Wikipedia

Talk:Isla Bryson case

Latest comment: 1 month ago by IbringFacts in topic What is this page for, trans Identified men in prisons or the actual crime Islay Bryson did?
Learn more about this page

Inclusion of her former name

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago69 comments31 people in discussion

I edited the article to include her former name in two locations, as I believe its inclusion is required under WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE for the first instance, and WP:NOTCENSORED for the second. However, Sideswipe9th reverted the edit, so I am opening a discussion here.

For the first location I believe WP:NPOV requires the name due to how widely reported it is, including in WP:HQRS. This includes the BBC, Sky News, The Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Atlantic, and many others.

Reliable sources consider it a sufficiently important piece of information to mention; as we are required to reflect all significant views in reliable sources in this case MOS:DEADNAME is overruled by NPOV, because of WP:POLCON which tells us that when a guideline and a policy conflict the policy takes precedence, and because of NPOV itself which tells us that it is non-negotiable and cannot be overruled by consensus.

The dispute over her name is also a key part of her notability and thus by excluding it we are failing to fully explain the story; the disconnect between the name she was charged under and the name she adopted allowed her to get access to women as young as 16 in sensitive settings.

For the second location, we should not be modifying quotes to censor them. The original quote is "He was charged under his original name, Adam Graham, and presumably they knew him by his new name, so they (fellow students) probably wouldn’t have been able to find out anything about this person. It’s absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."; in our article it is "[She] was charged under [her] original name, ..., and presumably they knew [her] by [her] new name, so they probably wouldn't have been able to find out anything about this person. It's absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."

This is an improvement over the previous version, where we were silently censoring the name, but it is still a violation of policy and given how obvious the censorship is will leave the reader questioning why we are omitting the name and generally make the article harder to read and understand. BilledMammal (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect to NPOV, this is a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue. Bryson changed her name prior to becoming notable, with her only achieving notability due to the media frenzy that occurred after her sentencing at the end of January 2023. The second paragraph of MOS:GENDERID is crystal clear on this, if a living trans or non-binary person was not notable under their prior name, it should not be included on any page, and we should treat the former name as a privacy interest. That we can verify the name through reliable sources is immaterial.
On the elipsis on the quote, this is compliant with the fifth paragraph of GENDERID, which tells us to Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. Even if we come to a consensus for including Bryson's name elsewhere in the article, this paragraph will still apply to the quotation from Smith. In this circumstance I chose to use an elilpsis, but I could have easily put Bryson's surname into square brackets. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The standard set by BLPPRIVACY, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, has clearly been met; there are hundreds of reliable sources that include the name. You're correct that MOS:GENDERID is against the inclusion but WP:BLP is not.
Regarding the elipsis on the quote, because WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy while MOS:GENDERID is part of the MOS, NOTCENSORED is controlling per WP:POLCON. To change that would require modifying NOTCENSORED, a change that I doubt would get consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't trample MOS:GENDERID, as much as you want it to. And WP:GNG doesn't trample WP:GEOROAD, but that's another story for another day. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
And in this case, we include Bryson's current name. Former names however are treated as a privacy interest greater than their current name, and the criteria for inclusion of the former name of a living trans or non-binary person excludes those who were not notable prior to changing their name. This application of GENDERID has been discussed many, many times, most recently in January 2023, and each time the consensus has been that it is a privacy issue regardless of sourcing.
On the NOTCENSORED point, I will direct you to the RfC that added that paragraph to GENDERID. Opposition to that paragraph was made on NOTCENSORED grounds, and resoundingly rejected by community consensus. The current consensus is that inclusion non-notable former names of living trans or non-binary people creates a BLPPRIVACY violation, and that includes quotations. Paraphrasing, eliding, or square brackets are all accepted options to avoid the privacy violation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Former names however are treated as a privacy interest greater than their current name, and the criteria for inclusion of the former name of a living trans or non-binary person excludes those who were not notable prior to changing their name. Unless I'm missing something, that's part of MOS:GENDERID, not WP:BLP. While whether BLP or NPOV is controlling can be argued given they are both core policies (although NPOV should always "win" that debate, per This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.), the same cannot be said about whether GENDERID or NPOV is controlling.
Sometimes we can exclude the name without engaging in censorship; in this case, however, we cannot - excluding that name requires us to literally censor that quote. BilledMammal (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
GENDERID is an application of the BLP policy that has broad community consensus. As I said in my last reply, this application of GENDERID has been discussed a great many times, and each time the consensus has been that it is a BLPPRIVACY issue. You are welcome to take this to WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN if you desire, but I am confident that the response will be the same. I would suggest you review the previous discussions on this before doing so however, you can find a list of all of the major discussions at MOS:GIDINFO.
On the quotation point, the second paragraph of NOTCENSORED clearly states that content can and will be removed if it is judged to violate other content policies, especially those involving BLP. During the discussion for the RfC that added the fifth paragraph, NOTCENSORED concerns were raised by some and refuted by the consensus. Again, this wording and interpretation has broad community consensus. As with the other issue, you are welcome to take this to BLPN or NPOVN if you desire, but I am confident that the response there will also be the same. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'll open an RfC on the topic; I believe in this case there are some policies that are directly applicable and in doing so override the manual of style.
Regarding NOTCENSORED and other content policies; the MOS is a style guideline, not a content policy. BilledMammal (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

RfC on the inclusion of Isla Bryson's former name

edit
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include Isla Bryson's former name in the body, but not the lead of the article. Additionally, there is no clear preference between quote A or quote B, but weak consensus to include the information included in the quotes in some form (either paraphrased or one of the two options). I note that editors often voted in the positive or in the negative on both questions and many editors who voted against including the quotes did not mention a preference if there was consensus to include them.
As many editors commented, this is a particularly nuanced case where our guidelines on deadnames and neutral coverage are not explicitly clear. However, the arguments of those wishing to include her deadname on the article were stronger due to the common use of the deadname in reliable sources both about the name itself and its relation to what makes the subject notable. Editors opposing the inclusion of the name argued that she was not notable under that name and thus GENDERID forbids us from including the name. However, they were unable to convince the community that not only was she not notable under that name but that the name is not pertinent to this article (see MOS:GENDERID: Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent.). — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


This RfC consists of two questions related to the inclusion of Isla Bryson's former name.

Question One: Should Isla Bryson's former name be included in the lede?
Yes: The rapes occurred prior to Bryson's gender transition when she was known as Adam Graham.
No: The rapes occurred prior to Bryson's gender transition.

Question Two: How should the quote[a] from Susan Smith be included in the article?

A:

"[She] was charged under [her] original name, ..., and presumably they knew [her] by [her] new name, so they probably wouldn't have been able to find out anything about this person. It's absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."

B:

"[She] was charged under [her] original name, Adam Graham, and presumably they knew [her] by [her] new name, so they probably wouldn't have been able to find out anything about this person. It's absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."

19:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey

edit
  • Yes and B.
    For question one, while MOS:GENDERID is possibly against the inclusion (while the rapes that she became notable for committing were committed before transitioning, the coverage of those rapes occurred after transitioning), GENDERID is not controlling in this instance as WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, tells us to include it. This is because of how many high quality reliable sources consider it important information to include, including The BBC, Sky News, The Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Atlantic, and many others.
    Per NPOV, we must follow the sources; we cannot make our own determination that the sources are wrong and this isn't important information to include. We also cannot choose to override NPOV; WP:POLCON tells us that when a guideline and a policy conflict we must follow the policy, while NPOV tells us that it is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. It is also important contextual information to include; a significant part of her notability comes from the disconnect between her former name and her adopted name allowing her to get access to very young women in sensitive situations.
    For question two, option A would require us to censor the quote; as this is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, another policy, we cannot do that regardless of what the MOS says. Further, to censor it in this manner will confuse the reader and make the article less usable; it will be obvious that we are excluding the name and the reader will wonder why. BilledMammal (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and A. MOS:GENDERID is pretty clear: If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists (emphasis mine). I don't need to say anything else. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Faulty premise, but still no and A. Starting with the faulty premise, the issue at hand with MOS:GENDERID is not what name Bryson used when she committed the rapes, or even what name she was using when she was on trial and convicted. The issue is what name she was using when she became notable. Those are entirely separate concepts. Looking at the timeline and available sources, she became notable on or around 26 January 2023, approximately two years after she had changed her name. No reliable sourcing for her exists prior to 19 January 2023, though one unreliable source was published (The Scottish Sun) on 17 January. According to reliable sources published after the conviction, Bryson changed her name some time in 2020. In this situation, the second paragraph of GENDERID unambiguously applies. Bryson was not notable under her former name, and it should not be included in any page. We are required to treat it as a privacy issue that is both separate from and greater than Bryson's current name.
    With respect to the quotation, and irregardless of whether we include or exclude Bryson's name elsewhere in the article, the fifth paragraph of GENDERID applies. That paragraph tells us to Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. This is not one of the rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided. There is no pun involving the former name, nor is understanding of what Susan Smith said impeded by excluding the name. Currently the quotation is elided with ellipses, as I think that's better than using square brackets in this situation. We could also paraphrase and summarise it, however I would be wary of summarising this as it blurs the line somewhat between what is and is not in Wikivoice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes and B. The subject’s change of gender is an important factor in this article, because Bryson herself is only notable as a result of the offences she committed, which occurred before she changed gender. While the deadname principle rightly applies to a public figure if they were unknown before transitioning, I would question whether this should be extended to someone convicted of a violent crime such as rape, especially when those offences were committed while the subject was male and identified as such. Because of these offences, Bryson's former name is a matter of public record, whereas this would not not necessarily be the case with a public figure. Our task is to report the facts of the case as they are. This is Paul (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I'm sorry to single you out in this, but While the deadname principle rightly applies to a public figure if they were unknown before transitioning, I would question whether this should be extended to someone convicted of a violent crime such as rape, especially when those offences were committed while the subject was male and identified as such. is a pretty horrific argument to make. It's akin to saying that if a person is the wrong type of trans or non-binary (in this case convicted of a terrible crime, but could equally be used to justify any manner of other categories that we deem less than worthy), we don't need to follow the clear and unambiguously guidance that states that because they were not a public figure prior to changing their name we should exclude the former name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    The subject’s change of gender is an important factor in this article - yes, it is, and the article covers the subject's change of gender. I don't see how that argument impacts on this decision, however. Knowing what the subject's prior name was doesn't make the article easier to understand or shed a different light on it. As I type this, I am undecided on the question, but I don't find this argument persuasive. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and A. MOS:GENDERID is clear on this – Bryson was clearly not notable prior to transition – and a local consensus cannot override our policies and guidelines. The community has typically also been rather reticent to allow any exceptions to GENDERID – as typified with the RfCs as of late – and the assertion that Bryson is somehow different and isn't covered by BLPPRIVACY isn't one that stands up to scrutiny; after all, if we can't say the name of a man who shot unarmed children in the back because of BLPPRIVACY, then the bar on who we can name when considering BLPPRIVACY is clearly very high. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    The RfC you are referring to was based on WP:BLPNAME; WP:BLPPRIVACY, given that it discusses what information should be provided about an identified individual, doesn't make sense to refer to and indeed it wasn't referred to. BLPNAME doesn't apply here because it relates to identifying individuals and we have already identified Isla Bryson.
    Further, BLPPRIVACY is in favor of us including the name; Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Isla Bryson's former name is reported in hundreds of reliable sources, a number that easily meets the requirement of "widely published". At this point it makes little sense to consider her former name a privacy interest. BilledMammal (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Weakly leaning yes and strong neither (came from neutral notice on WP:BLPN). GENDERID is a strong guideline and should be followed in the overwhelming majority of cases, but occasional exceptions may apply, and the case of "someone becoming notable after transitioning, but entirely for something that occurred before transitioning" is not well-covered by it. BM persuasively notes that for this specific article, a substantial amount of coverage revolves around the name we would not usually use and the role that namechanging played in this situation. The quote, however, is not a question of presenting names -- it is a question of writing a good article, and neither way of presenting this quote is in service to it. This sort of giant block quote for a statement of opinion is poor encyclopedism at the best of times, and especially so when combined with the pronoun-changing (rightfully) required by both presentations of it. I am also unsold on the neutrality of "highlighted the ease". Susan Smith from For Women Scotland, a campaign group that opposes proposed changes to allow individuals to self-declare their legal sex, said she found the ease through which Bryson changed her legal name "absolutely terrifying"; she claimed that this allowed people to "hide their identities and gain access to young women". (Did Bryson legally change her name by that point? It's not clear from the article, because we present this as a huge quote with no meaningful context.) Vaticidalprophet 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Choosing to clarify a little given discussion of further possibilities: "weak lean" is including in lead, but I more strongly support 'including at all'. I still emphatically do not think the giant quote is good encyclopedism in any presentation with any name or lack thereof. Vaticidalprophet 02:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I disagree that this is a case of someone becoming notable after transitioning for something that occurred before transitioning. She didn't become notable for the rapes, she became notable for transitioning in prison and getting transferred to a women's prison. Both those events happened during or after transitioning. Loki (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and A but with the following logic. 1) Person was not notable by their original name. 2) Person's orginal name is only notable because they transitioned. There are thousands/millions of rapists in the world without Wikipedia articles, the only reason for this one has an article is because of the unusual facts of the case. 3) Does including the name add any encyclopaedic value? No. 4) Does option A cover the important parts of the quote, without violating MOS:GENDERID, highlighting Susan Smith's concerns? Yes. So it's the best option. Red Fiona (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Soft No and B (also came from neutral notice on WP:BLPN)
    I don't think the name needs to be in the lead; or at least not in the first sentence of the lede, but I do believe it should be included in the article.
    For terminology, I am going to use "Given Name" and "Chosen Name".
    I agree with MOS:GENDERID that someone is well known under more than one name, both names should be included in the article. I'm not convinced it needs to be in the first sentence in every scenario; however, it makes sense for a few individuals whose transition has garnered much media attention - like Jenner and Paige.
    However - out of curiosity I pulled a list of celebrities known by a stage name, and every one I looked up - we're using their Given Name in the lead. For example, see Brad Pitt, Reese Witherspoon, and Alicia Keyes. I didn't dig, but I never see these public figures being referred to by their given names, why is that the first thing you see on Wikipedia?
    If we really want to be fair and consistent, then in this case - we should use both names in the lead, and there is a real case for that. But I honestly don't think we should even put someone's maiden name in the lead of an article while they are alive and going by a different name.
    I would put Given Names and Maiden Names in an info box, or reference it in the article (If it's a biography article, X was born Y is fine, mention name changes when they happen mentioned in the article).
    I do think that this individuals name change is a significant piece of why the case has drawn media attention, and should be included in the article, but it doesn't need to be in the lead, it could be, but not the first sentence at least. For the quote - I don't like the idea of changing quotes in general, and this individual's given name is well known, should be in the article, and therefore the quote should stay as-is.
    Ultimately: We shouldn't go out of our way to hide well known names, but we should refer to people using the name they are notable for at least in the first sentence, but I feel that should be across all articles for living people... but that's not how we're currently handling names across Wikipedia and we should consider changing that across the board. Denaar (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Having read through comments; I did want to push a little bit on the "not notable under their given name" comments. I disagree.
Think of people who weren't covered in the news during their lifetime, but historians research and write about them. They weren't notable for coverage in wikipedia during their lifetime, but now they are. That doesn't mean "only stuff that happened after they died is notable"... the things they did were notable once they were written about.
The argument that "this person did nothing notable under their given name" is following that pattern of argument, that because it wasn't written about in the moment, that makes it non-notable - but that's not how notability works.
In this case, it's the combination of events and continued coverage that makes it a notable case - which includes the original crime, and the arrest, and the court case, and the conviction - it's a series of events that ultimately make it worthy of notice to people so that they write about it, thus making it notable for wikipedia.
So while it's true the case wasn't "notable for coverage in wikipedia" when it first happened, the events that happened ARE one of the pieces, that later on, make it a notable event. And that even happened under a previous name, and should be included.
It might be different if the person was notable, and this was a small blip in their life story barely worth a mention. But we've got the opposite: the event, the arrest, the case, the sentencing - that's what people are writing about, it's all notable. Denaar (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
