Talk:Brandon Teena/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Use of His and Him

I am far from being closed minded and actually support transgender and gay rights. However I must question the accuracy of the use of male terms since a transgender person is not legally of the sex they wish to be until surgery has been performed. Social views should not get in the way of technical accuracy when it comes to Wikipedia. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

This can be a tricky one and has been discussed multiple times in relation to this article. For previous discussions, please review:

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Teena/Archive_1#Discussion_of_proper_pronoun_usage

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Teena/Archive_1#Gender.2C_sex.2C_pronouns

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Teena/Archive_1#Pronoun_usage

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Teena/Archive_2#Am_I_missing_something.3F

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Teena/Archive_2#Speaking_of_citations

Also related are:

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Teena/Archive_1#Gender_vs._Sex

b) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Teena/Archive_2#There_is_something_wrong_with_wikipedia_style_guidelines

c) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandon_Teena/Archive_2#Name_etc

In no way do I claim to know the "correct" answer/solution to this continually raised question. ZueJay (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I am afraid it has become clear to me that this article is one of those "ethical crusade" type articles that result in bias against the technical or scientific accuracy of data in order to appease certain social views.

It is apparent that in recent times some Wikipedia contributors are becoming less interested in accuracy and more interested in a custom sort of view of information, subject to the whims and desires that are the mainstream of the hour.

In the end it is my opinion that the subject of this article was female in any technical and legally accepted sense. However due to the tragedy of their death and the overall hardship of their life, certain contributors have forgone accuracy to create an article that they somehow think softens this in some way.

Indeed we need more technically and legally acceptable forms of gender identification and language uses for "transgender" individuals, but until that time comes this article remains inaccurate.

I do not have the time or enthusiasm to engage in a battle with any "crusaders" and therefore will not change any pronouns used in this article.

Hurricane Floyd (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "crusade". It's straight out of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

... and MOS:IDENTITY - the Manual of Style for Wikipedia. While I agree that it can be confusing at best, it's probably the best option so we at least have consistency - Alison ^❤ 20:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the entire Wikipedia general consensus that agreed upon this naming convention supports trading accuracy for social sensitivities. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be an Encyclopedia, which should weigh technical accuracy against social convention. There are MANY examples throughout Wikipedia of this situation. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Read up on the difference between sex and gender if you think that's what's going on here. If you still don't understand the difference, then think carefully about how you actually determine whether to refer to somebody as "he" or "she" when you're meeting them for the first time: do you stick your hand down their pants to see whether they have a penis or a vagina between their legs? Or do you evaluate presentational cues like their appearance, their wardrobe, their physical mannerisms and the depth and tone of their speaking voice? Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What Bearcat said. Also, although it doesn't apply in this case, we've had BLP issues with this in the past which have led to complaints. People have used this to attack article subjects and disparage them - Alison ^❤ 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose convention has to start somewhere, Wikipedia is as good a place as any. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it says early on in the article that Brandon was a biological female. That should set the tone and inform our readers early on in the situation. Furthermore, maybe choose the first male pronoun, add a reference to an explanation of our conventions in the footnotes?? What do you think? Would this help? - Alison ^❤ 18:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph of the article is sufficient to dispense with any confusion that might result from the convention. And both sides of the argument presented here have merit. However, that this is an accepted, undisputed Wikipedia convention does bother me to some degree. From the provided links: "Transsexual people, for example, should be referred to using the personal pronouns (male, female, or another) that they themselves prefer." This explicitly mentions transsexual individuals rather than transgender, as Brandon was, but I'll leave that aside for the moment. I'm sure this is not the appropriate venue to discuss what I feel is a problem with this incredibly broad policy, but I wouldn't really even know where else to start. Self-identification is an incredibly powerful concept and rightfully should impact how an individual is addressed in her or his daily life, personal communication, and even literature. But I also find it to be inherently inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Consider my friend who wants to be considered as having a gender that is not at all adequately described by the English language, and would like to be referred to in all cases using the pronoun 'gweb.' Under the current policy, would gweb get what gweb wanted in an article about gwebself? Obviously, you are unable to determine either the biological sex or psychologically gender of my friend from the preceding sentence; yet the policy seems to indicate that my friend's desire to self-identify a certain way is all that should affect the presentation of the article.

For better or for worse (and, if you ask me, often for worse), the gender pronouns in English are sex-based. For some evidence, consider Bearcat't claims above made in defense of the current policy: "If you still don't understand the difference, then think carefully about how you 'actually' determine whether to refer to somebody as 'he' or 'she' when you're meeting them for the first time: do you stick your hand down their pants to see whether they have a penis or a vagina between their legs? Or do you evaluate 'presentational' cues like their appearance, their wardrobe, their physical mannerisms and the depth and tone of their speaking voice?" Under this criteria, a supremely convincing drag queen who didn't even self-identify as female would be uniformly referred to as "she." In actuality, one might refer to such a drag queen as "she" at first, before knowing the anatomical sex of the individual, and then feel mistaken and begin using the pronoun 'he' after learning it. By the way, used above is the forced sex-neutral English pronoun "they," grammatically reserved only for the plural. A true singular sex-neutral personal pronoun is obviously ideal; I would certainly prefer it if we had the option not to convey sex grammatically. But "it" is obviously offensive in this context, and we have no other options available to us.

I concede that the line is impossible to draw in all cases, especially those concerning transsexual individuals. But I feel that the pronoun policy in place is inadequate for many situations, not neutral, and at worst, actually endorses a point of view about transgender issues. In the first section, concerning largely the same discussion, it is suggested that those who do not understand the naming conventions in use are either "backwards" or "ignorant," and that it is unnecessary for Wikipedia to discuss basic transgender issues on a page about an individual. I agree with this last bit. But neither is it the place for transgender issues (or any other ideological cause) to influence the conventions in use.

--72.35.67.9 (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are supposed to refer to a drag queen as "she" while she's in drag, even if she's not the least bit convincing as a woman. You can revert to "he" once he's out of character and walking down the street in jeans and an "I'm not gay but my boyfriend is" T-shirt, obviously, but while he's in drag, you use female gender pronouns. I can't speak to whether cross-dressing heterosexual men have different expectations — but within gay culture it's not even a matter of debate, it's just the way it's done. It's not even all that ideological, really — it's simple, old-fashioned Miss Manners etiquette: the person being labelled gets to decide what their identity is, not you. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

