Talk:Sarah McBride

Retroactivity or gender identity vs. historical fact

Where does the balance lie between respecting transgender individuals and their right to their identity and the statement of historical fact? Is it enough to assume that people will understand the necessity of the retroactive female pronouns by the use of the word 'transgender'? Should historical fact be ignored or denied in order to respect a person's stated identity? It seems to me that an encyclopedia should include all relevant, well-sourced biographical information, even at the risk of offending individuals. After all, if someone is famous enough to merit inclusion here, their original identity will most probably be widely known and ignoring or denying it - as if things were never any different - would seem an odd, and unencyclopedic, omission. Dysfunctional Human Unit (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

See MOS:GENDERID. Any change to policy should be discussed centrally, rather than on this article. meamemg (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Birth name ***** not important to the article?

As I'm an old fogey and I didn't really understand the basics of "transgender", I had to look it up. After learning what the word transgender means, I assumed, and correctly, that a "female transgender" must have started out as a male, and thus in the highest probability was given a different name at birth, and in the case of the present subject, that would be *** (unsuccessful in finding a reference to "*******"). But, I'm already on the Wikipedia page. I shouldn't have to look up facts about the subject somewhere else. I'm already here! I think this fact should be disclosed in the Early Life section. giggle (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi giggle, please check out MOS:MULTIPLENAMES to learn more about Wikipedia guidelines for handling the names of transgender people:

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included only if the person was notable under that name...If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. (See also: WP:Manual of Style § Identity, and the article Deadnaming.)

More precisely, MOS:DEADNAME. KevTYD (wake up) 20:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

This is line with the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." In short, it's generally respectful of a trans person's privacy and identity to not refer to their "deadname" unless absolutely necessary for some reason. We don't need to do it in this article - people's curiosity is not a good enough reason to include it. McBride's life in the public eye has been under her name of Sarah, so that's the right name to use consistently throughout the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing private about anybody stating to the world that he or she is now transgender. The fact that it is public information makes the argument for privacy pointless. 50.107.148.21 (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There was recently a RfC on this issue. In my understanding the consensus is to generally exclude deadnames from articles unless the subject is notable under the previous name, and I've seen no evidence of this in McBride's case. We exclude private information unless we have good reason to include it, and the consensus on DEADNAME tells us to consider trans/NB people's deadnames private. Just because someone is out as trans doesn't mean that all the details of their transition are no longer private. SreySros (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Correction: 2nd Openly Transgender State US Legislator (not first)

When she is sworn in, Sarah McBride will become the second openly transgender state senator in the country.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_Roem

Danica Roem: "She is the first openly transgender person to be elected to the Virginia General Assembly, and in January 2018 became the first to both be elected and serve while openly transgender in any U.S. state legislature." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.186.125 (talk) 64.38.186.125 (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Danica Roem is a legislator but not a state senator. She's a member of her state's assembly not her state's senate. Rab V (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Point taken. Thanks for clarification.64.38.186.125 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY

