Chelsea Manning name row: Wikipedia editors banned from trans pages - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RosettaStoned;42670567]It reminds me of when a kid at school would only allow you to address him by a nickname he made up, despite everyone already knowing him perfectly well by his regular name.[/QUOTE] I think this discussion might be a bit too advanced for you. Finish infant school then come back and try again. If you are going to post in threads, it helps to have some idea what you are talking about, in this case, transgender issues.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;42670724]I think this discussion might be a bit too advanced for you. Finish infant school then come back and try again. If you are going to post in threads, it helps to have some idea what you are talking about, in this case, transgender issues.[/QUOTE] Why are so many Facepunchers who post supporting "transgender issues" so smarmy? Its really off putting and sets a terrible example. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] I mean, seriously. - [QUOTE=hexpunK;42670724]I think this discussion might be a bit too advanced for you. Finish infant school then come back and try again. If you are going to post in threads, it helps to have some idea what you are talking about, in this case, transgender issues.[/QUOTE] Read that. Really read it and tell me that doesn't make you sound like a huge douche. Its not like anything I've said has been elegantly put, but holy fuck. You have the same attitude as the people who claim transgender people are disgusting, godless freaks; you're just on the other side of the coin.

[QUOTE=RosettaStoned;42670765]Why are so many Facepunchers who post supporting "transgender issues" so smarmy? Its really off putting and sets a terrible example. [editline]27th October 2013[/editline] I mean, seriously. - Read that. Really read it and tell me that doesn't make you sound like a huge douche. Its not like anything I've said has been elegantly put, but holy fuck. lmao[/QUOTE] Not really fussed about being called a "huge douche" by a guy giving someone shit for wanting to change their name. I mean, I won't deny I'm bring a huge douche there, but I don't particularly care if someone being more awful than me tries to call me out.

I'm not seeing the big issue here. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#Identity]Wikipedia policy states that [i]"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification",[/i][/url] and performing a search for Bradley Manning just automatically redirects you to the Chelsea Manning page. (So there's no chance of people missing the article) There's really no ambiguity in what should be done

[QUOTE=RichyZ;42670964]are you sayin' that we should name the page "that manning person" cuz i think thats exactly what you're saying i like the way you think![/QUOTE] no it's womanning now stop being insensitive

[QUOTE=Zeke129;42671087]no it's womanning now stop being insensitive[/QUOTE] Schrödinger-American (citation needed) Schrödinger-Imperialist (citation needed) Schrödinger-Yankee (citation needed) Ex-Soldier Leaks-Queen of Gitmo and Various Other Prisons Chelbrad Womanning. That is the only title which will appease the masses of Facepunch and the general internet and serves as a wonderful compromise.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;42670862]I'm not seeing the big issue here. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#Identity]Wikipedia policy states that [i]"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification",[/i][/url] and performing a search for Bradley Manning just automatically redirects you to the Chelsea Manning page. (So there's no chance of people missing the article) There's really no ambiguity in what should be done[/QUOTE] Already brought up on the first page. What you referenced only pertains to the pronouns, possessive adjectives and gendered nouns and not their actual name. The problem is that Manning still hasn't changed her name legally, so regardless of the page title it should be immediately clear what their legal name is.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42669376]Wikipedia isn't just a database of legal names though.[/QUOTE] Obviously, and as such wikipedia should try to capture a wide scope of information. But as many in the oppose group are citing, wikipedia also has a clarity requirement. The majority of people know Charlie Sheen as Charlie Sheen and not his birth name. As such the page is titled as such. But even so the article is written from the point of their birth and legal name. With Manning I do believe the correct thing would be to title it with their actual name (as that is actually famous), use the name in the text and add, make the text gender neutral and add in a section about their attempts to have their name and gender changed to female. A lot of my reasoning also stems from the fact, that the name is not yet seen as legal anywhere and unless I am mistaken, the same goes for Manning's gender identity. As such I would consider the notion to change it well premature. [QUOTE=Paige;42669906]I like how the only reason anyone doesn't want it as Chelsea is "ew trannies r icky!!!!" Nearly every post asking it to be Bradley has either misgendered her or put her pronoun in quotation marks. Pretty sad but it's FP after all.[/QUOTE] Apart from a few cases I generally don't see this arguing. The majority are arguing about it from a clarity standpoint in combination with the fact that Manning's legal name is being used by far more commonly than their assumed name.

