Template talk:MOS-TRANS

Specify which pronoun is used for which gender

With just one template, there needs to be a way to allow the text in the template to vary depending on whether this template is placed on the talk page of a trans woman's article or a trans man's article. Any way to do this?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There are ways of doing that, but it's also not strictly necessary. You'll notice that, as written, the template currently covers both men and women just fine. -sche (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I do have a problem with a template that isn't supposed to vary as appropriate. To some people, trans women are really men, even after their body has been fixed with surgery. These people would interpret the MOS's statement as meaning that trans women should be referred to with he/him throughout. (For more detail, these people think trans women are just men pretending to be women, and that their female gender identity is fake and doesn't need to be accepted.) Georgia guy (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This present version works perfect for genderqueer people who do not identify as men/women/trans men/trans women. I don't see it as helping articles that are about trans men and trans women. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSIDENTITY states, and this template quotes verbatim, that "any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns [...] that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." A transgender man's latest expressed gender self-identification is "male", and hence the pronoun "he" should be used in reference to that person. How exactly do you think someone would interpret the text as instead requiring "she"? -sche (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Read very carefully the above post I made and you'll see what I mean. Georgia guy (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. MOS says "any person whose gender might be questioned...". If reliable sources say a person is transgender and now (for example) living as a man, then the only way someone can claim that person is "still really a woman" is by questioning the person's gender. MOS then continues "[that person] should be referred to by the pronouns [...] that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification". A transgender man's "latest expressed gender self-identification" is male, so "he" would be used. The MOS text (and hence the template) nowhere allows people to sub in their own view that the person "is still really a woman". Where does your interpretation of the MOS differ from mine? -sche (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The point of view I'm talking about is the point of view of some people who don't understand transgenderism; the people with this point of view look at the identity of a trans person as a make-believe gender identity that we're not supposed to use in an encyclopedia. These people say "Gender is determined by the presence/absence of a Y chromosome; you don't get to choose your gender!" These people look at transgender people as people who make up their identity just to be stupid. (I'm not saying I have this point of view myself; I'm merely explaining it as a point of view some people have.) Georgia guy (talk) 23:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand that some people have that point of view. I think this template does as good a job as Template:MOS-TM and Template:MOS-TW of informing them that they can't push that POV into the main namespace. -sche (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, especially after the needlessly disrespectful comments just made against Chelsea. We need to be blunt that a trans woman's article needs to use she/her pronouns rather than leave any wiggle room for nonsense. And the forum content needs to be kept in one form or another as well. No reason a good template can't do it all. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is wiggle room, but how's this? Hopefully the people who didn't like that MOS-TW and MOS-TM "said more than the guideline did" won't object. -sche (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As for {{notaforum}}: I think it should be transcluded separately on the same pages as this, rather than being made a part of this, for reasons outlined in the following section. We could transclude it inside this and then modify it so that other arguments could be passed to it (e.g. the page on the trial of Manning isn't a forum for general discussion of gender or the trial), but then we'd have to look out for any future edits to {{notaforum}} that changed its functionality, and... it just seems easier to let each template be itself, and use them in pairs. -sche (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about not wanting to depend on {{not a forum}} as it may change, but I don't think there's even a remote possibility that it will change any time soon. I'm pretty sure they're going to keep it as is - disallowing the parameter or changing how it's used is just not something I envision happening. My view is that we'd save some Wikitext and time by allowing people to make just one template call. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a forum

(re diff) Including {{notaforum}} within this template is tempting, but might be problematic whenever there's a person (Manning comes to mind) whose talk page is not only "not a forum for general discussion of gender", but also not a forum for discussion of other issues (in Manning's case, someone has added {{notaforum|Manning or gender}} to the talk page, which seems appropriate given that people sometimes misuse the page to talk about what a traitor/hero Manning is). Therefore, I have a weak preference for keeping the templates separate and just invoking them both on talk pages. -sche (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I modified this template (MOS-TRANS) so it accepts an optional parameter specifying any issues pertinent to the specific page. So, for example, if you want to caution against discussing military topics you could call {{MOS-TRANS|the military}} and the "not a forum" part would include that, in addition to the other cautions. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -sche (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Best use for this template??

