed on this page, or the photo should be changed on that page.
I can do stuff! (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Icandostuff Thanks for finding that; I was unaware of it. You have a very good point, and I don't know which is right. At first glance, I think the photos at The Wachowskis should be changed, but I'd like to hear what others have to say. It's contradictory now, but the sky won't fall if it's inconsistent for a little while; let's have a wider discussion about this, and see where it goes. What do you think should happen here? Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think that that part of the policy is well thought-out, so I think that the image should be removed from their article. Though, I think that a good example is needed there, so I don't really know.

Thank You User:Mathglot, I can do stuff! (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV

This guideline heavily conflicts with Wikipedia's core principle demanding a neutral writing style, as essentially all of the deviations from traditional pronoun usage suggested therein are closely associated with gender related activism, and thus generally unsuitable for writing politically and ideologically neutral articles. This page should therefore be either deleted or completely revised. Megalogastor (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A person's gender is not "activism", any more than any other aspect of their identity. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 00:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

A person's grammatical gender and the use of corresponding pronouns is not an aspect of people's identity; the attempt to make this a personal choice that others have to follow when writing about them, and thereby spreading hitherto unusual language, is very clearly an act of activism, and thus must not be supported by Wikipedia under any circumstances. See also Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment-Megalogastor (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Gendering men with he, women with she, and even the singular they are standard practices in English dating back centuries, hardly unusual. The validity of transgender identity (i.e. the fact that trans men are men), and the fact that Wikipedia respects transgender WP:BLP subjects at least enough to correctly explain what gender they are, has nothing to do with grammar or style.

Please see MOS:GIDINFO and review the decades worth of RfCs preceding and supporting MOS:GENDERID. You are the umpteen billionth person to make one of many disingenuous grammar-based arguments in favor of misgendering living people on Wikipedia. Community consensus is extremely clear on this point, and this guideline is unlikely to change. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot where I was. This is the essay documenting the 20 year history of pronoun-related RfCs on Wikipedia. Consider skimming to avoid repeating common arguments. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 16:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Avoid singular they/their/them when confusion is possible?

In this page it says to avoid confusing phrases such as 'He gave birth to a child', I've come across several confusing sentences using singular they such as: 'In the end, Nemo from Switzerland came out on top with their song "The Code", garnering over 591 points in the Grand Final and giving Switzerland their first win since 1988.', upon reading this one might reasonably assume Nemo is a band, but it's a person. Another example from DYK is: 'Did you know... that Jex Blackmore, an American pro-choice activist and Satanist, performed art with 100 pounds (45 kg) of rotten fruit (pictured) before their second abortion?' their made me assume 'their' referred to a partner initially rather than a singular person.

Should this page be updated to include avoiding confusing usage of they or should I just use common sense and change any confusing sentence I come across? (Although that can't be done in some cases such as DYK). Traumnovelle (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Common sense applies, but I don't think these specific examples are especially ambiguous or confusing, beyond the fact that readers not used to hearing about non-binary people will tend to expect the antecedent of they to be plural. At least when the (one, unambiguous) antecedent is a bluelink and clarifying facts about them are easily retrievable (e.g. by hovering), I don't think this a substantial issue, although changing e.g.

• Nemo from Switzerland -> the Swiss singer Nemo
• before their second abortion -> before having their second abortion

would be acceptable.

More egregious ambiguity is when they has multiple possible antecedents, or could be mistaken for referring to multiple people in the sentence when actually referring to only one person. For example:

• Zach^[they] and Moss^[he] went to the sub shop. They^[Zach] got fries while he^[Moss] got a sandwich.

Restructurings which improves clarity are good, but should generally not come at the cost of omitting a subject's pronouns or awkward over-reliance on using their name instead. They/them pronouns are not themselves confusing. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

>beyond the fact that readers not used to hearing about non-binary people will tend to expect the antecedent of they to be plural.

So the average reader will expect it to be plural...

>but should generally not come at the cost of omitting a subject's pronouns

Why? The point of pronouns is for easy communication in replace of a noun. If that cannot be achieved using phrase's like 'Zach got fries' is perfectly accept and fine. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)