Knowledgekid87 (talk | contribs) →Relevant Wikipedia policies: Notability is one |
|||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*[[WP:COMMONNAME]] |
*[[WP:COMMONNAME]] |
||
*[[MOS:IDENTITY]] |
*[[MOS:IDENTITY]] |
||
*[[WP:N]] |
|||
=== Evidence from reliable sources on what names they use === |
=== Evidence from reliable sources on what names they use === |
Revision as of 16:48, 2 September 2013
Please do not use this page to debate the move. For now, this page is intended for those building a case for a move.
Evidence
Relevant Wikipedia policies
Below is a listing of Wikipedia policies that may be relevant to this discussion. They are sorted in alphabetic order so as to remain neutral.
Evidence from reliable sources on what names they use
This section can be used to gather evidence from reliable sources on usage of Chelsea Manning, Breanna Manning and Bradley Manning.
News agencies using Chelsea Manning:
- The Guardian: [1]
- Associated Press: Politico covers NYT and AP. Examples: [2]
- New York Times: Politico covers NYT and AP. Examples:
- Washington Post: [3]
- Daily Mail (UK): [4]
- TIME: [5][6].
- NPR: [7]
- The Huffington Post (per [8]
- RT: [9]
- Rolling Stone: [10]
- New York Magazine: [11]
- The New Republic: [12]
- The Telegraph: [13]
- The Independent [14]
- The New Yorker [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaqueate (talk • contribs) 09:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
News agencies using Bradley Manning
Sources specifically discussing media usage
- “Chelsea” is winning, TIME (magazine), August 28
Evidence from reliable sources on how naming decisions affect trans people
This section can also be used to gather reliable sources that discuss the use of names to refer to trans people. Note that this move request covers only the naming portion, and not the pronoun question.
- Subsection of Trans media watch submission to the Leveson Inquiry (press controls in the UK, [20]). On page 11 they discuss methods by which the press aggress against trans people; the first bulletpoint in that section:
- "Routine use of previous names - even when the use of these names is intensely painful or places them in actual danger. Typically a transitioning transsexual person will wish to move on from their previous identity, having perhaps lived in deep distress within that ’identity’ in the past. They may be working with colleagues who know nothing of their past, or they may not have revealed their life story to neighbours. Gratuitous revelation can lead to abuse. Further, for transgender people who have a Gender Recognition Certificate, it is illegal for an individual working in an "official capacity" to disclose a person’s previous name. They are, for all legal purposes, recognised in the gender in which they live. This seldom makes any difference to the press."
- "The use of ‘before’ names as well as photographs of the individuals in question not only causes obvious distress but can place them at risk" (Leveson Inquiry, section 3.20 on p65, summary)
- Wikipedia’s Deadnaming Violence ("our old name are frequently weaponised against us, often as a precursor to physical violence. And the violence of weaponized old names springs from the same disrespect, mockery, and hatred that informs fatal physical violence. These are all connected.") (Urban Achives)
- Juliet Jacques article discussing choosing a new name. She states that someone using her old name can be "a mistake [or] a malicious attempt to undermine my identity".
Comments (on the above sources only)
It's worth pointing out that what here constitutes a 'reliable source' will necessarily limit the examples that are able to be given here. Representation of trans folk by trans people in newspapers is pretty thin on the ground, as are stories that factually recount e.g. suicide rates together with contributing factors. This section is worthwhile and I shall contribute if I have time (moving house again + jobhunt), but people need to be aware that asking for reliable sourcing of the effects on a group with little to no media access is going to be difficult. 7daysahead (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
(On Leveson Inquiry) This states clearly that the use of previous names is intensely painful to trans people (and is illegal in the UK in certain circumstances). 7daysahead (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
(On Urban Achives article) I don't see this passing muster as a 'reliable source'. 7daysahead (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is a blog written by a scholar whose research interests include digital media ethics, and specifically discusses this particular case (the Wikipedia Manning case). Josh Gorand (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Does that not fall foul of WP:OR? Perhaps we need clarification of what reliable sources means here. (Thanks for fixing my poor formatting) 7daysahead (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Self-published sources are OK as sources when they are written by experts. In any case, that blog post is just cited here on this talk page, not in an article, and is helpful to explain how this is perceived by transgendered people because it addresses the specific topic. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Does that not fall foul of WP:OR? Perhaps we need clarification of what reliable sources means here. (Thanks for fixing my poor formatting) 7daysahead (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
(On General LGBT sources as references for identification in this specific case) I hatted my long winded explanation which may be read by un-hatting. Example, the Leveson Inquiry recounts how trans people can feel intense emotional pain by being referred to by previous name. It is equally important though, not to associate criminality and instability to GID for people other than Manning. Sources that simply reflect the perspective of the subject w/o the perspective of the group risk being stereotypical. As an example, Osama bin Laden identified as Islamic and Arabic. It would be extremely offensive to portray his notable acts stemming from Islam or Arabian identification. Manning used GID as justification in court for assaulting a senior female enlisted person, releasing classified information and for emotional instability. Just like there are guides for generally describing followers of Islam, it may be disparaging to the group go overboard when describing a follower that committed crimes they attributed to that religion. Whence, making GID the central topic for Manning overlooks the crimes that made her notable. Any source should be tailored directly at Manning and not a general source for GID. --03:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- So you (unsigned contributrix) require only reliable sources that tell us how Manning feels about her name, rather than the name of trans women. That would limit the available sources to zero (a nonexistent essay by Manning) and is not a helpful suggestion. The thing about the GID defense is that it is valid: transition or preparing to transition is incredibly destablising, with 84% considering suicide[21] (40% making at least one attempt), and being trapped in a hyper-masculine environment could lead a person to do something foolish, be it suicide or lashing out.