Any thoughts on the following suggestion:

This template should be used on talk pages in place of the other 2 templates being used together on a single talk page. The other 2 templates can stay if only one of them is needed. Georgia guy (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

My intention was to (remove {{notaforum}} from within this template, where it was added by another user, and) use this template together with {{notaforum}} on the talk pages of transgender people, removing {{MOS-TW}}/{{MOS-TM}}. Examples: [1], [2]. -sche (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The templates are to stop nonsense from reasonable people before it starts. I think we must have notaforum language in one form or another on all talkpages where the template is used. Ideally we could just use a sentence or two instead of transposing another template in. But it needs to be a part of this template. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we must have "notaforum" language on the talk pages. I (and several of the people who commented at TFD) just think that's best accomplished by using this with notaforum (as separate templates), rather than by putting notaforum inside this template. -sche (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and includes the "not a forum" template within this one, thereby removing the need to call two different templates. I also customized the "not a forum" template so it will warn against general discussion of the article subject, gender, or sex. We thereby have a consistent solution that will apply to all articles about trans people. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I see someone had added "not a forum" previously, then someone else had removed it. I've added a cool new feature where you can pass in a parameter for an additional topic to warn about, so it should work better / in more cases with the change. You can see two sample use cases at Template:MOS-TRANS/doc. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Begin using this template

Now that the TFD about MOS-TW and MOS-TM has been closed (making it clear that templates of this sort are acceptable), and now that {{notaforum}} has been skilfully incorporated into this template by CaseyPenk, does anyone object to replacing instances of MOS-TW/MOS-TM with this template ({{MOS-TRANS}})? -sche (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that the consensus of the Tfd was keep, not merge into one template. However, please look at the above section of the talk page to see where I support this particular template. Georgia guy (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly object! This template is perfect for people who don't identify as male/female and ALSO reject trans man/trans woman (like Category:Intersex people). But it causes problems for anyone who does fit into those boundaries. I would rather we develop ONE template for trans man/trans woman/other that we can use for everyone. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to force a parameter and also spell out that ___ considers herself/himself a trans woman/trans man when appropriate. I think some editors need to have this very clearly spelled out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

re your first point: What problems does this template cause for trans men / trans women? Does it cause a problem MOS:IDENTITY doesn't cause? It quotes MOS:IDENTITY verbatim, so I don't see how it could, especially now that CaseyPenk has coded gender parameters into it. re your second point: CaseyPenk has already coded that in. If you set {{MOS-TRANS|m}} on, say, Ryan Sallans, the template displays "This means that trans men such as Ryan Sallans should be referred to as "he" throughout all phases of their lives." -sche (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Sportfan5000, thanks for the suggestion. What alternative use cases do you envision, and how do you envision this template working in such cases? For example, what specifically should the template display in the case of an intersex person? CaseyPenk (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

With the recent changes my concerns have changed a bit. We have people who use gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns such as ze, hir, etc. I think we need to allow for that circumstance and include an extra line for that variable that an explanation of their preferred pronouns may be appropriate for the lead of the article. I'll keep looking at cases to see if there are other issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I think this was discussed elsewhere (here or on the MOS-TW talk page), and it seems there is very little consensus for allowing the use of ze, hir, etc. in articles. We should open up another discussion on that point (perhaps on WT:MOS, for visibility), as it may be a controversial change to some. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

They are already used, although those who have gender identity issues would go apoplectic over gender neutral pronouns. I think they may be discouraged but they are used already and no reason a template can't advocate the same premise - Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. It's already in MOS with the gender binary presumption that only men/women exist. We can be bold and remove that altogether. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh no. We're not supposed to treat transgender people like a third gender. We're supposed to treat them like members of the gender they identify as. Do you really want to remove this rule altogether and consider it acceptable to treat them like a third gender?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Only following when they themselves do. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what that statement means?? Do some transgender people consider themselves a third gender?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, see Category:Third gender for instance. transgender and intersex are overlapping modern terms basically encompassing hundreds of thousands of people. Gender role also has some information on this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on what categories would be appropriate and what those categories would result in. For an intersex category, what pronouns would we use? And the same for any other categories. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that's part of the point. We should make the pronouns a bit customized based on the person's gender identity, not a one size fits all rationale. Some people purposely choose to not conform to a gender binary system. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sportfan5000, okay, I see what you mean. Again, though, there doesn't seem to be wide support for using pronouns such as "ze" in a biography. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it's the same as with Manning, we don't let the mostly macho male majority rule on her gender identity, we let her express her own identity. Likewise we already have biographies where non-gender binary pronouns are used. We should have an option where we express that this is indeed ok and possibly give some guidance to avoid future edit-warring. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What are some articles where the other pronouns are used? I think you sent me one previously but I'm not remembering what it was. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a pretty good example. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like vself is only used once; otherwise Bond is referred to as Bond, with no choice of pronouns. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should indeed have a discussion on WT:MOS about how to write about non-binary people, given that WP already has articles on people who are neither male nor female ("third genders" are actually relatively common in the world). I imagine the "singular they" will be the option most palatable to the most users.

