Talk:Midge Potts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Request for Comments re: Pronoun usage

Issue can be summarized as follows: One party wishes that Midge Potts, a transgendered individual who is biologically male but identifies as female, to be referred to in the article as "she", as Potts lives their life as a female. Another party wishes that since Midge Potts is biologically male, that the article refer to Midge in the masculine throughout. Your thoughts? 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements by editors involved in the process

  • I'm of the view that Potts should be referred to in the feminine. Potts had her name legally changed from Mitch to Midge, and identifies as a female. I believe that the masculine form should only be used when referring to events that happened before she began identifying as a female, such as Potts' military service. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Potts is a cross-dressing man. That's it. He's had neither conventional hormone treatments (his herbal supplements are unproven) nor surgery to change his anatomy. As the old saying goes, you can put a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig. His saying that he "identifies as a woman" doesn't make him a woman anymore than me saying that I identify as a zornblatt beast (see above) makes me one. Name changes are also just as useless for determining gender. If I changed my name to "Bugs Bunny," would that make me a cartoon rabbit? Of course not. You know, if Potts were to die tomorrow, you know what his death certificate would say? "Male." Jinxmchue 01:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Midge has taken more than just herbal supplements. She has taken estrogen and testosterone inhibitors for a few years now. PeteinDC 12:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Got a source for that, because I sure couldn't find one. The only source I found about the issue said he was taking unproven herbal supplements. Jinxmchue 13:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Midge herself, but I guess Wikipedia doesn't take affadavits. PeteinDC 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Do either of you know what it takes for a person to change their sexual identity in a legally recognized way? If sexual reassignment surgery is required to legally change ones sexual identity, than Potts should be referred to as "he." If lesser extreme measures are required to legally change gender identity that don't require surgery, there might be a case to call Potts a "she."--Groovyman 08:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There's some information here, but it's not really conclusive. I think the reissuing of birth certificates is amusing. Typical revisionism. Jinxmchue 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Manual of style on identity has this say -
"Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." I hope this is of some help. Trugster 14:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I knew we'd find the official guideline somewhere on this matter. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This whole debate seems to be pointless, Jinxmchue is on Conservapedia bragging about how none of us "liberals" could counter his claims... It seems to me that the whole point is about trying to find imagined bias and his mind was made up from the beginning. SirChuckB 06:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's very true, considering that a person using the screen name "Jinxmchue" has edited Conservapedia on this topic here. It is quite germane to the discussion, as it has to do with the motive of an editor actively working on the article going against policy. In addition, it is not libelous or slanderous as Jinxmchue claims, as we have verified the truth of the statement by researching Conservapedia's archives. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it is libelous/slanderous because it is not simply being presented in and of itself, but elaborated on by both SirChuckB and yourself in a very biased manner. I don't deny my comments on Conservapedia, but they were made on and for Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. (Last time I checked, outside sources can't be used in the manner you are using them. I'm sure I've seen that argued successfully on Wikipedia before.) You can fabricate whatever "motive" you want from them based upon your personal views, but the comments do not establish motive at all. You want motives? Here are my motives: facts and logic. Fact: Potts is still physically a man. Fact: herbal hormone treatments are not proven. Fact: gender is a matter of one's