Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

WikiProject LGBT studies

 Home Talk Collaboration Editing Resources Showcase

Draft for a proposed new MOS:Deadname RfC

Here is my draft so far, please comment on any needed changes before it’s started.

[see new draft in section below]

Please use the last section for discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MOS:Deadname only states: “In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly".” [Rfc note] Should we add to this to address two main loopholes: per the dignity of the person and respect to their families, we should 1. minimize our deadnaming to the bare minimum of these people as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm; and 2. in the case where the person was not notable under their deadname, it should never be used in article space, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sources. Any input welcome! Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC) So there are a couple of things here that bear discussion. First is the question of using a loaded term in our official guidelines. Calling a birthname instead as a "deadname" prejudices people against it automatically and accepts a certain POV as correct and true. So we should think carefully about introducing POV terms into Wikipedia's own documentation and culture. At the present moment, the term "deadname" only exists in the shortcut, i.e. MOS:DEADNAME and nowhere else in the documentation (which might make it confusing for someone unfamiliar with the neologism.) Secondly is the question of definition. This guideline is invoked for all "transgender and non-binary people". It is a fact that some such people do not consider their birthname to be a "deadname", or shameful or something to be suppressed. So are we content to continue defining "deadname" as the birth name of any transgender or non-binary person? Or should there be a certain threshold pertaining to the transition or naming itself? Elizium23 (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback, we can rework how and if ‘deadname’ is incorporated—“so-called deadnaming”?, let’s see if anyone has ideas on that as well. ”some such people do not consider their birthname to be a "deadname"”; a deadname could also be a married name, but we could posit that idea although my hunch is that including a catch all—“case-by-case” exceptions—might solve that. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure whether "deadname" is a loaded word in this specific case. It seems to be the most commonly accepted term for the birth name of someone who changed their name because they did not identify with their assigned gender. This is obviously different to people who change their name for non-gender-related reasons. That said, I think the RfC itself would be less leading with pared down wording like: "If a transgender or non-binary subject was not notable under their birth name, should we avoid mentioning the birth name altogether in the article text?" Might also be worth citing the precautionary principle and the potential of the deadname to do harm. I could imagine some outcome like always omitting the birth name by default but being able to "opt in" if the subject is on record in RS saying they don't care if people mention it. Armadillopteryxtalk 07:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Would adding a “case-by-case” clause answer that? Also good point on the wording. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Yeah, I think that gets the point across. Armadillopteryxtalk 08:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I'd support officially confirming that a trans person's birth name (often known as a "deadname") should be considered private information [and can be suppressed] unless the trans person in question was notable under that name or is publicly okay with people using it. (And I phrased my support with my preferred language.) If they were notable under that name, it should still be kept to a minimum, and substituting their current name for their birth name should constitute an exception to MOS:IDENTITY. Loki (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you. I think since the target community benefiting from this has risen ‘deadnaming’ as the name for this concept I’m positive it should be in the final language, currently I’m at “usually a birth name, and usually misgendering— so-called deadnaming”. But it’s evolving. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the ping! As far as the terminology is concerned, I am partial of saying something like "previous names of the incorrect gender" as opposed to 'deadname' or 'birthname'. It may be on the long side, but I feel like unlike 'deadname', it is not dismissed as a loaded/biased term by some AND unlike 'birthname', it makes it clear that the issue is about misgendering, and is specific of trans people, leaving little room for the all too common wikilawyering about "birth names being factual, basic information and therefore we absolutely must publish them". cave (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks! As we are serving trans folk, and deadnaming is their POV, I want to honor that, and educate the editors. How it’s done Best is tbd. I want to be open to *any* non-notable name, not just birth, and not just one that unquestionably misgenders. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Pinging @Eurocave:, @Gorillawarfare:, @Gagaluv1:, you may be interested in this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I think that "case-by-case" is simultaneously too broad and too limiting. Trans people, being individuals, have a variety of relationships to their pre-transition names; for some it is very much a dead name, for some, not so much. So I think this restriction should be specified apply to those who have not expressed an open connection to their former name, and that we default to assuming that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I agree with this. I had understood the "case-by-case" wording to be a part of the question in the RfC itself, not the language that would be added to MOS:DEADNAME. I think that the text to be added to the MOS needs to be explicit both about the default approach (i.e. adding or not adding the birth name to the article) and about what qualifies as an exception. Armadillopteryxtalk 16:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I think including all exceptions may be too cumbersome. Maybe there’s an economical approach? Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft 2 of RfC proposal

