Talk:Midge Potts/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Better photo of Midge

I have a better photo of Midge that I can provide from a protest rally last January. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Projecting" as a woman

This is what is ridiculous about transgenderism. "Projecting" oneself as a woman does not make you a woman anymore than "projecting" oneself as a Martian makes one a Martian. Just a comment. Jinxmchue 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Pronouns

I think the pronouns should probably be altered a bit; for now I'm going to change most of them to feminine (leaving alone ones referring to her male life), because it seems to me that the use of all-masculine pronouns could be interpreted as being some sort of veiled form of criticism of gender identity disorder, and this is not the article for that sort of thing (Potts clearly identifies as female, so it would be most accurate to use feminine pronouns). Also, the above comment is a little unnecessary (and logically flawed: it is impossible to define "male/man" and "female/woman" without using some sort of reference to presentation or perception). If you have an opinion on trans people, please take it to a debate or political forum.TheTomato 05:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. As "Mitch", yes, use masculine terms. As "Midge", use feminine. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The above comment - mine - is not flawed, logically or otherwise. Despite his make-up, hair style, and clothing, "Midge" is still physically male (last I heard, anyway). Even with a "sex change," he would still be biologically male, with XY chromosomes. What he's doing is no different than if I painted my skin green, stuck a those springy antenna things on my head, renamed myself "Zornblat" and told people that I was a Martian. I would be laughed at if I did that and people would be right to do so. Changing my appearance is no justification for calling me anything other than what I am. And this man's current appearance is no reason to use any pronouns other than the ones people used when he was born. Jinxmchue 13:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at articles about other transgendered people via List of transgender people, and all the ones I looked at refer to the people by their target gender. In other words, if a male began living as a female, the article uses "she". Closest article to Midge's is Calpernia Addams, where they served in the US Navy. But note the use of "she" throughout. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It's just as ridiculous in any other article, especially when someone has not even gotten a sex change operation. Someone like "Midge" who acts and dresses like a women but is still a man (afaik) is nothing more than a cross-dresser. Jinxmchue 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Status of Potts' gender alteration and pronouns

I added some information that shows that Potts has not undergone either conventional hormone therapy or surgery. This makes him nothing more than a cross-dressing man, which means he still falls under the broad header of "transgender," but does not justify calling him "she" or "her." Jinxmchue 01:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gender Identity

Midge's identity is female. That is what is important here. She considers herself female, and almost all of her friends and associates consider her female. I am switching it back to the female pronoun. Also, she has undergone some hormone treatments for several years now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteinDC (talk • contribs)

Thank you. Also, I'm thinking I know the answer to this question already, but I'm asking it anyway to get it on the record: Do you agree that in the times of life described in the article where Midge was "Mitch" that those should be referred to in the masculine, and the rest feminine? SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hogwash. By that standard, anyone could be anything just because they say so. I could say I was a Ferclavian zornblatt beast from the 10th dimension if I wanted to, but that doesn't make me one. I could also take unproven herbal supplements (like the "hormone treatments" Potts is taking) that claim are changing my brainwaves to that more like a zornblatt beast even though such claims are unproven by the scientific community. Guess what? I'd still be a human being from the planet Earth. Jinxmchue 01:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Man, you're really breaking a certain she-woman/he-panther's heart here, dude. - Crockspot 17:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Get your butt back to DU, freak! ;) Jinxmchue 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)