The pronoun "he" refers to a person being a male, correct? Manning hasn't had a sex change yet and is still physically a male. So it seems "he" is the correct pronoun to use. I know of no definition of the word "he" that includes the desire of the person involved. On the Wiki page... I honestly don't care. I'm fine with Chelsea Manning being linked to from the Bradley Manning page.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42674955]The pronoun "he" refers to a person being a male, correct? Manning hasn't had a sex change yet and is still physically a male. So it seems "he" is the correct pronoun to use. I know of no definition of the word "he" that includes the desire of the person involved.[/QUOTE] Pronouns are used to describe people and their identities, not bodily configurations. Manning identity is female, ergo she's a she. It's extremely rude and unnecessary to use the wrong pronouns when referring to a transgender person.

[QUOTE=Tweevle;42675038]Pronouns are used to describe people and their identities, not bodily configurations. Manning identity is female, ergo she's a she.[/QUOTE] You can say that, but it simply isn't true. Look up "he" in any dictionary. It refers to the physical sex of the person, not gender identity. (Oxford, Webster, etc.) [QUOTE]It's extremely rude and unnecessary to use the wrong pronouns when referring to a transgender person.[/QUOTE] I contend that it isn't wrong. My fear is that we keep making words more and more vague which in turn hurts the language as a whole. Why can't we just say that he is a man who identifies as a women? What is offensive about that? It doesn't lessen the value of what he is, but it does give us more information than if we just say she, a more clear picture of who Chelsea Manning is: namely, a man who desires to be a woman, as opposed to just being a woman. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] Just as an example: Consider the sentence: "He is transsexual." Using my definition you know that there is a man who identifies as a woman. Using your definition you don't know if the "he" refers to a male who identifies as a woman or a woman who identifies as a man, and is therefore transsexual. A follow up question is necessary to really know what is going on.

uh if you use the (correct) use of the term as referring to gender identity than you understand "He is transexual" to be female to male no follow up needed btw looked it up in dictionaries and they're all super vague I prefer to identify people by their minds not their genitals

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42675250]uh if you use the (correct) use of the term as referring to gender identity than you understand "He is transexual" to be female to male no follow up needed[/QUOTE] It's silly to say that 'he' has no reference to sex as shown by animals. We have no idea what the gender identify of animals are and yet still refer to them as 'he' or 'she' based purely on physical characteristics. This logically carries over to humans as well. [QUOTE]btw looked it up in dictionaries and they're all super vague[/QUOTE] They aren't vague at all. Here's the Oxford Dictionary which follows the same process as all the others, as far as I can tell. In the end it all comes down to the scientific definition of male and female with zero mention of gender identification. - Oxford Dictionary He: "used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified" Man: "an adult human male" Male: "of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring"

Except animals are lesser to humans and they cannot tell us what they want to be called.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42675316]It's silly to say that 'he' has no reference to sex as shown by animals. We have no idea what the gender identify of animals are and yet still refer to them as 'he' or 'she' based purely on physical characteristics. [/QUOTE] I'm not about to pretend to be an expert on animal gender but a) we talk to other humans differently b) going by physical characteristics is still a good assumption when you don't know and well then I suppose the dictionaries are out-dated. Dictionaries don't determine language, communication determines language and dictionaries record it.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;42675367]Except animals are lesser to humans and they cannot tell us what they want to be called.[/QUOTE] He claimed the words 'he' and 'she' to have zero reference to physical sexuality. This would mean we also shouldn't call animals 'he' or 'she' based on physical sexuality.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42675373]He claimed the words 'he' and 'she' to have zero reference to physical sexuality. This would mean we also shouldn't call animals 'he' or 'she' based on physical sexuality.[/QUOTE] yeah man I said that wait no I didn't sex and gender are closely tied, but not absolute. Trans people are an exception to a rule.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42675377]yeah man I said that wait no I didn't[/QUOTE] "uh if you use the (correct) use of the term as referring to gender identity" - Venezuelan If the correct use of the term is referring to gender identity then it isn't referring to physical sexuality. If it refers to both then my original point of making the language more vague is proven correct.