English is indeed in sore need of gender neutral proper pronouns. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

es:Brandon Teena —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.45.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, surgery is not a prerequisite, as someone claimed above. There are plenty of legally male people waking around with vaginas. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I was the one who added the edit that added info about Teena being biologically female, over a year ago, which seems to have found acceptance in this section of the discussion; the irony is that when I first added it there were some people who felt that I was "ignorant" or "backwards" for adding it and thinking it necessary, because they thought that a link to Transgender was sufficient explanation. Srajan01 (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement on top of talk page

should be modified to reflect that Naming conventions is only proposed and has thus no bearing on this article. Furthermore, in the interest of transparency we should make clear that MOS:IDENTITY is only a guideline and not a policy, so we should add something along the line of "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article", to make clear that the occassional exception might apply here, in particular given the special situation that we do not know which name this person used prior to his death. 76.116.246.213 (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policies most certainly can be applied and referred to here, and guidelines are expected to be followed unless there's actually a valid and cogent reason to override them. Please read WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, which makes it quite clear that "that's just a guideline, so we can ignore it" is not a valid argument on Wikipedia — guidelines and proposed policies are binding unless an editor can present an actual reason, spelled out on this talk page, to make an exception to them. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of telling me what I should read, what about you reading what I said. Did I say "that's just a guideline, so we can ignore it". No, I did not say that - I said "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article". And since then do proposed policies "most certainly can be applied" when they are not accepted by the community? Can you please point me to the policy that says that proposed guidelines can be applied here when it comes to naming issues? 76.116.246.213 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop arguing against abstractions? If you have a specific issue with something that this article specifically says about Brandon Teena which you specifically want changed, then raise that specific issue and explain why it should constitute a specific exception to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as they stand. Otherwise, this is end of discussion, because right now you're arguing about a principle that has no actual reason behind it whatsoever. A proposed guideline needs to be respected and followed as much as possible until such time as it's explicitly rejected, precisely because the proposed guideline is a summary of established consensus and practice as it already stands. And if you can't see how my responses have been and continue to be completely germane to the point you're raising, that's really not my problem. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. As a guideline can be proposed by anyone, it should summarize established consensus, but that does not imply that it does so, and that is the reason why a proposed guideline has no bearing whatsoever as long as it is not accepted by the community. I am also wondering what you mean by arguing against abstractions. I am raising my objection to the posting of a misleading statement on top of this talk page. That is something very concrete as is evidenced by the repeated reversals and the refusal to give valid reasons for why this statement should be on top of the talk page. 76.116.246.213 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing about a precedent statement that was placed at the top of the talk page because of repeated attempts to flip the article's gender pronouns. Unless you have a specific issue with something that the article says about Brandon Teena, and a specific reason why that specific change should be treated as a specific exception to the guidelines as they stand, this discussion is completely pointless and unnecessary.

That's what I mean by arguing against abstractions: you're not raising an actual issue with the article — you're merely arguing about a precedent summary that's contained on the talk page, for no discernible reason beyond the principle of arguing about a precedent summary that's contained on the talk page, when you have yet to raise a single issue about the article's content that even remotely conflicts with the precedent summary in the first place.

Do you have an issue with the article's actual content or not? If you don't, then what the hell is your damage? Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So much for being polite and open minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.253 (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

So much for attempting to get actual answers about what the actual point of this discussion was. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So much for being polite. I don't blame the other poster for ignoring you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.253 (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing impolite about my responses. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If ya say so, boss, whatever helps you sleep at night. 70.100.90.216 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Page move

In order to follow through with a move through consensus, can those involved in the discussion vote as to support or disagree Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Find a Grave

How is "Find a Grave" being allowed on this as a reference? Does this actually fall within established wiki guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.130 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference is specifically about where he's buried and what's on his tombstone. Find A Grave is fine for that kind of information. nut-meg (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So if I said "Martian" on a gravestone, which is not checked by anyone for accuracy, then it would be allowed by wiki? That tells me how accurate these sources really are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.131 (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Name used

"mainly using the name Brandon Teena" If this was something invented after the murders, how is it that he used it before his death? This article contradicts itself. Read note 1. "^ Teena never legally changed his name so it is uncertain the extent to which this name was used prior to his death. It is the name most commonly used by the press and other media. Other names may include his legal name, as well as Billy Brenson and Tena Ray"

This article should refer to "Brandon Teena" as a she or her

If Brandon Teena never had any kind sex reassignment surgery or not born a hermaphradite than why is she being refer to he or his. This is fair question and it is clear that this article was written with opinions not the facts. I suggest that this article be changed immediately. Just because a man or women act like their oppisite sex or dress like it doesn't mean they are. If have not had a sex change operation then you still are the sex you where born. It seems that whoever wrote this article was bais when he/she wrote it. - Al March 9 2009

Whoever wrote this article is a great deal of people, and this topic has been brought up many times. Secondly, MOS:IDENTITY states that a transgender person should be referred to by their latest preference of name and pronoun. For Brandon Teena that preference was quite obviously male.

- State of Love and Trust (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Transgender people are referred to by the pronouns that match their public gender presentation, not necessarily the pronouns that match the current configuration of their sexybits. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand this. The problem is that, unfortunately, 98% of the people out there do not understand transgender issues or are unfamiliar with them. So for the uninitiated, the article is confusing.nut-meg (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tough. Wikipedia biographies work on the basis of respecting their subjects on basic issues such as pronouns. Rebecca (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So can anybody change their gender just by stating so?  : - nytemaer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.115.60 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.16.17 (talk) 23:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if you can't grasp the fundamental principle (not that it's actually that difficult to comprehend, but whatever), can you at least grant that article subjects should maintain the right to define and identify themselves, whether you understand where they're coming from or not? Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not debatable. Regardless of your personal philosophy on the matter, Wikipedia guidelines are clear. Falsetto (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Appeals

This article states both Nissen and Lotter are appealing their convictions, but all cited sources only go into detail about Lotter appealing using Nissen's revised version of events. Is Nissen even bothering with appeal? Is there a reference for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.27.76 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brandon was not a transexual... Please!!! get the meaning of transexual in the dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.227.39.160 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me you have looked at one definition from the dictionary (there are many dictionaries which have different definitions) and made a snap judgment based on it... even so, I have yet to see a definition of "transsexual" which excludes Brandon's state. This is hardly a discussion anyway, as you neglected to state what this dictionary entry was and why it doesn't fit. Please give a better answer in the future. Furthermore, keep in mind that transsexualism has a lengthy psychological definition which cannot properly be summed up in a two-line entry. Falsetto (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

First/last name confusion

In different parts of the article, Brandon Teena is referred to by only his first or only his last name. Given that his chosen first/last name correspond to his birth last/first name, respectively, a reader might assume that the article is alternating between his given and chosen names. This is both confusing and against Wikipedia policy.

I think the best solution, and most consistent with policy, is to replace all references to Brandon Teena, other than the first, with his chosen last name, and to add a disclaimer at the beginning of the article addressing the confusion.

That said, I understand that this is a particularly sensitive and confusing case, and I'm by no means suggesting this as the only possibility. If someone else has a better idea, please suggest it! SashaMarievskaya (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

This is likely due to vandalism, I'll look at cleaning it now. -- Banjeboi 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Abusing Spirit of Wikipedia

It seems that Wikipedia has turned into nothing but a soapbox for certain people, and a few with Administrator privileges to push their own agenda. Teena Brandon was born a female, and when she was unfortunately murdered, was still a female. Yet the article continuously identifies her as male. Teena Brandon's own FAMILY identified her as a female, per her tombstone calling her a loving "DAUGHTER, SISTER, Friend", but here at Wikipedia some people want to use her tragic death to push their own gay rights agenda. THAT IS SICK AND DESPICABLE! They cite the famed "MOS:IDENTITY" statute here on Wikipedia, but if you read the whole thing in it's entirety, you will very clearly see it is meant for identifying GROUPS of people, like their example of Jew to for a single person "Jewish" as the group identifier. So, for EVERYONE who does not have administrator status on here, please know that Wikipedia isn't the great project where EVERYONE shares in creating a FACTUAL online resource, but rather it is a soapbox for certain people to push their agenda, even if it isn't a true and accurate representation of the facts!

