Talk:McNally v R

Thoughts on article

Hi! Let me know if you all have any thoughts on this :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Heromagnus1 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Heromagnus1: Nice article – I've followed this since your Teahouse question. I did some cleanup on the article; let me know if you have any questions. Also, I noticed a number of articles omit the full stop after R in the title. I double checked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal § In the United Kingdom and it seems to be article title policy to not include the terminal punctuation. Let me know if you'd like me to move (i.e.: retitle) the page. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I think this article qualifies for WP:DYK. This puts a fun fact about the article on Wikipedia's Main Page which can attract experienced editors to help improve the article. You would have to nominate it before 20 March. – Reidgreg (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your comments! I went ahead and moved the page to the new title. I also nominated the article for the Did You Know section-- would love to know your thoughts on my hook when you had a chance! Have a lovely night. Heromagnus1 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again so much-- I've re-edited my draft of the DYK nomination. Heromagnus1 (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I did some more reference cleanup and removed the external links in the body of the article (so that readers don't accidentally go off-site, we only put external links at the bottom of the article per WP:EL). – Reidgreg (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 2013, McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault via "gender deception"? Source: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1051.html
  • Comment: I am not sure if my hook is perfect, but I would love to nominate my new article! Very open to help with the hook.

Created by Heromagnus1 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC).

• Comment: The source above should be the reliable secondary source which supports the hook fact in the article. I think a rephrase is in order: the conviction was in R v McNally, while McNally v R is the appeal which upheld the conviction. done – Reidgreg (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  hi!! thank you so much. thoughts on the new draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heromagnus (talk • contribs) 22:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not bad. Don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. I think it'd be "hookier" if some of the unessential parts were trimmed. I won't be reviewing this, so let me propose a couple rephrasings. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that a Scottish student challenged her conviction of sexual assault via "gender deception" in McNally v R?
• ALT2: ... that McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault via "gender deception"?
  • Thank you! I loved your second alt and I am submitting it! Let me know what else I need to do to help this move forward. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heromagnus1 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You're welcome! It may be a couple weeks before a volunteer reviewer responds to this, so try to be patient and in the meantime make sure the article is in good shape. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Article length is appropriate, it was nominated in time, all of its sources are reliable and it is written from a neutral point of view. I put it in the proper category and added an image of the court as is common in articles about British case law. The approved hook is ALT2. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Heromagnus and Psiĥedelisto: I was going to promote this, but I am concerned about the hook. The term "gender deception" is in quotation marks in the hook, and is used in the article. However, I could not find that term in the source provided above, nor in Politics.co.uk source which is used to verify the term in the lede. Can you post the source here that verifies the "gender deception" term, or suggest alternative hooks that don't include that phrase? Also, Reidgreg you are listed in the DYKmake template as one of the creators of this article. Were you involved in writing this article, or should your DYKmake template be removed? Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not 100% clear on use of DYKmake, whether it's for creators or co-nominators (not much on its doc page). It's Heromagnus's article, though I've assisted/advised since it was proposed at the Teahouse, suggested the DYK and hooks. Xtools credits me with authorship mainly from copyediting and reference cleanup. Remove my DYKmake if unwarranted. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• My opinion is, if you are comfortable in receiving the credit, then you should receive the credit. (Some AFC reviewers dislike receiving credit for articles that they were not part of the original writing process.) Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: The phrase is in the Queering Judgment source. I apologize for not noticing it's not in the actual ruling cited above, which does use the word "deception" all throughout but not the two in combination. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 09:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Psiĥedelisto and Heromagnus1: Thanks for your response. I found the two instances where "gender deception" is used in the Queering Judgement source: the first instance is about another case, and the second instance is an introductory statement and not used again in the source. I don't think it's wise to word the hooks like this, as they might get rejected later in the DYK process as original research. Here are some alternatives, based on your hooks above:

• ALT2a: ... that McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault because the plaintiff was deceptive about their gender?
• ALT2b: ... that McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault because the plaintiff lied about their gender?

Let me know your thoughts about the proposed ALTs. Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Hi! Thank you all so much for your thoughts. I think your alts are a little difficult for me because they imply that the deception was real, uncontested, and objective. I wonder if perhaps the solution could just be to remove the quotes in the original hook? This way, we get at the language used without quoting where it is unnecessary to do so.

• ALT3a: ... that in 2013, McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault via gender deception?
• ALT3b: ...that McNally v R upheld a conviction of sexual assault on the grounds that the plaintiff lied about their gender?

