Talk:Sarah McBride

Birth name concerns

The following discussion 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.

---

For those wondering as to why Sarah McBride's former name isn't included, please refer to the FAQ. Thank you! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

Protected edit request

1) Change all instances of the initialism LGBT in the article to LGBTQ as it recently became the consensus to do so.

2)

−

If elected in 2024, McBride would become the first openly transgender member of Congress.

+

McBride was elected to this position, and will be the first openly transgender member of Congress.

Cleebadee (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Raladic (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Anti-transgender bathroom resolution at Capitol (18 November 2024)

 The page is currently protected, so I am adding here what I think should be added under Sarah_McBride#United_States_House_of_Representatives:

South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to amend the rules of the United States House of Representatives banning transgender women from women's restrooms at the United States Capitol. In response, she posted on X (19 November 2024), saying that "[e]very day Americans go to work with people who have life journeys different than their own and engage with them respectfully, I hope members of Congress can muster that same kindness." followed by, "This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing. We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars."

Lulu-lists (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me this says more about Mace than it does about McBride. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

She didn't even enter the House of Representatives yet and they already want to block her from using the restrooms (which is a human right). This definitely shows the barriers she is facing in her political career. Lulu-lists (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we are not here to right great wrongs. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "right great wrongs". As the article states, "She will be the first openly transgender member of the United States Congress" and she is now facing a unique challenge because of being "the first openly transgender member of the United States Congress". I am not trying to correct this situation with wikipedia. I am trying to include in this article relevant information which is related to what's already said about her in the existing article. I have included reliable sources that report about this issue which is indeed important enough to make headlines. Lulu-lists (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

IMO, this may be relevant to include, especially if the bill goes somewhere, although the amount of quoted material from the article subject is excessive, especially if only citing social media posts. – notwally (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you and fair enough. I added multiple sources and quoted her tweets extensively just to have all the relevant information available. This can definitely be made shorter and more concise. Lulu-lists (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like a pretty rare occurrance where an incoming member of Congress is directly targeted by another congressperson through proposed legislation. I would assume additional news outlets will cover this story, which will allow for a better judgment as to what is appropriate to include. – notwally (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are a few more:

• Crane, Emily (19 November 2024). "Rep. Nancy Mace says Sarah McBride 'absolutely' reason for bathroom bill". New York Post.
• Brunner, Raven (19 November 2024). "Rep. Nancy Mace Proposes Trans Bathroom Ban at U.S. Capitol After Trans Woman's Historic Election to Congress". People.com.
• Mondeaux, Cami (19 November 2024). "Johnson clarifies position on House transgender bathroom spat: 'A man is a man'". Washington Examiner.
• Monteil, Abby (19 November 2024). "A House Republican Is Trying to Ban Sarah McBride From Capitol Bathrooms". them.
• Gracia, Eric (19 November 2024). "MTG supports Nancy Mace's controversial trans bathroom ban in Congress: 'That's what this election was all about'". The Independent.
• Slisco, Aila (19 November 2024). "Nancy Mace Wants to Bar Transgender Women From Capitol Bathrooms". Newsweek.
• Edwards, Joe (19 November 2024). "Marjorie Taylor Greene Misgenders First Openly Trans Congresswoman Sarah McBride: 'He's A Man'". newsweek.

Lulu-lists (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Nancy Mace's bathroom bill is already mentioned in Bathroom bill#Examples (last paragraph) where it says:

In November 2024, Representative Nancy Mace introduced a resolution to ban transgender people from using bathrooms other than those of their sex assigned at birth at the U.S. Capitol, in anticipation of the swearing in of U.S. House member-elect Sarah McBride from Delaware, who is the first trans woman elected to Congress.

Please note that it says "in anticipation of the swearing in of U.S. House member-elect Sarah McBride from Delaware, who is the first trans woman elected to Congress."

If it's relevant to mention her there as an example of a bathroom bill that's targeting her, it should probably be relevant to mention it here too.

