Template talk:MOS-TW

Where to direct people?

For matters involving living transgender women, I'd still prefer to suggest that readers go to WP:BLPN, out of (probably excessive) concern that WT:LGBT might be seen as a non-neutral appeal and that that will lead to Teh Dramaz down the road. However, MOS:IDENTITY of course extends to non-living transgender women as well, and we need to give constructive advice in both cases. Thoughts? --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to smooth out the wording a bit more, and also restore the reference to BLPHELP / BLPSELF. It's common for people to discover and want to deal with issues they find in how they are portrayed on Wikipedia, and it's very constructive to provide general advice for the do's and don'ts of dealing with that. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

One more suggestion

Please semi-protect this template indefinitely. Please notice the statement:

Such women, according to MOS:IDENTITY, should be referred to using the gendered names and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification" throughout their life.

One edit that will very likely be made at any time by any un-registered or newly registered Wikipedian if this template is not semi-protected is to change the statement to something like:

Such women are really men, and should be referred to using the gendered names and pronouns (e.g., "he", "him") that "reflect the fact that their chromosomes tell them they are men" throughout their life.

(Not necessarily that exact statement, but something like it.) Please semi-protect the template to prevent this. Georgia guy (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Our protection policy actually pretty much forbids me from proactive semi-protection here yet, however, I agree that vandalism of the type you describe is likely, and I'm ready to take action at the first sign of trouble. There is also a point at which, after the template is widely transcluded, that I may be able to proactively provide protection, and I'll consider that (or perhaps even full protection) at that point. At this point, however, the best I can do is to move this to a tiny list of my twenty or so most-watched articles. --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Georgia guy (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

I don't see why people want Wikipedia to cater to the non-science and fact crowd. NO ONE but LGBT groups claim that the X or Y chromosome is meaningless when dealing with gender. And no one in those groups is even remotely a scientists or biologist. They have every right to be what they want, but they are not gallowed to make up their own science and biology just because it suits them. There is no science to back up that someone with a Y chromosome that "feels like a woman" is really a woamn any more than there is science that says that someone that feels like they area dog is actually in the canine family.74.67.106.1 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This template is intended to summarize and communicate a pre-existing policy consensus, said consensus being MOS:IDENTITY. If you would like to promote your views, neither here nor the talk page there are appropriate venues. If you would like to suggest a change, a more appropriate place to begin is on the talk page for MOS:IDENTITY, which would be WT:MOS. I hope you find this information helpful. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: I encourage you to spend a bit of time with JSTOR and/or Google Scholar reading up on what is discussed in reliable academic sources about gender. I beleive that you may find serious attempts to research the veracity of the statements you make here illuminating. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

74.67.106.1, please note that some people may find it highly offensive to mention dog species in the same breath as gender identity. Some people consider their chosen gender identity a core part of their identity. To have that identity questioned can feel deeply insulting. While you did not necessarily intend to cause offense you may wish to consider the perspectives of other contributors. It helps create a more civil environment for everyone involved. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia works or if you want clarification on what I said, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Two cents

1. Saying "latest expressed...throughout their life" is less clear than what MOS:IDENTITY says. It's well crafted. Why not follow that model closely and use the separate sentence modified for gender: "This applies in references to any phase of her life."?

2. You've switched to the plural (such women) but give examples in the singular (she, her). Try "Such a woman".

3. Since you are citing the MOS, start with "According to"

4. And MOS:IDENTITY should be wikilinked as well.

Thus: According to MOS:IDENTITY, such a woman should be referred to using the gendered names and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect [her] latest expressed gender self-identification." This applies in references to any phase of her life. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also: "in the case of living trans women" becomes "in the case of a living trans woman" Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

All of those suggestions seem constructive to me. I'm also tempted to take out the last bit, b/c in practice it's likely to end up on pages that have similar text transcluded from Template:BLP, any thoughts about that? --j⚛e decker^talk 23:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: I've attempted to incorporate your changes, but feel free to make corrections live, too. This is still barely transcluded. Cheers, --j⚛e decker^talk 23:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Both look fine to me. I agree about taking out the last part. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e decker^talk 00:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Her wife...

