< Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity

Feb 2021 update

MOS:DEADNAME is about to get updated due to two recently closed RFCs on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. This implements several of the suggestions from this page, though I hadn't noticed this page before closing the RFCs. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Implementing deadname RFCs. -- Beland (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns for non-binary people who have not expressed preferred pronouns

Presume that a public figure comes out as non-binary, but does not provide any preferred pronouns. What would be the preferred way of handling this situation regarding editing pages? Currently there is a minor editing war happening under this situation on the page for Utada Hikaru. Because it is possible that referring to Utada as they/them could technically be misgendering due to Utada not providing preferred pronouns, as "non-binary" does not automatically mean that the person uses "they/them", I have been operating under the presumption that the pronouns used in the article should remain as they were prior until the person's preferred pronouns can be confirmed, but other editors (mostly anonymous ones) seem to disagree. I can understand there being arguments for defaulting to they until confirmed otherwise as well, but as far as I can see, this situation is not covered anywhere in the MOS. How can this be handled more smoothly in the future? -Wohdin (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, we should their last known pronouns until the subject themselves, and not just articles talking about the subject, directly confirms their preferred pronouns. Some non-binary people predominantly use grammatically correct pronouns, such as Rebecca Sugar and Miley Cyrus. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd retain the 'last known' pronouns until there was a reliable source that they should be changed. This could be a statement by the person (WP:ABOUTSELF), or statements by a reliable secondary source that "X uses they/them pronouns" (since RS fact-check statements they make, or their status as RS should be revisited!). Articles merely about the coming-out but which don't state "X uses they/them pronouns" might just be defaulting to "neutral" pronouns, so I'd prefer to wait for clearer sources. Some non-binary people don't change pronouns. (Conversely, some people—like Halsey (singer)—use e.g. she/they pronouns but have not identified as non-binary.) However, that applies "until there was a reliable source that they should be changed", and if a person states they should not be referred to with gendered words (as seems to be the case here?), that'd be a basis for changing to a neutral pronoun or avoiding pronouns, though I personally would wait a while to see if a statement directly about pronouns is forthcoming. -sche (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Crossroads -talk- 23:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the thing is, most nonbinary people do not use the gendered pronouns associated with their previous gender identity. Some do, usually alongside they/them, some forgo gendered pronouns entirely, and some use new "transitioned" gendered pronouns (q.v. Elliot Page). Where we have a reliably sourced announcement of nonbinary identity but no pronouns, "defaulting to the previous pronouns" will misgender the subject more often than not, and is incompatible with MOS:GENDERID. On the other hand, defaulting to they/them pronouns in this situation, as is the 21st century practice any time gender or pronouns are unknown, carries very little risk of misgendering and coheres with the spirit of both MOS:GENDERID and WP:GNL. Newimpartial (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They/Them should be the default for anyone known to be nonbinary or who has explicitly expressed no pronoun preference. Using the old pronouns would be an obvious mistake for 90% of cases where a subject has come out as nonbinary. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By "explicitly expressed no pronoun preference", you mean 'people who have explicitly said they have no preference', right? Because if this meant 'people who have never explicitly said what their pronouns are', then we're they/them-ing the vast majority of humans alive today, and nearly all historical persons. That is obviously not practical and is completely out of step with how the language works in practice.
Even so, I see no need to change to they/them if they have specifically said they have no preference. No preference means no basis to change it based on GENDERID or any policy. Crossroads -talk- 04:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion concerns nonbinary people only: sadly, we are not in fact the vast majority of humans alive today. For nonbinary people who have not explicitly expressed a pronoun preference, we should default to they/them, because it minimizes the risk of misgendering as discussed immediately above your comment. Retaining pre-transition pronouns when someone has announced a nonbinary identity (but not named pronouns) is clearly counter to MOS:GENDERID, and rushing to "opposite-gendered" pronouns would also result in misgendering a non-negligible proportion of the time. Newimpartial (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fae" pronouns in a Wikipedia article