Lulu-lists (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Lulu-lists (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense as the subject matter is the bathroom bill. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It specifically says that this bill was made in order to target Sarah McBride. This is also mentioned in the news articles that I shared.

Another place where this is mentioned, again while stating that this is meant specifically to target Sarah McBride, is under Nancy_Mace#Bathroom_bill_in_Congress.

I don't understand why you insist on ignoring the fact that this bill is meant to target Sarah McBride personally, so it is relevant information about Sarah McBride.

Lulu-lists (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of making assumptions, I think Muboshgu may be more concerned about the possibility of this article giving too much focus to content discussing ways that people have tried to attack or target the article subject. That is certainly a concern that I have, and something that I think we need to be mindful to avoid. This article should be focused on the biography of Sarah McBride, rather than how others feel about her. I suspect, however, that these types of actions by her colleagues targeting her for her identity will continue. I will also note that some of the sources you provided earlier, such as Washington Examiner, New York Post, and Newsweek, are not considered generally reliable sources on WP:RSP (NYP is actually considered unreliable). Remember that there is no deadline here, and so waiting to allow for more coverage and fuller context can be helpful. – notwally (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That is a good assessment, and I should have mentioned that a mere bill being introduced doesn't mean we should include it. Mace is seeking attention. Unfortunately, she's getting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

But the bill itself did get mentioned otherwise in wikipedia. My point here wasn't to give Nancy Mace attention, but rather to focus on Sarah McBride's reaction to it. I think it is relevant that she got targeted with a bespoke law before she was even sworn in. I think it's even more relevant that she chose to respond by saying that this is an attempt to distract attention from the relevant political issues that she is advocating for.

Mentioning the bill here is not about discussing what other people think about her, but rather about the special challenges she has to face as a trans woman. This is relevant, because she is the first openly transgender US Congress representative.

I also find it very unpleasant that Muboshgu was only willing to present arguments in response to notwally and not directly to me.

I have only mentioned the sources from Washington Examiner, New York Post and Newsweek (along with articles from them, people.com and The Independent) when the first sources that I provided were ignored.

Lulu-lists (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would keep your focus on the article content rather than other editors. WP:AGF is important, and Muboshgu has responded to your arguments several times. I understand your concern about the challenges McBride has to face, but realize that there is no rush to add content into her biography. Will someone in 20 years care that this resolution was introduced when trying to learn about McBride? I think that's likely if it passes and changes the House rules. If it doesn't pass but has relevance to the challenges she had to face as the first woman who is transgender in Congress, then probably likely as well. Right now though, I think it's on the fence for its importance. Is having a sentence or two about this House resolution in this article is going to change anything in McBride's life? I would doubt that. Is having a sentence or two going to give more attention to this House resolution and the actions of Mace? I think that's more likely, and I think it's also likely that someone like Mace would want that. I have seen many instances on Wikipedia a topic is given undue attention, often to someone seeking attention for the wrong reasons, because of the desire of people who want to help show the response to it to show how wrong it is. It's a difficult balance, but the best results always come from patience and deliberation (two things that I am terrible at!). – notwally (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've responded to you directly. I don't understand that comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This from the speaker gets us more towards WP:DUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you think is given undue weight here? Lulu-lists (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say that it is undue there. I said that I think we're getting there, if we're not already there. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Could you please clarify? Where are we getting at? Lulu-lists (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Lulu-lists, you have valid point. I am very busy with my job to sift through everything and properly add them back in. However, I did some minor edits here and at Nancy Mace's article and talk page to address Mace's transphobia. Arbeiten8 (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Reversal of my edit