If I have understood correctly, you would support including the name elsewhere in the article in Wikivoice, just not in the lede? Perhaps in Isla Bryson case#Background? I have no objection to including it there rather than in the lede; it isn't the placement but the inclusion that is important in my opinion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm also inclined to agree with this. Vaticidalprophet 21:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I think the given name should be included somewhere in this article where it fits and makes sense. It seems reasonable on this article. Denaar (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and neither -- Much of the point of allowing notable names in the cases of people who were notable before transition is so that they can be associated with older references and coverage using that name. There seems to be a lack of such previous discussion; the fact that anything that uses the old name also uses the new name makes the older name unnecessary for those purposes. And in my mind, any time we need more than a couple [rephrasings] and [...]s to make a quote, we're probably better off not using that part of the quote at all, but summarizing it in text; the impact and the flow are just too disrupted by those constructs. Better to summarize at least the start of the quote. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    The more I look into the quote, the more I come to belief that it should not be included at all, even in summary. I only find one news source using the quote (STV News), so the quote is not so vital in coverage of this matter that WP:DUE requires it. The quote is speculative in nature, which should cause concern in a BLP. And if Ms. Smith has some relevant expertise, it's not showing up in the first couple articles I find about her group. Instead, she is being quoted as the head of a group that has been understandably described as anti-trans, using this occasion to comment in a way that supports her group stance, which is not particularly informative. (I'm at least open to the idea that this article shouldn't be presented as a BLP at all, but rather should be reworked into an article on Scottish handling of trans prisoners.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes and B — as much as I appreciate the guidance of MOS:GENDERID, WP:NPOV is policy, and her former name is a significant view that has been widely published by reliable sources on this topic. And the topic of this article is her "case", evidenced by the name of the article. And it also appears to me her notability derives from this "case", or otherwise we wouldn't have a BIO article on Isla Bryson, as she wasn't notable under that name until this "case". But now, she is notable because of both names, connected to this "case". And BTW, it's Graham, not Grayson. Independent — Reuters — The Guardian — The Times — Telegraph — Glasgow Times — The Scotsman — Barrons — The Herald — BBC — Euronews.— Isaidnoway (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    And BTW, it's Graham, not Grayson Fixed, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Mostly per Vaticidalprophet (weak yes and strong neither); no mention in lede. (Also here from BLPN.) GENDERID is an important style guideline that gives us good guidance on how to handle the vast majority of transitions. As Vati says, this is an edge case that it was not written to cover. Absent a global consensus to the contrary, it seems reasonable to include her former name somewhere in the article; but the lede would seem to be undue, as it's not a detail readers really need to know to understand the case, and we should still follow the spirit of GENDERID to the extent possible (i.e. minimizing focus on a detail we would normally outright exclude). I also agree with Vati that the quote should go either way. -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] (she|they|xe) 08:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong No and strong neither. Inclusion of the name does not contribute anything to the understanding of the topic. Trying to base an argument for inclusion on WP:NOTCENSORED does not work. This is simply not the kind of thing NOTCENSORED is intended for. This is evident from NOTCENSORED itself where it says "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)." So NOTCENSORED obviously does not mean that we cannot leave out information. It merely means we cannot leave out information because we find the information objectionable or offensive. Trying to base an argument for inclusion on WP:NPOV does not work either. NPOV is about points of view. Trying to frame the name in terms of POV stretches the concept of POV far beyond breaking point. WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE in particular are explicitly about POVs and do not apply to the issue at hand. It is true that WP:BALASP does not explicitly refer to POVs. But since it is part of WP:NPOV that is implicit. Yes, leaving out facts can be a violation of NPOV. But this is clearly not the case here. MOS:GENDERID is not itself a policy, but it is clear that it is intended as an implementation of WP:BLP. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue of deadnaming recently. E.g. here, here, and here. The reasoning used here to argue for inclusion of the name would basically make MOS:GENDERID irrelevant. Ultimately this is a legalistic argument that runs counter to community consensus. Should these arguments prevail, the logical consequence will be yet another RFC on the matter, this time about including an explicit rule about deadnaming directly in WP:BLP. As far as the quote is concerned that is just awkward writing either way. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and either. I think that having the deadname/given name in the article and/or as a redirect is fair since it's in the sources and might be what people are looking for, but I don't think it needs to be in the lede. As Tamzin said, minimizing focus on the given name is still a fair idea even if there is due cause to include it somewhere in the article. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @SomeoneDreaming: As discussed above, would you support including the former name in Isla Bryson case#Background? I proposed the lede as possibly a natural place to put it, but in my opinion it isn't the placement but the inclusion that is important. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I think that's probably the most natural place, yeah. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and neither (or exclude entirely); this is the sort of thing better covered with a paraphrase than with a fairly lengthy quote to someone whose opinion isn't particularly noteworthy in an individual sense. Massive quotes like these tend to clutter articles and risk turning them into WP:QUOTEFARMS. Secondary coverage of this quote in RSes is absolutely minimal, and the one source we have is a passing mention - why are we including it at all? If we include every quote by everyone with a strong opinion on the subject, the article will become unreadable; and the feeling one gets from this quote is that it was included because of its stridency, which is not a reason to include a quote per WP:QUOTEFARM. The fact that some people hold this opinion can be easily cited and mentioned in the article in a more neutral tone without relying on fire-breathing quotes like these; this isn't something for which only this quote exists. But if we must include it, we can paraphrase it down to its essential points in more neutral wording. Regarding the name, coverage prior to their transition is so minimal that it seems difficult to argue that they were noteworthy under it; the fact that the crime occurred then isn't relevant when it had virtually no coverage until afterwards. --Aquillion (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No opinion on the former name being in the lead, but support adding the quote from B to the article or mentioning the former name in the Background section. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Neutral on whether to include former name in lede, the more important issue for readers to understand is that the person presented as male during the rapes, and simply stating so may suffice. The rapes occurred prior to Bryson's gender transition, when she was still presenting as male. Support having the former name in the body per Denaar and Tamzin, we can put it in the Background section. Reliable sources have been provided by Isaidnoway and BilledMammal, whom provided views that I agree with that the policy of WP:NPOV trumps the guideline of MOS:GENDERID, and that since the former name has been widely published, WP:BLPPRIVACY would not prevent publishing it in the body. As for the second question, if we are to include the quote, then B, as it brings immediate understanding to the reader what the situation rather than have them having to rack their brains to imagine what the original name could be. starship.paint (exalt) 15:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Support having the former name in the body Whilst a strict reading of MOS:GENDERID would seem to preclude naming - that guideline says nothing about people notable for deeds committed prior to transition (as is the case here) and in which the gender before transition, and indeed the transition itself, is highly relevant (ditto). The omission of the name, while not strictly necessary for understanding the subject is stylistically odd and current (nameless) wording draws attention to an absence IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Fully endorse this comment. starship.paint (exalt) 02:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and weak neither (tho I'd strongly prefer A if we include a quote). This person does not really appear to have been notable prior to transition. Most criminals are not notable for their crime, and it doesn't seem there was much coverage of the crime itself. (If there was, it'd change my mind.) This person is actually notable for her transitioning and the ensuing implications on whether she's placed in a man's prison or a woman's prison. As such, MOS:GENDERID applies.
    As for the quote, I usually don't like extended quotes in articles. I feel that they are often a way of avoiding the responsibility of paraphrasing or summarizing a source with a strong opinion. If we do use the quote, because MOS:GENDERID applies we should use version A, but ideally I'd prefer to paraphrase the quote. Something like: Susan Smith from For Women Scotland said it was likely that the college couldn't have found out that Bryson had raped two women, as she had been charged under her original name but applied for the college under her new name. Loki (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No - I don't find the arguments that we should override MOS:GENDERID to include the subject's former name compelling; the fact of her gender transition is important to the reader's understanding but her former name is not. If the quote has to be included, I would prefer A, but I agree with several other voters that paraphrasing it would be better. Hatman31 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong yes and strong B - Whether we like it or not, both names are commonly used in reliable sources: the BBC, Sky News, The Scotsman, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Times. We need to reflect that, however uncomfortable it may be for some. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak no to inclusion of birth name in the lead, and weak neither to inclusion of the quote per Vaticidalprophet and others. As mentioned before, MOS:GENDERID isn't really written for cases like this, but this seems the most logical in this instance. I also agree with Vaticidalprophet, BilledMammal and others that this may be mentioned in the article text – this isn't about erasure, but a question of prominence. But I agree with others that this is an edge case. – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and B - Per MOS:GENDERID her deadname doesn’t belong in the lead, but it can be used in the body: "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent." ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 08:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) (originally 17:24, 24 July 2023 but I forgot to sign it)Reply
  • Yes and B, her name and identity prior to transition is well known and documented and makes the page more clear. I don't think DEADNAME applies.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and A (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I agree that this person became notable after transition and therefor inclusion of a new name is not informative for the lead. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • For question one, weak yes; for question two, paraphrase instead. Despite the MoS guidance, Bryson's former name is extensively covered in RSes, and so privacy concerns over inclusion of her former name are effectively already moot. Policy takes preference over guidelines, and I believe minimally including Bryson's former name would satisfy NPOV, BLP, and NOTCENSORED (which I believe to be the most relevant policies), even if it would go against the MoS (which is ultimately only a style guide). However, I'm not sure if it needs to be placed in the lead; perhaps § Background would be more appropriate. As for the quote, I believe that the amount of bracketed edits needed suggest that it would be better paraphrased anyway; this would also solve the question of whether to include or omit Bryson's former name in the quote. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • No and A. Reliable sources report this person as having a transgender identity, and MOS:GENDERID is entirely clear. Revisit if/when reliable sources adopt Nicola Sturgeon's stance. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Name in body, not in lede per Tamzin; xe knows whereof xe speaks. Slightly differing on quote, though; including it as a long quote is undue weight, true. However I would support a good shorten-and-paraphrase, possibly not even crediting to Smith, since the opinion expressed - that Ayrshire College and fellow students would never have heard of the case due to the different name being used - seems to be a powerful and commonly held one, not just by Smith. --GRuban (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • I have read this long discussion and note sensible arguments from both sides. As others have said, the quote would be better dealt with by a shorter paraphrase. As others have said, this is an unusual case and MOS:GENDERID doesn't address a case where actions that make the subject notable occurred under the old name, but the subject didn't become notable until after adopting the new name. MOS:GENDERID does, however, refer us to WP:BLPPRIVACY, saying, "Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name." WP:BLPPRIVACY then notes that, "Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified." So, just having a reliable source for the old name would not be enough. However, WP:BLPPRIVACY also says, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". In this case, the old name has been and continues to be very widely used by reliable sources. So, I think we can give the old name as per WP:BLPPRIVACY. We should respect MOS:GENDERID and lead with the new name. I don't see any particular need for the old name to be prominent or in the lede. Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes and B per BilledMammal.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit

@This is Paul, Munci, and Barnards.tar.gz: Ping editors involved in a prior related discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • Question for clarification for @BilledMammal: Above you wrote: The dispute over her name is also a key part of her notability and thus by excluding it we are failing to fully explain the story; the disconnect between the name she was charged under and the name she adopted allowed her to get access to women as young as 16 in sensitive settings. As far as I understand it it is relevant that she used a different name. Is that all you meant or are you going further and saying that it is relevant what name she used? If so, why do you consider it relevant what name she used? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I consider it relevant what name she used because of the emphasis that reliable sources place on that name, and because a significant part of her story is how she used different names to get access to teenagers in a sensitive setting; while it is possible to explain this without providing the reader with the name it leaves the story incomplete. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you. Follow-up question: You have argued that WP:NPOV dictates including the name. Can you elaborate on why you believe that NPOV is relevant to the issue? The opening sentence of NPOV says: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (Emphasis added by me.) In what sense are we talking about a point of view here? Prima facie we seem to be dealing with a statement of fact, not opinion. I don't think that NPOV says anything that would rule out leaving facts out of an article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE speaks to this, but perhaps WP:BALASP speaks to it best; An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Given how many reliable sources choose to include her former name we must do the same if we are to treat that aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
    I'll add that I would consider "all the significant views" to include significant views about what facts are relevant. For example, excluding the fact that Henry Kissinger was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize would be counter to NPOV as much as excluding the significant views around that award would be. In the end we shouldn't be arbitrators of what facts are relevant; if we allowed ourselves to do that we would introduce the ability to engage in lies of omission. BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    That seems quite an expansive redefinition of a "point of view". There are not conflicting "points of view" over what the name was (well, if we overlook the error introduced in this discussion.) We are absolutely not denying the fact that she had another name. The inclusion of the specific name does not add to an understanding of the debate. We do not need to follow the punctuation of sources either, even if most sources use the same punctuation and it does not accord with our MOS, because punctuation is (similarly) not a point of view. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Style is very different to content; when it comes to content, we follow the sources.
    Even if you don't agree that "points of view" extends to the facts that are relevant - and thus that WP:BALANCE is not relevant here - WP:BALASP and WP:DUE both refer to "aspects", which certainly includes facts. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Neither of those are in reach of what you are claiming. WP:BALASP is about giving undue weight to minor matters, and there is nothing that is given much extra weight by not naming the name. WP:DUE is about viewpoints, and particularly giving coverage to minority viewpoints. Neither of these things do what you say. This attempt to overthrow MOS:GENDERID is without base. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    If you look at my quote, WP:BALASP is about giving every aspect weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That includes not giving aspects too much weight and, more relevantly here, not giving aspects too little weight.
    WP:DUE isn't just about viewpoints (... minority views or aspects ...), and like BALASP it doesn't just discuss avoiding giving minor viewpoints or aspects too much weight - it is also about giving more significant viewpoints or aspects too little weight.
    Logically, this makes sense. We can bias an article by de-emphasizing a majority viewpoint, or a fact considered relevant by the majority, as easily as we can bias it by emphasizing a minority viewpoint, or a fact considered relevant by the minority. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    You're dancing around again. The emphasis or deemphasis of certain factual aspects may speak to a viewpoint -- say a focus on the race of someone on either end of a crime -- without actually mentioning that viewpoint. That's relfected in how "aspect" is invoked in sections about viewpoint. But what bias is set by including or omitting the name. Is there some particular view about people who were granted those initials at birth? Some deep religious significance? Because it sure looks like you are avoiding the actual relevance of the matter at hand. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not going to speculate why editors or reliable sources may wish to include or exclude a name - though I suspect your own speculations are wildly incorrect - but in this case the viewpoint is as simple as whether this name is relevant. Reliable sources believe it is; you are free to disagree, but when writing Wikipedia our personal opinions are irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for your replies! I have thought a long time about this and I watched the debate. Ultimately I am unconvinced by your arguments and therefore have to vote "no". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Notified WikiProjects LGBT studies and Biography Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Notified the rest of the relevant WikiProjects WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Women. BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for that. I'd gotten distracted by someone at my front door, and had completely forgotten to do the rest by the time I got back to my PC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Per Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS, here cannot overturn WP:DEADNAME. Therefore, Question One is invalid, as policy is pretty clear that the deadname cannot be included in the article, "even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists", no matter what the consensus of this discussion is. casualdejekyll 22:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
    A consensus here can, however, decide that a different policy is controlling, which is the main argument being made in favor of "Yes" for Question One. I'll add that DEADNAME is a little ambiguous on this; see Pincrete's !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Notes