Rivers Solomon. Is the use of these "fae" pronouns according to policy? Equinox ◑ 20:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article's subject also lists "they/their" as acceptable - which are actual English-language pronouns - I think it was a mistake to switch to neopronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As it will be a completely new construction to most readers, we at least need a note on its first usage, not just the prose of the first sentence in "Personal life". WP:ASTONISH might be the most relevant part of policy for choosing between "they/them" and "fae/faer", and it would lean us towards the former. I can guarantee some readers will be confused about whether "Fae" (used capitalised at the start of some sentences in the article) is Solomon's surname, or some sort of pen name. Remember that almost no readers read most articles top to bottom, or even scan the page from top to bottom. However, we don't sacrifice correctness or precision of language (e.g. "one die, two dice") even when it can cause reader confusion, and maybe Solomon has indicated that fae prefer "fae/faer". — Bilorv (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, and I have fixed it. To be frank, language exists to communicate; there must be some limits to the pronouns that we can expected to use for a person. For example, there was this incident where someone at one point said something about being called "tree". There was also another person who put "beep/bop/boop" in her Twitter profile at one time. Both of these people are equally evidently cisgender, but one was criticized for ridiculing transgender people, while the other had an army of Twitter fans earnestly policing others to use the neopronoun, and making edits and edit requests here. Go figure. Blaire White, a trans woman, has in her Twitter profile "Pronouns: that/bitch". Now, a reasonable person would understand that is not meant to be taken seriously - especially if you know White's viewpoints.
Clearly, the line has to be drawn somewere. And the clearly sensible cutoff is that we only use pronouns that are recognized as such by English-language dictionaries. Anything else is WP:RGW language reform attempts that are not appropriate for article text. MOS:GENDERID says to use pronouns that fit someone's gender identity; it does not say that pronoun self-choice is unlimited. Our language has "he" for male identities, "she" for female ones, and "they" for non-binary ones. That is all-inclusive.
Therefore, even if someone said that their preferred pronouns are only "fae/faer" or something else like that, those should not be used in an article. While "they" can be a preferred pronoun, it is also used to refer to people regardless of gender, and could be used in such situations. Crossroads -talk- 22:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would obvious jokes affect the rules we have? We don't treat BLPs as unreliable for the information of their birthday just because some of them have running jokes that involve lying about it. Why would we even be looking to make rules based on hard cases? Your supposed "clearly sensible" solution doesn't even cover many of the jokes made by transphobes, who sometimes pretend for some rhetorical flourish or perceived gotcha! moment to use either he/him or she/her pronouns, whichever is the opposite of what they actually use. In summary, the cases you raise are already addressed by existing common sense protocols that we manage to successfully apply in all other (politically uncontroversial) scenarios, and the "solution" you propose would not address the cases you raise. — Bilorv (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course for binary pronouns we disregard mockery when sources treat it as such - that is unchanged by what I said. However, "obvious jokes" is not a usable cutoff for neopronouns. For example, is 'call me tree' a joke or not? To EEng, it was an "obvious joke", but someone hauled him to ANI for treating it as such. How can we tell that is or is not a joke when that person is just as evidently cisgender as the person who put "beep/bop/boop" and who was unserious? (The "tree" person later called himself a he.) And just what is the cutoff then? What "rules we have" permit use of "fae" as a pronoun? "English Wikipedia should only communicate in English words" shouldn't be a controversial position. Crossroads -talk- 23:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're talking about, why you're trying to revive a conflict from six months ago involving an editor unrelated to this conversation, or what relevance any of this has to Solomon. You're asking me how to tell if a person is making a joke? — Bilorv (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am speaking in a general sense, as the heading does. This isn't the article for Solomon, but an explanatory supplement essay, and therefore is more general. Crossroads -talk- 02:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP doesn't use neo-pronouns. WP does use singular-they, which is a perfectly appropriate choice (and what the average newspaper now does) for any TG/NB subject who does not use standard-English pronouns. If a notable subject is known to use neo-pronouns, then our article would likely note this (and what they are), but not actually use this non-standard idiolect in its own voice. This has been discussed repeatedly at WT:MOS and subpages thereof, as well as at many article talk pages.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: can you point me to three discussions that obtained local consensus that neo-pronouns could not be used despite them being the subject's preferred choice, or one discussion that obtained consensus that we should never use neo-pronouns? There's a lot of assertions you've made but no evidence beyond "some MOS discussions somewhere". — Bilorv (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a cursory glance at MOS:IDINFO and the essay WP:GENDERID. I don't see any explicit discussion of neopronouns there or elsewhere (with the proviso that I have not looked very hard), which is a little surprising to me. I actually can't seem to find any guidance on the use of neopronouns at all. It surely cannot be the case that this has never come up before, notwithstanding that neopronouns are pretty uncommon. As has been pointed out above, we do have the singular they (or avoiding pronouns) as options, if consensus cannot be reached. I would however like to see some more explicit guidance in the MOS re neopronouns, one way or the other; and I feel that SMcCandlish's opinion above – that we should mention the article subject uses neopronouns without using them in text, as they are not part of standard English grammar and we write in standard English (and we do not try to restructure the English language to right great wrongs), which gives us the option of using "they" as a singular pronoun (objected to only by pedants) – is likely to be as close to consensus as we get. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To throw in my own tuppence, as someone who's been an openly queer person my whole adult life, with a heavily queer-leaning social circle and a decent amount of participation in mainstream and other queer culture, I am tangentially aware of what neopronouns are. Meaning, as a piece of fairly esoteric academic knowledge that I possess, I know they exist, and could name a handful of them. I cannot begin to imagine how abstruse they would seem to 99% of our readership – hell, even to 99% of our queer readership, because frankly I read more abstruse LGBT+ content than most, and neopronouns virtually never appear.