Tgox1 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read MOS:IDENTITY in its entirety, you'll actually see that it applies to groups and to individuals. And it doesn't matter what Brandon's family says; it matters what Brandon said about whether Brandon was male or female. Because in those cases where there's a discrepancy between the gender of a person's brain and the physical sex of their fun bits, the brain is the trump card. The identity rule explicitly says that Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.

And this isn't about anybody's "sick" gay rights agenda, either (and read WP:NPOV before describing anything as "sick" on here again) — it's about simple respect for a person's basic right to self-determination. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll also add that per NPOV we present that Teena's gender self-identification was oppose by the mother as well, of course, by those that ultimately committed the murder. If there is some reliably sourced content you feel is missing please present it so we can see what should be changed or added. -- Banjeboi 00:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Banjeboi,

Here is a test you can do in your head. If you can honestly say Teena Brandon fits in this criteria...I'll be impressed.

Actually the MOS:IDENTITY citation is not being applied correctly in this case. That particular statute is to mean an identifier for a GROUP of people as opposed to one. For instance in the IDENTIFIER it uses the name "JEWISH" in describing a person who would categorize themselves singularly as a Jew, or someone of the JEWISH faith. In this instance with Teena Brandon, it is the exact same thing as if I was born in Europe of 100% Caucasian descent, but one day I wake up and decide that I want to be Asian because I like Bruce Lee movies, so I am going to change my ETHNICITY by calling myself Asian, and that makes me so. For whatever reason whenever I change the Teena Brandon page to reflect HER true gender, someone always changes it back, and just recently someone with Administrator privileges blocked that page from being corrected. Of the three people who have changed the page back, if you go to their page, they either list themselves as Gay or Lesbian, or are heavily involved with similar pages here on Wikipedia, which is a clear and compelling case of them using Wikipedia and Teena Brandons tragic death for their soapbox. This goes against the impartiality of the spirit of Wikipedia, and adds to the opinion of many in the world that Wikipedia is not a fair and balanced resource that can be trusted. And I am very sorry to have to say that. Tgox1 (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As per Banjeboi's comment about me saying I categorized someones "Sick Gay Rights Agenda" (And this isn't about anybody's "sick" gay rights agenda, either (and read WP:NPOV before describing anything as "sick" on here again) —) I did not say that. What I said was PUSHING their agenda on here was sick, not the Gay and Lesbian position or whatever you want to call it, as being sick. If how I said whatever it is I said sounded like that, I want to say that was not what I meant, and I apologize if I offended anyone.Tgox1 (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've disabled the protected edit request, as there does not seem to be any description of the edit needed in the above rants.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated the request for edit as the information "in the rant" that Barbarian so tastefully put it, states quite clearly and simply why there is a need to edit the Teena Brandon article. Tgox1 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

An editprotect needs to be specific. It is not enough to state that "there is a need to edit the ...article". Per the instructions in Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, you should "clearly indicate which sections or phrases should be replaced, and what they should be replaced with." For now, I have disabled the request again. Once you have specifics, you can resubmit. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom,

The specific texts that need to be edited is the use of proper pronouns in describing Teena Brandon's gender. Using "his" for "her" is wrong in the sense of Ms. Brandon being born a woman and dying a woman, with no hormone therapies or surgeries to legally change her gender. The MOS:IDENTITY is being cited here in a way that makes the facts of this article wrong, for the reasons stated above and paraphrased below:

"Actually the MOS:IDENTITY citation is not being applied correctly in this case. That particular statute is to mean an identifier for a GROUP of people as opposed to one. For instance in the IDENTIFIER it uses the name "JEWISH" in describing a person who would categorize themselves singularly as a Jew, or someone of the JEWISH faith, for example. In this instance with Ms. Brandon, it is the exact same thing as if I was born in Europe of 100% Caucasian descent, but one day I wake up and decide that I want to be Asian because I like Bruce Lee movies, so I am going to change my ETHNICITY by calling myself Asian, and that makes me so."

I think I answered you satisfactorily, Tom, so therefore I am re-instating the edit protection tag.Tgox1 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually you haven't. You've presented a case for ignoring our guideline that people be referred to as their gender identity. In this case Teena who clearly was living as a man therefore we refer to him as ... a "he". This issue has been discussed many times times before. However it's possible that consensus is this case would be to do something else however you have not persuaded anyone to your POV. And this aligns with seemingly every other discussion on this this subject, Teena identified as a man and we follow their wishes. -- Banjeboi 23:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually Banjeboi, I made a clear and compelling case for the ACCURATE editing of the Teena Brandon page, therefore I am asking the page be opened up so that the facts can be accurately represented.98.232.200.6 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

 Not done due to lack of consensus —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't repeatedly make deployment requests for edits, when there is clearly more time required to prepare or discuss such an edit. The page is protected for a reason, and continuously trying to get administrators to approve and deploy your work is not the way to solve the problem. There is plenty of time for any edit to be deployed, the encyclopedia is not on a timetable to get finished. So make sure you solve the problem before you ask the article to be changed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Banjeboi,

A compromise: The article on Teena Brandon to stay as is, except for a brief description at the beginning of the article stating that the issue of gender as it is applied to Brandon is in keeping with how she represented herself in life, so therefore during this article "she" will be referred to as "he". This will alleviate reader confusion. Does this proposal meet with everyone's approval? We could also solve it by not using pronouns, and write the article in such a way that Teena Brandon (or Teena or Brandon) is used in place of she or he. That would solve the problem as well. We just have to write it so that it is grammatically correct. Tgox1 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not compromise our articles to inject disclaimers as such and the article quickly addresses those very concerns. In addition we include wikilinks to other articles where our readers can get more information. If someone was still confused there is a fairly large message at the top of this page discussing how we address gender identity issues. Likewise we are not going to compromise the writing to eliminate pronouns. -- Banjeboi 01:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Banjeboi, there is a caveat listed very specifically on the MOS:IDENTITY page that say's, and I quote directly:

"Gender-neutral language See also: Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language

Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision. This does not apply to direct quotations or the titles of works (The Ascent of Man), or where all referents are of one gender, such as in an all-female school (when any student breaks that rule, she loses privileges)."Tgox1 (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is different than eliminating pronouns. -- Banjeboi 03:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support following MOS:IDENTITY in this article. It certainly applies to Brandon Teena. There is a section on gender-neutral pronouns after the section on 'identity;' the section is related to a different subject entirely, and isn't relevant to this discussion- it refers to the question of whether it's correct to say things like, 'Every congressperson ate his lunch,' in cases where not all congresspeople are male. Good policy, has nothing to do with this article. It isn't related to pronoun use for transgendered people; it just happens to come after the rule, as the section on foreign terms comes before that rule and is also not relevant to this article. The relevant section of WPMOS is the part of MOS:IDENTITY that says, Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: She fathered her first child). Pronoun use is clearly established by the manual of style: 'he' and 'him' is the correct pronoun use here, according to the manual of style, so there's no reason even to argue about it. It's not uncommon for articles about transgender people to experience pronoun switches from people who would like Wikipedia to follow their own personal opinions regarding gender, but Wikipedia policy doesn't support such edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• What FisherQueen said, and I have to admit having a very low good faith threshold on this particular brand of POV slanting. Black Kite 14:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Per above MOS:IDENTITY is clear. Why has a nearly single purpose, guideline violating account caused this page to be protected? There are better solutions. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two possible things that can happen next: (a) User:Tgox1 can acknowledge the existence of the relevant rule, agree to stop pushing an incorrect edit, and the article can be unprotected. (b)User:Tgox1 can try to remove the rule from this talk page again, and I'll block her. (c)User:Tgox1 can make no response, and the protection will expire at the appointed time, whereupon, having been clearly informed of the relevant rule, I'll block User:Tgox1 if she continues breaking it. Fair? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I say two things? Math is hard. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of forthcoming information in regards to Brandon Teena, I would like to post the following conversation between User:FisherQueen and myself, User:tgox1:

