Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:18 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner

Shades of Bradley/Chelsea Manning.
The article is kind of a mess.

It's jarring as hell to read female pronouns used in historical sections about the Olympic games when she was still a he.
All of the articles used as sources for that period of their life use male pronouns as well.

Shaping up to be a battleground article with a shit ton of drama.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:21 am

Vigilant wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner

Shades of Bradley/Chelsea Manning.
The article is kind of a mess.

It's jarring as hell to read female pronouns used in historical sections about the Olympic games when she was still a he.
All of the articles used as sources for that period of their life use male pronouns as well.

Shaping up to be a battleground article with a shit ton of drama.

I think there is a good case to be made for two different articles - assuming that the title of the article is the topic of the article. Of course this assumes Caitlyn's work recently has been enough to guarantee an article - I would say no, but that's because I think that a Wikipedia biographies is a horrible thing that should be avoided as much as possible. Were my opinion that Wikipedia biographies are good, then my opinion would be different.

One would start "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn Jenner) was....", continue with "In xxxx he" and finish with "Bruce underwent [technical term for what Caitlyn did] and is now known as Caitlyn" and "she is now a [whatever it is she does now] in [wherever it is she does it]. with links at the end to the other article.

The other would start "Caitlyn Jenner (previous Bruce Jenner) is..." continue with "In xxxx she" and finish with "Caitlyn underwent [technical term] in xxxx" and "Prior to this she was known as Bruce Jenner, a male decathlete who [something something]. with links at the end to the other article.

When pigs fly · Unread post by **When pigs fly** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:20 am

Cognitive dissonance is the result. I've no problem with Jenner's gender identity, but common sense takes a backseat political correctness. Let's confuse the fuck out of the reader to show how progressive we are.

Honestly, the article should be titled Catelyn Jenner, born as Bruce and use Bruce/he until he was known as something else. Tail wagging the dog as it were.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:40 am

When pigs fly wrote:Cognitive dissonance is the result. I've no problem with Jenner's gender identity, but common sense takes a backseat political correctness. Let's confuse the fuck out of the reader to show how progressive we are.

Honestly, the article should be titled Catelyn Jenner, born as Bruce and use Bruce/he until he was known as something else. Tail wagging the dog as it were.

Yes, the contortions that result in the World Record Holder of the Mens' Decathlon being described with the gender pronoun "she" at the time are ridiculous. It's pretentious twaddle.

That Caitlyn is now known as "she" does not change the historic fact that for more than half a century, she was known as Bruce and "he".

When pigs fly · Unread post by **When pigs fly** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:54 am

What's worse is that the MOS says you have to use their preferred gender for their whole life UNLESS the subject says to use both. Then again, the most annoying fucks on Wikipedia are MOS Nazis.

Arzel · Unread post by **Arzel** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:13 am

Notvelty wrote:
When pigs fly wrote:Cognitive dissonance is the result. I've no problem with Jenner's gender identity, but common sense takes a backseat political correctness. Let's confuse the fuck out of the reader to show how progressive we are.

Honestly, the article should be titled Catelyn Jenner, born as Bruce and use Bruce/he until he was known as something else. Tail wagging the dog as it were.
Yes, the contortions that result in the World Record Holder of the Mens' Decathlon being described with the gender pronoun "she" at the time are ridiculous. It's pretentious twaddle.

That Caitlyn is now known as "she" does not change the historic fact that for more than half a century, she was known as Bruce and "he".

As with a ton of crap on WP, politically correct is the only metric. Thought of commenting on the talk page about how stupid the article reads, but thought better of wading into that shit storm of a no-win situation of idiocy.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 5:33 am

When pigs fly wrote:What's worse is that the MOS says you have to use their preferred gender for their whole life UNLESS the subject says to use both. Then again, the most annoying fucks on Wikipedia are MOS Nazis.

I don't see the problem here is that people are following a manual of style - although there is an argument to be made for a reminder that it should be a style guide, rather than a style law.

And nor do I think that the issue here is "political correctness". The argument of political correctness is one that should certainly be considered.

I'm of the opinion that this issue is similar to the general issue of accuracy and quality of Wikimedia work. They apply blanket rules where significant nuance is required because they don't have the capacity to handle nuance. Silly rules that rely more heavily on moral posturing than editorial discretion are just another wikimedian trope.