Please use the last section for discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
MOS:Deadname only states: “In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly".” (Followed with examples.) It only addresses deadnaming in the lead. [RfC note] Should we add to this to address loopholes: per the dignity of the person and respect to their families, we should by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and 1. minimize misgendering as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm; and 2. in the case where the subject was not notable under a former name, usually a birth name, and often misgendering—so-called deadnaming, should we avoid mentioning the name altogether in article space, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sourc?s. Here is the second version. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I would recommend removing and respect to their families as unnecessary/understood as a part of the dignity phrase. Could the phrase usually a birth name, and often misgendering—so-called deadnaming be removed or changed as well? It seems like it interrupts, and since the proposed addition to the guideline would clearly be in a section concerning trans and non-binary people, I don't think removing the phrase would be confusing ("misgendering" is mentioned before in number 1 of the proposal, and we can add (deadnaming) in parentheses right after it to keep that word in. In number two, we have "former name" so there won't be a lack of clarity there). Other options would be "under a former name that misgenders them, should we avoid ..." I think the closer we can get to Armadillopteryx's "pared down" version, the better probably. Wording aside, this seems like it has been the default practice of well-meaning editors on these articles. It would be good to make it explicit in the MOS.--MattMauler (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC) How about RfC wording like this? Should MOS:DEADNAME be revised to include the following text? "Per the precautionary principle, care should be exercised to avoid the possibility of deadnaming transgender and non-binary subjects. If such a subject was not notable under their birth name, then that name should not, by default, be included in our articles. An exception can be made for subjects on record in reliable sources stating that they do not consider mention of their birth name to be deadnaming." Armadillopteryxtalk 21:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC) @Gleeanon409: Chelsea Manning was added as an example in 2015 (by User:-sche; and Laverne Cox was added at the same time). Before proposing new wording for the section, can you explain what problem you are trying to solve? Or in other words, what is wrong with the way it is now? Unless a clear case can be made for something wrong, or something missing in the current version, I think we should just leave it alone. Mathglot (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I think the problem is that many transgender and non-binary people consider mention of their birth name to be deadnaming, even though some appear to not care if the name is mentioned so long as it is not used. There is a little background on that in our article on the subject. The current wording of MOS:DEADNAME addresses use of the birth name in the lead section of articles, but it does not address articles as a whole. Right now there are articles where the birth name is mentioned only in the Early life section, but the MOS does not clearly state whether or not that should be allowed. I think this RfC would be useful since BLP policy normally errs on the side of doing the least possible harm. Armadillopteryxtalk 21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC) @Mathglot: The current wording is only about the lead, letting editors think they can birth names of trans people in the article just not in the lead (e.g., the early life section, personal life section, or infobox). See discussion in, say Talk:Peppermint (entertainer), where people have this interpretation. Umimmak (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Speaking as a trans editor, I've been speaking out for a long time against the deadnaming of trans people anywhere in articles if they weren't notable by that name. See my profile page for some talks I've given on this issue. I'm all for a new RfC on this subject, and I would like the wording to be even more direct, though I'm fine using the term "birth name" before mentioning the less familiar term deadname. So here's my preferred wording: Should MOS:DEADNAME be revised to read as follows? "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence article only when the person was notable under that name." The RfC can be accompanied by explanatory text that explains the harm of deadnaming to trans folks. Funcrunch (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I like this wording a lot—in fact, it's my favorite so far. I do think it would still be useful to include a clause about what to do with subjects that state publicly that they don't mind mention of what the birth name was so long as it is not used to refer to them in the present. That's probably a small minority of trans folk, but there are some, and they might as well be accounted for explicitly to remove doubt. Armadillopteryxtalk 23:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Can you think of any examples of such cases off the top of your head, Armadillopteryx? I'd prefer Funcrunch's wording as the simplest but if there are cases where public figures really are this explicit about what they do and don't mind then I agree that it's worth taking into account. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Not off the top of my head—I just thought to bring it up because most trans people in my circles don't care if you know what their birth name was and often share it openly if they're talking about their transition process; they're just clear that no one is to call them by that name in the present. I don't think it's that farfetched that some notable person could have the same view. I think that Funcrunch's suggestion should certainly be the default (and in practice will likely apply most of the time). I just think it couldn't hurt to bring it up in the RfC since it's probably a rare but realistic situation. Naturally, if most participants of the RfC object to adding this bit to the MOS, then we won't. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC) I tend to agree and will work to incorporate in the next draft. @Funcrunch:, my hunch is to link to deadnaming, and improve that article to address real and perceived harm as we’re educating editors and the public. Armadillopteryx, I have a hunch that any non-cisgender people who don’t mind their former names being used will have such names in a good percentage of reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Yes, I agree. My point is that our default policy will probably be to omit the birth name even if it appears in RS, but an exception could be considered if the subject actually says they are okay with it being known/mentioned—otherwise, we should keep it out no matter how many RS include it. Armadillopteryxtalk 00:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft 3 of proposed RfC