Let me know your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18a:c77e:42e0:19a:6712:31b:5e96 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We would say 'allegedly lied' prior to a conviction (WP:SUSPECT), but afterwards we generally state the court's ruling as fact. I would prefer ALT2b or ALT3a. In the latter case, removal of MOS:SCAREQUOTES sets a better tone and, if needed, here are some additional sources which could be added to the article: The Conversation collectively refers to the McNally, Newland and Barker cases as "gender deception cases" and the abstract of Transgender Freedom and the Law (conference paper) refers to "gender deception" as a key component of the case. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: or someone else: Can we get your thoughts on the proposed hooks above, and re-add the green tick if they are approved? Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720, Reidgreg, and Heromagnus1: Certainly. I had not abandoned the review, it's one of my QPQ's and anyway that'd be rude, it's just that when the user 2601:18a:c77e:42e0:19a:6712:31b:5e96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) responded to me I had no idea how to take that, as I was not the one raising problems with their wording or the Queering Judgment source, which I judged fine. So I waited for you to reply. Reidgreg is fine with ALT3a and so am I—it makes no real difference if the text is quote-attributed or not to me, but I do understand the slight difference in wikivoice nuance. So, ALT3a is good to go. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 22:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

ALT3a to T:DYK/P3

Pronouns

From edit summary by ‎StevenOliveGarden (talk): I made the pronouns for McNally ambiguous because the court records indicate strongly that McNally identified as a transgender man and wanted to use he/him/his pronouns. It does not seem appropriate to refer to McNally as a woman because McNally does not appear to identify as such; it is important to make the distinction that the court considered McNally to be a girl, rather than McNally identifying as such.

@StevenOliveGarden: I can understand the sensitivity of this, and your edit was probably the safest immediate course with BLP concerns. There are some guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Gender identity and {{Section link}}: required section parameter(s) missing. The former notes that articles should reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. This may require close examination of sources. I recall one source mentioning that McNally "retreated" into their birth gender identity when this went public with the courts, which is apparently a common reaction among young people, so that could complicate matters. I hope to get back to this after checking sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Examination of sources

BAILII – Record of the court ruling. Note that court records are primary sources (reliable secondary sources [RSS] are generally preferred in articles). I assume that because it is a legal document, it uses McNally's legal gender: female. Fischel, Screw Consent – I was able to view some snippets at Google Books. Alex Sharpe (2015) adopts this interpretation: “McNally appears to have genuinely identified as male at the time of the offences. [..."] Politics.co.uk – RSS. It notes [McNally told] the court that she felt "more comfortable" as Scott and did not think of herself as a woman. This was in the context of her 3-1/2 year relationship with M. Guardian "Gayle Newland retrial" only brief mention of McNally "masquerading as a man". The Scotsman no mention of subject Guardian "Woman posed as a man" no mention of subject Sharpe "Queering Judgement" (2017) there is uncertainty regarding the precise nature of the defendant’s gender identity [...] there was evidence to suggest that she believed herself to be a transgender man at the time of sexual intimacy with the complainant, albeit she asserted a female gender identity at the time of plea and subsequent appeal. It is because of this latter fact that female pronouns will be used throughout this article. And later In using female pronouns in referring to the appellant, I am simply respecting her assertion of a female gender identity at the time of plea and subsequently.

I feel that Sharpe's position is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. In the absence of any more recent RSS reports on McNally's gender identification and choice of pronouns, McNally's position at appeal, identifying as female, would seem to be the way to present McNally – that or to cautiously remain gender neutral. It would also seem alright to use the names "Justine" and "Scott" as appropriate (i.e.: as in previous versions of the article). @StevenOliveGarden and Heromagnus1: What do you think? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I also was following the example in the academic papers on this subject, since none of them seemed to indicate an interest in obscuring McNally's gender non-conformity, but still used she-her pronouns. But I'm very happy to cautiously remain gender neutral. I'll go ahead and edit in the names / remove pronouns where I can. Heromagnus1 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Reidgreg for the extensive research on the sources! I think that my first red flag while reviewing the sources was Sharpe's identification in 2015 that McNally had "appear[ed] to have genuinely identified as male at the time of the offences." Even reading the details of the case, the consistent attempts of McNally to obscure an assigned female at birth identity seemed to strongly indicate that they were trying to live their life as a man and pursue the relationship as a man. With the court case's statement featuring McNally's statement that they did not think of themself as a woman, I can't help but think that this is a situation in which a minor was pressured to conform to an identification that was state-provided for the sake of the clarity of legality. It's intimidating to go in front of a court of law as is, but as a minor and potentially as an identity that is already disproportionately targeted by legislation, I imagine that there was significant fear accompanying McNally's circumstances. I think that it would be wise to maintain neutral pronouns out of respect for the fact that this case occurred when the individual was a minor and had not likely had the opportunity to fully understand or assert their identity yet. It's very interesting that it is difficult to find more information on McNally's present presentation now, especially considering that this case had been addressing when McNally was 17 in 2011, based on the information available. By these estimates, they should be about 28 now. I do wonder if any additional details can be found on the subject somehow. Otherwise, I do maintain the recommendation to use neutral pronouns. StevenOliveGarden (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I've actually just been doing some more digging as well; it looks as if McNally "identified as male prior to and at the time of the alleged offences and had indicated a desire to undergo gender reassignment surgery. There is no obvious reason to disbelieve the authenticity of her earlier gender identification (medical evidence suggests a high rate of gender identity persistence after adolescence) and its later countermanding might have been the effect of criminal prosecution and media persecution of the seventeen year old. Retreat into ‘normalcy’ would be easy to understand. Such concerns provide a further objection to these kinds of prosecution. Nevertheless, the defendant’s assertion of a female gender identity at trial served to confound the defence case, leading to the same kind of legal analysis adopted in the Barker and Newland cases."[1] I find it to be particularly notable that they were indicating a desire to acquire gender affirming surgery and I agree with the analysis that the legal pressure likely altered the approach that they took in their identification in the court of law. StevenOliveGarden (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)