"She was born a boy" is definitely an easy phrase to avoid, but any thoughts on the phrase "her wife"?? What should replace it?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

it's all about context. Where are you having a problem with this? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Laura Jane Grace article brought this to my attention. Georgia guy (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but reading that article is a huge chore. The words "his wife" and "her wife" don't appear. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just assuming it was possible based on the fact that Grace was married twice before her period of transition. Georgia guy (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the phrase...

I expanded one sentence to:

Quotations, titles of published works, and the phrase "assigned male at birth" may need to be handled as exceptions.

but I was quickly reverted. Any thoughts anyone has about the inclusion of this phrase in a sentence like this?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Strikes me as unnecessary because it is not an exception in the first instance. I don't think the phrase you want to add is problematic. The gender-identifying term is not applied to her, but to the categorization process. Hardly different from "She was viewed [as a] male by her schoolmates..." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, it seems like common sense that references like "born with male genitalia", "assigned male at birth" and "viewed as a male by classmates" aren't to be 'normalised' (for lack of a better word). And to list only one of those possible phrases as "the phrase [... that] may need to be handled as [an] exception" is a bad idea, in my opinion: it wrongly implies the other phrases should be normalised, and, by saying "assigned male..." merely "may need to be handled as [an] exception", it even opens the door wider to normalising "assigned male at birth" to "assigned female at birth" than its absence might. Is there a need for such wording; has anyone been attempting to normalise "assigned male at birth" to "assigned female at birth" in articles on transwomen? If not (e.g. if it is only that people have been trying to remove phrases like "assigned male at birth" entirely from articles), inserting this language wouldn't seem to solve the issue. -sche (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What if the sentence had read like this instead:

Quotations, titles of published works, and phrases such as "assigned male at birth" may need to be handled as exceptions. Georgia guy (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I still question if the addition is needed. Have people actually been trying to change "assigned male at birth" to "assigned female at birth"? (And is WP:COMMONSENSE not enough to revert them?) If people have been arguing that such phrases should simply be removed, a note that the gender/sex mentioned in such phrases shouldn't be normalised won't block removal of such phrases. -sche (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For your first question, if the "always use feminine terms" rule were taken literally, then yes, it would include such a change. Georgia guy (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In the phrase "X was assigned male at birth", the word male is not an adjective modifying X. It's a term of art that means assigned to the male sex or put in the male category. You seem to misread this guideline to require no use of a male term, rather than no use of a male term to refer "to the person in question". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The word "male" in that sentence does refer to X; it's a description of what X was assigned at birth. Georgia guy (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I gather that no-one has actually misinterpreted this template as requiring people to say that e.g. [[Julia Serano]] was "born with female genitalia" or "assigned female sex at birth", etc. I still think WP:COMMONSENSE would be enough to revert anyone who added such a claim; it could also be reverted as lacking its own sources and contradicting existing sources: a source that says Serano once lived in Kansas verifies our statement that she once lived in Kansas (even if the source says "he lived in Kansas"), whereas I doubt any source claims Serano was born a biological woman, so any edit claiming she was would be unsourced. (If some reliable sources do claim a particular transwoman was born a biological woman, that deserves to be mentioned and explained.) -sche (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you write transwoman as one word instead of writing "trans woman"?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

From Trans woman: [M]any see it as an important and appropriate distinction to include a space in the term, as in "trans woman", thus using "trans" as merely an adjective describing a particular type of woman; this is in contrast to the usage of "transwoman" as one word, implying a "third gender." So I imagine that is what -sche meant. — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

But that says that we write it as "trans woman", which is correct according to what the statement implies. I want to know why -sche writes transwoman as one word. Georgia guy (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hiding bad comments

We really need a way to hide bad comments on Wikipedia talk pages. Looking over on this talk page there's a bad comment made by 74.67.106.1. Georgia guy (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Georgia guy: For comments that are off-topic or contain highly offensive language you can use Template:collapse top above the comment and Template:collapse bottom below the comment. Please be careful about using these templates because people may interpret "controversial" in different ways. For content that is so outrageous you think it could cause harm such as damage of reputation or physical violence you can delete the comment immediately and talk with an administrator (not sure the exact page to report it but you might want to try WP:ANI). In such cases the content that was added can be stricken from the page history.