Ross McPherson · Unread post by **Ross McPherson** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 7:49 am

Compare for example with [[Jan Morris]] (formerly James), a tactful little article ( link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =661236731[/link]). The personal pronoun is generally avoided, appearing only in the intro and one of the end sections about awards. It was in the latter section that I got this:

She did accepted her CBE in the 1999 Queen's Birthday Honours "out of polite respect", but is a Welsh nationalist republican at heart.[6]

I find the confused grammar more jarring than any confusion about her/his gender. Otherwise this article reminds me that, though Wikipedians are an ugly species, there are some decent editors/individuals in there. The bad/good Wikipedian dichotomy is even more painful than the confused grammar or confused gender issue.

Bah humbug - enough niceness for a while.

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:46 pm

Vigilant wrote: Shaping up to be a battleground article with a shit ton of drama.

Called it.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 3:33 pm

Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Shaping up to be a battleground article with a shit ton of drama.
Called it.

I'm gonna get you your own Jr Vigilant Prognostication Turban!

When pigs fly · Unread post by **When pigs fly** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:18 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Shaping up to be a battleground article with a shit ton of drama.
Called it.
I'm gonna get you your own Jr Vigilant Prognostication Turban!

No offense, but that prediction was like saying it is going to rain in Seattle.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:23 pm

When pigs fly wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote: Shaping up to be a battleground article with a shit ton of drama.
Called it.
I'm gonna get you your own Jr Vigilant Prognostication Turban!
No offense, but that prediction was like saying it is going to rain in Seattle.

That's why the 'Jr'... Don't tell Hex

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 3:54 am

If they had half a brain cell between them, the Wikipedians would have two articles for people who change gender. Or at least some kind of coherent policy on handling these cases. Instead, they fight and produce shredded shit.

Arzel · Unread post by **Arzel** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:49 pm

Not sure separate articles would even make a difference as it is spreading outside the article. Insane.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 5:53 pm

GarGinkers.jpg

Time for the PC Parade to again wind its way through the streets of Doubleyewville with two score self-righteous drone bees blasting out "Kumbaya" on their Flu Floopers, Tar Tinkers, Gar Ginkers, and Trum Tubers...

RfB

Hex · Unread post by **Hex** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:07 pm

Vigilant wrote: I'm gonna get you your own Jr Vigilant Prognostication Turban!

Teach me the ways of your wisdom oh Swami Vigilant!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 6:11 pm

Hex wrote:
Vigilant wrote: I'm gonna get you your own Jr Vigilant Prognostication Turban!
Teach me the ways of your wisdom oh Swami Vigilant!

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:12 pm

The Adversary · Unread post by **The Adversary** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:09 pm

Right on target, Jon Stewart:

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:20 pm

The Adversary wrote:Right on target, Jon Stewart:

No. He's just a moral posturing fuck wit.

Not content with people being happy, he has to turn it into a dig at people who don't agree with him and yet another round of moral positioning to prove just how much better he is than anyone else.

Because it's not about Caitlyn or equality or recognition. It's about preening.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:33 pm

Notvelty wrote:
The Adversary wrote:Right on target, Jon Stewart:
No. He's just a moral posturing fuck wit.

Not content with people being happy, he has to turn it into a dig at people who don't agree with him and yet another round of moral positioning to prove just how much better he is than anyone else.

Because it's not about Caitlyn or equality or recognition. It's about preening.

Ummm, you are aware that he is a comedian doing a comedy show, are you not?

Next thing we know, you'll be criticizing The Onion for unprofessional journalism...

RfB

Moral Hazard · Unread post by **Moral Hazard** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:08 pm

Notvelty wrote:
The Adversary wrote:Right on target, Jon Stewart:
No. He's just a moral posturing fuck wit.

Not content with people being happy, he has to turn it into a dig at people who don't agree with him and yet another round of moral positioning to prove just how much better he is than anyone else.

Because it's not about Caitlyn or equality or recognition. It's about preening.

"Preening" as in "grooming"?
What, you want to be banned too?

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:14 pm

Moral Hazard wrote:"Preening" as in "grooming"?

The Daily Show has a base demographic that expects a certain kind of reaction to most things, and a certain amount of Fox News-bashing (if not cable-news-in-general-bashing) whenever they have the chance. Right-wingers don't like this, and try to "spin" it as Jon Stewart's personal grudge-bearing. The more accurate criticism is that Stewart and the show's writers take easy shots at easy targets, but since it's ostensibly a comedy show they can't really go after difficult targets. In addition, right-wingers also don't like the fact that they're easy targets.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 8:20 pm

The Jenner talk page is really turning into a shit show.