Except I think he's referring to just humans

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;42675414]Except I think he's referring to just humans[/QUOTE] That makes no sense. What other word has a completely different definition when referring to humans as opposed to anything else? (especially something as foundational as a basic pronoun) Even with that said, it still wouldn't be true. If it ONLY refers to human gender identity and not human physical sexuality then you wouldn't be able to say 'he' or 'she' without first knowing that person's gender identification, which simply isn't the case. I can refer to a man I see in a parking lot as 'he' without having any idea what he identifies as and everyone will know that I'm saying he has a penis and looks like a man, not that I'm assuming he identifies as a male.

Fox

[QUOTE=sgman91;42675091]You can say that, but it simply isn't true. Look up "he" in any dictionary. It refers to the physical sex of the person, not gender identity. (Oxford, Webster, etc.)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Oxford Dictionaries] pronoun [third person singular] used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously mentioned or easily identified:everyone liked my father—he was the perfect gentleman[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Merriam-Webster] : that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer <he is my father>[/QUOTE] Neither of these mention physical sex. [QUOTE=sgman91;42675091]I contend that it isn't wrong. My fear is that we keep making words more and more vague which in turn hurts the language as a whole. Why can't we just say that he is a man who identifies as a women? What is offensive about that? It doesn't lessen the value of what he is, but it does give us more information than if we just say she, a more clear picture of who Chelsea Manning is: namely, a man who desires to be a woman, as opposed to just being a woman.[/QUOTE] Because she isn't "a man who identifies as a woman" or "a man who desires to be a woman". She's a woman. She also (presumably) happens to have male genitalia, but that's besides the point as far as her being a woman is concerned. In a practical terms, woman and the associated pronouns are gender terms, not physical sex terms. Using them as the latter is not only extremely rude and hurtful to the people you misgender, but it also does a lot more to muddy and hurt the language than the alternative (referring to people as they identify), because you end up calling people men who fit barely any of the qualities associated with men, and vice versa. If you simply have to argue the point further I make the case in more detail in [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1308968&p=42253951&viewfull=1#post42253951"]this post.[/URL] [QUOTE=sgman91;42675091]Using your definition you don't know if the "he" refers to a male who identifies as a woman or a woman who identifies as a man, and is therefore transsexual. A follow up question is necessary to really know what is going on.[/QUOTE] No, you'd know he identifies as a man, and therefore he's a transman a.k.a. female-to-male transsexual person. It's pretty simple. Tbh all insisting on deliberately misgendering transgender people does is make you an arshole. If you want to be an arsehole, that's your perogative, but make no mistake, that's what you're being.

[QUOTE=Tweevle;42675534]Neither of these mention physical sex.[/QUOTE] I already showed that they do. If you continue looking up the words 'male'/'man' you will see that they refer solely to a physical trait and not a gender identification. Please read the argument at hand before posting. [QUOTE]Because she isn't "a man who identifies as a woman" or "a man who desires to be a woman". She's a woman.[/QUOTE] Not by any officially recognized definition of the word woman. [QUOTE]In a practical terms, woman and the associated pronouns are gender terms, not physical sex terms. Using them as the latter is not only extremely rude and hurtful to the people you misgender, but it also does a lot more to muddy and hurt the language than the alternative (referring to people as they identify), because you end up calling people men who fit barely any of the qualities associated with men, and vice versa. If you simply have to argue the point further I make the case in more detail in [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1308968&p=42253951&viewfull=1#post42253951"]this post.[/URL] No, you'd know he identifies as a man, and therefore he's a transman a.k.a. female-to-male transsexual person. It's pretty simple.[/QUOTE] I've already addressed this. Please respond to that if you want to continue with this line of reasoning. Animals are very clearly called 'he' or 'she' based on their physical sex. It is logical to carry this to humans as well. If the word 'he' refers solely to physical sex than a man who identifies as a woman fits all the qualities associated with being a male. We already have a word to describe someone who doesn't fit the social qualities of being a man, namely: transsexual, gay, bisexual, etc. [QUOTE]Tbh all insisting on deliberately misgendering transgender people does is make you an arshole. If you want to be an arsehole, that's your perogative, but make no mistake, that's what you're being.[/QUOTE] You define a word differently than any major, official, dictionary and then call people arsholes for disagreeing with your definition. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] A person who is sexually a man, but mentally a woman is different than a person who is sexually a woman and mentally a woman. It is much more clear to call the first a transsexual man and the second a woman then call both a woman.