There is obviously no central authority on what acceptable neopronouns are (yes this is also true for standard English pronouns, but neopronouns are so far from common use that we cannot even entertain the idea of there being a cultural consensus on what "standard" ones are), so it's perhaps not even a meaningful question to ask how many there are. Sort of like asking how many non-English words could hypothetically exist. In any case, I've never come across anyone in any context who actually used them. I do strongly suspect they're obscure and unknown to the overwhelming majority of queer people, who will just use standard English vocabulary and grammar to express themselves, rather than confusing linguistic innovations that put me in mind of Esperanto – well-intentioned but poorly executed proposals to solve problems that might better be solved in other ways, without a clear idea of what they're trying to accomplish or an unambiguous USP over alternatives. Fundamentally, they ignore that language is a collective phenomenon, and individual speakers of a language cannot simply create their own private grammar. They also kinda remind me of xkcd's take on the perennial problem of "look how many problems there are with the existing standards; why don't we just invent a new one?" Archon 2488 (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A point I'm surprised nobody has yet raised is that we, after much discussion, accommodate the preferences of those such as bell hooks who prefer their names to be spelled in lowercase, often as a similar personal choice to neopronouns. — Bilorv (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor personal eccentricity, which I'd argue is a significantly smaller departure from standard English grammar (it doesn't even affect the spoken language) than trying to add new subject pronouns to the language. Might as well introduce new demonstrative pronouns, verbal inflections, noun cases, or intermediate-definiteness articles, if that is what the subject of the article believes in. Point is, we don't typically defer to the personal eccentricities of the subject of an article in determining how it should be written. But regardless, "bell hooks" is typically spelled that way by WP:RS, so we don't really need to have the discussion. I am not aware of RS that typically use neopronouns as a matter of house style. Archon 2488 (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no departure whatsoever from standard English grammar, just the introduction of new words—it is the case that hooks' preference actually departs from standard grammar (e.g. in capitalisation of the first letter of a sentence), but not that neopronouns do (they are used in the exact same manner as other pronouns without changing word order or conjugations or so on). Is your position that we should use neopronouns for a person if and only if most reliable sources do? Or something different? — Bilorv (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to speak for anyone else, but my view is that we should report that a person prefers neopronouns, but not actually use them as pronouns in Wikivoice. We should use "they/them" unless the person has explicitly objected to they/them, and in that case we should write without pronouns (they said reluctantly). Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think refusing to capitalize a proper noun is a departure from standard English grammar (hence why you can't tell the difference in the spoken language), but only from standard English orthographic conventions. Sort of like insisting your name has to be written in the Cyrillic alphabet; if she'd insisted on writing her name "Бел хукс" that would be eccentric, but not a difference that would be reflected in spoken language. English is English whether it's written in upper or lower case Latin letters or back to front Cyrillic letters. Nor is using a name from a different language a violation of English grammatical rules, because we can just treat it the same as any other loanword. It's telling that pronouns are very rarely ever loanwords; they're an integral part of how a language works, every language (AFAIK) has them together with well established and usually firm grammatical and social rules around their use, and they tend to be quite resistant to linguistic change. By way of comparison, some languages use gendered first- and second-person pronouns, and others like Finnish do not have gendered pronouns at all, so this entire discussion would be pretty much inconceivable to a Finn. I mean this as evidence of how deeply embedded a language's pronoun system is in its grammar; you can't simply chop and change and add random bits to it, for reasons of ideology or practicality or whatever – not because of any conspiracy to suppress innovation in pronouns, but because that's realistically not how linguistic evolution works. People have attempted to effect social change by changing language for centuries – and it rarely achieves the desired result. Mainly because tinkering with the technicalities of language does little to change the reality that language describes.
You write they are used in the exact same manner as other pronouns without changing word order or conjugations or so on – I mean, this might be true when they are used, which is so vanishingly rarely that it is genuinely hard to infer in a verifiable way how people actually would use them in real life. And if people can just coin their own pronouns, why not coin other grammatical innovations too, like new verbal inflections for the new pronouns? What constrains this? If you have as many pronouns as people, is there actually a point in them? Is there any difference at that point between a "pronoun" and a "name"? Point is, language doesn't work like that. The only times I have ever come across neopronouns have been in the context of what are in effect aspirational statements to the effect that the author believes having a wider collection of (invariably third-person singular) pronouns would somehow enrich the English language. Sort of like how it might be nice if everyone learned Esperanto as an auxiliary language. Maybe, but living on planet Earth, Esperanto is a fringe interest that nobody without a personal link to the community of speakers or who is not a language nerd knows about.
In any case, that neopronouns "should" be used more is a defensible POV maybe, but I do not think it an appropriate POV to endorse in WP's voice. WP does not care about what "should" be the case but what is the case – and mainstream use of neopronouns decidedly is not. Indeed, per WP:FRINGE I am very wary of giving undue weight to such a marginal linguistic use, especially in a context where vanishingly few if any of our WP:RS do. So I guess this answers your question: we are so far away from it being the consensus of RS to use neopronouns that at present it is a purely hypothetical situation. If the wider cultural consensus does change and neopronouns are adopted into wider usage (i.e. are anything less than totally obscure in real life) then that would be a circumstance in which there might be something to discuss here. But I think it unlikely, to be quite honest. And before then, I do feel that any attempt to enforce wider neopronoun use on WP will be seen as POV-pushing, and any such proposal will likely be dead on arrival. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some copy editors do in fact capitalize her name. The Chicago Manual of Style Online also states that some publications ignore the preference. Language Log also argues that it is not necessary to ignore the usual capitalization rules for such individuals. Crossroads -talk- 04:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the future I expect the solution will be to put "fae" pronouns in Wikidata, those will migrate to the English Wikipedia infobox through meta:Wikidata Bridge, but the prose in English Wikipedia should be they/them as the right balance between precision and understability.
I support change of our Manual of Style to be more accommodating in the future, but for that to happen, someone needs to collect some examples and draft a proposal. It would not be productive to support a change in practice without published guidance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She/They