In this case specifically, I responded to the person with a comment of my own, calmly explaining why some people find such comments offensive. If you feel comfortable doing so, that is an option to consider. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of possible WP:POV statement

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.

---

I think the template is fine and all but the thing that sticks out and a number of editors have noticed it too is the following:

"Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women."

"Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans men are or are not men."

My questions are: do we have to go into a detailed thing of what someone may or may not say? Or is simply saying this is not a forum for general discussion a better solution? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Edit: I just want to state that I think it is okay to state that forum talk is not okay but not point to specific examples. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Please can we wait for the TFD to be closed? These templates may yet be deleted. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I may not check this page after the deletion discussion ends and have some cogent thoughts right now, I'll write down what I'm thinking. I strongly support removing the sentence "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women." Template:Not a forum already covers the "no discussion about the topic itself" matter. The sentence is simply redundant.

Furthermore, the statement is overly specific and singles out one type of commentary without talking about other types. We shouldn't dictate what exactly people are and aren't allowed to say, and which things are particularly offensive. It's akin to saying porn is not allowed, but swearing is.. the distinction is arbitrary, and we're not in the business of censorship. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I oppose removing that wording, because it points out a specific and particularly-offensive sort of commentary that specifically has no place on the talk page of a transgendered person.

WP:CENSOR is completely irrelevant - it is not censorship to require that talk page discussions contribute to the development of the encyclopedia article. In fact, it's policy that the talk pages for an article about a living person not be used for anything that would violate BLP. Claiming that a trans-woman is not a woman on that woman's talk page specifically violates BLP as an unproductive personal attack on the article subject, and therefore not only may be "censored" at any time, it must be "censored" according to policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Claiming that a trans-woman is not a woman on that woman's talk page specifically violates BLP" That may very well be true; if such is the case, we need to specify all examples of speech that violate WP:BLP. That is, we would need to say that comparisons with dogs are not allowed, that using the "he" pronoun in discussions is not allowed, and that questioning Chelsea's sincerity is not allowed, among others. All of which may be valid concerns, but there's really no end. My point is that the list of prohibited topics could be massive; do we really want to go down the road of picking and choosing which comments are offensive and which are okay? CaseyPenk (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ummm, we already do pick and choose which comments are offensive and which are OK. BLP applies everywhere on the encyclopedia. Anything, anywhere which violates BLP may be removed at any time by any editor. In addition, general talk page policy has long allowed for the redaction, hatting or otherwise-closing of unproductive discussion that goes in a direction other than that which is productive for the development of encyclopedia content. It is both violative of BLP and entirely unproductive to allow talk pages to be used as places from which to launch attacks on the general character, life or activities of any living person. Talk pages are for discussing encyclopedia content, not their subjects. Given that there is an apparent history of talk pages of trans-people being used to launch debates and attacks based on their transgender status, I find it entirely appropriate that there be a special reminder that such conduct is inappropriate on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, could you point out where WP:BLP specifically states that "Claiming that a trans-woman is not a woman on that woman's talk page [is] an unproductive personal attack on the article subject"? In other words, where is questioning a person's gender prohibited? CaseyPenk (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

There are no possible reliable sources for rejecting a transgender person's claim to be transgendered, because it is, by definition, a self-identification. If someone says they are transgendered, they are transgendered. There might be discussion as to whether or not that transgendered person actually said what they said, but if there is no doubt, then there is no room for questioning.