edit
  1. ^ "He was charged under his original name, Adam Graham, and presumably they knew him by his new name, so they (fellow students) probably wouldn’t have been able to find out anything about this person. It’s absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many names

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure how many editors were aware, but upon researching the situation, Bryson went under many names. To the first rape victim in 2016, Bryson was known as Adam Graham. To the second victim in 2019, Bryson was known as DJ Blade. To Bryson's wife and Bryson's mother, Bryson was known as Adam Bryson. To Bryson's classmate at Ayrshire College in 2021, Bryson was known as Annie. After reviewing all of this, it is clear to me that a strict adherence to MOS:GENDERID was not a good fit for this article. Perhaps the opposition to including the former name hindered the research into all of these? Just a guess, may be wrong. In fact, the consensus above got it absolutely right since this person had so many names that just including "Adam Graham" in the lede wouldn't be good enough, all the other names should be left in the body. starship.paint (exalt) 14:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was aware of the name she used at Ayrshire College because I came across that when I wrote the original article. Then all reference to other names was removed citing the WP:GENDERID policy, although I agree it wasn't a good fit in this particular case. Good work on the article btw. This is Paul (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reverted edit

edit
Latest comment: 11 months ago61 comments5 people in discussion

@LokiTheLiar reverted my edit which stated that "while a man" is more justified language than while "presenting as a man" for two major reasons:

Again, to repeat: none of the references - all 43 - in this article use the phrase "presenting as a man" in any way.

I may also add that WP:GENDERID under "Retroactivity" indeed acknowledges that the term "presentation" is disputed; some describe transitioning as a sort-of "reveal" of gender, whereas others describe it as a change:

  • "A person coming out as trans is usually not making a change in their gender (though they often make a change in their presentation); instead, they are revealing their gender (gender identity). Coming out as e.g. a trans man is often best understood as saying "I am a man and have always been a man." However, some trans people do not subscribe to this model of lifelong gender, and may instead understand themselves as having previously been female, and now having become male, or having been some combination of both."

The fact that these guidelines are so ambiguous, combined with absolute unanimity of the absence of the term "presenting" in any of the sources, drives me to conclude that the phrase "presenting as" should not be used; rather "as a man", because it is clearly and abundantly sourced.