Hi all,

Does Wikipedia have a consensus on what to do when someone has expressed their desire to use multiple pronouns. A recent editor has changed some but not all of the pronouns on the page Paige Layle from "she" to "they" so that the page now uses both in accordance with the fact that the subject's Instagram lists her pronouns as "she/they". I am of the opinion that it is more readable/understandable to the average reader for pages to consistently use the same gendered pronouns throughout, but was wondering if there was consensus on this and also if there is consensus as to how to decide which of the two (or more) pronouns to use.

(My understanding is that using multiple pronouns used to primarily mean that someone was comfortable with either being used to describe them, but now it seems to be shifting towards some people insisting that others switch between both/all pronouns when speaking/writing about them. Not sure which case applies to Layle. I noticed that Elliot Page uses he/him pronouns (see that page's footnote) instead of he/him and they/them for consistency and so am leaning towards the same sort of thing for Layle.)

Samsmachado (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that Layle has given no more detail than using "she/they" pronouns in their Instagram bio, the current source given. I don't believe there's a consensus on what to do in such situations. Any of these three options are possible, dependent on the outcome of case-by-case discussion: using "she/her" throughout; using "they/them" throughout; using a mixture.
I would oppose the latter as unnecessarily confusing, and I do not agree whatsoever that you have to use some mixture when someone identifies with more than one pronoun. I would prefer "they/them" throughout, and probably no footnote is needed in a short article that will explain the full situation in "Personal life".
However, I think "they/them" is treated as a plural for the purposes of grammar ("they are", "they use"), not singular like the article currently does. — Bilorv (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you regarding mixtures. I do wonder why you would prefer to write "they" in this case. I know sometimes people will put, say, "they/she" in their profile, in that order, and then I could see a case for it (although I'd still want to see how recent RS write), but not in this case. Crossroads -talk- 05:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hold the minority position of preferring gender-neutral language wherever possible, viewing gendered language as inherently non-neutral. I additionally think that in a majority (but not totality) of cases where a person prefers "X/they" pronouns (the more common linguistic construction to "they/X") and was assigned X at birth, the person prefers "they" otherwise they would not have deviated from their assigned gender at birth pronouns, as almost all people don't. For what it's worth, this is the case with myself, where I suggest "he/they" pronouns on my userpage (though I'm not offended by any/all). Maybe I should change it to "they/he", which has never occurred to me. — Bilorv (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW as a non-binary trans person myself, when I see someone list multiple pronouns I assume that the first is preferred unless otherwise specified, regardless of gender or assignment at birth. So if someone lists their pronouns as "she/they" I would refer to her as she, consistently. Funcrunch (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spivak pronouns and other pronouns outside the he/she/they gamut

Subject's preferred pronouns are Spivak pronouns, and we have a source that e prefers them. What is MOS guidance on using these pronouns that readers may not be familiar with, where phrases like "Eir work features themes of..." may also prompt edits claiming misspelling (example: [1])? —C.Fred (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think that we should honor any good-faith pronoun request except maybe for nounself ones (rock/rockself, etc.), where the concern of readability may cut in favor of a surname-only approach. (On the other hand, see of Montreal for a non-gender-related case where we rather brutally prioritize "using the right words" over "writing in a way that won't confuse readers.")
It strikes me that these situations are not dissimilar from that of articles that don't use a standard (by anglocentric standards) family naming scheme. We solve that with a hatnote template. I'm not sure why we couldn't do the same with articles for people who take pronouns other than he/him and she/her. Even they/them articles get a decent number of good-faith "corrections" (although they're often hard to distinguish from bad-faith edits snarkily invoking the name of grammar), and hatnotes explaining this would be no more obtrusive than family name hatnotes, and would likely clarify things for readers more, and stop more mistaken edits, than them. Just a concise This article uses (({1))} pronouns to refer to its subject. (There's also ((pronouns editnotice)), which I slap on most biographies when I run into pronoun-warring.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had not thought about the hatnote, but I like that as an elegant solution. On the technical side, it would be easy to do standard templates for things like they/them and maybe more common situations like Spivak, as well as a custom template for other situations where we need to fill in the details. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor or a neopronoun user, but as the one who originally raised the concern about erasing pronouns in the article in question, I would consider this an excellent solution. Autumn on Tape (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred and Autumnontape: Okay, I've drafted a hatnote at User:Tamzin/Pronoun hatnote. Keeping in mind WP:NODISCLAIMERS (a guideline I generally think is overkill but agree with here), MOS:GENDERID, and general decency, one thing I've tried to stress in the documentation that this would not be just for tagging an article's subject as trans, but rather for clarifying wording that may confuse readers. It's one thing for someone to be confused by they / them pronouns or especially neopronouns, but if someone's "confused" about an article on a trans man using he / him pronouns, that's usually just code for "I don't think he's a real man", so I don't think any template should cater to that. I also don't think that this should be used in articles where pronouns are ambiguous and editors have compromised on (or failed to reach a consensus other than) avoiding pronouns entirely, as that's an editorial decision, not a matter of the correct way to refer to the subject. But there is a pronouns=none option for cases where that's the subject's actual preference, or at least our best-guess interpretation of their preference (Sophie Xeon, Vi Hart, etc.). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: This is very good! There's nothing I would change at first reading. (I wouldn't immediately consider something like this necessary for the singular they, but you probably have more perspective on what's surprising to Wikipedia readers than I do.) I think a hatnote like this would be a great way to help readers understand a relatively new linguistic phenomenon like neopronouns in articles where it's important. Autumn on Tape (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, tbh I am also on the fence about they. I could add a note to the documentation saying to use it on a case-by-case basis, for instance on articles where readers have expressed confusion in good faith in the past, or on articles well removed from LGBTQ topics... But I dunno. I also wouldn't strongly object to cutting it outright and making this purely a neopronoun hatnote. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of pronoun sets I would add to the list, of course, like ey/em (distinct from e/em), fae/faer, ze/zir, and it/its. I don't know how exactly exhaustive the list should be initially, since more can always be added later. Autumn on Tape (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, stress in the documentation that this would not be just for tagging an article's subject as trans is actually my biggest concern here. Nobody should be using this on LaVerne Cox or even Caitlyn Jenner. I think you've solved that with the binary pronouns disabled? valereee (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding pronoun hat notes: one thing to be aware of while drafting an article hat note of this nature, is the related talk page template ((Article pronouns)). Articles and Talk pages have different target readerships of course, and template ((Article pronouns)) is targeted to editors rather than to readers, and thus may appear on Talk pages. Its purpose is to guide editors what pronoun to use while working on an article, and is (or at least, should be) based on subject preference, consistency, and clarity for our readership. The template is descriptive, and not prescriptive. See Talk:Leslie Feinberg for an example. Besides the different audience (and an option for sourcing), the talk page template generates an underlying maintenance category structure (e.g., see Category:Articles tagged for gendered pronoun usage). In another difference from the proposed hat note, the talk page template does not exclude binary pronouns because of its goal of editor guidance; thus the presence of templates recommending a binary pronoun at Talk:Rebecca Sugar and Talk:Cavetown (and Feinberg) for example. Because on their somewhat different goals and target audiences, I imagine some topics may end up with both a hat note on the article as well as an article pronoun template on the Talk page, others will have just one or the other. One type of situation where one might have a Talk page template but not an article hat note might be for a few articles where Wikipedia avoids the use of gendered pronouns as much as possible, such as at Albert Cashier or James Barry (surgeon). Mathglot (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Saying a non-binary person was "assigned male/female"