The place for Wikipedia to explain the arguments about transgenderism is on the transgender page and series of related pages, which all discuss various controversies and debates about the issue - just as the place for Wikipedia to explain the arguments about homosexuality is on the homosexuality page and the place for Wikipedia to explain the arguments about Judaism is on the Judaism page. We do not allow the individual talk pages for gay or Jewish people to become coatracks for arguments about the legitimacy or value of those people's sexuality or religion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"There are no possible reliable sources for rejecting a transgender person's claim to be transgendered" NorthBySouthBaranof, that is clearly your view. I generally agree as a matter of courtesy.

However, many editors have expressed the view that people other than the transgender person him- or herself can judge whether or not he or she is transgender. Criteria some people have suggested include biological status, legal status, and name/sex at birth. In other words, there's not universal agreement that the subject him- or herself is the best reliable source about his or her gender identity or gender or status as a transgender person. Reliable sources such as news articles may reject assertions about such matters, as in this reliable source. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I bet I can find a WorldNetDaily article asserting that all gay people are child molesters. Should we allow the talk page of Greg Louganis to be used to discuss whether or not he is a child molester?

For one, you need to read WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Gender identity disorder is a medical issue, and we accept only reliable mainstream medical science. The mainstream medical view of GID is properly presented in the Chelsea Manning article. Fringe right-wing theories published in a Moonie rag has no resemblance whatsoever to a reliable medical source and therefore can be completely ignored in this context. We have no obligation whatsoever to repeat and disseminate discredited views of gender and sexuality that have been rejected by medical science.

So no, other people's non-medical, speculative views of what transgenderism is have no business being discussed in the biography of a transgender person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"we accept only reliable mainstream medical science" I haven't found that to be true. We consider all reliable sources, whether they are medical sources or not. As someone on the deletion discussion mentioned, no one is questioning her identifying as trans. However, some people are debating if a trans woman is a man or a woman, and likewise if a trans man is a man or a woman. There are a variety of views on that topic, when considering legal / biological / other factors. I personally believe that a trans woman is a woman and that a trans man is a man. However, most reliable sources that have reported on transgender topics (The New York Times, WaPo, WSJ, etc. etc.) are discussing "the statement that trans women are or are not women," without concluding one way or another. Yes, we consider medical sources, but we do so in a broader context of the entire landscape of reliable sources. Among the whole of reliable sources the jury is still out. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, actually we don't. Not in the context of a medical issue, which transgenderism is (see gender identity disorder). As far as the medical reliable sources are concerned, it's a settled issue - because this is about gender, not sex.

We don't have a section that says "some people think HIV is a product of government biowarfare research" in the Human immunodeficiency virus article, because that idea has not one iota of scientific merit. It deserves no space in that article. There is no mention of AIDS conspiracy theories in Ryan White's encyclopedic biography. Similarly, any scientifically-unsourced, entirely-speculative and personally-derogatory arguments about Manning's gender identity have no place in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, you need to read your sources before you post them. Even if anyone accepted the Washington Times as a reliable source in this context (which is highly debatable), the article you linked is bylined "Emily Miller is a senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times" and contains not one reference or source to scientific research on the issue which would support her assertions. We are just supposed to believe her. It is not in any way contributive to the discussion to know that an opinion writer for a right-wing newspaper thinks that Chelsea Manning isn't a woman. She has no medical expertise, no apparent background in psychology or gender studies and offers nothing more than bald assertions to support her claims. Wikipedia has no obligation to promote her uninformed speculation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I did read through the entire source. Please assume good faith about the motives and actions of other contributors. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you had read through the source, you would have realized how completely worthless and useless it is. So either I assume you didn't read it, or I assume you think the unsupported opinion of a Moonie opinion columnist has any relevance to someone's gender identity. Either way, you're wrong. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As I stated previously, please assume good faith and do not assume that other contributors are being duplicitous. As I stated previously, I read through the entire article. It presented a strongly worded opinion, just as Slate and Huffington Post have presented strongly worded opinions on the topic. I assign merit to opinion commentary based on the reliability of the source. In this situation the far-left (Slate, HuffPo) and far-right (WA Times) are both way off the mark of mainstream media and mainstream opinion. I give most credence to highly reliable sources such as The New York Times that opine on a given subject.