"I have received and reviewed your message in regards to the gender issues concerning the Brandon Teena article. I want you to know I was not trying to push my personal views on the masses of the Wiki-world, but rather was trying to stay as true to the facts as they were/are, and my views have not changed. I was not trying to "edit war" anybody, I made what I honestly feel is good faith edits that were reversed in such a constant fashion that I just took to cutting and pasting the code of the page to re-do what I had already done, and for which people were undoing. I am fairly confident in believing what happened in that somewhere along the lines someone else added edits of whatever, and I missed adding them to the code I had saved. The only other thing I did was clean up an area that was redundant with the same information and links. However which way it played out, there was not the intention of sabotaging any links, edits or what have you.

With all that said, obviously this is a matter that some people feel very strongly about. I was trying to help Wikipedia be a credible online resource of information, and get away from issues such as what was happening on the Brandon article; issues that have unfortunately tarnished the image of Wikipedia to most of the public who see Wikipedia as nothing more then a hodgepodge of misinformation, and EXTREMELY biased. Sadly, I must now count myself among them.

You want the article to be unfair and inaccurate? Fine by me. Just know that when good people spend their time to try and help and get bullied for it, don't wonder when and why the resource YOU stand up for is and always will be considered second rate and a joke.

Tgox1 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You've had opportunities to read the rule at MOS:IDENTITY. When you seemed to have trouble finding the relevant section, I even copied and pasted it into the discussion for you. What seem like 'facts as they are' to you reveals that you do not know very much about transgender people. You are coming across to me, and to other users, as an anti-transgender bigot. If you are not a bigot, but simply don't know very much, Wikipedia has an article on the subject you can read, with links to more information, which will explain it much better than I can. If you're just a bigot, I'm not even slightly interested in conversation with you. If you think that particular rule should be changed, you're welcome to discuss that at the WP:MOS talk page, but I don't think you'll be successful, and while that's Wikipedia's rule, it'll be followed at Brandon Teena. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, FisherQueen, I will admit to you that I probably am not an authority on Transgender issues. I believe I am not a bigot, or have other inert biases towards gay, lesbian or transgendered peoples. But of it's inert, then I guess I wouldn't realize it. I will tell you that I have gay people in my life; my Aunt is in a very long term lesbian relationship and her partner, Diane, has ALWAYS been a member of the family, and is called Aunt Diane. She is very much loved and adored.

In the past week or so I have done cursory searches on the issue of transgender, Teena Brandon and the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual movement (if that is the correct word, I don't want to offend anyone, contrary to belief) and one thing I have noticed is that around 1996 (or so, I am working from memory, please allow me a little latitude) there was a defining shift on the front of gay pride, to the extent the movement "woke up" and now there is a common banner under "LGBT pride". Not to impugn several centuries of fighting for their rights, notwithstanding.

I just wanted to be as fair and accurate as possible. To me, in reporting facts, there is no room for consensus, the facts are the facts. To allow for consensus is allowing room for biased slants and information spinning that can (and does) over time "muddy" the waters.

That is all. Tgox1 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)"Italic text

The article shall remain as is, however I want to unequivocally state that I do stand by my position. As for banning me, go ahead, I will not be editing ANY articles, as I choose not to participate in a biased, spun and hopelessly failed sham of an experiment to reputable journalism.

TGOx1 is male, by the way. Or did I mis-categorize myself, per the famed MOS:IDENTITY rules of engagement?Tgox1 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia is a journalism experiment, you might want to add WP:NOT to your reading list too. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Bearcat,

I am not a genius wordsmith like a lot of you "guy's, gals, his's, her's, peoples (etcetera etcetera), so the words I use, or the classes I prescribe the before mentioned groups to as it pertains to describing my far fetched ideologies in what Wikipedia is/isn't falls dramatically short in the eyes of this community. Isn't being gender word perfect and pronoun politically correct grand? When you have to be all-inclusive so as not to offend anyone, run-on sentences abound!

I don't know IF Wikipedia is a failed journalism experiment or not. That is true. I DO know, however, that it is biased, slanted and not very reputable, which is the same OPINION countless others have. I KNEW there was a reason when high school and college teachers refuse information found and cited on Wikipedia! Foolish me for trying to change that perception.

Enjoy your soapbox. The ring is all yours. Tgox1 (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow - after reading all of this I can say one thing - I agree with Tgox. As an outsider to this discussion it is clear that the subject was a female. Period. That is a fact. The first paragraph has a line that reads "While Teena was still living as a girl, he was..." and that reads wrong. It is confusing to read the article and see how "he" did this and how "he" did that and also be told that Teena "neither commenced hormone replacement therapy nor had sex reassignment surgery" were done. In other words - Teena was a legal female at death. When Hollywood made a movie they cast, not a male, but a female to play Teena. Yes it is "acting" and it is also "Hollywood" so one can not say Hilary Swank is any more male that Tom Hanks is gay, yet they both won Oscars for their respective performances and received critical acclaim. That may not matter is this one sided discussion but what should matter is the facts - and most of you have argued that Teena was not a female simply because she said she was male. Well, according to this article, Teen also "claimed to be intersex several times". So why is it that fact was "later proven to be false" when the fact she was a female, in some of your eyes, also proven to be false. If you all feel that, because Teena said it, she was male than you should also accept she was "intersex" because she also said that. Bottom line is this article is should be cleaned up. Teena was a female living as a male. Period. 24.149.48.112 (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone's gender identity is what we follow. Teena lived as a man and identified as such. If he had not a case would be more compelling to treat this article otherwise. But he did, so we follow his wishes. -- Banjeboi 09:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Than for sure you need to change the line "Teena claimed to be intersex several times, but this was later proven to be false." to read "Teena was also intersex." Clearly the argument is 100% the same - Teena claimed as much "several times" so we must follow his wishes. Also the line "Teena was born as Teena Renae Brandon in Lincoln, Nebraska" should be changed to read something along the lines of "Teena was born a female named Teena Renae Brandon in Lincoln, Nebraska but in later life often used the names Ray, Billy, and Brandon in order to live/appear more as a man." And to clean up the article more the use of the name "Teena" should be only used when discussing "her" early life but later on when the talk begins about "him" the article needs to use one of the male names - Ray, Billy, or Brandon. It seems from 1993 until her/his death the name "Brandon" was the primary name used. Thusly everything from the "Murder" section down for sure should only use the name "Brandon" and not "Teena" as should the "Background" section that begins "In 1993, after some legal trouble,...". In case I am not clear - the argument is that she was a "he" because she said that she was and lived that way so, if that is the true consensus on Wikipedia, that "Teena lived as a man and identified as such", than the article must be cleaned up to be consistent with that. Teena not only "lived" as a man but s/he used the name "Brandon" so Wikipedia editors should "follow his wishes" and only refer to Teena as Brandon in any part of the article after 1993. 24.149.48.112 (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And that was entirely the point I was originally trying to make. Somewhere within this whole discussion there HAD to be somewhere for compromise. To me the facts are the facts, Brandon was born a female and died a female. It is also fact that Brandon was transgendered, and IDENTIFIED with the male gender, so somewhere in this there is a happy middle ground. The consensus on Wikipedia does not agree with MY POV, however, and thus the article remains as is. As I read this article I am smart enough to put two and two together and figure out the perceived disparity, but it takes extra work. When I am reading something I am in my comfort level when I don't have to decipher what is being written about. So, and with not trying to beat a dead horse, I was trying to improve the article for all, no more and no less. I guess the bottom line is that Wikipedia, in being a communal effort, relies on the spirit of consensus. How could it be otherwise? Because right is might, and two people NEVER see the same thing equally and that opens up the door to edit wars that would destroy this resource. But I still must admit, with feelings tinged with melancholy, that MY Wikipedia is still less then what it could be. At least you can always get the "gist" of something, just not the bare bones facts. But I still think it's a darn nice resource. That is all. Chris Hawk (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes a person male or female is their own self-identity, not the legal state of their genitals. The law, in fact, doesn't actually have a whole lot to say about genitals at all, other than a few rules, some justified and some rather archaic, about what you are and aren't allowed to do with them — it says nothing about how pronoun usage maps or doesn't map to one's sex organs, because "the law" is not what dictates which gender pronouns one uses for a particular person. A person's own public gender presentation and conscious gender identity is what dictates the pronouns.