The MOS:IDENTITY crowd can't seem to understand why someone competed and won male Olympic events might need to be referred to as male in the past.
The sources call Jenner out as male, obviously, but the dingbats on the other side seem dead set on 'winning' some sort of Pyrrhic victory there.

Well beyond their 'sell by' date.

Edit:
Just checked reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/co ... emi_xpost/

Edit:
Giant clusterfuck at Duh Pump
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... rification

Edit:
More on reddit - a mix of sane/insane which typically characterizes reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/SocialJusticeIn ... wikidrama/

When pigs fly · Unread post by **When pigs fly** » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:51 pm

Vigilant wrote:The Jenner talk page is really turning into a shit show.

The MOS:IDENTITY crowd can't seem to understand why someone competed and won male Olympic events might need to be referred to as male in the past.
The sources call Jenner out as male, obviously, but the dingbats on the other side seem dead set on 'winning' some sort of Pyrrhic victory there.

Many Trans people believe all Trans were misgendered from birth. Those are the ones most militant about using the persons preferred gendered/pronouns for the entire article, even if its confusing. Their sense of justice overrides clarity. This is a textbook case of Wikipedia COI.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · Unread post by **Obi-Wan Kenobi** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:08 am

Yep. Just as in the Manning episode, they're coming out of the woodwork in droves. Take a look at this particular block of crazy:

Oppose - this is transphobic as heck. I note the arguments in its favor are often, if I may quote above, "gender (an immutable biological component)", which is purely false. Gender is not immutable. Hell, sex isn't immutable. Also note harm and BLP issues. I also note that people who aren't transgender always get their wishes respected without comment, such as with Prince, or, more infamously, Drake Bell, who insists that he's going to keep referring to Caitlyn as "Bruce" - even though his own birth name is actually not Drake, it's Jared, and yet Wikipedia covers both individuals without comment. I could make a HUGE list here of people who use a different name than their birth name: essentially half of everyone famous changed their name. Exceptions to the use of old names, such as winning awards under another name, can be explained easily without insisting articles about Laverne Cox, Janet Mock, Carmen Carrera, Geena Rocero, Isis King, Gisele Alicea, Leyna Ramous, Dina Marie, Nina Poon, Juliana Huxtable, Niki M'nray, Pêche Di, etc. all insist on using male pronouns and names for them. Right now, Laverne Cox's article states she has an identical twin brother: did that make anyone's head explode? Do we need to go in and explain that they used to be identical twins because? NO. It's incredibly disrespectful; I'm actually outraged at the votes for this policy, and it sure doesn't make anything "more encyclopedic". Ogress smash! 20:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:05 pm

The crazy trying to one up each other over there.
Link

It's already the special rule for transgender people, per MOS:IDENTITY, which was correctly decided some time ago. What people are doing here is what they do everywhere, not research or actually try to understand the reason for that, and look for some way to further deprive transgender people of their rights. I have quite a few edits and articles under my belt, and I even have the chance to get hired as a Wikipedian-in-residence, but I will boycott Wikipedia and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks. Skyerise (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not "my way", it's the general feeling in the transgender community, who deserve the respect of not having their accomplishments credited only under their deadname. And I don't think WP:BATTLEGROUND has any authority over my activities outside of Wikipedia. I've trained new editors before, on Seattle topics and Native American literature topics. I'm sure there are a lot of trans people with a sincere interest in editing Wikipedia but who are intimidated by the complexity of citations, notability and other issues. If I choose to seek them out and get them to contribute to Wikipedia, that's not something Wikipedia can censor. Plus of course organizing trans people to boycott Wikipedia would be ineffective, the percentage in the general population is simply too low to have all that much of an effect. Getting them onto Wikipedia, though... to balance out the "oh, no, I'm not transphobic, I just care about sourcing" crowd.... That just might have an effect. Skyerise (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This person needs to be TBANned so hard.

Previously edited under Yworo.
Long time edit warrior on whatever topic they descend on.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:21 pm

Uh oh, sane person alert!