physical body, not one's personal opinion of oneself. "Self-identity" when it comes to gender is a ridiculous argument that defies facts and logic. A person is not suddenly the opposite gender based simply upon their say-so anymore than a person's species is something other than human because they consider themselves some other creature. David Koresh, Charles Manson and a slew of other nutjobs have "self-identified" as Jesus Christ. Does that mean they actually were Jesus Christ? No, but by the illogic of this "self-identification" nonsense, their articles should state that they all actually were/are Jesus. It is, after all, what they "self-identify" as. Are you prepared to back such changes to Wikipedia? Jinxmchue 00:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Jinx makes a convincing argument here. And I have to concede he is in the right, despite his abrasive attitude, and possible agenda. The only consistently used identifier for gender is the presence of dangly bits. If Potts hasn't had gender reassignment surgery, "she" is technically male, and is either "she" or he - i think inverted commas would be somehwat offensive, so favour he. However the most reasonable course of action is to simply remove all use of pronouns refering Potts. --ZayZayEM 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Oops just read WP:MOS (WP:ID) comment above. Wikipedia rulings trump again.--ZayZayEM 00:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. And it is also where liberal bias trumps again. I'm sure the GLBTs fought long, hard and loudly (or perhaps just loudly) to get Wikipedia to reflect their desires as they are the only people to whom that particular rule applies. Can white people "self-identify" as black people and expect their Wiki articles to state that they are black? Can Canadians "self-identify" as Puerto Ricans and expect their articles to state they are Puerto Ricans? Can kooks like Charles Manson "self-identify" as Jesus Christ and expect their articles to state that they are actually Jesus Christ? In all three cases, of course not. Yet when it comes to so-called "transgenders" who "self-identify" as members of the opposite sex, Wikipedia bends over backwards to fulfill their wishes. Why? Why do they get such treatment when no one else does? You know, "self-identity" is fine. If you want to call yourself a man, woman, black, Puerto Rican or Jesus Christ, go right ahead. However a website that claims to be encyclopedic should never let something as capricious as "self-identity" trump facts (like the facts about Midge here that I have already pointed out several times). Facts are encyclopedic. Persons' opinions about themselves are not, though articles can certainly mention what a person "self-identifies" as. If you really want to continue to defend use of female pronouns for a man who has not had any gender-altering surgery and who has not undergone any proven hormone-replacement treatments, then you also must defend other articles' uses of "self-identity" over facts. It is the only rational, logical conclusion to the can of worms that has been opened in regards to "transgender" people. Jinxmchue 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's time to point this out - if you go to WP:ID, you will read that this issue of "self-identity" is a non-binding guideline (not that you'd think of it as anything other than a binding official policy from the arguments being made). In short, what that means that anyone who edits this or any other article about GLBTs (the Ts in particular) to change the pronouns to reflect established reality (as opposed to fantasies created in people's imaginations) and makes valid arguments for the change is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy - not WP:Vandalism, not WP:BLP, nothing. WP:ID is an extremely weak defense of using feminine pronouns in an article about someone who has not had sex-change surgery and has not undergone proven, traditional hormone replacement therapy. Jinxmchue 16:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just as I said, people are misrepresenting this non-binding guideline as official, binding policy. My change to the pronouns today was reverted with the justification of: "You don't have support to make this against-policy move." It is NOT against policy because there is NO POLICY TO BE AGAINST! Jinxmchue 19:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No more comments? Jinxmchue 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion appears to be over. Jinxmchue 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current protection unjustified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SchuminWeb