Also, please do not state "you're wrong" to another editor. We value all opinions and no single individual's person takes precedence. Even the opinion of our founder counts as much as the opinion of anyone else. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Slate and HuffPo are not remotely considered "far-left" in the same way that the Washington Times is considered far-right. They aren't even in the same ZIP code.

No, we don't "value all opinions." See WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and a slew of other content policies and guidelines. Wikipedia does not treat all sources equally and we have never been required to give equal time in any manner whatsoever. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Leave it in. We have on this page at least one perfect example of exactly the offensiveness that some clueless editors possess. It's obvious that we can't stop offensive comments from being made but we can at least curtail it from reasonable editors. Frankly I find it a little offensive that the attempts to delete this template are taking place as an attempt to get an upper hand on Chelsea Manning's article. And when that isn't working to try to neuter the one template that is specifically addressing offensive comments about trans people. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"the one template that is specifically addressing offensive comments about trans people"

The thing is, we have precisely zero templates addressing offensive comments about other minority groups. Where is the MOS-AA template on Talk:African American or Talk:Barack Obama? Where is the MOS-LGB template on Talk:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people? Where is the MOS-Female template at Talk:Woman? We should either address offensive comments in each specific instance with specific templates such as this, or do so in a general way with the general "not a forum" template. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there an apparent specific history of the talk pages for articles about gay people being widely used to argue that, say, gay people are child molesters? Then perhaps we should create one. That would be a good debate to have. If there's a need, then let's talk about it. If you don't think we need such a template, why are you bringing it up?

Arguing that "because other things don't exist, this thing shouldn't exist either" is incredibly weak tea. It's the inverse corollary of the equally-weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Contentious debates about any number of topics exist on any number of different talk pages. As I have stated repeatedly, we do not censor comments made with any semblance of reasonableness to them; we only prohibit extreme behavior such as battlegrounding and hate speech. We do not prohibit discussion of gender identity, or of any minority-related topic, or of any topic about which the public is largely uneducated, for that matter. If all contributors were expected to be experts on the subject matter they discuss, we wouldn't have a much smaller, much more focused (and perhaps better-informed) editor force, like Britannica. The simple fact is that we allow anyone to edit, regardless of their biases. That's what Wikipedia is. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Yes, "we allow anyone to edit." That does not imply that we allow anything to be said. Not hardly. Anyone can edit, subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines for editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not confused, so I ask that you please not assume that I am. We allow contributors to voice a wide range of opinions; only in the most extreme cases do we censor it. I am of the opinion that, on the whole, roughly 95% of comments are acceptable; you may hold a different view. In this case specifically, perhaps only 60% of the comments on either said were made in a reasonable fashion. Thankfully some of the heat has died down and the absurd comments are farther and fewer between. That ends up making the MOS-TW template less critical. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If we had the template on the article at the time - it was edit-warred off - we likely would have made the right decision and it likely would have stopped some of the more offensive comments comparing Manning to other species, an "IT", an alien. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

An observation on that: the first time that the issue of name/personal pronoun/gender/sex came up in the text of Talk:Bradley Manning was with this edit at 11:59 on 22 August. {{MOS-TW}} first went on the talk page was with this edit at 16:22; in the intervening 4 hr 23 min there were 286 edits (slightly over one per minute), quite a number of which were no longer visible in the text because they had disappeared in edit-conflicts. I don't want to count the number of times that {{MOS-TW}} was removed or re-added - there have been over 4700 edits since. That totals almost 5000 since the name change was first suggested. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

If someone with a bot (or a group of people with too much free time; I'll help) can add {{not a forum|gender}} to the pages that currently transclude MOS-TW or MOS-TM and don't already transclude {{not a forum}}, then I have no objection to removing "finally, please note...". In fact, if we want to cut down on the number of edits that will be made, we could first put together a MOS-TRANS template (containing advice about both transgender women and transgender men) and then replace all instances of either MOS-TW or MOS-TM with {{MOS-TRANS}} {{not a forum|gender}}. -sche (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC) (much of this comment was overtaken by events)

Survey should the following be removed?