Please use the last section for discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[rfc note] Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say: In the case of transgender and non-binary people, former names, including birth names, should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).] Per the dignity of the person, by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and minimize misgendering—so-called deadnaming—as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm. Avoid using the name, even in an infobox, even if a birth name, even if it has appeared in a small fraction of reliable sources. ——————- Q: Why is this needed? A: MOS:Deadname currently only handles notable former names, of non-cisgender people, in the lead. This has left their non-notable former names a focus of contention across articles despite WP:BLPs “must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”. Here’s Draft 3. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Respectfully, this is difficult to read. Is there a reason the first part can't simply read as how I proposed in the Draft 2 section, requiring the modification of only two words in the original guideline: Should MOS:DEADNAME be revised to read as follows? "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence article only when the person was notable under that name." The rest of the current guideline, with the examples of Chelsea Manning and Laverne Cox, seems fine as-is. As for the explanatory text (for the RfC only, not to be included in the MoS), I would simplify it to say something like: Mentioning a trans person's birth name should be avoided by default, as deadnaming has been shown to cause real world harm. Funcrunch (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC) I am in favor of Funcrunch's proposal. Very clear, and it addresses the main issue.--MattMauler (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC) It may also be more effective to limit the RFC question itself to the brief proposal to change the guideline, and post the explanatory text as a comment in response to the RFC. RFCs can easily be derailed by arguments over whether the question is neutrally phrased.--Trystan (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) @Trystan: Good idea. I expect this proposed change to be highly contentious. Funcrunch (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Yes, I agree with this as well. Armadillopteryxtalk 18:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)  Done. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Funcrunch, if I thought that a pared down version would end all the Wikilawyering done misgendering people I would leave it, but we need to cover a lot of ground. That’s Why it’s about all article space, not just the article, and any former name, not just an assumed birth name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Good intentions noted, but I expect Wikilawyering will happen regardless. And it's unclear even to me, an editor for over 11 years, what you mean by article "space". Funcrunch (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC) The article namespace, as opposed to Talk: or Wikipedia: or Draft:. Elizium23 (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Well the spirit should be obvious to help the many editors who probably aren’t educated on the nuances. We want to preempt as much edit-warring as possible. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC) It’s to help stop, for example, putting the deadname under a disambiguous page [John Foo (Mary Foo), American entertainer], or in any list article, or any article that mentions them. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC) I broadly agree with Funcrunch's proposal to just update the one word/phrase, and with leaving the rationale as a comment rather than part of the RfC question. If you want to clarify that a non-notable deadname should not be used in any article (not just "the article"), I think it would read as more fluent to say ...should be included in the lead sentence any article only when.... -sche (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC) @Funcrunch:, it occurs to me that we can footnote some of the seemingly extra information. I’ll give it a go to see if we can condense things a bit. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft 4 of proposed RfC

[Rfc note]

Should MOS:Deadname be updated to say:

In the case of transgender and non-binary people former names should be included in article space only if the person was notable under that name. If included they can be introduced with either "born" or "formerly”. [Examples: Caitlyn Jenner (included), and Laverne Cox (omitted).]

Per the dignity of the person, by default assume that the name is of concern in the absence of such evidence, and minimize deadnaming as not doing so has been evidenced to cause real world harm.

Q: Why is this needed?

A: MOS:Deadname currently only handles notable former names, of non-cisgender people, in the lead. This has left their non-notable former names a focus of contention across articles despite WP:BLPs “must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy”.

Here is draft 4. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I oppose it. If deadname was legal name and appeared in reliable source after transioning, we should describe it. Furthermore, We should describe former name of Julia Serano. She wrote many academic articles under former name. --Sharouser (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Draft 4

RfC started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Male and transgender cleavage

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.

---

This section in the article on Cleavage (breasts) needs a check by members of this project. I don't see it to comprehensive enough:

• No discussion of cultural impact and mention (like there is a lot on cultural mentions about women's cleavage in the history section), social rejection/acceptance or aesthetics.
• No indication of how widespread it is.
• It mentions a hormone therapy, but doesn't tell what/which hormone therapy.
• On top of it, some of the cites are not high quality enough (one looks commercial, another probably is self-published).
• Also, since this is an under-coveraged subject in mainstream academia and media, I believe it can accomodate one or two trivia to examplify what is being discussed.