  1. 18:16, September 14, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection‎ (→Current requests for protection - Midge Potts)
  2. 18:13, September 14, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Midge Potts‎ (Remove parens)
  3. 18:12, September 14, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Midge Potts‎ (It's not just dressing as, but fully living as a woman...)
  4. 18:11, September 14, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Midge Potts‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Jinxmchue; A number of us made our edits a long time ago. It's not our fault if you ignored us. using TW)

Convenient. It's obvious the request was not made to prevent any edit war (of which there is none), but to protect specific edits. The timing of the request and the fact that it was fulfilled within 3 minutes (see here) despite lacking merit (e.g. only two editors involved, dispute being only a few minutes old) bear this out further. If one truly were concerned with preventing an edit war, the request for protection would've come first. Add to this the fact that Schumin has so far refused to add to the discussion, opting to resort to snarky, uncivil comments in his edit summaries (e.g. "It's not our fault if you ignored us.") and it's very clear what is going on. All discussion about this issue ended over a week ago. Schumin obviously has this article and it's talk page on his watch list as he was quick to revert my edits, so he no doubt was aware of the recent arguments being made by myself and others (mostly myself). His weeks-long non-activity in the discussion (maligning me does not count as activity in regards to issues involving the article) and his current refusal to justify his reverts and comment on the dispute lead me to conclude that this protection is without merit. Jinxmchue 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The protection has merit - we need to work out our differences rather than back-and-forth reverting. That said, the protection process was carried out properly.
On the merits of the reason we're edit warring, the relevant guideline is WP:ID, which is part of the manual of style. Additionally, one should give WP:PG a read, which defines a guideline. Basically, no policy or guideline is applicable in every situation, and these things do change, but one should come to some sort of agreement with other editors about major changes to an article when it might be controversial. Changing the references to gender against the manual of style is something that would likely be controversial.
We have other bias we must also address, such as the use of "unproven" in regards to herbal supplements. That interferes with our NPOV policy, by indicating a bias against such herbal supplements. That should hopefully be an easy fix.
In the end, I want to come to a solution that is amicable to all parties. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly how can one come to an agreement with other editors when other editors fail or, like yourself, even refuse to participate in the discussion? I made arguments for the changes and no one responded to those arguments for over a week. Exactly how much longer should I have waited? Is there some official policy on that? Oh, yes. You made your edits "a long time ago" and it's my fault for "ignoring" you. Real nice, solid, civil reasoning there. Not. I've never - NEVER - seen one Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that an edit's age has any sort of bearing on anything. Yet you seem to think it does. Why? After months of no changes, I re-challenged the pronoun usage and ultimately no one responded to my challenge. Thus, I had every reason to believe that there either was consensus or no one cared. If you disagreed with my challenge, why didn't you respond to my arguments? Why do you still refuse to respond to them (opting to hide them in an archive)? Why don't you defend your edits in a rational manner instead of making baseless excuses about how old some edits are?
re: controversial edits - To whom is it "controversial?" You personally? I personally don't find the edits controversial. I do find calling a person who is physically a man a woman based on nothing more than that person's "self-identity" very controversial and not a path that I think Wikipedia should go down. As I have already pointed out, it would open up a whole can of worms about people "self-identifying" as this, that or the other thing. Why is it only "gender identity" which is viciously protected by editors using this non-binding guideline (which they are desperately and falsely trying to unofficially and surreptitiously trying to make a binding policy)? Why don't articles about people Charles Manson and David Koresh state that they are or were Jesus Christ, because that's who they "self-identify/-ied" as?
re: the herbal supplements - I probably should've included the reference when I found it (esp. now that I can't find it again), but I did originally find a source about herbal supplements for hormone therapy in sex-change procedures that outright stated such supplements were unproven. I did just find this, which is about herbal supplements for hormone therapies involving actual women and I have no doubt that the FDA would have a similar conclusion about herbal supplements for sex-change procedures. It's not bias to point out the findings of a scientific group in good standing. Jinxmchue 16:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