The issue I have is with the following text text:

"Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women."

"Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions own opinions about the statement that trans men are or are not men."

My issue as per above the sentence goes against WP:POV and WP:NOTCENSORED there is no mandate as well in MOS:IDENTITY that states that someone can not have an opposing viewpoint, the wording of an opposing viewpoint being broad in nature here. I do not propose the removal of notaforum as the wording is standard for use in templates, my issue is with labeling examples. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Remove per reasons given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, we should give as much latitude as possible for people with bigoted opinions. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone who has this viewpoint is a bigot though, you are just assuming someone will make a bad comment, IPs make bad comments everyday on wikipedia on pages and they are reverted as vandalism. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

At this point, after seeing how controversial the line is, and how it's just as likely to start off-topic discussions (see WP:BEANS) as to stop them, I'm down with Knowledgekid87's edit to this template and MOS-TM. Of course, if MOS-TRANS comes to be used in preference to these two templates, the issue will be moot... -sche (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Knowledgekid87, I edited your strikethrough because I believe you meant to strike through the latter portion of the sentence and just leave the "not a forum" language intact. If this was not the case please revert the edit. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support retaining the phrase "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum" and removing the phrase "for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women." CaseyPenk (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• I'd say the wording is a little off, but the spirit is right. How about "Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for your views on the true or real gender of trans individuals."? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not understand why this part needs to be clarified though, are there any other templates that use not a forum for .... or just state not a forum for general talk? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I would assume (but that's a guess) that this talkpage has been used specifically for people to declare their opinion on this specific issue, and that a specific reminder might be more effective than a blanket reminder. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose removal because the argument that Manning is still a man was repeatedly made even though, as the closers stated, Manning's biological and legal sex is irrelevant to the issue, which turns on the interaction of COMMONNAME, MOS-IDENTITY and BLP. Even accepting the premise of the argument our policies do not give the legal name any privileged status, nor is there anything to prevent a man from adopting a name usually associated with women. Neljack (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. In this case Wikipedia should not prohibit a particular viewpoint of contributors per WP:IMPARTIAL, urging them to take another side. Brandmeister^talk 08:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose removal although the replacement template seems to address this acceptably. If this wasn't a recurring discussion on the affected pages, there would be no need. Unfortunately the same comments are made again and again. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2013 (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.

Besides trans man and trans woman options, we need a genderqueer one

If we combine the two templates in some way we also need to add a third genderqueer one which advises as to the use of newer pronouns. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

How is such a template useful?? This is an important template because it makes sure people are aware of WP:MOS when dealing with trans woman articles. People who aren't aware will think it makes more sense to use he/him before the operation and she/her after the operation. This template is thus important. Georgia guy (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Sportfan5000 is responding to a proposal made in the deletion discussion to combine MOS-TW and MOS-TM (which currently fall out of sync all the time) into one template that advises editors to use "she" for all stages of a transgender woman's life, and "he" for all stages of a transgender man's, when writing articles. Sportfan5000 is suggesting the addition of advice to use some other pronoun for people who aren't male or female. Such an addition is likely to be controversial; this discussion suggests that no pronoun other than "they" is likely to be accepted by enough editors to be allowed in articles (and even "they" may not be accepted). -sche (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, a third option which would fall under the same usage as these two but present a neither option for people whose gender identity is not part of the traditional gender binary. Sportfan5000 (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:MOS-TRANS