- Finally in your hatted section below you say that "My concern is recognizing Manning as a woman may do a great injustice and disservice to transwoman that have actually had therapy, surgery, etc and have lived as a woman.". This is completely counter to Wikipedia's dedication to fact: I don't recognise Chelsea Manning as a woman based on my personal opinion of her - I recognize her as a woman because it's true. 7daysahead (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Show to read |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think it's also worth considering that GID in this case was used as a mitigating factor to explain emotional instability, assaulting a senior female enlisted person, and disclosing classified information. Manning has expressed a desire to live as a woman and be referred to as Chelsea. However, I find the evidence lacking that she lived as a woman for any length of time (and possibly this explains emotional distress/instability as she wasn't allowed to in the Army). It is an odd choice to join the military where DADT was accepted but certainly not transgender lifestyles. My concern is recognizing Manning as a woman may do a great injustice and disservice to transwoman that have actually had therapy, surgery, etc and have lived as a woman. Manning's GID was used to explain away criminal behavior. GID is perhaps one of the few LGBT expressions of sexuality that are treated medically. Because of that (GID treatment by medical professionals, use as a mitigating factor fro criminal behavior), I think the bar for making the gender claim is higher than other self-identifying sexualities where it is no longer considered disorder. Imagine in the past where homosexuality was considered a disorder and a pedophile used that to mitigate a molestation charge yet there was no evidence or slight evidence that the pedophile had any adult same-sex relationships. That person would be using the old DSM medical diagnoses to mitigate his crime but inexorably he is tying pedophilia to homosexuality and stigmatizing being gay. I think every gay male person has to overcome the pedophile stereotype because of that. Certainly if someone today claimed to be gay and that's the reason for pedophilia, the LGBT community would want more evidence than just a self-declaration of being gay to be recognized as such and certainly make sure that pedophilia and homosexuality are not related. I don't think anyone would be clamoring to identify a pedophile as gay as they were leaving the courthouse after being convicted. Imagine the press release "I am not a pedophile, I'm a gay pedophile. Please refer to me that way from now on." Manning's crimes aren't sexual in nature but he is blaming gender dysphoria for criminal behavior and to mitigate any punishment he may receive because of it. He is not doing the LGBT community any favors. As an example of the difference, we have a local High School teacher that was born with male genitalia. At some point, she recognized she was female, she sought out the appropriate medical help, started hormone therapy, legally changed her name for social security and drivers license and over a school summer she returned to the classroom as a woman. I have no idea what hormone therapy she did or whether she had surgery but it is immaterial. She is a woman. That person went through a personal transformation that was difficult on friends, family, co-workers, etc, but she is the person that has leapt more hurdles than Manning and her self-identity carries much more weight, IMO, than Manning and she is entitled to be called a woman simply based on how she lives and wishes to be called. She managed to teach high school as a man without fighting superiors, emotional instability and criminal behavior. I understand the desire to be accepting since this is exactly the story of the teacher above. Her decision shows how transgender people are conflicted and acceptance of their personal decisions and medical decisions made with medical professionals should be accepted without question or derision. The teacher had no other motive than to live as she wished to live. Manning, however, has not shown this. Manning used it as a tool in a criminal trial. It may turn out that Manning is female and just as conflicted as the teacher and would go through all the same processes to live how she wants to live. But it demeans the teacher and others with GID to simply accept Manning's account of how his GID led him to commit crimes and be emotionally unstable. Manning is not a GID poster child with virtually no history of living as a woman and I still haven't seen an actual account of a diagnosis for GID (the Army classified it as a working adjustment disorder but mentioned gender identity as a possible contributing factor). Because of the disservice that it does to transgender persons to associate GID with the emotional instability, untrustworthy behavior and violence exhibited by Manning, I think the bar is higher than just self-identity. I would much prefer to wait until he is a) treated and diagnosed, b) lives as a woman and c) shows that those actions have overcome the items she attributed to being "Bradley." I am neither qualified nor inclined to rush to a judgement on Manning's psychological gender. But I think there needs to be time and space before Manning's criminal actions stigmatize persons with GID. Accepting that Manning's behavior is explained by GID is to deny opportunity for others with GID. |
Move request
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.
Request move from Bradley Manning -> Chelsea Manning