I think this is disrespectful non-binary identities. It's equivalent to using gendered pronouns associated with their previous gender identity, or saying "He is a trans man who used to be a woman." I think stating that someone is/was "assigned male/female at birth" should be avoided unless the individual has personally stated that they identify with their assigned gender in some way. — InEventOf (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on context.
  • If it's just a reference to someone and their gender assigned at birth isn't obviously relevant, definitely no. J. Doe, a nonbinary activist assigned female at birth, said they opposed the law.
  • If it's in someone's biography and it can't be reliably sourced, then it should be treated similar to deadnames as a privacy interest. Worth noting that simply showing someone used to identify as male or female does not prove that that's the gender assigned at birth. Doe was assigned female at birth<ref>Tweet from five years ago: "My name is Jane Doe and I take she/her pronouns"</ref>
  • If it's in someone's biography and it can be reliably sourced at the same standard expected of a deadname, then I think it's fair game to mention in an "Early life" section, and if applicable later sections (say, "Sports career"), but in most cases would not be something to mention in the lede. Ideally it would be mentioned in a context where it's relevant, rather than just as Doe was born January 1, 1990, in Springfield, USA. They were assigned male at birth
    • Doe, who was assigned male at birth, was on the baseball team at St. John the Evangelist High School and batted .400 in their senior season..
    • Doe, who was assigned female at birth, said in an interview in 2015 that they "never felt like a girl" growing up.
Also worth considering that "assigned X at birth" does not mean "has bodypart associated with X". My first example would still be inappropriate if the hypothetical law in question concerns uterine health, simply because "assigned female at birth" does not actually tell you whether someone has a uterus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Gender-affirming surgery" and "Sex reassignment surgery"

The phrase "Gender-affirming surgery" is used in a decent number of articles to refer to female-to-male or male-to-female genital surgery (henceforth "bottom surgeries"). To me it seems squarely at odds with MOS:EUPHEMISM. What is a gender-affirming surgery? Any surgery a transgender person undergoes in search of gender euphoria, even one that is not per se a transgender surgery, could be called a gender-affirming surgery. To the extent that it's a term of art, it's far from a universally-used one. So in general one would say that we should stick with the non-euphemistic term that our own article on the subject, Sex reassignment surgery, uses.

Except that term isn't precise, either. It's most frequently used to refer to bottom surgeries, but our article on it uses the broader definition of any surgery that is part of a medical transition (even if most of the article is then about bottom surgeries).

This is half a GIDINFO matter, half an MOS:MED one, but more the former, I think, since medical articles will tend to use more clinical terms. So, can this essay provide any guidance to editors?

My inclination would be to recommend using the medical term if established in reliable sources (vaginoplasty, phalloplasty, metoidoplasty, etc.). If RS are ambiguous (i.e. they just say "sex reassignment surgery", "gender-affirming surgery", etc.), then I'm not sure. "Bottom surgery" is a bit colloquial, but is unambiguous. And Bottom surgery redirects to Sex reassignment surgery § Genital surgery. Genital reassignment surgery is more formal, but somewhat obscure, currently almost never used in articles. (For good measure, though, I've refined it to the same target as Bottom surgery.)

Thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 12:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your inclination to recommend using the specific medical term if it is established in a reliable source. Though this can get tricky in the case of top surgery, as male chest reconstruction is (somewhat) different from mastectomy, and the former is definitely considered to be gender-affirming even though it does not involve the genitals.
In any case, I think it's important to stress that surgery should only be mentioned in a BLP if the subject themself has brought it up, and not just incidentally. Too often coverage of trans people focuses more on what surgeries we have or haven't had than anything else about our lives... Funcrunch (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with regard to a general term for bottom surgery (which I see on re-reading is your actual question, so you can ignore my comment about top surgery), relatively few transmasculine people get phalloplasty or metoidoplasty, but hysterectomy and oophorectomy are also considered (by some, anyway) to be bottom surgeries, as well as gender-affirming. The term "genital surgery" would not include these procedures, however. Funcrunch (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my own reading of medical sources on this, the recent sources (post 2017/18) will use "gender affirming surgery" or "gender affirmation surgery". Anything pre-2017 will use the older "sex reassignment surgery". While it's not universal, there is to my knowledge a greater number of sources using gender affirmation versus sex reassignment in post-2017 medical literature on this topic. And though I no longer have access to it as the links are now dead, from memory of the draft chapters, the upcoming WPATH 8 SoC, exclusively uses gender affirming/affirmation surgery in its surgery chapter. By and large this coincides with a series of terminology changes that happened circa-2015 or so.
I'd personally be in favour of re-naming the article to represent modern usage, with a redirect for the older usage, and where possible a hat or footnote explaining the terminology shift. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Tamzin was referring to MOS:GENDERID guidance, not renaming the Sex reassignment surgery article itself (which FWIW has had two unsuccessful move attempts, most recently in January 2020). Funcrunch (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But would renaming sex assignment surgery to gender-affirming/affirmation not address the underlying euphemism claim more directly, as we can then say "Not a euphemism, it's current terminology for this class of surgery"? Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but I'm reluctant to start a new move discussion on that page myself. Funcrunch (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. It would require some pretty thorough groundwork to demonstrate the shift in terminology over the last five years, which would be especially necessary to address what appears to my reading to be a repeated use of total number comparisons in that past RM (ie that an older term will almost always have greater total usage than a newer term) to oppose the move. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fake or mocking pronoun declarations

There is a worrisome yet entirely predictable trend emerging in social media, where those who oppose evolving gender identity and expansive pronoun usage, people generally classified as "conservative" (among other labels) list pronoun usage in a mocking manner. What this has to do with the Wikipedia is that people are beginning to suggest that we honor these. I first encountered this at Talk:Kaitlin_Bennett#Bing/bong_pronouns in Feb, where the subject really does list herself as "bing/bong" on Instagram. Declining that one is a simple matter of noting they're not real, and noting current guidelines on the usage of neopronouns.