Pursuant to suggestions in the TFD discussion and above on this talk page, I have created Template:MOS-TRANS. I have not included the disputed "finally,..." line, nor any directive to contact the folks at the BLP noticeboard about violations. I have quoted the relevant paragraph of MOS:IDENTITY verbatim and in its entirety. I suppose discussion of the template (and any changes to its wording, or name) should occur on Template talk:MOS-TRANS. Cheers, -sche (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest pausing that effort until the deletion discussions finalize. Further I think we should instead have one template with three variables; a trans woman option, a trans man option, and a genderqueer/none-of-the above option. Most articles are either trans men or trans women but some are clearly not either. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly support replacing MOS-TW and MOS-TM with MOS-TRANS. MOS-TRANS is a more general template that can work in a variety of situations without the need for multiple templates. It removes the controversial wording, and it simply quotes the guideline without editorializing. I prefer this one. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It will do less than adequate job unless there is variables to customize that female pronouns are appropriate for trans women, etc. I think more instruction is generally better as people are pretty clueless on these issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't want any template to misrepresent guidelines, though. Quoting directly from the guideline is the most neutral approach. How could we incorporate gender parameters while not straying or extrapolating MOS:IDENTITY? If you have an idea I am all ears.

As a side note, MOS-TRANS is nice from an overhead perspective because it would mean we have fewer templates to deal with. We could accomplish the exact same thing as MOS-TW and MOS-TM (with the exact same wording to boot), so whether or not you want to see the phrasing changed, I think MOS-TRANS is a more flexible solution than individual templates. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

By getting into the question of customising the template's language, this discussion has started to cover the same ground as the discussion on Template talk:MOS-TRANS. Shall we centralise there? -sche (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that a discussion has begun on Template talk:MOS-TRANS regarding whether or not to begin using that template in preference to MOS-TW and MOS-TM. Please join in! -sche (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:WikiLeaks

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:WikiLeaks. {{#if:Neutral assistance requested. At issue is whether the template for wikileaks should show "Chelsea Manning" or "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" or some other formulation.|Neutral assistance requested. At issue is whether the template for wikileaks should show "Chelsea Manning" or "Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning" or some other formulation. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Article space only?

This template is highly needed at Template:Wikileaks. It has been repeatedly removed by an editor who does not want to follow its clear instruction on the excuse that it is intended "only for article space". I see no such proscription on the template page. As I do not wish to edit war about this, could someone else involved with this template please place it at Template talk:WikiLeaks? Yworo (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest "names" → "nouns"

Hi, Regarding the sentence, "According to MOS:IDENTITY, such a woman should be referred to using the gendered names and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that 'reflect [her] latest expressed gender self-identification.' " — The use of the word "names" incorrectly states what is in MOS:IDENTITY and should instead be "nouns". Here's the excerpt from that guideline.