The modern english language is comprised of modifications and misspellings and slang from older languages are you unaware that language is a social construct which evolves

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42675861]The modern english language is comprised of modifications and misspellings and slang from older languages are you unaware that language is a social construct which evolves[/QUOTE] This isn't an argument. Saying that things CAN evolve =/= things HAVE evolved. The fact that all officially recognized markers for the English language agree with me seems to push heavily on the side of my definition. Do you have any evidence, beyond your personal opinion, that you're definition is more socially recognized than mine?

No but considering dictionaries must logically lag behind social language changes that's not really an argument either

[QUOTE=sgman91;42675780]I already showed that they do. If you continue looking up the words 'male'/'man' you will see that they refer solely to a physical trait and not a gender identification. Please read the argument at hand before posting. Not by any officially recognized definition of the word woman. I've already addressed this. Please respond to that if you want to continue with this line of reasoning. Animals are very clearly called 'he' or 'she' based on their physical sex. It is logical to carry this to humans as well. If the word 'he' refers solely to physical sex than a man who identifies as a woman fits all the qualities associated with being a male. We already have a word to describe someone who doesn't fit the social qualities of being a man, namely: transsexual, gay, bisexual, etc. You define a word differently than any major, official, dictionary and then call people arsholes for disagreeing with your definition. [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] A person who is sexually a man, but mentally a woman is different than a person who is sexually a woman and mentally a woman. It is much more clear to call the first a transsexual man and the second a woman then call both a woman.[/QUOTE] You can argue semantics and definitions and technicalities in an attempt to justify bigotry all you want but at the end of the day all youre doing is putting down a human being who just wants to be happy and recognized for who they are.

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42675928]No but considering dictionaries must logically lag behind social language changes that's not really an argument either[/QUOTE] Wait, you're claiming that dictionaries have zero value when trying to find the definition of words? [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42675934]You can argue semantics and definitions and technicalities in an attempt to justify bigotry all you want but at the end of the day all youre doing is putting down a human being who just wants to be happy and recognized for who they are.[/QUOTE] Best ad hominem 2013! Why not call me Hitler while you're at it? Notice how I haven't said a single bad thing about transsexuals or Chelsea Manning. I even supported the Wikipedia name change.

[QUOTE=sgman91;42675940]Wait, you're claiming that dictionaries have zero value when trying to find the definition of words? [editline]28th October 2013[/editline] Best ad hominem 2013! Why not call me Hitler while you're at it?[/QUOTE] If the definition is causing unnecessary harm to a persecuted minority then the definition should be changed and if youre really going to argue "the dictionary says this so im going to call you a he even though it insults you" then yeah that makes you an asshole

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42676054]If the definition is causing unnecessary harm to a persecuted minority then the definition should be changed and if youre really going to argue "the dictionary says this so im going to call you a he even though it insults you" then yeah that makes you an asshole[/QUOTE] The correct way to address that situation is for the minorities in question to understand that no offense is intended and that this helps to preserve clarity of language instead of the entire society changing in order to conform to the minorities will while also confusing traditional definitions. There's nothing inherently offensive about having the word 'he' continue to refer to physical traits instead of changing it to gender identification. On the other hand, the word nigger IS inherently offensive because it's traditional definition was negative in nature.