However, now Tucker Carlson has listed they/them at their official twitter account]. I would imagine I do not need to rehash Mr. Carson's history as a right-leaning provocateur, and if one reads their wikipedia bio, thy will note that literally everything in the twitter bio is false (did not attend Harvard, has not won an Emmy, etc...) We have legitimate editors, not WP:SPA's, supporting making the article gender-neutral. What to do? ValarianB (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have more than those two cases at this time? With Carlson, it seems as though consensus at this time is leaning towards keeping he/him.
Regardless of the specifics with Carlson, if we do have to strengthen the requirements in this guidance, because of a spate of bad actors mocking trans and non-binary individuals, then we must ensure that we also keep this guidance as flexible as possible so that we do not cause harm to trans and non-binary BLP subjects as a side effect. We've already had one BLP subject, who was notable for their transition and detransition, have to verify their identity (I believe through VTRS), because none of the RS who would happily publish materials about their detransition will now do so as a result of their retransition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) For one thing, I commented there. I am shocked that any experienced editors were in favor of a change. Perhaps there should be a rule that any self-proclamation of pronouns must be actually used by at least one reliable source. Crossroads -talk- 01:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th, you are thinking of the Shupe case, correct? Maybe VTRS could be an exception if we required at least one RS. Crossroads -talk- 01:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am yes, though I didn't want to mention it by name to respect her privacy. While the VTRS pathway was helpful in her specific case, I do not think it would be viable for all cases where we either do not have RS or are unlikely to have RS in the future. It would require all such affected BLP subjects, ie retransitoners or prominent former transphobic individuals who later transition for the first time, to reach out to us directly via edit request in order for a change to their article to be made, and then to verify their identity through VTRS or some other means.
That process is I think too bureaucratic in order to be effective at any sort of scale, beyond one or two subjects. Not all such subjects may know how to make an edit request, nor would they all be comfortable identifying to VTRS or the WMF directly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads, your proposed new rule that any self-proclamation of pronouns must be actually used by at least one reliable source seems to be at, ahem, some tension with your preference expressed at Hikaru Utada, since in that instance all recent RS use they/them, but you have clung to the use of "she/her" based entirely on ABOUTSELF sources (ones that would not be considered RS in the present context). I find your change of perspective interesting. Newimpartial (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You think there are no sources about her using feminine pronouns? Obviously going from she -> she/they is quite different from someone allegedly going from he -> they or she -> bing/bong. Crossroads -talk- 23:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of no independent, reliable sources using "she/her" since Utada's announcement of nonbinary identity. Are you aware of any? Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our current guidelines are fine. If bad actors want to at fake pronouns to their bio, then that's on them. Most well-adjusted people wouldn't do that, so there isn't a reason to change the guidelines to work around these fringe exceptions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No concern that editors are citing current policy to support changing a BLP's pronoun usage, in a situation where the BLP subject is obviously mocking the entire topic? ValarianB (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I agree with @ValarianB. It would be easy to add a sentence to the MOS guideline, for example, here's a sentence I suggest: "If there is reason to believe that a person's own pronoun declaration or request is joking, sarcastic, hostile, part of a stage performance in which they take on another persona, or otherwise insincere, do not consider those pronouns to be the correct ones." Exactly what constitutes a good reason to believe that someone is not really making a sincere declaration/request might have to be left up to editors' judgment/discussion. Even so, it would be helpful to acknowledge that there can be good reasons to recognize when someone is speaking in bad faith or in a non-factual way. The MOS for Gender Identity, as it stands now, does not recognize this possibility. It treats all declarations as equally literal and sincere when we know very well that language doesn't work that way. The "Best Practices" section says only "They/them pronouns are always acceptable in article space for subjects who have stated that they prefer them." We should acknowledge that some types of statements don't count as a sincere, and therefore valid, expression of personal preference.
Again, the situation is that other WP editors suggested changing Tucker Carlson's article to use "they/them" pronouns after he, a right-wing talk show host who routinely leads anti-transgender segments, joked about wanting those pronouns. Unfortunately, it wasn't "on them" (i.e., on Tucker Carlson) to explain why WP shouldn't update his bio article to say he's nonbinary. He didn't do that work to explain his own bigoted joke. Instead, it was on me to spend an hour before breakfast explaining why it was important for WP not to buy into the trollery and not to participate in it. Thus, it would be helpful for me and other WP editors to be able to quickly refer to a one-sentence WP style or policy that essentially says to recognize and avoid participating in right-wing trolling of transgender people in this specific way. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB & Tuckerlieberman: Yes, I have absolutely no concern that editors are citing current policy [sic] to support changing a BLP's pronoun usage, in a situation where the BLP subject is obviously mocking the entire topic? because the Manual of Style isn't a policy; it's a guideline. Very rarely do I try to make that point, but WP:IAR and common sense are always going to supersede what's written in the Manual of Style.
At the end of the day, BLP is meant to protect us from defamation (that explanation is covered in this section of the policy). If a BLP subject, in their own words, wants to proclaim nonsensical pronouns as a joke, then it is not going to be a surprise when people take them at their word.
@Tuckerlieberman: As for your comment that Instead, it was on me to spend an hour before breakfast explaining why it was important for WP not to buy into the trollery and not to participate in it. That was your decision to make. Quite frankly, I am of the camp that doesn't really care if the article uses they/them or he/him pronouns. If you want something you can easily point to for the future, write an essay if you think this is going to come up again. Then you would be able to explain all your points without the need to repeat yourself nor potentially disrupt the careful balance that is MOS:GENDERID. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your distinction between a policy and a guideline. Thank you for providing it.
WP editing is indeed voluntary. I understand it is my choice that I do it.
Clearer policies and/or guidelines can support editors. As you may have also experienced, when there is a WP policy and/or guideline that fits the situation, certain topics can be less emotionally stressful, certain logical and factual arguments might not need to be had at all, and certain tasks might take less time. To some extent, it helps Tucker Carlson (or helps him not sue us), but from my perspective, it helps me do my job (albeit one that is unpaid and entirely voluntary).
I am suggesting, based on my my knowledge, experience, and perspective, that this is one of those situations where a clearer policy/guideline would support me and perhaps others in this process.
Am not really sure if you're arguing that MOS:GENDERID is important (because it has a careful balance that must not be disrupted) or unimportant (because WP:IAR and common sense will generally win the day anyway). Anyhow, to the extent the guideline can be at all useful and serves a purpose, I have already made my suggestion. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that MOS:GENDERID is important, but in cases like these we have WP:IAR for a reason. While you may think that changing the guideline might make things easier for you now, I am telling you that it would simply make things more difficult for the future.
Also, there is no world where Tucker Carlson sues us for using they/them pronouns while also simultaneously declaring said pronouns on Twitter. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to change anything. The guideline says Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. As soon as recent reliable sources report that Carlson now goes by they/them pronouns (not just that he has changed his Twitter account to say so), then we can change it. In some cases, we consider the subject to be the requisite reliable source, based on WP:SELFSOURCE. But one of the requirements there is that There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. If there is reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, we need other reliable sources. It's be great if this didn't turn into a huge discussion IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's a very good way to look at it. We shouldn't across-the-board require third-party sources, because you do get cases where someone announces a change in pronouns well after they've left the public eye, and it's probably just not going to be covered by anyone. For instance, Ellar Coltrane changed to they/them pronouns during a long gap in receiving any media coverage, so for a time we sourced their pronouns to only their Instagram bio, and that was fine. Or consider someone whose entire article is "John Doe won the bronze medal for New Zealand in modern pentathlon at the 1980 Olympics" and then some stats. If they change to they/them pronouns, that might not be recognized in any third-party sources till their eventual obituary, and we shouldn't misgender them for decades just because they've faded into obscurity. But when there's a reasonable question as to how to interpret someone's statement about their pronouns, we should follow third-party RS. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this. I think people get confused when an obvious situation happens to revolve around a topic with political tension. For instance, if an author says in an interview that they went to Harvard then that is generally sufficient for us to say in Wikipedia's words that they went to Harvard. If, however, this proves false, or the person is so unreliable that their public statements cannot be taken at their word, then it is removed. Aphex Twin did not live in a bank vault, drive a tank or make 1,000 unreleased songs. There is no difference here. Indeed, Carlson did not go to Harvard despite saying he did, so we do not report it; he does not use "they/them" pronouns despite saying he does, so we do not change them. — Bilorv (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the blog "Radical Copyeditor" be linked?