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.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding what these nouns include, I'm sure they include girl, sister, and daughter. But because trans women cannot give birth, mother is kind of tough, though adopted mother is fine because trans women can adopt children. Georgia guy (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you're going off topic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to clarify what the "nouns" you're talking about include. The fact that you don't like the word "names" suggests that it includes common nouns as well as names. Georgia guy (talk) 13:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The "nouns" are clarified in MOS:IDENTITY by the examples "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", and "chairman/chairwoman". Please see the MOS:IDENTITY excerpt in the quote box above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Mother is the only noun of this kind that I have problems with; see my post higher in this section of the talk page for detail. Georgia guy (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The difficulties with the noun "mother" might be a topic for discussion on another talk page, maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. The current topic is concerned with having the template correctly state what is in MOS:IDENTITY. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• support bob is right, this should be fixed. MOS:IDENTITY is about nouns. Also, given the extreme dispute over MOS:IDENTITY, we should simply copy/paste the exact wording from MOS identity here, and let any disputes about that wording be handled on the MOS:IDENTITY talk page. Suggest we speedy close this and take the broader discussion to MOS:IDENTITY.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, names are nouns, and the template adheres to the recommended journalistic practices for treating trans* people. The situation with trans* people is not the same as someone who has merely changed their name. However I would support changing it to say names, nouns and pronouns. Yworo (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  It looks like just adding "names" wouldn't work because we couldn't say "According to MOS:IDENTITY..." since that guideline doesn't mention "names", but rather "gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman')". So could you give the version of the sentence that you would support? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  I just did. Names are nouns: they are proper nouns, and they are gendered. Please don't attempt to dictate what "won't work". I suggest you start an RfC, as the limited response here is likely to be inconclusive which means no change. And I'm not advocating adding it, it's already there: I am against removing it. Yworo (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  Re your comment "Names are nouns: they are proper nouns, and they are gendered." — Then why would you be opposed to the change of "names" to "nouns"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  Because I believe that trans* people should be referred to only by the gendered new name that they have chosen, except in infobox parameters specifically intended to take a former name. So I propose that "nouns" be added rather than "names" changed. There are many people who will insist on using the trans* person's old name otherwise, using as an excuse that "nouns" doesn't also cover "names". Not leaving names in will lead to an increase in edit warring. There are many editors who are either transphobic or otherwise opposed to the whole idea of a person choosing to change their gender and name, and the articles of trans* people should not become battlegrounds due to simply to incomplete wording in the template. Yworo (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  I suggest you take it up at MOS:IDENTITY - the template is not the place to battle this out. If you think MOS:ID needs to change, then make the change there, but you should recall that previous attempts to modify it either way have failed. This seems like an end-run around the problem. The template should neutrally report what the guidance says, ideally verbatim. The talk page of the template is not the place to fight about the wording.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  Please refrain from telling me what to do. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I started a related section there: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Clarification regarding gender part of MOS:IDENTITY. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• comment several of the examples are bad choices. Instead of the gendered "waiter/waitress" > the gender neutral "server" is a better choice. Instead of the gendered "chairman/chairwoman" > the gender neutral "chair" is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 November 2013‎
• Support per the current wording of MOS:IDENTITY, and per Yworo’s “names are nouns”—the proposed change is inclusive. Name changes are covered at MOS:NAMES and others, anyway, independent of gender identity. —Frungi (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:IDENTITY. I agree with Obi if you want the wording of MOS:IDENTITY changed then take it there not here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support; the template should match policy; changes to policy should be discussed on WT:MOS. This is why Template:MOS-TRANS was created and made to quote MOS:IDENTITY verbatim: because otherwise, it's easy to misrepresent policy. -sche (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I paraphrased a little bit, so take a look and see if it's ok.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Update: Reverted Obiwankenobi and only made the change discussed in this section per consensus: "names" → "nouns". See section below for discussing Obiwankenobi's proposed changes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:MOS-TRANS has been proposed

Deletion of Template:MOS-TRANS has been proposed; see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013_November_14#Template:MOS-TRANS. This is an appropriate notification posted to the talk page of a page directly related to the topic under discussion. (MOS-TW is directly related to MOS-TRANS in that MOS-TRANS was designed, following the discussion about deleting MOS-TW, as a possible replacement for MOS-TW.) -sche (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Obi's recent changes to template

Obi made changes to the template that made it less clear whether the right pronouns to use for a trans woman are she/her (to the point of view of educated people) or he/him (to the point of view of ignorant people.) As a result, ignorant people will take this template as meaning use he/him throughout. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was to match with what is written in MOS:IDENTITY, so I tried to get as close to that as possible. I don't think this will be taken the wrong way - it's pretty clear - it says "based on the most recent expressed gender identity."--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can. Ignorant people think trans women are just men who arbitrarily call themselves women, and thus that the identity of a trans woman is just a made-up identity that we can ignore. We need to alter the template slightly so that it can emphasize the fact that it should say that a trans woman is she/her throughout, and with your new wording, it's no longer unambiguous. Georgia guy (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

it's actually less ambiguous because I changed the examples to be feminine. There was consensus above we should cleave to the mos:Id so I tried to get as close as possible. If there are issues in an article you can bring it to the LGBT project as suggested.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this section after I reverted. Looks like too many details in your addition. Maybe just refer readers to MOS:IDENTITY for more details instead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Change in guideline

The template now says:

Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis" per MOS:GENDERID. If the current name is chosen...

Are there situations where the former name is chosen?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this change as well. I think the template needs to make it clear that deadnaming is inappropriate for someone who did not gain notability under their previous name. (Deadnaming really should be inappropriate regardless, but for someone who was well-known by their previous name, there has not been a consensus on whether or not to include that name on Wikipedia.) Funcrunch (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)