First off, protection is not an endorsement of the current revision- it even says so on edit warring protection tags. Second, you talk about how you want to prevent an edit war, yet you continue to introduce changes into the article that need talk page discussion, such as changing the gender of Midge Potts. Potts refers to herself as a woman, and according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, you should use what they refer to themselves as, not what you believe is right. Even if it is not policy, it is next to it if it is accepted by a large number of Wikipedians, which is is. Third, no agreement was come to in the discussion. You say it is closed, yet nobody else but you agreed with it. That doesn't sound like closed to me. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've never stated that I thought protection was an endorsement of the current revision and I would really appreciate if people would stop portraying me as having made such a statement. What I stated was that the request for protection came only after Schumin got the edits in place that he wanted on the page. Very convenient. If I had done something like that, Schumin's and my roles would be reversed on this issue.
I never said anything about wanting to prevent an edit war because there was no edit war. My edits were justified and made after more than a week of no discussion. Schumin reverted based on nothing but weak arguments about older edits and a false portrayal of a non-binding guideline as official, binding policy. I've never seen a justification like that made or honored before and it seriously compromises other articles. (e.g. I could revert any and all new edits to any other article based upon nothing more than older edits).
As I have stated many times already, the section about "self-identity" is explicitly stated in the MoS as a non-binding guideline, and if you are going to defend calling Potts a woman based on his say-so, then you had better be prepared to defend calling people other things based on their say-so. Of course, that will never fly (and everyone knows it). It is only "gender identity" that is or will ever be defended with this guideline.
Defending a non-binding guideline as "next to [policy] if it is accepted by a large number of Wikipedians" is weak. What about the people who don't accept the guideline? Those people are never mentioned and it's assumed that they are few and far between (just like it's assumed that the people who accept the guideline are "a large number").
Finally, all discussion ceased over a week ago. As I asked Schumin, how much longer should I have waited? Another week? A month? Is there some official policy or non-binding guideline that "is accepted by a large number of Wikipedians" regarding this? Please enlighten me. Jinxmchue 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jinx asked me to take a look at this situation. While I believe that page protection was an appropriate measure, the requestor of protection did violate WP:3RR with this edit, which is a revert of this edit. The editor being an administrator, it is assumed that they were aware that this edit was a 3RR violation. So it is understandable that Jinx would feel that something untoward took place. But be that as it may, the page is protected, and I would hope that the discussion will now shift away from the page protection, and toward the root content issue. On article talk page discussions, silence generally equals consensus, so Jinx cannot be faulted for making a change after a week's silence. Everyone is awake now, so hammer out a new consensus. I have no opinion on the actual content issue at this time. - Crockspot 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If it had been you making those edits, then requesting protection, we'd still be in the same situation. You say that your edits are justified. We are now disputing that. Midge Potts wants to be called a female, so we should call her one in this article. As for discussion, you closed it after four days, without consulting with any participants. And, as said before, just because the Manual of Style is not binding doesn't mean you should ignore it... and "because it is accepted by a large number of Wikipedians" is not weak. For an example, see the community sanction noticeboard- there, bans accepted by a large number of people are considered binding. It has been accepted as consensus on here, and should be treated as such. And if that will never fly, then why is there consensus indicating otherwise? And, again, discussion may have stopped, but it now has resumed, and you should have waited to close until both sides agreed it should have been closed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
If I had made edits and then requested page protection, I've no doubt that (1) Schumin or someone else would be accusing me of using page protection to protect my edits and (2) my edits wouldn't have been protected anyway because I never would've gotten the page protection based on so little activity.
My edits are justified because (1) this issue is about a non-binding guideline that's not set in stone even if there is an alleged consensus, (2) I made my arguments to support the edits, and (3) no one made any counter-arguments for over a week. Regarding that last one, what were they doing? Biding their time? Toying with me? Allowing my arguments to go unchallenged until they felt like springing their trap? (Bonus points to the person who can i.d. where I paraphrased that from.) If consensus is supposedly needed to justify my edits, then people should've made their thoughts known one way or the other. People were either unwilling or unable to do so. They still are, in fact.