Many of the claims made on that blog are so blatantly ridiculous that it makes me question whether it should be used as a source. Such as claiming that both gender and biological sex are social constructs. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A significant number of organisations consider it to be reliable and recommend it or segments of it in their own style guides. Including:
Do you have any evidence of its unreliability? Or that it is not considered reliable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the websites you linked are from proponents of Marxism or critical theory, who cannot be considered unbiased. Also, many of them only endorsed specific claims on the website that are not controversial among reasonable people (e.g. "we shouldn't misgender transgender people"), but not the linked page or website as a whole. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the websites Sideswipe9th links to are from universities and press centers. Your perception of bias based on your disagreement with these universities is irrelevant. This is a style guide used to a significant extent in this field and it would be beneficial to include it in the external links section. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bias of those websites matters greatly, actually. Unless you think that a Flat Earther claiming the Earth is flat and using a bunch of FE websites as evidence would count as compelling evidence for Flat Earth. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BIASED: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Also I would not generally consider the American Chemical Society, University of Illinois Press, University of West Florida Pressbooks, or the five universities listed above as proponents of Marxism or critical theory. As an extraordinary claim, I'm going to require some extraordinary evidence to support that assertion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that WP:RS says you can sometimes use biased sources. What I object to is almost exclusively using biased sources. Also, see my reply to Rhododendrites. I'm just claiming that the authors of those specific pages are likely biased. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of Judith Butler's Performativity theory do you think creates a problematic bias in matters of style? I wouldn't think claiming that both gender and biological sex are social constructs is much of a candidate to disqualify anyone on style matters. Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because when a website tries to claim that sex and gender are social constructs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it makes it a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that one sentence claim make the rest of the guide unreliable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a book about geology had a short statement maintaining that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, would you consider it to be a reliable source? Partofthemachine (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on the context of its use. In a general geology article, it could be acceptable in some circumstances if the remainder of the content is uncontroversial. However there would also unquestionably be better sources to chose from.
However we aren't in the article space here, and we're not citing the style guide as policy. We're listing it as one of several that editors can read to supplement our manual of style, in an external links section. However any recommendations from those guides would inherently be overridden by our own policies and guidelines. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. When using an inline citation, you are generally only referencing a very specific section of the relevant source material, not an entire article or website. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are under the impression that performativity theory occupies the same status in scholarship as young earth creationism does, I'm afraid you are not well-informed. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the organisations I linked to, only one; American Chemical Society, does not link directly to the Radical Copyeditor's style guide. The ACS link to the Radical Copyeditor's site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP:IRS prescribes reliability. Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's a positive prescription, and indicates that sites are unreliable until we can prove otherwise. Elizium23 (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that external links sections for MOS pages are articles. This is a style guide used significantly in this field, as evidenced by the list that Sideswipe9th pasted above, and should be included in the external links section. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're mistaken. There are currently five RfCs taking place at WP:RSN on the reliability of specific sources. Of the five only one, Business Insider, has been discussed previously where at the time it was positively found to be reliable. The other four sources are operating from an assumption of reliability until proven otherwise. One of those four looks like it is heading towards deprecation as "generally unreliable". There are of course some exceptions like WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:MEDRS, however this is not a medical article so MEDRS does not apply, and QUESTIONABLE requires proof of poor reputation for fact checking and/or lack of editorial oversight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only relevant question is whether it's a useful supplemental resource. It seems fine to me. We're not adopting it as policy, and this is not an article. That various news orgs, universities, and ... the American Chemical Society ... are dismissed as "proponents of Marxism or critical theory" (...) does not bode well for this thread (or much else). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not claiming that everyone at those institutions is a proponent of those ideologies. I am claiming that the most of the people who wrote pages referencing the blog post in question are. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's some pretty harsh WP:OR in support of your prior assumptions, AFAICT. I don't see anything in that, that would support a policy-compliant decision on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sure that you've got the WP:RS you'd need in order to make that sort of statement about living people. For whats its worth as far as I can tell none of the given sources have "bias" issues vis-a-vis "Marxism or critical theory"" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should keep the link. I have no idea what is "blatantly ridiculous" about the comment that biological sex is a social construct (which does not mean "not a useful idea" or "is unrelated to material reality"). The threshold we have at this essay is not close to that of a reliable source in article space, but reading past the bludgeoning by Partofthemachine in this discussion, Sideswipe9th provides evidence backed up with a compelling rationale for keeping the link. (And if Partofthemachine cannot help but to reply to my accusation of bludgeoning, this will be the opposite of proving it false...) — Bilorv (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's interesting that you say that calling something a social construct is not the same as calling something useless, because most of the postmodernist types who throw around that phrase do indeed use it as just a synonym for "bad". And no, I am not engaged in blugeoning, I am just responding to demonstrably false claims. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential, but ~postmodernists don't see social constructs as "bad" (and don't use the term to mean "bad"). That bad thing is presenting a concept as though it it couldn't be any other way, with some god-given, essential meaning, when its meaning is really wrapped up in complex historical, social, cultural, political, legal, institutional, linguistic, etc. contexts. That's all that these methods/schools/terms really mean -- the critical theorists, poststructuralists, lowercase-m marxists, [almost anything] theorists, critical [almost anything] scholars, and a large swath of the rest of the humanities/social sciences, which have become nearly interchangeable bogeyman for right-wing pundits, especially since Limbaugh: they take a closer look at the all the other stuff taken for granted in our words, concepts, rules, norms, customs, etc., and why things are the way they are. Doesn't mean you have to agree with the conclusions they come to, of course. Just food for thought, seeing this use of postmodernists after the marxists and critical theorists references above. YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care that much about the link, but it doesn't make any sense to call sex a social construct. It's certainly not a social construct in non-human animals - they seem able to attract mates and reproduce quite independent of human discourses. It's like saying that evolution or the coronavirus is a social construct. Or the Round Earth as opposed to the Flat Earth. Yeah, there's a social discourse about them, but there is an underlying material reality being described in a non-arbitrary way that exists independently of humans - which isn't the case for social constructs like money or nations. Crossroads -talk- 20:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More