It would be great if members of this project could take a look and advise. It would be out-of-the-world great if someone could lend a hand too.

Trust me, I made over 800 edits to this articles that came from months of research (yeah, I even was made to research on the credibility of some of the sources). I would have done it myself if I knew where to look and what to look for. Research without a guidance... sometimes just doesn't work. I have worked as hard I could to make this article gender balanced, diverse and inclusive (with help from awesome editors from WIR). I am sure that exactly is one of the objectives of this project.

Y And here's a cup of tea while you consider rendering some help. (Did I get that tea right? Would you prefer some Vodka, sugar, mint, lime or ginger in the tea?) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, this section is an offence for transgender people. We should seperate this section to three section: Heavage fashion, masculining methods and feminizing methods. --Sharouser (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Fragmenting a small section into smaller sections, each with very little content or context, may not be the best course of action here. May I inquire about how it is offensive so that I can address it some way or other?. Also can I have some advise on the questions I have in the request? I am having difficulty finding any RS on the material using Google Search, Google Books or Google Scholar. You see, the non-binary material here is very scanty, and, hence, expansion maybe a bigger need than fragmentation.

But I have a bigger question for the members of this project: must we have a separate section for cis-males and trans-women? Or should we rather incorporate the text into the main body? Like the history part goes to history, surgery part goes to surgery, and the bra part goes to bras (there is little else in there). Diversity maybe nothing without inclusion, and inclusion doesn't happen if we exclude people from the main body of the text, innit? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We should not distribute that information throughout the article. It's a distinct subtopic(s) of cleavage, as the main topic's sources are overwhelmingly regarding women in a general sense and do not discuss males, nor trans women as distinct. That is why you are having difficulty finding sources on that, and you yourself noted it is an "under-coveraged subject" in sources. It would make no sense to put that material under irrelevant sections. And WP:Due weight is about following the sources, not our personal opinions/OR on what counts as "inclusion" and redistributing material on that basis. We are not here to right great wrongs about gender and the body. Nor do we censor (change) how we cover material away from how sources do just because someone may be offended (people's thresholds for offense vary widely and can contradict that of others). Many trans women would want to be able to skip directly to material they find relevant to their unique circumstances, anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't get the part where WP:CENSOR, WP:RGW or WP:OR apply here. Who is trying to censor what? Also who is trying to get what wrong right? And who did which original research here? You see, quoting policy is fine, as long someone reads them before quoting. Otherwise it is just ill-devised instruction creep.

I believe I was asking an opinion on how to present the text in an article, and that's a question related to WP:MOS, which says nothing about this particular decision (though it has stringent guidelines for Latter Day Saints or movie articles). This allows us an opportunity to decide. And it's okay to use our brain. Also I believe history etc. are probably not "irrelevant sections", especially when dealing with history etc. Calling those "irrelevant", seen from a certain perspective, might seem like a WP:COMPETENCE issue (which I hope it is not).

As for WP:UNDUE, all I could figure out was that you don't probably don't think merging the section into the main body will not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" (quote from policy page). If that's true then I indeed have something to think about. Is mainstreaming of information about non-traditional genders and gender roles bad or good? I thought it was good, you think otherwise. Or maybe you use UNDUE more liberally than the policy, as seen in this edit. In that case, I am a bit lost.

Does anyone else has any opinion on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya Kabir (talk • contribs)

Above you stated things like, inclusion doesn't happen if we exclude people from the main body of the text, innit? This is where RGW and OR comes in. I'm all for inclusion when it fits with due weight. But "inclusion", in itself, is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and is a frankly vague term that would ultimately lead to OR as we try to define it. I didn't mean that the other sections of the article are irrelevant in some absolute sense; but that male and transgender content is not relevant to those sections. I'm not sure what you mean by merging the section into the main body. It's already part of the main body and makes the most sense as separate. Being redistributed throughout the article, and therefore in multiple pieces, means we would be repeatedly going into tangents about men and about trans women, which leads to undue weight on the few sources that talk about those groups. As for Is mainstreaming of information about non-traditional genders and gender roles bad or good?, it is not Wikipedia's job to "mainstream" anything. Since there are sources about "man cleavage", and on the aspects of the topic unique to trans women, we can cover those matters, even though a hypothetical other editor maybe would not have. But we do not try so hard to correct anything's lack of 'mainstreamness' (or right great wrongs) that we end up violating due weight in the way or amount that such material is included.