As I've pointed out in past iterations of this debate, unless you're a deeply rude and inappropriate person, when you're meeting someone new you decide whether to call them he or she based on their appearance and presentation and the sound of their voice and how they're dressed, not by sticking your hand down their pants to verify what kind of dangly bits they happen to have. Gender simply is not a matter of law; it's a socially constructed cue.

And as for when Hollywood made a movie they cast, not a male, but a female to play Teena, I'd point out that you could apply the exact same rationale to Bob Dylan, because Cate Blanchett played him in I'm Not There, and I really, truly doubt you're purposely intending to go down that road. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

you could apply the exact same rationale to Bob Dylan, because Cate Blanchett played him in I'm Not There - You left out Christian Bale, Marcus Carl Franklin, Richard Gere, Heath Ledger, and Ben Whishaw - all men, who were also cast in the film. But I truly doubt you meant to leave out that fact. It seems that the few editors who oversee this article and seem to claim it as their own will never allow it to be grammatically fixed so the he/she and Teena/Brandon issues are cleaned up but, as I stated, "as an outsider" to the discussion it is disjointed and needs to be cleaned up. That is the beauty of listening to an outsider looking in. It is also a bit ironic that one of the core "guidelines" at Wikipedia is to NOT let the subject of an article say what is said in an article, for example if a band often said "We are the greatest band in the world!" it would not be in the article simply because the band said it. Likewise if an editor made the same claim - "I have heard of this band and I think they are the greatest band in the world so I am saying it in the article" - it would not be in the article. But this is an article where these guidlines do not apply at all. One can use the gender argument all they want but simply because it was someone's wishes to be known as the greatest band ever, the greatest lover ever, a man, a woman, God, Buddha or Canadian does not make it so and is not a reason for placing it into an article over and over again as has been done here. You could get the exact same point across with one line - "Teena identified as a man and in later years lived as such using the name Brandon". Before that point she was a she and after that point she lived as Brandon, a man. Is this article informative? Sure, but I find what Chris Hawk said above sums it up very nicely: As I read this article I am smart enough to put two and two together and figure out the perceived disparity, but it takes extra work. 24.149.48.112 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is policy and makes it abundantly clear in this case that Brandon should be refered to with masculine pronouns. I just reread the article and the only confusing parts are where there is a sudden shift to feminine prounouns, such as in the middle of the "background" section. MOS:IDENTITY explicitly states that the gender prounouns that reflect the way a person self-identifies should be used "when referring to any phase of that person's life". The article should be "he" and "him" throughout. This is policy, consensus beyond this one article has spoken, there should be no argument here unless somebody has a compelling argument why this article should be an exception, and I have seen no such argument. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is policy and makes it abundantly clear in this case that Brandon should be refered to with masculine pronouns. <- Thank you! That is exactly what I am saying. So circa 1993 when Teena started for sure using the name Brandon and fully living as a male we should use his name only - Brandon and not Teena. However the early life part of the article, when she was still Teena, we should use Teena. So, for example, the first line in the 'Background' section reads 100% correct - Teena was born as Teena Renae Brandon at Lincoln General Hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska, as the second daughter to Patrick and JoAnn Brandon. Most of that first "background" paragraph reads correctly. However with the second paragraph it suddenly says Teena's family described him as being a tomboy since early childhood and that is when the issues myself and others have raised come into play. It is doubtful that JoAnn described "him" as being a tomboy, but more likely describe her daughter as being a tomboy since early childhood. Teena was still Teena at that point so the article has switched from "she" and "Teena" to "him" and "Teena" which is not correct. It goes on to say Teena began identifying as male during adolescence and dated a female student which I see no problems with. However by all accounts she was still "Teena" and living as a female, not a male at that time and just because a girl is "identifying as male" if they are still lving as a female you could not really say she is a he. Without going line by line the point I was making, and still am, is that in Teena's early life she was still Teena and still living as a female. Look at the line about her enlisting: However she failed the written entrance exam by lying about her gender. This article, and Teena's life, isn't a re-telling of Illusions, it is an article on a person who lived and died in the real world. Having said that, I can not find where "Teena" at age 17 or 18 was living fully as a man. However somewhere around that time Teena was kicked out of school and, for the purpose of this article, became a "male" via living more as one. It is important to note that being a tomboy does not mean a female is a lesbian or wants to be a male and clearly, at this point in Teena's life, she was more of a tomboy rather than 100% sure she was really a male trapped in a females body. In 1990 and 1991 Teena seemed to use the name "billy" and dressed boy-ish to see if she could pass as a boy, however it was also clear Teena was still Teena, or as one article says uneasy tomboy by day, cool lady-killer by night. This is all very good background information and one could argue that it needs to be poorly written as it would give the reader the same confused state that Teena was in during this period - boy or girl, gay or man trapped in a females body? Teena is not able to tell us so really nobody editing this can answer that with 100% accuracy. What we can use are facts such as in 1992 Teena underwent a psychiatric evaluation, which concluded that Teena was suffering from a severe sexual identity crisis. That too, helps to ease the "she" to "he" because, and I did say this before, the part that starts In 1993, after some legal trouble, Teena moved to the Falls City region of Richardson County, Nebraska, where he identified solely as a man should, based on the seeming consensus that "we must respect his wishes" the article needs to be edited to all "he/him" and "Brandon" as this is, by all accounts, that "Teena" ceased to exist and "Brandon" was fully born and lived until his death. So the correct lead in would be "In 1993, after some legal trouble, Teena moved to the Falls City region of Richardson County, Nebraska, where she began her life being identified solely as a man named Brandon Teena." And after that Brandon would be a he/him. So statements such as (under 'Sexual assault and murder') During a Christmas Eve party, Nissen and Lotter grabbed Teena and forced him to remove his pants, proving to Tisdel that Teena was transgender. need to be corrected to read "During a Christmas Eve party, Nissen and Lotter grabbed Brandon and forced him to remove his pants, proving to Tisdel that Brandon was transgender."