The last discussion of genderqueer / gender-neutral pronouns that I know of was in late July, where there was opposition to them. A big problem with them (from the standpoint of their adoption by anyone, not just WP) is that they are so numerous that each one is rare and unlikely to be accepted by more than one style guide. On Wiktionary, we documented over thirty (not even including vself!), of which seven met our criteria for inclusion in the dictionary as words. I would expect a lot of opposition to allowing all 30+ or even all 7 (or even 1), and no agreement on which one to allow even if there was agreement to allow 1. -sche (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: it might be helpful, from the standpoint of not overwhelming people with discussions on MOS:IDENTITY, to wait until some of the 4+ discussions that are already open conclude before starting a discussion of this issue, though. -sche (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest not bringing it up for discussion at all. The talks have all been rather nakedly transphobic and hostile and I'd rather not spread moralizing being spread to a bunch of articles that are quiet now. Let's just let those article be and write a gender-neutral version of the template for those articles that need one. Let the gender police spin their wheels at the Manning renaming instead. This whole situation is just sad, let's vote on wether to respect someone's right to exist in peace! Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Once the TfD is over I think we should look to getting this work through the next phase, and getting the implementation going. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

After-the-fact note, just to set some history straight: I created MOS-TM and MOS-TW, and don't have a strong opinion on the question of whether to replace it with MOS-TRANS in articles where MOS-TM/TW are applicable. The reason I originally chose two templates rather than a single one, rather than one template was larger than non-binary people, it also had to do with the discussion of "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: instead of He gave birth to his first child, write He became a parent for the first time).". I felt that by expanding to two two templates, more specific and appropriate guidance specific to the usual use of pronouns by trans men and trans women for what qualified as "seemingly logical impossible text" might be provided. And I always expected there would be cases that would fall outside the use of those two templates, MOS-TRANS of course is a great solution in those cases. (As to whether it's better to replace it universally, I think there are reasonable arguments for either choice, and I don't have a strong preference, I just wanted to provide my orginal thinking.) --j⚛e decker^talk 17:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This template is only being used on 12 articles, I do not even know why it exists as the wording is WP:POV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Appears to me to largely consist of a quotation from the MOS. But perhaps you can point to a specific issue? Quite possible I"m missing someting. And as your response seems off-topic to this section, perhaps you can point out the specific wording you find to be POV, and suggest an improvement, in a separate section? I suspect it'll get a more thorough hearing that way. I've made such a section, below. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

POV/NPOV, as per Knowledgekid87

I'm making a new suggestion to discuss Knowledgekid87's comment that there are POV issues here. Speaking for myself, I"m not seeing it, but I'm listening. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The only issue I have with it is the notaforum wording: "This is not a forum for general discussion about MOS-TRANS, gender, or sex. Any such comments may be removed or refactored." Per this discussion here with similar wording Template talk:MOS-TW#Removal of possible WP:POV statement. No other template I know of lists specific things not to discuss about at the very least it is WP:BEANS - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I have mixed feelings (and will call myself neutral about) including/excluding something of that general nature.

As to a general NOTAFORUM sort of notice: I can see your BEANS argument (and perhaps supplant it with a CREEP one, too), but, on the other hand, it is my recollection that I saw a lot of political speechifying and arguments against MOS:IDENTITY before MOS-TW/TM existed. I'm not sure which is better, but there was a problem before the notices existed.

As for any wording issues, if what we're saying goes beyond the basic meaning of WP:NOTADVOCATE part 1, I'd have no issue with rewording. I suspect (based on past experience and AGF) that if the text is picking out certain types of advocacy it was largely based on the experience of what sorts of advocacy were being seen over and over again, and wanting to make the advocacy issue clear.

In any case, I"m calling myself neutral on those.

Thanks for the explanation! Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)