As for this edit, that was undue content. An opinion piece from 1997 and an article from some pop-sci site are not good enough sources, per WP:Scholarship, to state that such attraction is completely from cultural "training", and from the sources at another article that I pointed to and have seen elsewhere, such a statement is highly contentious at best. I see you added it back anyway.

I do appreciate your hard work at that article overall, and please keep in mind that I word my statements knowing they are to a wider audience, not just to you. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately the "wider audience" didn't respond to the comment, though it was meant for them. I responded, though it was not meant for me. Perhaps that's where the lack of clarity happened (though I suspect it was a result of trying to pack whole philosophical paradigms into one or two sentences overburdened with instruction creep, or maybe it was dismissing off a less erudite editor).

As for "it is not Wikipedia's job", an argument you have used more than once, we will need a bigger discussion. Because that very statement stands against this project, the WIR project and few others that are here to balance out Wikipedia against systemic bias.

Anyways, I guess, you don't like the idea of reditributing the text across three different sections, becasue (perhaps) you believe that it either would get lost, or would be reduced down as UNDUE. Did I get that right?

If yes, then definitely you and I can take a Y tea break now and think of how to improve that section beyond the three things that are there (i.e. history of male cleavage, bras for trans women and crossdressers, and surgery/hormone treatment). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I oppose splitting the text into scattered pieces interspersed across multiple existing sections. If you mean splitting the existing section into three, but keeping it in the same place otherwise, I don't see how to fit a three-way division into the material. Maybe the male and transgender stuff could be two separate sections though. Regarding correcting systemic bias, I don't see that as contradictory to what I was saying. We counteract Wikipedia's systemic bias by adding well-sourced (and still due and NPOV) material that Wikipedia's mostly male (etc.) editing base may tend to overlook. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I totally get the point (nothing beats a clear explanation, without acronyms linking to policy pages, so very offputting, and also without big noise about what Wikipedia is or is not). 🥂 Let's drink to some development of the section, expansion etc., in coming days.(I let go, sinfully, of my customary cup of tea. Cheers) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, this piece that I removed (which, as noted above, was also reverted by Crossroads) needs better sourcing and discussion. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, it also should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. In the case of this article, I think you should discuss contested edits you make. I think you should let the WP:Status quo remain pending further discussion rather than immediately reverting.

Also, what is "transgender cleavage"? It's like something that Wikipedia made up. Do sources distinguish a trans woman's cleavage from a cisgender woman's cleavage? The cleavage of non-binary people? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely. If we are going to keep all these in one section, then it needs a title (what exactly is this about? and so on). Any idea?

"Do sources distinguish a trans woman's cleavage from a cisgender woman's cleavage?" I didn't get the question. Does transgender women have different problems and solutions about cleavage? Yes. Beyond that I don't know. It's the second time I have posted to this project to get some help in including non-binary material in the article. May be I should stop trying, and be happy about including of cisgendered males and females only.

There has been a discussion on the article talk page about inclusion which I tried to address. But maybe a more inclusive description of all things cleavage needs to wait until some RS appear somewhere (see my first post in this thread).

BTW, I didn't do an "immediate revert". And I don't like this dismissive attitude I see here. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 6 September 2020 (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.

Aditya Kabir, you shouldn't close a discussion like you did above. This was not an RfC or similar. And the above discussion was not a WP:TALK violation. If editors want to continue discussion, they have the right to do so (unless a WP:TALK violation) and shouldn't feel cut off from commenting further.

I was not being dismissive. As for others? If others weren't interested in participating, they simply weren't interested. Not everyone at WP:LGBT is going to want to get involved with every LGBT matter posted here. And some of us are busy and/or have enough to deal with on Wikipedia.

Regarding what I asked, the article having stated "It is difficult to produce sufficiently feminine cleavage for transwomen, even with breast augmentation surgery, because people assigned male at birth have nipple-areolar complexes set farther apart on their chests than do those assigned female at birth." doesn't mean that this is called "transgender cleavage." That was my point. I was basically asking the following: "Do sources define 'transgender cleavage', or were sources about trans women having difficulty producing 'sufficiently feminine cleavage' cobbled together and placed under a heading that had 'transgender cleavage' in it. My point was that the term cleavage typically applies to women -- women with breasts -- and I'm not aware of sources distinguishing the cleavage of cisgender and trans women to the point that a section is needed on trans women. If the cisgender or trans woman doesn't have breasts (and I mean breast development that would lead one to characterize that part of the person's anatomy as breasts rather than simply a chest), then one should examine if the term cleavage still applies to them. And I am using the term breasts with regard to women since the term typically applies to women's chests rather than men's chests. I do see that "male cleavage" is mentioned in the article, but men are hardly ever considered to have cleavage. So the small section on men in the article is given its WP:Due weight.