In case anyone wonders I am not against the article calling Teena "Brandon" and using he/him to refer to "Brandon" however it needs to be consistent and reflect the timeline. At least two other editors now have said as much since I have posted my outside opinion of the article and the discussion. And also the concept of "he" should reflect the time frame of when Teena was, perhaps, no longer confused about who she was. When she was born and less than a day old she did not say with clear conviction "I am a man!", and frankly it is doubtful she said anything that clear until later in life...until 1992 perhaps but for sure in 1993. I think the recent changes to this article are in the right direction and start to make things a lot more clear, now it is just cleaning up the gender jumps - perhaps "background" could be changed, or sub-categorized, to read "As Teena" and "As Brandon" and perhaps a third for "Transition" or the like. And on Brandons death - in the "Aftermath" section is now reads Brandon Teena is buried in Lincoln Memorial Cemetery in Lincoln, Nebraska, his headstone inscribed with his birthname and the epitaph daughter, sister, & friend. which is one of these iffy statements because of what is actually says. A better wording might be "Even though Brandon Teena was living as a man at the time of his death his headstone at Lincoln Memorial Cemetery in Lincoln, Nebraska, is inscribed with Teena Renae Brandon and the epitaph 'daughter, sister, & friend' due to JoAnn Brandon rejecting his male identity." 24.149.48.112 (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So circa 1993 when Teena started for sure using the name Brandon and fully living as a male we should use his name only - Brandon and not Teena. However the early life part of the article, when she was still Teena, we should use Teena... The first thing that you're clearly not grokking here is that in encyclopedic writing, a person is referred to by their surname, not their given name, in the body text of an article — when the article refers to him as Teena, it's doing so because that's the surname he was most commonly known by, not because it was his birthname. For comparison's sake, referring to him as Teena is like referring to Barack Obama as Obama, not as Barack. So it would be wholly incorrect to suddenly switch to "Brandon" at any point in the article — that would be an improper surname-to-first-name switch, as "Teena" is being used in its surname sense, not its given name sense. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the proper encyclopedic way to refer to a person is by their surname, in this case "Teena" would be appropriate, changing to "Brandon" is just confusing the point. Also by my reading of MOS:IDENTITY, Teena should be refered to with masculine pronouns at all points of his life, trying to determine when in his life he switched from identifying as "she" and started identifying as "he" sounds like an exercise in Original research. Exceptions are sentences like "Tina Marie, however named her Teena", where using masculine prounouns would be confusing. However, sentences like, "In the beginning of her senior year..." should be changed to masculine pronouns i.e. "In the beginning of his senior year...". Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In the articles defense, this is not a normal article as we have a subject that used their last name as their first name and their first name a their last name over the course of their existence. We also have a subject that was born a female and, based on the facts, started living fully as a male in 1993. Combine those two and it opens up a world of issues if not clearly worded. The article, as others have pointed out, is currently confusing in how it is written. In order to aid a reader the time frame should follow the wording. It would be confusing, for example, to say "A daughter was born and he was named Teena" however it would be just a confusing to say "A daughter was born and her name was Teena" followed by "He lived with his mother." By default "son" and "daughter" reflect a gender - a son is male, or a "he/him", and a daughter is female, or a "She/her." Can we verify that Teena was born a female? We can as it has been documented. It would be factually wrong to say "A son was born..." so we must say "A daughter was born..." And, again, simply because in later years Teena choose to live as a man does not change the gender she was born. Unless you want to start to argue that facts such as birth do not matter on Wikipedia. In other words even if there is a policy that some read as Teena should be referred to with masculine pronouns at all points of his life the issue(s) are not about policy or a guideline, it is is how this article is presented. It is very hard for those familiar with a subject to be able to stand outside and look in - and that clearly is the case here. Pointing to a Wikipedia policy will not matter because that policy is not about this article and vice versa. Teena was someones daughter - that is a fact that cannot be changed. People can argue genitalia all they want but there must also be a path that follows fact and another than follows how Teena lived, which also needs to based on facts. Provided there is a time-line laid out, what grammar is used should follow that. And on that train of thought, I 100% disagree that trying to determine when in his life he switched from identifying as "she" and started identifying as "he" sounds like an exercise in Original research as we have facts presented to back up a time-frame and, as the article is confusing in it's "he/she" jumps, one needs to do the math. In order to present a time-frame that everyone can follow one should not have to do their own "math" if it follows the facts. If people call Wikipedia an "encyclopedia" than people would come here to get an answer, not be confused. If Teena was born a "daughter" than why are we suddenly using "him" and "he"? And the answer should never be "Because of a Wikipedia Policy" Remember - I have done no editing to the main article but if one were to follow the argument (trying to determine when in his life he switched from identifying as "she" and started identifying as "he" sounds like an exercise in Original research) than the line that states Teena began identifying as male during adolescence and dated a female student should be removed because it is OR. I see no fact presented that Teena "began identifying as male during adolescence" - I do see that Teena was a tomboy, but as I have already pointed out, being a tomboy does not mean a female is a lesbian or wants to be a male. So if that is what the statement "Teena began identifying as male during adolescence..." is based on that that is 100% OR. Bottom line is this: I think the article is informative but it could be a lot better. Without any form of "time-line" that is clearly laid out as to when "she" wanted to be a "he", or without any real life facts, as opposed to editor close to/familiar with the subject or Wikipedia guidlines/policy, the article reads poorly. I have given several ideas on how to make the article read better but it will be up to someone else to edit the main article, keep it closed or make it accessible to all. (And by the way MOS:IDENTITY is part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style - in other words a guideline, not a policy. And it does say Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage which clearly is the case in many section of this article) 24.149.48.112 (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONLYGUIDELINE if you think that "it's a guideline, not a policy" is some kind of radical or compelling insight. Guidelines most certainly are binding in the absence of a far better and salient reason than we've seen here to make an exception to them. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

