Wikipedia talk:Editors' pronouns

Mistergendering

I'm guessing the most common form of misgendering is (ironically enough) what might be called mistergendering i.e. assuming the person is male. Perhaps that can be recognized in the essay somehow. EEng 01:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I do mention that, at the end of the second paragraph, and allude to it again at the start of § Why does it matter? Perhaps I'll make the second reference explicit rather than implicit, as one point I am trying to hit home here is that trans people didn't invent the concept of wanting to be called a specific pronoun. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing advice

This essay also needs advice for those who request/demand that others use a specific pronoun to refer to them. Namely:

• Not everyone will notice that you want to be referred to by a specific pronoun.
• You have a choice about what you want to be offended about, and you need to decide if it's worth being offended about a pronoun, even if well intentioned. We are here to build an encyclopedia. One's personal identity should not be a factor.
• In a medium of written communication which lacks visual cues from body language, it is easy to misinterpret the intent of others. A thicker skin is required to interact smoothly with others.

As it stands now, the essay is pretty one sided. Not only to cisgender people need to know how to interact with transgender people, but transgender people should also assume good faith and not be quick to take offense. I find this to be an unnecessary distraction from the goals of this project. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I say at least twice in this that transgender people should assume good faith. I'll go into a bit more detail on never assuming that someone noticed your pronouns, though.

I have to say, though, Anachronist, it saddens me to see you take this attitude of "We have better things to do." As I said at Guy's talk, I'm not sure what's more important to the encyclopedia than making sure people feel comfortable editing it. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a section on the topic. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 02:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I like what you added.

You have every right to feel saddened, just like I have every right to feel that my own personal attributes are my own private business and have no place in this project. Speaking for myself, I am extremely uncomfortable, and I feel unwelcome, among users who make a point of broadcasting their religion, sexual preferences, and so on. It strikes me as a form of exhibitionism. There is perhaps an appropriate venue for exhibitionists, but I believe Wikipedia isn't that venue. And I am offended when someone distracts from the goals of this project to make an issue out of it. Yes, we do indeed have better things to do. That does not mean we have a license to be insensitive, but it does mean that those who are easily offended should perhaps take the advice you have already given in this essay about whether to be editing Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(Came out a bit ramble-ier than intended. Sorry.)

You'd be surprised how much I agree with you on the general point there. I make a point of saying very little on my userpage about non-Wikipedia things. And that's not because I'm a particularly private person, but because I don't think a userpage is the place for that. I try to approach Wikipedia with roughly the same demeanor as with which I'd approach an office job (in an office that has lots of pornographic images and often has to repel invaders, I guess).

But I don't think saying, "Please refer to me as 'they'" is an instance of any of oversharing or of off-topic discussion. Contrariwise, it's a basic aspect of communication in English. That's why I lead with it on my userpage, so people know how to refer to me. And I don't think that being upset when people go against that is excessive think-skinnedness. While I'm trying to keep this comment mostly logic-bound, here I must get a little personal: There's a common misconception that the worst thing you can call a trans woman is "tranny." That's not true. The worst thing you can call a trans woman is "sir".

So, if someone were to deliberately misgender me (which thankfully has not happened to date on Wikipedia, although one troll did call my pronouns "disruptive"), that is from my perspective as much a personal attack as a slur is. I think you'll find basically all transgender and nonbinary people feel that way. And if that's too thin-skinned, then you'll have to write an encyclopedia without any trans or nonbinary people... or without a good number of cis women, I imagine, per EEng's point about above about assumed male-ness.

I understand having an issue with assuming intentionality without good cause. If you find someone doing that, call them out. Ping me and I'll come call them out (genuinely). A while ago I was in a discussion where a fairly well-respected editor made a comment that confused me. The most literal reading of it would have boiled down to "We should warn readers that non-binary identities aren't real". But assuming good faith means going beyond your first gloss. So I asked that user what they meant and... Well, actually, never got an answer. So who knows, maybe they did mean that, but I'll continue to assume they didn't. If someone approaches things otherwise, it's entirely fair to call them out. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)