I absolutely did compare an identity change to a name change. Caitlyn didn't even choose her name until 2015, how could she have participated in the 1976 Olympics? It is the individual named Bruce Jenner, representing as a male athlete who did that. Almost 40 years later she is changing her representation. The record books still have Bruce Jenner's name, not because they are outdated, but because the identity changed MUCH later. Snow would be to undo the accomplishments of 40 years because of announcements this year, the name announcement this week. That chaos is already happening throughout wikipedia trying to accommodate that change and the MOS. And beyond the name, users with that excuse are altering FACTS. Which makes what wikipedia reports not only gender altering to suit the new representation of Caitlyn, but FACTUALLY WRONG when we have a super male athlete claiming women's performance records that (as a) he would not be eligible for. It is not Jenner doing this. She knows better and has said so. It is wikipedia editors who have taken this insufficiently written style guideline to ridiculous, incorrect extremes. The MOS must be rewritten to restrict people from going crazy. Trackinfo (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Gender transitions and name changes are utterly different things. Trackinfo, from your posts here it seems very clear that you intend to be bound by your view of how gender and biology intersect, nothing else. Gender is not tied inherently to biology and the MOS is quite clearly written to restrict people from going "crazy" if it's written in such a way that it's stymying the edits of someone who compares passport alterations to gender changes. Ironholds (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I see things in a very realistic perspective. Bruce Jenner entered a male only competition in the Olympics and competed against male athletes. At no point in time in 1976 was there any suspicion or discussion of female representation, much less that biologically, which is the basis of that competition, he never will be female. Any wikipedia "guideline" does not change facts here. If someone writes and successfully is able to keep public on wikipedia articles representations that a "she" won the Olympic decathlon, or she set women's world records or even the notable men's world record in the decathlon, it is factually wrong. It is a sad day for wikipedia's credibility to report known, factually wrong information. The IAAF and the IOC recognizes a male athlete named Bruce Jenner. Caitlyn Jenner, who never existed in 1976, cannot displace deserving female athletes in the world record progression based on performances by the male athlete Bruce Jenner; Caitlyn never had the correct chromosomes. I'd further think that the three women he married and fathered six children with did not think they were marrying a "she." To use female pronouns in these situations will make wikipedia a laughing stock. It is fine to say she came out later in life as a transwoman, that she always had these feelings, but Jenner has 45 years of a very notable, public life as a man. You can't imagine that away by a poorly written, POV laden "guideline." Trackinfo (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Prepared to be banninated!

Good thing Ironholds aka Oliver Keyes aka The Boston Throat Puncher is there to set him straight.
Does Oliver Keyes have a degree in Gender Studies or something applicable?
No? A law degree with probate background, you say?
Hmmmph.
One does wonder why he thinks he has some sort of special insight then.

P.S. Still open for a one on one throat punching exhibition, Oliver. Say, "When."

When pigs fly · Unread post by **When pigs fly** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:25 pm

Vigilant wrote:The crazy trying to one up each other over there.
Link
It's already the special rule for transgender people, per MOS:IDENTITY, which was correctly decided some time ago. What people are doing here is what they do everywhere, not research or actually try to understand the reason for that, and look for some way to further deprive transgender people of their rights. I have quite a few edits and articles under my belt, and I even have the chance to get hired as a Wikipedian-in-residence, but I will boycott Wikipedia and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks. Skyerise (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not "my way", it's the general feeling in the transgender community, who deserve the respect of not having their accomplishments credited only under their deadname. And I don't think WP:BATTLEGROUND has any authority over my activities outside of Wikipedia. I've trained new editors before, on Seattle topics and Native American literature topics. I'm sure there are a lot of trans people with a sincere interest in editing Wikipedia but who are intimidated by the complexity of citations, notability and other issues. If I choose to seek them out and get them to contribute to Wikipedia, that's not something Wikipedia can censor. Plus of course organizing trans people to boycott Wikipedia would be ineffective, the percentage in the general population is simply too low to have all that much of an effect. Getting them onto Wikipedia, though... to balance out the "oh, no, I'm not transphobic, I just care about sourcing" crowd.... That just might have an effect. Skyerise (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
This person needs to be TBANned so hard.

Previously edited under Yworo.
Long time edit warrior on whatever topic they descend on.

Perfect example of a COI.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 6:32 pm

Skyerise and Ironholds badgering "Option 1" support voters.

Link

Is that really what the WMF pays Oliver Keyes to do?

More faithful to the references? Because, what, the reference might have the wrong name? Like we had this conversation for Prince. Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely during work hours...