<--(Outdent for readability) Bearcat - I am not sure what your point is. Policy trumps guidelines, and guidlines trump essays, which are opinions, and Wikipedia has a long standing policy that articles "facts" are not based on peoples opinions, unless the wider community forms a consensus as to why editors should ignore policies such as Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research. (Outside of Ignore all rules that is - which, if that is the case, just say you are invoking it for this article as an admin) You asked me to read an essay to support your implied reason why a guideline should trump policy. If you feel an essay trumps policy, and that a guideline also trumps policy, than what I said would hold true in your eyes - avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage. Really though, that is common sense that most people who have been educated and are above the age of, say, 9, should already know. I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they can understand why stating a daughter was born to someone and following that with a "he" or "him" to refer to the daughter is both confusing and logically impossible. Without the indicator as to "why" a newborn female is being referred to as a "he" it should be changed as I have indicated. Once the article establishes, based on the facts given, the subject has started living another life, under another name, than it no longer becomes confusing or seemingly logically impossible. 24.149.48.112 (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You really have a problem with reading comprehension if you think I said that guidelines trump policies. The guideline isn't in conflict with any policies here; most guidelines, in fact, exist to expand upon how policies are applied in situations where it might not be immediately clear, so they exist in tandem, not in competition. What I said was that guidelines aren't automatically ignorable just because they're guidelines, which isn't even close to being the same thing you think I said. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Bearcat. I think you might need to understand what you said in response to what was said. I stated: Unless you want to start to argue that facts such as birth do not matter on Wikipedia. and I went on to add the issue(s) are not about policy or a guideline, it is is how this article is presented. What Bearcat said in response was Please read WP:ONLYGUIDELINE if you think that "it's a guideline, not a policy" is some kind of radical or compelling insight. Guidelines most certainly are binding in the absence of a far better and salient reason than we've seen here to make an exception to them. Which is an essay. You defense on why a guideline should be above a policy is to read an essay. I maintain that the Policies on Wikipedia are clear - first and foremost editors and articles use facts that can be verified. The core discussion is the use of "he" to refer to someones daughter and about cleaning up the article, which some say is not needed. When questioned about the reasons behind the poor grammer a guideline, not a policy, is cited where an editor might use a "he" for a "she" if that is the way that person thought of themselves. However that guideline also states avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage. I have said I can accept that as long as it is presented logically. If there is any issue with comprehension it is on the part of Bearcat and others who feel there is nothing confusing about how this article is currently presented because they are very familiar with the subject. 24.149.48.112 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that MOS:IDENTITY is policy and policy is binding unless there is compelling reason why we should ignore it. In this case there is not compelling reason to ignore policy. Interpretation about when Teena was identifying as "he" or "she" or even trying to build a timeline is Original research. MOS:IDENTITY is written specifically for these types of situations and carefully spells out that Teena should be refered to by whatever pronoun he was identifying as at the time of his death, in this case he should be refered to with masculine pronouns. Enough wikilawyering, using different pronouns to describe Teena at different points of his life is synthesis at best and original research at worst, either way it is confusing and contrary to policy. Arguments based on trying to establish some moral difference between "policy" and "guidlines" is disruptive. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01 you are incorrect in your comment: The point is that MOS:IDENTITY is policy and policy is binding... - please re-read. Go to the top of the article: This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I 100% agree with what you sate about policy however: In this case there is not compelling reason to ignore policy. But you are reaching/grasping when you say that this guideline carefully spells out that Teena should be referred to by whatever pronoun he was identifying as at the time of his death, in this case he should be referred to with masculine pronouns because there is nothing specific in that guideline that mentions Teena by name. You are adapting an example given in a guideline to support why you feel the article should remain confusing. Fact is fact - the policy goes on fact. Guidelines are meant so expand upon ideas , however they also are there in opes to prevent so many quesitons. The fact in this case is the use of a guideline has resulted in a poorly presented article. 24.149.48.112 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are binding unless there's a good reason to make exception to them. And it isn't the article's fault if an individual reader lacks the ability to comprehend a concept — gender is about what's in your head, not about what's dangling between your thighs — that really isn't that difficult to grasp. A core concept on Wikipedia is that articles have to be written from a standpoint of respect for the basic dignity of the subject. Which means that either we respect and follow Brandon Teena's gender identification, or we don't have an article about him at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I read MOS:IDENTITY. I understand the policy (although I'm not so sure her gender is in question). And I understand both sides of the issue. That said, and policy aside, she was a woman pretending/wanting to be a man. It needn't be any more complicated than that. Count me as thinking it's positively silly to refer to her as "he" in an encyclopedia article. Refering to her as him casually is one thing, but an encyclopedia article should hold to a higher standard of factuality than casual conversation. Just tossing in my two cents... JBarta (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

A transman is not "a woman pretending/wanting to be a man". This isn't radical politics; it's simple basic politeness. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it needn't be any more complicated than a woman pretending/wanting to be a man. Anything can be viewed in any number of ways. Choosing to view something one way does not necessarily render other ways irrelevant (or impolite). I simply suggested that the most basic and clearcut way of looking at it would be the most proper for an encyclopedia. From there, others may apply their own nuances. To my way of thinking, it's pretentious and juvenile for Wikipedia to do it for them. JBarta (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

JBarta, Despite your assertion to the contrary you don't seem to understand MOS:IDENTITY. Policy, i.e. MOS:IDENTITY, has been set about how we refer to people outside of binary gender roles, it doesn't matter what you think is the "most basic and clearcut" or what you feel is most appropriate for an encyclopedia, consensus has been reached and policy has already been decided; Being inconsistent with policy here makes no sense. And contrary to any personal biases you may hold or your (very) apparent ignorance of the subject matter, it would be extremely rude to refer to someone as "she" when they identify themselves as "he". Voiceofreason01 (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement does not equal ignorance. I understand the policy and I understand the issue. If you'll notice above, I preface my statement with "policy aside". I've been around Wikipedia long enough to understand how things work around here. I was merely standing up and being counted as one who believes the concensus, the policy and the article are flawed. And despite what you've come to believe, it DOES matter what I or any other editor thinks. It's every editors responsibility to approach an article critically... not just to run with the pack. At any rate, I've said my piece. I'm likely in the minority. It won't be the first time and it won't be the last. JBarta (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Any further discussion of changing the manual of style should happen at the manual of style talk page, not here. This talk page is for discussion of how the article about Brandon Teena can be improved. This whole section seems to be in the wrong place, since it's entirely about the manual of style, not about this article; I don't see any reason that it shouldn't be archived to make this talk page more readable for discussion of this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'd be remiss if I didn't note that some variation on the pronoun debate is more or less the only discussion about this article that ever really gets posted here... Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading this article and discussion board, it does seem like a few people run everything and no one else is allow in. An agenda perhaps, for sure a monopoly of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.135 (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, no. I hate to break it to you, but Wikipedia isn't (and never was) a free-for-all — there are (and always have been) actual content policies which actually have to be followed, and administrators whose responsibility it is (and always has been) to ensure that those policies are followed. If that doesn't fit with your own personal agenda, that's really not anybody else's problem. The only agenda any of the administrators has here is to ensure that proper policy is followed around identity labelling and reliable sourcing — not because anybody's trying to monopolize anything, but because enforcing Wikipedia's rules is an administrator's job. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"disguised himself as a boy by binding his breasts." is just silly. It is extremely annoying that this article refers to her as 'he' and then describes a female dressing as a male. I don't care about the silly politics over there in the US. In western Europe this isn't taboo. But this just hurts my brain. --95.96.30.170 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's made clear in the very first sentence of the lede what the article is about and in context the pronouns are pretty clear. I don't see a problem. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I see the objection. It's not exactly a pronoun issue: it's that to identify him clearly as "he" and then later say "disguised himself as a boy" is a little jarring in that it implies that he's not really a boy. I've replaced it with "to pass as a boy" which is more consistent with contemporary gender language. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate information makes this a joke.

"Inaccurate information makes this a joke." I agree, this article is terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.131 (talk) 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is there any inaccurate information in the article? Kindly enlighten us, o brilliant sage. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go once again with the smart mouth remarks. If anyone questions the integrity of this article they get jumped upon. One more reason why no one takes this page seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.131 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought: try actually posting real, substantive and detailed criticism of what you believe to be this article's "integrity" issues, instead of simply asserting that it's inaccurate and terrible. If you want a discussion instead of a sarcastic dismissal, try actually posting something that can be discussed. Nobody ever gets "jumped upon" unfairly here. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't make him mad, you might get banned for speaking your mind on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.135 (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia has ever been banned just for having an opinion. People might get banned for using inappropriate behaviour (vandalism, etc.) to express their opinion, but merely having one isn't grounds for banning. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The very sarcasim you express make you sound unprofessional and cheapens this entire article.