Now I'm done discussing this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Done discussing "after" it was closed? Is that a WP:LASTWORD?

I have removed almost everything about transgender women trying to get a cleavage and transgender men trying to get rid of it. This version may not be very inclusive, but it is far more compliant to WP standards. Maybe LGBT studies and high quality articles don't come in the same package. The moment I got rid of it, the article got better. Much better.

Thanks for helping me to see how ridiculous it is to be inclusive. An how useless it to ask for help in reducing systemic bias. The loss is not mine at all.

As for you final piece of lecturing, check WP:CLOSE. A little more knowledge about violations "before" accusing someone is always helpful. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto

Hey, everyone. Me and a few other new editors recently completed a draft for an article about an essay by Sandy Stone. It's widely considered to be one of the inaugurating texts of transgender studies, and I believe it's important that information about it lives on Wikipedia. I would really appreciate any general feedback, as well as any attention to the issue I've raised on the talk page. Thank you! Rizzolioli (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Boi (slang) article up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boi (slang) if interested/if you have anything to state on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Definitely. The OP that proposed the deletion doesn't even give a good reason to delete it. Its just as bad as those people who tried to delete the Dana Terrace article, which has finally been saved! Yay. Its the best news I've seen all day. I'll write something on this deletion discussion later today. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yay, it was saved! --Historyday01 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/onemanonewoman 4th nomination

Just a heads up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 00:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on reliability of TheSword.com interview

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of an interview with Erik Rhodes on TheSword.com. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Sword. — Newslinger talk 16:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wanted: Translators for WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race

Hello! WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race is currently seeking assistance from multi-lingual editors who are willing to translate articles into other languages, and ideally even promote the project's quality content to similar status at other Wikipedias. If you're interested, see this discussion.

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Kalendar Magazine

I am reading Lillian Faderman's biography of Harvey Milk and she mentions Kalendar Magazine, a "gay biweekly" (78) and "San Francisco's biggest gay paper" (83), supposedly in the 1970s. It sounds like we should have an article about it. Is anyone able to find enough reliable sources to create an article please? I can't find much. The San Francisco Public Library has a webpage; it is mentioned at The EndUp#Al Hanken era (1973–1989). Please ping me when you reply.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Guidance requested on deadname redirects

While we now have MOS guidelines for when to include deadnames in articles, I don't think we have any official guidance on how to handle redirects from deadnames. For cases where the deadname is actually included in the article I think it's obviously appropriate to have a redirect, but it's not clear what to do for cases where it isn't appropriate to include the deadname in the target article. I'm bringing this up now because I just came across a redirect Rodney Arsenault --> Nina Arsenault; the name Rodney is not mentioned at the target, but Arsenault's notability is in part due to being a trans activist, and the former name is verifiable in RS as well as her autobiographical work. I remember another related case having been brought to RfD a few months ago and which was closed in favor of keeping the redirect, IIRC largely because the person in question had published a few works under their former name (although they would not have been considered notable for those works alone), but unfortunately I can't find that discussion for reference. It seems like in general we need to balance the likelihood (and utility) of someone searching for the target using the deadname vs potential disrespect entailed by maintaining such a redirect, and I think we could benefit from having a guideline to work from. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it should mirror what we’re doing in practice as far as deadnaming on the article itself, and extend that to all Article Space, so no redirect unless the person was notable under that name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In general I think we should include redirects from deadnames only when someone is likely to search for information about the person under that name. So if they were notable under that name, they produced notable works under that name or the name is prominent for some other reason. In most of those cases the name will be mentioned in the article, but I can imagine there might be cases where it isn't. Whatever we do decide, people are complicated and there will be edge cases so it should be a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem remains that without a hard rule prohibiting deadnaming in all Article Space there is a determined set of editors who will insist on misgendering everyone possible, and causing grief to LGBTQ editors who are already stressed on these issues.