I didn't close the discussion, nor did I wait only 4 days. I gave people plenty of time to participate. Look above again. My last substantive arguments were made on September 6th. Four days later - the 10th - I tried to get people to respond. Four more days after that, I concluded that over a week of non-activity by other editors denoted that the discussion was over. Eight days. That's longer than AfD discussions are listed as current. I wasn't going to wait around any longer for "vocalized" consensus that wasn't coming. People had a chance to participate and make their arguments. They didn't.
Bringing up WP:CN is weak, too. Pages like WP:CN and WP:AfD rely on user participation. There are thousands and thousands of Wikipedians, but only a tiny fraction ever get involved in discussion pages like those two. The consensus on those pages is limited to those who participate, which hardly qualifies as "a large number of Wikipedians" when compared to the total number of Wikipedians. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that people who don't make their thoughts known are passively part of the consensus.
Finally, the discussion about pronoun usage stopped and it is still stopped. No one has bothered to add to the discussion. Not even Schumin has added anything regarding pronoun usage despite my urgings for him to do so - especially after he got the page protected. This leads me to believe that the page protection was not requested (note that I am making the distinction between the request and the granting) for the purpose of furthering the discussion or stopping any edit war (real or, more likely, imagined), but to protect specific edits: Schumin's. Jinxmchue 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of policy, WP:3RR doesn't apply until one makes their fourth reversion: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts". Thus my three reversions were at the limit of what is permissible. Beyond that, then by all means, block me, and I would deserve it, too. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The edit I pointed out above was technically a fourth revert. It doesn't have to be a revert of the same content, a revert of any previous content counts. (See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#What is a revert?). Blocks are to be preventive, not punative, so a block would not be appropriate at this time, or serve any useful purpose. Based on your reply, I'm betting this was an honest mistake on your part. WP:3RR can be tricky sometimes. - Crockspot 16:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
On that last-paragraph issue, looking through the article's edit history and the talk page archives, I see four editors other than myself who are not supportive of the pronoun changes. I for one stopped responding when I was satisfied that we had established that the change was unwelcome. Presumably I was mistaken.
Additionally, regarding the pooh-poohing of WP:ID as a "non-binding guideline", one must remember that no policy or guideline is truly binding. It's like what WP:IAR says: "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." The kicker there is "working with others", indicating that others should agree that it is of benefit to the encyclopedia to ignore a rule. From what I can tell, you don't have support to ignore that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SchuminWeb (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes. "Working with others." Used here as code for "you must completely agree with me to work with me." And you keep mentioning "support." What support or lack thereof? Hardly anyone is discussion this issue one way or the other. Jinxmchue 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I see three people who within the last week have supported the "she" side. Trugster, Nwwaew, and myself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So, it now takes the majority of just four people to decide an issue like this? Four people out of how many [established and active] Wikipedians? And it still stands that "working with others" here means me agreeing with you and submitting to the ridiculous female pronoun usage for a man (baby!). Why don't you work with me on this? Jinxmchue 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, I didn't specifically ask you to look at it. I was mostly venting on your talk page. I know you didn't want to touch this discussion with a 10-foot pole... but I might have had a small, teeny-tiny ulterior motive in hoping a little that you would take a look. *ducks* Jinxmchue 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think protection is usually an appropriate measure to take when an edit war is brewing. The current version is more or less status quo, so we're at square one here. Restate your case for your changes, and if you aren't satisfied with the responses, call an RfC on the question, to get some outside opinions. - Crockspot 16:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Note this previous RFC. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As an RFC has been filed I have had a more thorough look at the article (previously I merely quoted a guideline - see above). The protected version of the page - [[1]] - has five references, only two of which work. Of those two, one refers to the subject as Midge, transgendered and she. The other uses Mitchell, Midge and she. With the present level of citation I think that the subject should be referred according to their self identification, since there is no citation for any other interpretation. Again, I hope this is of some help. Trugster | Talk 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