Zilch-nada (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the phrase. I see no ambiguity of MOS:GENDERID or WP:GENDERID: it instructs us to ignore reliable sources that use gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification. Moreover, the phrase is redundant to "prior to Bryson's gender transition" (in combination with the previous description of Bryson as a "transgender woman"). It's BLP inappropriate and a better phrasing of the same information was literally present in the same sentence.
The instances of the same phrase in the body are also redundant to the surrounding passages, which bookend with "assigned male at birth" and "began the process of gender transition" which events happened before and after Bryson began publicly identifying as a woman. — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Don't you think that - considering it is abundantly, and I mean abundantly considered in news media - the fact that this person was previously a man, is important? The controversy surrounding this case is that there is someone who raped a woman whilst a man, and then changed gender: that is the very reason why this is a notable topic. I.e., it isn't per se important that this "person" is transgender, but specifically that they were previously a man: that is more important. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
While we have to follow the facts reliable sources publish we do not have to use the exact same language or phraseology they do. Saying that Bryson was convicted for crimes committed before she transitioned is enough, as it carries the same meaning. The UK media being sensationalistic in their coverage of Bryson, by hammering that particular phrase wherever they could, is not a convincing reason for why we should also be sensationalistic in our article about her. Bilorv is right that what was removed was utterly redundant to the rest of the content in those sections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hold on: do you describe the phrasing "when she was a man" as "sensationalistic"? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Like I said above: this story is important because it is a person who was born as a man, who raped, and was considered for a womens' prison. To mention this person's previous gender is not even remotely sensationalistic. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the phrasing "when she was a man" is overly sensationalistic, completely redundant, and altogether not necessary. Simply stating that Bryson is a trans woman, and that she was convicted of crimes committed prior to transitioning conveys exactly the same meaning, in a much more neutral and succinct manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"When she was a man" is sensationalistic. That is seriously an absurd statement. Various sources, including very reputable ones like the BBC, have used this language. If all sources - respected news sources - employ such language, then I'm afraid you have to really reconsider what you just said.
"Following Bryson's conviction, Police Scotland confirmed she had been arrested and charged as a man, and that her crimes would therefore be recorded as having been committed by a man"
SIMPLE QUESTION: The crimes were committed by a man. Isla Bryson is a trans woman. Was that - or was that not - a different person? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Various sources, including very reputable ones like the BBC, have used this language. Yes, and the UK media's coverage of trans and non-binary people and related issues have been widely criticised for years, both within academia and internationally. Saying the UK media is sensationalistic in their coverage of trans issues is not controversial.
I fail to see the relevance of your "simple question", as there is no question that Bryson was convicted of rape, for crimes that were committed prior to her transition. The article quite clearly states that, without bias or sensationalism. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
So you clearly answer "no" to my question, right? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
It is neither a no or a yes. I do not see the relevance of your "simple question", so I am declining to answer it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Unbelievable. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why it is relevant: Was Isla Bryson previously a man? That is the question here. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Widely criticised for years": This is a British topic, an article covered entirely by sources in the British press. Include foreign sources if you want to. But to accept British sources - as we are doing as this article probably wouldn't exist otherwise - and only nit-pick parts of it you think are relevant, even if more supposedly controversial language is used, is outright uncalled for. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Accepting British sources does not mean we have to accept the exact terminology and phraseology they use. Again, we are beholden to the facts our sources report, but not the words in which they use to report them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
In accepting British sources, which we have done, we most focus on language that is repeatedly used, not just random or "exact terminology". There is a vast trend in using the terminology similar to "when she was a man". Zilch-nada (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
we most focus on language that is repeatedly used No, we really don't. Policy requires that we write content in our own words. This is not a topic where there is only one specific way to convey the exact meaning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
We employ terminology that is generally used: perhaps that's what I'm getting at. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
In fact, it's not even individual terms per se that we are debating over. It is the logic - that this person was previously a man - that is universally sourced in the sources above, but rejected here. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that that logic is "sensationalistic." If the press continuously employ a general logic or syntax in their reporting, then, if anything, describing the logic that the press employs is even more important than individual terms. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
None of the facts pertinent to understanding this case are rejected. As I said in my reply below, all of the relevant facts relating to Bryson's conviction and personal circumstances are clearly and succinctly stated, using terminology that is appropriate for this topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
You don't think the fact that this person committed the crime while a man is relevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
As I've said a few times now, we clearly and succinctly state that the crimes Bryson was convicted for were committed prior to her transition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Please answer the question; I'm not trying to be facetious here. Do you think the fact that this person committed the crime while a man is relevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
As I've said a few times now, I do not see the relevance of this question, so I am declining to answer it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
How on Earth is this contention not relevant when you are deviating from the language used abundantly by sources above? It absolutely is relevant. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Let me give you an example from a somewhat related topic. Pro-life is terminology overwhelmingly used by the anti-abortion movement, even within some sources, however our article refers to them as the anti-abortion movement. Conversely, pro-choice is the terminology overwhelmingly used by the abortion-rights movement, even within some sources, but again our article refers to them as the abortion-rights movement. If we were to use either pro-life or pro-choice terminology in our articles, then we would no longer be following WP:NPOV, as we would be engaging in a dispute, not describing one.
Coming back to the context of this article, the terminology that we're using (trans woman, assigned male at birth) are standard, neutral terms when writing articles within this broader topic. It is also language that is recommended by many highly regarded and relevant styleguides, such as the current edition of The AP Stylebook. Conversely, language choices like "while a man" or "born a woman" are not neutral terms, and are even explicitly recommended to be avoided by the same styleguides. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
You're still not addressing our fundamental disagreement. Like I said, it is not a disagreement about individual terms, but logic and the syntax of the news reported. That is a really pathetic comparison to "pro-life" movements. Absurd. The police report describes the culprit as a male when the crime was committed. Every source I have provided above refers to this person's previous status.
I put emphasis on "refers" because what is referred to in general is this person's previous status as a man; that status is a referent, not a term, and this person's status as a man is reported universally throughout the news sources. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I must add. I am not concerned at all about Bryson's current gender is. I find it appalling that there is an effort on this article to purge any reference to Bryson's previous gender; they committed the crime as a man. The fact that you describe that as sensationalistic is utterly appalling. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I strongly urge you to read the article in full. There is no "effort on this article to purge any reference to Bryson's previous gender". We clearly and succinctly state that Bryson is a trans woman, that she was assigned male at birth. We state her former name. And we state that she was convicted of crimes that were committed prior to her transition. We do so using terminology that is appropriate for this topic, in a neutral manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's hard to say without asking her, and/or deep metaphysical knowledge about the nature of gender. Loki (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Without asking her"
Do you people even know that we are talking about a rapist here? The sheer amount of respect: "asking her" - what a deeply insulting thing to say. Police reports describe the crime as being committed by a man. Should we not consider the police's or media's word at all, only "asking" a rapist? Are you serious?
I again must address that I do not consider the person presently to be a man. We are talking about previous status. This article previously read "presenting as a male" and refers to "assigned male at birth" but deliberately omits any semantics similar to "while a man" mentioned by press and police. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Articles about rapists are still BLPs. And I second everything Sideswipe said about the British press being sensationalized, especially about trans women. Loki (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's not just the press, but the police, the prisons, and the courts. Are they wrong too? Zilch-nada (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