Please post what information in this article you believe to be inaccurate so we can try to make the article more accurate. Also I don't see Bearcat's comments as being sarcastic, he is merely stating policy. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion or a place for you to voice your opinion, we are trying to build an encyclopedia, helpful comments and constructive criticism are always welcome, trolling and vandalism are not. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"If you want a discussion instead of a sarcastic dismissal" he even admits to his sarcasim. He is unprofessional and makes a bad impression on anyone that honestly comes in here thinking of helping. Wikipedia is not a place to voice an opinion and yet most of the articles quoted are nothing more than someone opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.135 (talk) 11:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're "coming in here thinking of helping", then try actually helping. My comment was unacceptably sarcastic, but yours was so very helpful and productive? You can't possibly think that's what just happened here, can you? Bearcat (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin, my comments do not detract from WIKIPEDIA as a whole. I was not trusted by WIKI to uphold the rules as they set forth. It appears you have a constant problem with anyone else who comes in here and it makes wiki users feel like they are in a mine field. Few want to make any real changes on here because of that. I might not be helpful and productive, but at least I don't tear everyone else down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.58.82.135 (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As has already been said to you, please post what information in this article you believe to be inaccurate so we can try to make the article more accurate. I'd note that just because I'm an administrator does not mean that I have a responsibility to be eternally and unfailingly polite and accomodating to people who keep making the same tiresome assertions, even though they're both (a) wrong and (b) contrary to policy. Constantly reopening the same tired argument is not helping, it's not improving the article, and it's not being productive. How on earth do you expect people to not have a problem with having to repeat the same insipid debate over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? If you want to be perceived as helping to improve the article, then suggest some damn improvements already. Otherwise there's no purpose to even having this discussion in the first place, let alone continuing it any further. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just the responce I expected. In your little world everyone but you is wrong. This article will continue to fail just because of that reason. It is already a joke amongst those of us who knew these people out here in the real world.

Just the response I expected: you continually fail to point out anything that's actually wrong with the article when you're asked to do so; you just keep asserting that it's inaccurate. If you want your viewpoint to be respected and taken seriously, then you need to actually contribute something of value — I'm not the one living in a "little" or "unreal" world here. If you really knew them all and there's something in the article that's inaccurate or wrong, then you need say what the hell it is so we can discuss and review it — nobody here has any responsibility to read your mind (or to take your word for it if what you say doesn't mesh with reliable published sources, either.) Bearcat (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

DeVine

This may be an inadvertent side effect of an earlier deletion or reversion, but somebody named DeVine appears at the time of the murder without prior introduction of any sort, even to the extent of a first name or gender. This really needs clarification. Dick Kimball (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, he was dating Tisdel's sister, I have added info to the article to that effect. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Since the issue of gender identifier seems to have been settled, I vote this whole section be archived. The discussion page is appearing clunky to me, and the issue has been resolved. Archiving will make room for the next round of discussions.Chris Hawk (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the issue was "settled" years ago. The problem is that it keeps cropping back up over and over again. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that keeping the current discussion about the issue of gender identifiers is helping to keep the issue from resurfacing. I agree the discussion should be archived. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Bearcat, unfortunately the issue of gender identifier WILL keep coming up. As new people come to this article you have to understand that while you have discussed, rehashed and fought the fight so many times that you want to scream...that it is a new issue for THEM. This article is written the best possible way to keep Teena Brandon identified as male, just as he wished in life. I think this article would be better served written differently to reflect the true gender, but consensus is against me. But whatever way you cut the pie, the issue of identity, and how it pertains to the guidelines as set forth on Wikipedia, WITH the way the article is written will keep perpetuating this tired argument. THERE HAS TO BE a problem when the size of the discussion page rivals the size and substance of the article. Archive this discussion already, and if the issue comes up again (Or when!) refer the people to the archives section. That way you don't have to keep discussing the same thing, you already wrote what you wanted to say! See how that works?Chris Hawk (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said I opposed archiving the discussion that's already here. All I said was that the issue never entirely goes away. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ry5707, 13 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I'm requesting that instead of using "Teena" as the main name of reference in this article, it be switched to "Brandon" as last names are usually used in this type of article, all the other people discussed in the article are referred to by last name after the initial use of their full names, and out of respect to his chosen gender identity. Ry5707 (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion. But I think the intent here is to refer to him using his chosen surname, both out of respect for his chosen name and to be consistent. It is an unfortunate happenstance that since "Teena" was his given name at birth, it can look like he is being referred to by his rejected first name. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

he/his

It's protected so I can't edit myself, I think it/it's should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.160 (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo

"He also began rebelling at school by violating the school dress-code policy to dress more masculine." should be replaced by "He also began rebelling at school by violating the school dress-code policy to dress more masculinly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.72.170 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Request NOT to remove edit protection.

Strong support in general for the community of Wikipedia editors in adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. Strong support for MOS:IDENTITY and relevant conventions. Maybe this comment is irrelevant, but if the purpose of the discussion page is to make the article better, I'm going to suggest that this existing policy is making it better.66.134.4.226 (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

seconded193.146.58.181 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Gender Pronoun Issue

This article, while informative, is a bit difficult to follow. The reason is the switching of gender use from main biological designation to self-determined gender identity (though sadly, in this case, that identity was a little shaky.)

I'm not here to pass judgement on a person who was forced to live a lie, and was brutally murdered. The facts of the story are harrowing and bleak.

However, this is an Encyclopedia of sorts, a damn good one in my opinion. And I do question the pronoun usage - it makes the article confusing at first run. I understand that there is a "pronoun reclamation" movement going on in the LGBT community, and that it is being led by American youth and spreading to colleges nation-wide. I went to Hampshire College - I understand these things. And I applaud young people shifting social norms and working for justice.

But can new language usage be forced upon a readership? I'm not certain it can, certainly not without some confusion. What are the literary precedents for dealing with this new usage - is there a general consensus with regards to academic writing? I'm curious.

I don't know what the solve is, and I'm conflicted about the entire idea of pronoun re-assignment. I have very rigid ideas about grammar. But my problem with the article is honestly simply one of parsing information in the quickest manner possible. And I thought it pertinent to express my confusion in contrast to the Edit Request made by a certain other gentlemen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.45 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Brandon was a male; his anatomy is irrelevant. Therefore, the use of male PGPs (he/him/his) is appropriate and correct. There is no problem with the gender pronouns on this page. If someone identifies as male, they are male, regardless of their assigned at birth sex (sex is assigned at birth, gender is how one identifies). 96.236.7.10 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Teena was born female and treated as a girl through childhood, wore feminine clothing and self-identified as a girl until later on (though tomboy-ish... as the article states, and as many girls are... it is the early gender which is relevant in the early part of the entry) - This article reads very strangely and I agree with the original comment.

To refer to Teena as female before adolescence would be a compromise.60.242.39.220 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm here to support the argument. The article is extremely hard to read with the pronoun issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.50.165 (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy requires that male pronouns be used for Brandon Teena throughout this article, including in the sections describing his childhood. See MOS:IDENTITY: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life." Happydemic (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sexual Assault and murder" edits

I'm requesting that we expand the section on Brandon's sexual assault and murder. It is my understanding that the rape and the murders did not occur on the same day, which the article may lead one to believe. The documentary The Brandon Teena Story provides an exhaustive description of the events from the sexual assault leading to Brandon's death on the 31st of December. Is there anyway we can unlock the article to delineate the narrative of the crimes a little further? Ptfescewl (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)