@Notwally I saw you reversed my edit [[1]] that created a 'Political positions' section and 'Israel' subsection for the paragraph on McBride's position on Israel that was previously (and now is back) under 'Electoral politics', sandwiched between two paragraphs about her actual elections/runs. Your reasoning for this edit was: "a single paragraph does not needs its own section and subsection". I do not believe this reasoning is supported by Wikipedia policy nor common practice, and think this should be re-done at least in part. I am not reversing your edit, as that would just start an edit war, but want to hear your (and others) thoughts. I think the current placement is nonsensical and awkward, most other significant politician articles have a 'Political positions' section. Mason7512 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:OVERSECTION says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings." I personally feel that the "political positions" sections on most articles are usually poorly done and unencyclopedic, but at the very least I think it would be better to at least wait until there is more detail about her positions than 3 sentences about a single issue. – notwally (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Virtually every politician at her level has such a section, and significantly more content for it will almost certainly come soon. My recommendation would be to add the Political Positions heading now and add subsections in there as needed. meamemg (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I don't know why a section would be getting introduced when it's not appropriate. If there is a need for a separate section because of length at some point, then the section should be created at that point. – notwally (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a need for the section, since policy positions don't really fall under Electoral Politics". meamemg (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed the section heading to "Electoral career" then. If policy positions are not appropriate under "Electoral politics" or a similar name, then I don't see how any of that section is appropriate, especially considering that the political stances we are discussing were directly related to her political campaigning. – notwally (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

American Zionists category

The article itself details with sources McBride's stated Zionist views. Quote:

In an August 2023 interview with Jewish Insider, McBride "framed herself as a staunch supporter of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship, as well as a committed fighter against antisemitism". She supports the Abraham Accords and has called for a new Iran nuclear deal. She also supports the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and was a co-sponsor of Delaware legislation to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day and celebrate the 75th anniversary of the creation of Israel.

Considering this has already been established, I would argue that the American Zionists category is an appropriate category to place her in. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The category itself is a WP:BLPCAT violation without a self-identification from the BLP in question referring to themself as such, the category should actually be tagged that only BLPs that do so can be included in it, as is customary for other such potentially contentious categories. Raladic (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

So the person specifically has to refer to themself as a "Zionist" in order to qualify? "Staunch supporter of Israel and the US-Israel relationship" should suffice as being Zionist, since that is precisely what Zionism is. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources using this term or reporting its use by the article subject? We don't include labels in Wikipedia articles based on interpretation by other editors. – notwally (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That's right; as Raladic has pointed out above, per WP:BLPCAT we do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like. See also MOS:LABEL; per our article on Zionism, it is often considered a colonial/racist movement. AviationFreak💬 00:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Transphobia is a perception not a fact

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA

The section called "transphobia…" should be renamed either "house bathroom controversy" or "women's bathroom bill" or something less opinionated. As currently titled, it aims to editorialize that the reason for the bill is "fear" of trans people. Regardless of how one feels about the bill, or McBride, or Mace, Mace, herself has said she's advocating for it to protect women. Even if one doesn't agree that the bill does that, we shouldn't put opinion and conjecture into Wikipedia. George R. Brumder (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Mace would say that, wouldn't she? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC) I don't follow. I'm simply saying that Wikipedia isn't (wasn't, shouldn't be) a place for opinion. Using the hot-button word "transphobia" in reference to a proposed bill being clearly suggests that the proposer is afraid of trans people and that the bill has one goal in mind. I'm telling you, if y'all don't remember Jimbo's original intent with Wikipedia, this beloved, shared, and community-policed site will go the way of the dodo. Please seriously contemplate that advice. George R. Brumder (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC) It's not opinion. It's cited in WP:RS. Here's a couple: [2][3] We require secondary sources because why would we ever take a subject at their word? No, Wikipedia has always been about neutrally reflecting what is in RS. And Mace admitted that she targeted McBride specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC) Use of the word transphobia especially in the subject header ("Transphobia in US House") is not cited. (Personal attack removed) The heading is wrong and should be changed. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't being used correctly. George R. Brumder (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Trans women are not "men who think they're women". Such hate speech is not permitted on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Funcrunch (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Transphobia is about prejudice and discrimination, which, according to reliable sources, is exactly what this bathroom bill proposes to enact. It's not necessarily or solely about fear. Funcrunch (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)