You are no-doubt sceptical of British reporting on trans issues. Why does this article exist then? It contains solely British sources about a trans topic. Are they therefore not reliable? Or only unreliable in places where you find it unreliable, including the wordings of the police? Because this nit-picking is getting extremely out-of-hand. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not all British sources are equally unreliable on trans issues, but to be honest, if I was the only voter at WP:RSP I don't know if this article would have sufficient sourcing to exist. I think most of the coverage of Isla Bryson is itself sensationalism and that without that sensationalism I doubt she would be notable. Loki (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"without that sensationalism I doubt she would be notable": it's a pretty sensational story. A man rapes a woman, transitions to female, and is considered for a woman's prison. I don't see how you couldn't see that as controversial. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Similar things happen in the US all the time and they don't make national news. Loki (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Example? Zilch-nada (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's hard to give specific examples because examples of specific people really don't hit the news at all, but there's several jurisdictions in the US that have housed trans prisoners as their post-transition gender for over a decade now.
The first one I could find articles on is Cook County, i.e. Chicago. But at least according to Lambda Legal, Denver and Washington, DC also do this, among others. Loki (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Specifically for rape though; that is an importantly specific crime. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Are you aware that this person "decided to transition while awaiting trial for rape"? Are all transitions equal, or is this one to play the system, as Nicola Sturgeon has accused Bryson of "faking" it.? I think it's an obnoxious suggestion that all transitions are equally valid - and I do support transitioning - but that is a question for MOS as well. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
MOS:GENDERID definitely doesn't have an exception for allegedly insincere transitions. We've sometimes ignored occasional cases of clear trolling by WP:IAR, but I'd strongly oppose that in this case, as Bryson has remained on hormones after she's clearly been denied transfer to a woman's prison, which is not something one would normally expect from someone who's transitioning insincerely.
Furthermore, the sources clearly don't support that. "When she was a man" is pure semantics, but the fact that she's not a man now is a fact supported all the sources, no matter what Nicola Sturgeon's opinion is. Loki (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"doesn't have an exception for allegedly insincere transitions": So is there such a thing as an insincere transition? The transition occurred while on trial. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
There's definitely the occasional right-wing troll who says they use she/her pronouns for a laugh.
I seriously doubt there are cis men who would voluntarily take and stay on HRT for any significant length of time even given huge material incentives for doing so. HRT taken over long periods of time causes permanent changes in your body that would be extremely uncomfortable to a cis person. You'd find about as many people who would willingly cut off a limb. Loki (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but you just implied that there would never be a cis man who would ever buy into the "huge material incentives for doing [HRT]"; that's quite a contradictory statement: "huge incentives, but I seriously doubt it would ever happen." This is getting quite off-topic. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Theoretically there could be a political incentive for someone to transition dishonestly, as such a case would have obvious propaganda potential for the anti-gender movement. Such an incentive may also have the potential for financial rewards.
In practice though, the effects of cross-sex feminising or masculinising hormone therapy on a cisgender individual would likely be akin to giving a cisgender person gender dysphoria. I say likely because to my knowledge no research has ever been done on this, as it would be completely unethical. The physical effects of HRT (ie development of secondary sex characteristics) start pretty quickly, as do the mental effects of changing which sex hormone is dominant in your body. As a result it would be very unlikely for a cisgender person to remain on such a HRT regimen for any prolonged period of time.
Conversely this is the reason why the rate of regret related detransitions is so low, typically 0.3-4% depending on study methodology. Once a trans person starts an appropriate HRT regimen and becomes stable after titration, they are generally happy with the results. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
We are not in disagreement here, only off-topic. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"When she was a man" is indeed pure semantics; such semantics is clearly and abundantly sourced, yet ignored by members of this discussion. "that she's not a man now": I did not dispute that, as the sources refer to as "she" Zilch-nada (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
As WP:OUROWNWORDS says clearly, we don't source wording. There is no way to source a particular phrasing, only particular facts.
And I'm not sure why we're talking about insincere transitions if you weren't trying to insinuate she was a man. Loki (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"we don't source wording. There is no way to source a particular phrasing, only particular facts."
Huh? I said "semantics" which is sourced. The logic of this person previously being a man - not any particular wording - is eschewed. That's what I have continuously referred to.
"insincere transitions" - I agree that discussion of this is getting somewhat off-topic. The topic is still: whether or not to employ the semantics of the criminal previously being a man. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
That Bryson started transitioning while awaiting trial is not really that important to us, beyond documenting it within the same level of detail as reliable sources do. It's not our job to second guess nor speculate upon the circumstances of any article subject. We're not here to pass judgement on our article subjects. Our role is merely to document in a neutral manner. To paraphrase William Lenthall, "Wikipedia has neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, but as reliable sources are pleased to direct us".
As for whether or not GENDERID needs guidance surrounding insincere transitions, I would say no. Right-wing trolling (eg Tucker Carlson) aside, it is theoretically possible that someone might transition for insincere reasons, but I'm not sure that has ever convincingly been documented in reliable sources. I certainly can't think of a case off-hand where it's happened. There's an American legal maxim hard cases make bad law that would seem to apply here. Unless and until it does happen, I don't think we need to worry about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree: if reliable sources describe it as insincere transitions, we should include it. I am not suggesting that the Bryson case is a case of insincerity; I am only considering the possibility of insincerity. There's clearly a possibility. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Beyond Nicola Sturgeon's commentary, which we include in the article, it's really inappropriate for us to speculate on an article subject's personal circumstances. If something in relation to Bryson's transition changes, and it is covered by reliable sources, we will likely add it. But unless and until that happens, we should not speculate on it even being a possibility. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"instructs us to ignore reliable sources that use gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification"
It is more ambiguous than you make it to be here. Firstly, is describing someone as "previously a man", an example of "gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification"? If yes, then is "while previously presenting as a man" an example? Because considering this person's past as a man - whether a "presentation" or not, etc. - is absolutely important, and it is an example of considering a "previous" gender, i.e., "words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification" regardless.
I.e. any consideration of this person's previous gender is itself an example of "gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification". That is an absurd omission. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have raised the question, as it relates to style, at the MOS. I don’t know if that will help here, or just suck in more people to waste time bickering.
I think @Bilorv’s solution (avoid either linguistic attitude) is a fine one for now. That sources consistently use similar language is a fine point in support of such an attitude, but I think the disagreement is coming from the fact that we need a good reason to include it too; it’s not enough to just blindly follow the language of the sources. (Especially when the present middle-path works well enough.) The substantive point—that the reader is helped along by our pointing out Bryson’s gender at various points in the timeline—is weak enough that honestly I think it really just isn’t worth the continued arguing at this point.
@Zilch-nada, if someone vehemently opposes the language of “when X was a man”, then you can take it as given that she just doesn’t believe X was previously a man; clearly no amount of badgering is going to solve your fundamental disagreement here. — HTGS (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just one point: it is not the language of "when X was a man" that I am concerned about. It is the syntax. Any reference to this person's previous status as male - which is clearly different logic from "presenting" as male - is continuously omitted from the article, even though such status is referred to in above sources. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I think you mean semantics, not syntax, but either way you’re splitting hairs here; it’s all one thing. (I say “linguistic attitude” because I mean the words as well as the meaning behind the words.) — HTGS (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's what I meant, yes. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have no knowledge of Bryson's case beyond what this article says and no interest in defending rapists. It is a matter of consistency and style guide that we refer to people with gendered words that match their latest self-identification. As analogy, however despicable a person is, we would never describe them with "it"; we don't describe a person who identifies as a woman as having "used to be a man". This language is factually wrong, not correctly describing the experiences of transgender people.
Bryson describes knowing of being a woman at the age of four, so it is an unverifiable assertion that Bryson is lying. (We can describe who has said Bryson is lying with attribution in prose, yes.)
That mainstream media are systematically and consistently wrong is not new to us—for instance, mainstream media are generally not reliable for medical information (WP:MEDPOP). — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The police stated that the crime was committed by a man. The person who committed the crime was Bryson. Are or are they not the same person? Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. You people are unbelievable. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