Meanwhile the Internet is full of sketchy sites that delight in misgendering people so finding out a deadname is not much of a struggle. If the deadname is not notable on its own then it doesn’t belong in Article Space. Gleeanon⁴⁰⁹ 23:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that a hard "no deadnaming in article space" rule is incompatible with both an NPOV encyclopaedia, especially regarding those people who are wholly or primarily notable under that name. We must also recognise that some trans people don't regard their birthname as something to be avoided, they are a minority (possibly a small one) but that does not mean we should not (where possible) respect their wishes to the same extent as we respect the wishes of the majority. "No mention in articles without a very good reason to do so" works (and we are generally pretty good at determining what is and isn't a good reason) because it recognises that reality is not black and white. However redirects are not articles, and it is much better that we redirect the reader to the neutral article about the person under their present name than to have a duplicate article or leave them thinking we have no article about them. If a person is only notable under their present name then it is unlikely that their deadname will be a useful search term but unlikely is not the same thing as impossible. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The hardline rule would be "no deadnaming *non-notable names* in article space" which does work for us. The person who can’t figure out what someone’s deadname(s) are—and why exactly do they need them—will be the same one who raises a ruckus and tries to add that valid name and puts the community through, yet another, round of why we don’t deadname as a rule. Gleeanon⁴⁰⁹ 01:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

That rule works for articles, although it's not as hard as you imply as there will always be edge cases where notability is legitimately debatable and cases where they were not notable under their deadname but what they did during the time they used it is relevant to their notability (whether that name should be mentioned will depend on individual circumstances). However notability is not relevant to redirects - what matters is utility. Notable names will almost always make good redirects (where they are unambiguous) but there will are also be some instances (probably not many, but greater than zero) where a non-notable name is a useful search term. Unfortunately there is no way around this that allows discussion of whether or not to include a deadname in non-obvious cases but which prohibits someone starting a discussion in cases where it is obvious (either way). The only thing we can do is to shutdown those discussions quickly and firmly (for examples like that which started this thread, where redirect is obviously not useful, nominate them at RfD where they will get a few quick delete votes and then be deleted without fuss about a week later). If someone is persistently starting these discussions, or doesn't let them go, then we need to be firm about blocking them for disruptive editing. If they continue after that then a WP:NOTHERE block is likely appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we basically agree. I feel the rules cover all Article Space and should have a high bar for exceptions—obvious notability cases only—to nip the misgendering asap. From what I’ve seen is every trans BLP goes through a storm of sometimes rancorous editing all in an effort to embarrass the subject. It’s tiresome and wastes energy. Glee^anon 11:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My point is that articles and redirects are different and so the same rule cannot work for both - "Notability" is a concept that doesn't apply to redirects so a rule based on that is meaningless for redirects. I also disagree with "obvious only" because (a) what is obvious to one person isn't always obvious to another person (e.g. due to differing subject knowledge) and (b) it denies the existence of cases that are not obvious but where including the deadname is important for some reason that isn't immediately obvious, e.g. someone who was notable under their deadname in a language other than English but is notable in multiple language contexts under their present name - including their deadname in the English language article might or might not be important for writing a comprehensive biography, it is not possible to say without looking at the matter in much more detail. Another example might be where it is not clear whether a previous name is a deadname or not (e.g. a reclusive author whose published name might be their current name ore just a nom-de-plume). There are relatively few of these cases, but they do exist and we need to have rules/guidelines that acknowledge their existence and give us a way to deal with them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I must disagree, we can have the same practical rule to cover all Article Space, and make exceptions as needed for edge cases. As a rule we should be following the spirit of doing no harm to a BLP subject so this really doesn’t need to be overly complicated.

If you wish to misgender someone on Wikipedia you better have a good reason to do so and minimize the damage. Glee^anon 13:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is not about a desire to misgender anybody, it's about a desire to best serve the readers of an encyclopaedia by enabling them to find the article they are looking for even if they don't know the correct title. This is why we have redirects from incorrect titles, non-neutral terms, offensive nicknames, etc. if they are useful search terms (see WP:RNEUTRAL). In most cases if the name is not mentioned in the article it wont be a useful search term, and in most cases where it is mentioned it will be a useful search term. However there will be exceptions. As for the content of articles, you need to make up your mind - do you want a hard and fast rule or do you want guidelines that allow exceptions for edge cases? Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia even “hard” rules can have exceptions so that seems like a non-starter. An redirects are considered within Article Space. Glee^anon 02:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Call for Abstracts: Queering Information: LGBTQ+ Memory, Interpretation, Dissemination

• https://www.ifla.org/node/93294?fbclid=IwAR1YrsacCQQbglN1Ravwjc5QuKWcqmFTnK320I_nPNq-Ax-g7cTtkDCNP8A

---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Super interesting! Will spread the word. Zblace (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevant RFC at Margot (activist)

There's a relevant RFC at Margot (activist) discussing how the deadname of Margot - a nonbinary Polish activist - should be used in the lead and in the article.