From where I see it, I'm not sure this article necessarily belongs here. The only really noteworthy thing that she did was have the convenience of a seat behind someone on television. Without that moment, there's not really an encyclopedic story to begin with. I could see ther ebeing a story if this person, being transgendered were a pioneer in some way. simply being anti-war or being arrested on the steps of the Supereme Court or being transgendered ... or all three does not seem to meet notability. LonelyBeacon 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Self-identify"

If Potts is a woman because he says so, then all these people were/are Jesus Christ because they said/say so:

List of people who have claimed to be Jesus Christ

Who's going to be the first to step up and change their articles to reflect what they "self-identify" as? Anyone? Bueller? Jinxmchue 16:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This would not be the place to discuss such things. This is the page for discussing improvements to the article about Midge Potts. If you have an issue with WP:ID, then you need to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
But the issue is ultimately it is about this article. Defend the pronoun usage in this one, then you'd better be prepared for all sorts of chaos on Wikipedia. Does it start here or end here? Jinxmchue 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've defended my use of the feminine pronouns already. You know my stand on the issue. Now in regards to your comment where I had "better be prepared for all sorts of chaos on Wikipedia," remember: don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And I've defended my use of the masculine pronouns (despite your attempts to hide them in an archive). I've not disrupted Wikipedia at all. I'm simply pointing out the ultimate outcome of your position. If you defend things based on "self-identity" for one article, then you logically must defend other things in other articles for the same reason. Jinxmchue 20:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And we've defended our use of the feminine pronouns. And what do you mean by "all sorts of chaos on Wikipedia" and "it [starting] and [ending] here"? Even Midge Pott's MySpace says she's female... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Poorly defended, yes. My defense rests on verifiable facts about Potts physical gender: he's had no sex change operation and is not taking traditional and - most importantly - proven hormone treatments. All you (that's the generic "you") are all going on is what's in his head, which is neither verifiable nor factual. And the chaos I refer to is what could happen if this "self-identity" crap is upheld. Think of all the things people "self-identity" as. For example, see my Wiki link above to people who have claimed to be (i.e. "self-identified" as) Jesus Christ. If Potts is actually a woman because he says so, then everyone who claims to be Jesus Christ is actually Jesus Christ because they say so and the articles about them would logically have to be altered to reflect this. Not "Charles Manson claims to be Jesus Christ" or "David Koresh claimed to be Jesus Christ," but "Charles Manson is Jesus Christ" and "David Koresh was Jesus Christ." Is that what you guys want for Wikipedia? I don't. "Self-identity" is nonsense and un-encyclopedic garbage.Jinxmchue 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
As SamBC said at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style#Self-identification, your "Jesus Christ" comparison is not quite the same. Apples, oranges. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's really not apples and oranges. Not the way the guideline is written. It makes absolutely no distinction between someone "self-identifying" as a woman or someone "self-identifying" as Jesus Christ. It simply says "use the terms the person uses for himself" (paraphrasing, of course). Jinxmchue 16:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) There actually is no evidence to the contrary about her having a sex change. Also, just because the hormones aren't "traditional" doesn't mean they're not taking hormones at all. And, as for chaos, what if Midge Potts searched herself on Google one day, found this article was referring to her as a he, and made legal threats against the Wikimedia Foundation? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference #3 (which is unfortunately temporarily suspended) made mention of Potts not having a sex change operation.
The herbal hormones aren't simply non-traditional. They quite seriously have not been found by the FDA to be proven to work.
"What if" arguments are meaningless and an underhanded tactic to try to fabricate support for one's position. They also would create more chaos than you imagine they would prevent. There's a lot of material on Wikipedia that if the articles' subjects were to see it might cause a lot of problems. Sorry, but "what if" arguments simply are not valid for retaining or removing material. Jinxmchue 06:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed conflict resolution

Calling Potts "transgendered" is fine, but I think it should be clarified that he's a man who "self-identifies" as a woman.

As far as pronouns are concerned, how about not using pronouns at all? For every "he/she" or "him/her" used for Potts, let's just use "Potts." For example, change this:

She now lives off of Social Security disability benefits.

To this

Potts now lives off of Social Security disability benefits.

Can we find consensus on this? Jinxmchue 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the language typically applied to such matters, your initial suggestion could be reasonably rephrased as the person in question being a biological male who self-identifies as a woman. In the context of transgender issues, "man" and "woman" refer to gender, which is principally a matter of identification (self-identification), while "male" and "female", often with "biological" prepended, refer to plumbing, or "sex"; pronoun usage follows gender rather than sex. Insisting on referring to a woman, whatever their plumbing, as a man, or equivalently using male pronouns, is deeply insulting to the individual, and as such could contribute to BLP problems. SamBC(talk) 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster's entry for gender places biology before "self-identity" (see definition 2a, which mentions sex, which in turn also places biology before all else), so I find your argument about gender being principally a matter of identification specious at best. Ask yourself what gender a medical examiner would assign Potts on his death certificate if he were to die tomorrow. The ME would take one look at Potts male genitals, lack of breast tissue, and five o'clock shadow and determine that Potts was a man. The issue of "self-identification" wouldn't enter into it at all. Jinxmchue 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and let's make sure to draw a distinction between gender and "gender-identity." Jinxmchue 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Gender is a social construct. What the chromosomes say and what's in someone's jockey shorts doesn't mean squat in this case. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
From personal experience I know that, in the US, gender-ID is generally accepted if you can convince the DMV, and they do not require any replumbing as evidence of the gender identity. SamBC(talk) 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a reliable source on that. Seems suspect. If it were true, anyone could easily falsify their ID. Jinxmchue 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion itself is not entirely useful. Use of the proper name rather than pronouns is actually a fairly well-accepted way of avoiding the problem on a very small scale, but the article is already rather light on pronouns. Certainly, repetition of the name within a single sentence should be avoided as stylistically incredibly ugly. SamBC(talk) 17:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There are ways of rewriting sentences to avoid repetition. Jinxmchue 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(Note: party in the dispute; filed the Request for Comment)