'sex at birth'

edit
Latest comment: 3 months ago23 comments6 people in discussion

This is an incredibly awkward phrase and is unnecessary. Sex and gender are considered distinct, thus it would be fine to simply state 'sex'. Sex at birth has implications that are not intended. The BBC source does use this phrasing but it is still awkward wording that should be avoided. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This very subject has just been discussed at the admins' noticeboard. A misunderstanding between me and another IP (formerly 151.124.107.114, now editing as Meekaboo111) got in the way at first, and that has been resolved, but they and I still have a content dispute over the use of "sex at birth" versus simply "sex". We have both said we would discuss this here at a later time. I don't want to jump the gun on restarting the discussion just yet, as I am still tired (and presumably so is Meekaboo) from the mess I accidentally threw Meekaboo and myself into. Pinging @Meekaboo111: to let them know the discussion has restarted anyways.
Regarding which wording is used in the source, we should be mindful of the WP:OUROWNWORDS policy (EDIT: this WP:OUROWNWORDS essay, sorry I misspoke), as brought up in the "Reverted edit" discussion above. Wikipedia should not be expected to follow the wording or style of a given source, or even the sources at large, simply because we are getting our facts verified from that source. As I have said at the noticeboard (see there for details), my position is that "sex at birth", while redundant, is the least bad wording suggested so far, because reducing redundancy risks misleading people who don't know sex and gender are different. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd prefer 'biological sex' to 'sex at birth'. Both imply things that aren't true but one is less egregious than the other. I still am in favour of simply 'sex', and if we really think readers may not understand the difference we can always wikilink to sex. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That still reads, to me at least, as being too superficially similar to the transphobic slogans I mentioned at the noticeboard. "Sex at birth" has the advantage of being a stock phrase (it already has some common currency) that unambiguously identifies we are talking about sex and not gender.
Wikilinking to "sex" will only solve the issue if people are reading on Wikipedia itself and not somewhere else reusing Wikipedia content, where the wikilink might not even be there. And that's assuming that people will even hover over the wikilink, see that it mentions a distinction between sex and gender, and click to read more and learn the difference, before returning to this article. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sex at birth may imply that one's sex can change, it may also imply that if a man were to be sexed as a woman as a neonate due to ambiguous genitalia that he would be sent to a women's prison. That is far more unnecessary confusion than some slogan might bring about.
I don't think what a mirror hosts has ever been a concern for what Wikipedia should do - the same can apply to notes and references. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Fair point regarding change. I should be clear that my point at the noticeboard was that transphobes sometimes use the true statement of "sex is immutable" as a dog whistle for "and so is gender", so again it isn't the wording in and of itself, but more the way some people might misread it as an endorsement of the idea that gender cannot change. If "sex at birth" leads people to think that sex (as opposed to gender) can be changed, then we are leading people to a different misreading. That would in my view still be less bad than the misreading as "gender is immutable", but it still isn't perfect. Any way we say it, things might be misunderstood, and our job isn't to find the perfect wording (because it probably doesn't exist), but the best or least bad wording.
As for the ambiguous genitalia part (and assuming I understand your point correctly, which I am not entirely sure I am): I think this is a topic where even people who don't distinguish between sex and gender will know that things are complicated, and that a male person being AFAB (or vice versa) will raise societal questions of which prison to put them in if they commit a crime, as happened with Bryson. A person who doesn't believe sex and gender are different will still know that trans people exist, and that the issue of whether to jail trans criminals based on their sex or their gender or some other criterion (such as the appearance of their genitalia) will come up.
If we take it as a given that wikilinking to sex solves an issue, then we would be letting that issue go unsolved in off-Wikipedia copies of this article if we used the wikilink solution. It's better than using "sex" without a link, but still bad because of the hovering-over issue. And in my opinion, we have a responsibility to not let our content be abused, and to take reasonable steps in ensuring it isn't abusable if we can. Even if there is no rule explicitly requiring us to do that, I believe that, if at all possible without going against the existing rules, we should still do it because it's the right thing to do. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If someone is going to read this sentence and use it to come the conclusion that sex and gender are the same or whatever conclusions about transgenders they come up with they almost certainly had their mind made up. And an article on a transgender rapist is almost certainly going to do far more to influence someone's perception of transgenders than sex versus sex at birth.
'Sex at birth' implies one of two things through it's wording: that sex can change from birth - or that the Scottish prison system is going to use the initial sex determination made by a doctor at birth, even if later incorrect.
In regards to your last point there is nothing stopping someone from forking Wikipedia but using pre-transition names and sex-based pronouns for people. I don't think worrying about what may be abused off-wiki with Wikipedia content should be a concern for us. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the fact that Bryson is a convicted rapist certainly has done harm to how some non-trans people views trans people. Many people are quick to blame the terrible actions of a person on all members of that person's in-group. It cannot be stressed enough that Bryson is a terrible person who did despicable things, regardless of her gender identity or any other attribute. And it is much easier for transphobes to leverage "this trans person is a rapist" than "this trans person's Wikipedia article used the wrong words".
Most people coming here will already have made up their mind about whether trans people deserve the same respect and compassion as anyone else (in most people's views, the answer is and should be an obvious yes), and there are some people who are set in their ways that the answer should be no, but there are also people who are undecided or only leaning towards no. And in my view, the existence of a greater wrong does not excuse us from working to fix a lesser wrong, and depriving bad actors of any justifications we are unintentionally giving them. If we can find a wording that will lead at least a few people away from potentially becoming transphobic in future, then I believe it might be worth searching for such a wording. I acknowledge that the odds of such a search producing something better than "sex" or "sex at birth" look slim.
With that said, even with all the time and energy I have spent over the past week on this, I don't feel particularly strongly on which wording is better. I had thought there was a policy somewhere, or a discussion establishing a consensus about which wording to use when discussing which sex a child is assignment to at birth, but if there is one, at MOS:GIDINFO or elsewhere, I haven't been able to find it. We've gotten into the weeds here, which I suppose is the whole point of having talk pages, but I'm not hell-bent on pushing this matter if Meekaboo111 and Traumnovelle both think "sex" is preferable to "sex at birth". Input from more people is always welcome, whether they agree or disagree with what any of us three have said. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
“Sex at birth” is preferable because that’s what the source uses. When sources start saying simply “sex” (unqualified), then we can update accordingly. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you that "sex at birth" is preferable, but this is not a convincing argument to me. Per the essay WP:OUROWNWORDS, we should not go out of our way to reproduce whatever language our sources use. We have our own manual of style and internal rules to decide what is the best wording, and our sources' styles should not be given special favor just because we are getting our facts from them. And in any case, the sources are, AFAIK, divided on which wording they use. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
While true that we can apply our own style, when it comes to key facts and terminology that are contentious, the sources are the ultimate authority in the resolution of that contention. It’s common to have RfCs that litigate the use of specific words, and they usually come down to evidence of usage in sources. In this topic area specifically, where so much of the contention arises from semantics, it is particularly crucial to use language which accords with the due weight of sources. Policy asks that Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. As this thread illustrates, there is a difference of implication between “sex” and “sex at birth”, which puts us beyond paraphrase and style. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This may be me splitting hairs, but isn't it more that we should base our terminology on what is in common use off-Wikipedia, not what is in the sources of a specific article? As in, we should be concerned about which wording is used when news media discuss trans people in general, not just the sources we are using for this article that discuss the Isla Bryson case specifically. Regardless, I agree that it is especially important in this topic area to be mindful of semantics, including which language our sources use. While I know some things about the inner workings of this website, I am by no means an expert on this stuff and would be glad to defer to you, since you seem to know a fair bit more than me. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Obviously it's the intended meaning that the policy refers and they're not worried about changing a double entendre. The obvious intended meaning is that prisoners will be assigned initially based on what their sex is. They are not going to put a male who was sexed as female as a neonate into a women's prison. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which thing you are responding to. Did you reply to the intended comment? Could you please clarify what you mean? 188.176.174.30 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That the policy was not written with the intent of preventing us from editing sentences to be less confusing. We are allowed to editorialise, or else we wouldn't be hosting original content. It'd apply to changing the sentence to say birth gender or gender assigned at birth, as that is a different meaning. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The policy says meaning or implication. This whole thread started with a post about the implications of the phrase. Clearly if we change to a phrase with different implications, we have done something policy asks us not to do.
Now, if this were an article in medicine or biology, we absolutely would want to avoid implying something scientifically nonsensical. But this is not the place to have that debate. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The implications in this instance are unwanted and a result of poor editorialisation. Encyclopaedic language should always be prioritised over journalistic phrasing. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are we talking about the BBC source? How do you know what they wanted to imply? “Sex at birth” is common phrasing in this subject area, probably because it can be read by the two sides as meaning what they want it to mean. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think he is arguing that what they were intending to apply isn't relevant to us because they are journalists and we are writing an encyclopedia, so we should be using them as a source for information, but should not be emulating them because their product and our product are two different things.
On THIS case I suggest: use natal sex. It is neutral, concise, in common use in the wild, means the exact same thing as "sex at birth" but without the potential for confusion - ie natal sex is NEVER used to mean "the bio sex a person is not but were wrongly identified as at birth"; however, "sex (/assigned) at birth" IS used to mean that thing. And here I think we can reasonably presume that meaning is not intended here (because that would be ridiculously absurd if it were!). :) 73.2.86.132 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Common sense. It is obvious what the policy will actually do in effect. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply


This person should be referred to as male with he/him pronouns. Bending over backwards to avoid hurting a rapist's feelings in an encyclopedia is insanity. People experiencing gender dysphoria don't go around raping people, or at least if you want people to respect your pronouns, don't rape people. If he's hurt by people using incorrect pronouns, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. All this is just an attack on the cause of genuine transgender people. Faronnorth (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is not our place as editors to adjudicate whether someone is lying when they say they are experiencing gender dysphoria. Setting aside the questions of whether such a thing happens with any frequency, and whether that is what's happening in this case, this person should not be treated differently than another convicted rapist who wasn't trans (or claiming to be). The fact that Bryson committed a horrifying crime isn't relevant to whether we should maintain NPOV and treat her like any other person who did the same things. Calling into question the legitimacy of Bryson's transition, especially if we aren't backing it up with ample (but not undue) sources, would violate our verifiability and original research policies, two of Wikipedia's most foundational policies. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why is it 'neutral' to accept, uncritically, the assertion of a rapist that he has changed gender? Are there any reputable medical (or otherwise scientific) sources which confirm that Bryson actually has gender dysphoria? Without such evidence then, by all means, report Bryson's assertion that he is now a woman. But let's not report it as established fact purely because he says so. Doing so seems to me, if anything, to be a patent violation of the original research policy. Eurobleep (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is this page for, trans Identified men in prisons or the actual crime Islay Bryson did?

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't know who is in charge of final edit on this page but I can definitely see the bias to being transgender almost to the point of soliciting sympathy from the reader. Any reasoned educated person will feel this is smothering and a good example of elementary school writing and bigoted research. I will let the editors see in plain facts their bigoted, elitist bias in their own words here. There are 3961 words on this page, and yet the following is all the words you use to discuss the rapes this trans man commited and convicted of : 

(quote) "The prosecution described how Bryson had "preyed on two vulnerable female partners" after meeting them online. Bryson denied raping the two women, arguing the sex between them had been consensual, and claimed to be "in no way a predatory male".

2 sentences out of 3961 words. A blind person can see there is a elitist psychological attempt of influencing the reader here. You are no writers. No researchers. No educated fellow. You are indoctrinated tools here to propagate your social construct. IbringFacts (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isla_Bryson_case&oldid=1257324044"