Gbear605 (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Amy Coney Barrett#Bias

Hi all, there is a discussion at Talk:Amy Coney Barrett#Bias about potential bias in covering LGBT rights content. Your input/feedback would be helpful; I want to ensure neutrality and accuracy here. ɱ (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments

Members of this project might be interested in the Request for Comments at Talk:Dennis Nilsen. Graham Beards (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of draft Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct closing in nine days

A Wikimedia committee has posted a draft version of a Universal Code of Conduct at meta which, while it contains language about respecting the diversity of community members and condemning hate speech that appears in vandalism, does not appear to prohibit or otherwise mention racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of prejudice outside of vandalism and direct insults (in the English version, at least.) It does concern itself with, for example, defining repeated sarcasm as a form of harassment. In the page containing summaries of committee meetings the words "racism", "sexism", and "homophobia" also do not appear. (In the English version.)

Perhaps there is a good or practical reason for this; I'm not personally familiar with the high-level Wikimedia policy development process. But the discussion of the UCoC draft closes on October 7, after which the drafting committee will submit its recommendation to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees, so I am placing this message in this talk page in the hopes of ensuring that editors who can comment constructively on the absence of language providing guidance on non-insult, non-vandalism expressions of prejudice get a chance to comment. --▸₷truthious Ⓑandersnatch◂ 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll write something on there. Historyday01 (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type for removal from FL-Class

This is a formality as the list was already merged with another article and is a redirect now. Yet, I will leave the required message:

I have nominated List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gehenna1510 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about naming of List of poets portraying sexual relations between women

When I see the name of this list in the context of lesbian literature I find it jarring and inappropriate. However, I can't think of how to reword a title other than 'List of poets authoring lesbian-themed poetry', which seems clunky. Any suggestions? On a similar topic, can anyone advise on how to handle a revert on the List of lesbian fiction page? I changed the lede from "This is a list of books portraying sexual relations between women, works of fiction with characters who may be lesbians, bisexuals or straight-identified women who have sex with women. It includes a list of characters that make recurring appearances in fiction series." to "This is a list of lesbian fiction, works of fiction with characters who may be lesbians, bisexuals or straight-identified women who have sex with women. It includes a list of characters that make recurring appearances in fiction series." Someone editing from an IP address reverted it. I would prefer to simplify it further and simply have: "This is a list of lesbian-themed fiction. It includes a list of characters that make recurring appearances in fiction series.", Should I go ahead and change it? Or, is that edit-warring? IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

For the second question: It won't be edit-warring to change an article after nearly a year. Change it if you think it is an improvement. If it gets reverted, go to the article's talk page for discussion. Gehenna1510 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've done it. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)  Done

Jazelle Barbie Royale

Inviting improvements to Jazelle Barbie Royale. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Proud Boys hashtag takeover

There's an ongoing discussion about the recent takeover of the Proud Boys hashtag. Comments welcome at Talk:Proud_Boys#"Reclamation_of_#proudboys_hashtag"_section. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Are there categories for people who might have been gay and whose possible LGBT-status is controversial/covered up?

For example, see Gi_Hyeong-do#Death. What, if any, categories would be applicable here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, WP:EGRS would apply here. Elizium23 (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Proofreading

Hi guys, can you help me with something? Recently I created the article Transgender literature, but English is not my first language, so it may require some proofreading. Thanks a lot in advance :D--Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding an LGBT publication

Hey there! I was wondering if any of you folks could regarding the Spartacus International Gay Guide. As it is, that page give huge undue prominence to a controversy regarding its affiliation to a British pro-pederast activist group. As well as questionable POV-pushing, it also doesn't really help us understand what the Guide is today, or the relevance of guides such as this in the modern era. --Mondodi (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Is a statement associating LGBT and other minorities with paedophilia homophobic?

Or to put it another way: is a statement describing "LGBT ideology" as "coming from the same roots as nazism" objectively homophobic? Or is the adjective homophobic used to summarise these statements just an opinion that needs to be sourced? Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Przemysław Czarnek and participate there. This is a BLP issue concerning the likely next minister of education and science in Poland, once he recovers from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Boud (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on how to refer to transgender people in article titles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#MOS:GENDERID_being_used_in_place_of_WP:Article_titles_and_for_category_arguments on how to refer to transgender people in article titles. Rab V (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)