Disagree, per SamBC. We don't want to insult Midge Potts, should she see the article herself. That itself could open up a huge can of worms. Her MySpace page refers to herself as she, and if thats not a good enough reference, then where the heck can we get a better one? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 04:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Since when are facts that supposedly insulting a person a justification for the inclusion of exclusion of material on Wikipedia? Does that protection extend to someone like President George W. Bush or just people like Potts? Do you honestly think that if I were to make the "let's not insult them" argument in regards to this, it would fly? If Potts doesn't want to be insulted by facts, then maybe he should work on getting proven hormone treatments and a sex change operation. Let him sue if he wants, but the case isn't going to have any merit. Jinxmchue 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
...and we're back at square one. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere, too. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation filed

I have officially filed a request for mediation regarding the Midge Potts article. I have already notified the parties in the dispute on their talk pages, but if anyone wants to join in, your input would be appreciated on the case. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay for to add oneself as a party on the mediation page? I just got involved recently since the issue was raised at WT:MOS. SamBC(talk) 21:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why not... SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead and join in. The more minds we have, the better. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration (now a request for comment)

Since Jinxmchue refused the mediation request, I want a vote on whether or not I should file an arbcomm case. This will be a majority vote, not a unanimous one. Majority decision will strongly influence whether or not I file a case.

  1. Agree. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: arbcomm can't handle a content dispute. They're just for user conduct issues, and if you think there's a user conduct problem it's appropriate to file an RfC first. SamBC(talk) 16:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Then consider a user RFC filed. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwwaew2 (talk • contribs)
Fabulous, stick the link here and I'll stick my name on it as well, so that it's accepted. SamBC(talk) 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Can you notify him and finish it? I'm out of time here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwwaew2 (talk • contribs)

This is completely unnecessary. I was willing to go along with the mediation if my position were correctly stated (without being insulting). Siddhartha H. Buddha! This is not worth it. Keep the bloody pronouns. I'm not wasting any more time on this issue. Happy now? You got your way. Hurray for forced consensus! Jinxmchue 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, we told you to state your own position... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consider the dispute closed?

Since Jinxmchue has backed down from his position, shall we close the RFCs and request that Midge Potts be unprotected? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put it as It.

this is Pre-op so it is scientifically a man but since it choses to live as a woman the pronoun "It" capital 'I' will be the most respectful or just put midge instead of a pronoun (69.34.22.193 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Whoa, there, cowboy. Before you go down this road, please make sure you've read all of the previous discussion on the current talk page as well as on the archive page regarding pronoun usage, where a number of users have spelled out exactly why we refer to Potts in the feminine. In addition, Wikipedia's manual of style, specifically the section on identity, where it states:
“ A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference as to how this should be managed. ”
Therefore, as Potts presently identifies as female, the feminine should be used. As I've said before, if you have problems with the guideline we're following, you need to take that concern up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torture - alleged or not

Although I personally consider the admitted actions of the US in places like Guantanamo to be torture, it's my understanding that this is still not fully determined in any legal sense; a CNN article certainly counts only as an allegation, while a UN report has more weight but is still not a legal judgement.

Would we describe someone as a murderer if they were accused, awaiting trial, but denied the accusation? Certainly here in the UK the media would never do so - they would use the term "alleged", as this article did until very recently.

Now, the addition of the CNN article as a source is a good thing, but I think we should try to maintain some semblance of neutrality here, and one of the best ways to ensure neutrality is to lean slightly against one's own opinions, especially when there is no voice for the other side. So, what should we do - alleged, or not? SamBC(talk) 10:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I threw an "alleged" back in there, since (A) it's not a settled matter, and (B) won't be a settled matter for the foreseeable future. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its a commonly known fact that The United States will get away with anything they are accused of, but because Sambc worded it so well, I'll raise no objections EnzoRoyale (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)