Sarah came out in college but she was always female - and under MOS:Identity - gender-neutral language should not be used when describing a trans person before they came out. Ergo, "child" in the paragraph describing her girlhood should be replaced with 'girl'. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, though I think "later attended as a girl" could create some confusion regarding when she transitioned/became open about her identity. How about a reword to "Her mother was a guidance counselor and a founder of the Cab Calloway School of the Arts. Sarah graduated from Cab Calloway in 2009 and earned a bachelor's degree from the American University in 2013." Cannolis (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think that reword should happen. Regardless of your intentions - which I know were in good faith - we should not alter the article just because some cis people might not understand how being trans actually works. They should learn instead, and we should not violate the MOS:GENDERID policy - which states to avoid being vague about trans people's gender before they came out, only using their assigned name on the occasion they were notable. I'm not upset at you of course, but please revert your changes with this wording, as by avoiding gendering Sarah you are violating that policy. Avoiding gendering her because of cis people's misconception about what being trans is actually like only validates that misinformation, which not only harms a marginalised group regardless of your selfless intention - but goes against Wikipedia's purpose as a fact-based encyclopedia.92.10.13.209 (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that WP:GENDERID is an essay, not a policy. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say MOS:GENDERID, sorry 92.10.13.209 (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a style guideline, not a Wikipedia policy. And where does that guideline suggest that "gender-neutral language should not be used when describing a trans person before they came out"? It notes that one should use gendered words "that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification" but that doesn't mean a gender-neutral word is necessarily problematic. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at the page for Caitlyn Jenner. If you try to edit her page, you will get a notice saying "The article currently uses feminine pronouns throughout, as per the applicable guideline, MOS:IDENTITY. Please do not change feminine to masculine pronouns, or attempt to rewrite all sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. See the talk page for further discussion." The same procedure applies here. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, and that's because some editors were trying to use masculine pronouns when discussing Jenner's activities before she identified as Caitlyn. But that's not what this article was doing. In the end, what edit are you advocating for? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not upset at you and I mean this as constructive criticism - if you are going to edit articles about trans people, you need to understand that being trans isn't a choice. Trans women have always been female - including Caitlyn Jenner and Sarah McBride - that's why we say trans people were 'in the closet' before they came out. By avoiding gendering Sarah before she came out, this article is doing the exact same thing as those editors who were using he/him pronouns for Caitlyn - regardless of your and Cannoli's intentions, which I know were selfless. By avoiding gendering Sarah when discussing her life before she came out, you are both invalidating the fact that she was always female, which not only contributes to misinformation about a marginalised group (trans people) but also goes against Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. Non-gendered language should not be used at any point. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I also know we can write sentences that don't need gendered language just due to creating a varied reading experience (put another way, one does not need to use a gendered term at every opportunity, and that's ok). Regardless, I repeat my question: what edit are you advocating for? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To continue my comment, I disagree that "Non-gendered language should not be used at any point". Mis-gendering is wrong, certainly, but we do not need to strain to always reflect one's gender at every possible moment. That's just not good writing. As for this article, I'm fine with saying "she graduated" or "she attended" when referencing her high school. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm advocating for Cannolis' edits to be reverted back to @Rab V's edits, which is the revision before Cannoli edited the page. You misunderstood me - I was not saying gendered language doesn't need to be used at any point - I was saying that Cannoli edited the page to remove mentions of Sarah being a girl, which is transphobic even though I know they didn't intend to be transphobic and were editing in good faith. They have been nice to me in their interactions with me and I mean my criticisms as constructive.

People always reflect cis people's gender at every possible moment off Wikipedia (i.e. if talking about a cis woman named Paula (she/her) they would write "Paula drove to her friend Marie's" or "she drove to her friend Marie's"). In casual writing, people never avoid gendered language for cis people (i.e. calling Paula by her surname in this instance) and the same thing applies to trans people. However, Wikipedia is written formally. As a trans woman myself, I don't use gendered language to refer to trans people - or cis people - all of the time when writing Wikipedia. I use surnames regularly because Wikipedia is written formally. I also use pronouns (i.e. "In April 2022, he announced he would be reprising his role as Walter White on Season 6 of Better Call Saul") with the same level of regularity - a lot of the times to vary my vocabulary, the same way as you do.

However, that's not why Cannolis didn't use gendered language. Cannolis excised the word "girl" in the sentence because cis people might not know that trans women have always been female and subsequently get confused (specifically, Cannolis said "...could create some confusion regarding when she transitioned/became open about her identity"). This does not change harmful, unscientific misconceptions about what being trans is actually like - it structures the sentence around them rather than dismantling them - and it goes against Wikipedia's purpose as a fact-based encyclopedia. Avoiding gendering Sarah when talking about before she came out - in the specific way and for the specific reason Cannolis did it - is misgendering, regardless of their intention which I know was in good faith. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with your interpretation of my concerns and intentions. I'm not saying that "McBride was a boy then, and is now a girl", my concern is that "as a girl" could easily be misunderstood that she was openly attending school as a girl. From the cited sources, this does not appear to be true. To use that phrase without potential confusion would require multiple qualifying statements about how she was always female but at that time was living under her deadname until she publicly came out, and even then we could be incorrect as she may have came out to her family and/or friends at earlier points. Going into that detail is not particularly pertinent to her notability and as MOS:GENDERID also says "generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent" I think it best to avoid everything but when she chose to publicly come out. A recent edit made it so the sentence leads with "She graduated from..." - I feel this is an improvement to my change, do you feel that is sufficient?

Also would just like to note that featured articles on cis folks such as Christian Bale and Katharine Hepburn both use "as a child". Caitlyn Jenner also actually uses "as a young child". I don't feel it's a case of "avoiding gendered language" when people use the phrase, just another way of saying "when he/she/they were young". Don't feel it is necessary to revert the article back to that though, current wording works for me. Cannolis (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)