Don't you have some data to analyze in a dark room far away from the people?

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 8:59 pm

When pigs fly wrote:
Vigilant wrote:The Jenner talk page is really turning into a shit show.

The MOS:IDENTITY crowd can't seem to understand why someone competed and won male Olympic events might need to be referred to as male in the past.
The sources call Jenner out as male, obviously, but the dingbats on the other side seem dead set on 'winning' some sort of Pyrrhic victory there.

Many Trans people believe all Trans were misgendered from birth. Those are the ones most militant about using the persons preferred gendered/pronouns for the entire article, even if its confusing. Their sense of justice overrides clarity. This is a textbook case of Wikipedia COI.

In that case, Jenner should retrospectively be stripped of her medal as she was ineligible to participate in a men's event!

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 12:35 am

Vigilant wrote:The crazy trying to one up each other over there.
Link
It's already the special rule for transgender people, per MOS:IDENTITY, which was correctly decided some time ago. What people are doing here is what they do everywhere, not research or actually try to understand the reason for that, and look for some way to further deprive transgender people of their rights. I have quite a few edits and articles under my belt, and I even have the chance to get hired as a Wikipedian-in-residence, but I will boycott Wikipedia and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks.Skyerise (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Transgender people apparently have a right to force everyone else to refer to them the way they want because it is upsetting to them. In other words:

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:04 am

Link
That's some Grade A batshit right there

To the closer: survey is statistically invalid

I'd like to point out that this whole survey process is pretty much invalid. Transgender people make up an estimated 2 to 5% of the population. [6]. The 2013 study The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited measured gender bias in survey completion and estimated that as of 2008, 84% of English Wikipedia editors were male. In the worldwide Wikipedia Editor Survey 2011 of all the Wikipedias, 91% of respondents were male. There are significant differences in the acceptance of trans people between males and females surveyed, with men being significantly less accepting than women of transgender individuals, with white males being the least accepting among males and with the widest gap between white male and white female opinions. [7] Somewhere between 58-63% of males are sports fans, while only 36-41% of woman are fans. [8]

So, 60% of the 84% male editor population is about 50% of Wikipedia editors, while 40% of the 16% female editor population is 6.4%. Even assuming the unlikely high number of 4.6% for the trans editor population, that puts the expected ratio of female+trans to male editors responding at 1 in 6. Basically, there is no possible way that the outcome can be anything but a "male sports fans" opinion, which would be in no way representative of what our readers want and would necessarily be significantly (and likely severely) skewed toward the less accepting male view of transgenderism.

Unless a better way can be found to do this, these results are completely invalid and should be ignored, leaving MOS:IDENTITY as it is, as the previous consensus was arrived at through discussion about transgender individuals who were not athletes, leading to a more balanced and more accepting result. That is, the past consensus more accurately reflects the general opinion of Wikipedia editors as the inherent biases were not exaggerated by the disproportionate attraction of sports fans to the previous discussions, resulting in the slightly less skewed ratio of ~ 1 to 5 female to male response. I could not find statistics on the acceptance of transgenderism among male sports fans, but I suspect that it is much lower than that of the general male population. Skyerise (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Aka I don't like the answer I'm getting so you all don't get to vote.

Crazy

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:12 am

And the news media has the first story about this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... s-caitlyn/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/41 ... ian-tuttle

Gonna be a long, hot summer for the dingbats at en.wp

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 1:24 am

Sports fans aren't actual people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =665681669

Arzel · Unread post by **Arzel** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:08 am

Vigilant wrote:Link
That's some Grade A batshit right there

To the closer: survey is statistically invalid

I'd like to point out that this whole survey process is pretty much invalid. Transgender people make up an estimated 2 to 5% of the population. [6]. The 2013 study The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited measured gender bias in survey completion and estimated that as of 2008, 84% of English Wikipedia editors were male. In the worldwide Wikipedia Editor Survey 2011 of all the Wikipedias, 91% of respondents were male. There are significant differences in the acceptance of trans people between males and females surveyed, with men being significantly less accepting than women of transgender individuals, with white males being the least accepting among males and with the widest gap between white male and white female opinions. [7] Somewhere between 58-63% of males are sports fans, while only 36-41% of woman are fans. [8]

So, 60% of the 84% male editor population is about 50% of Wikipedia editors, while 40% of the 16% female editor population is 6.4%. Even assuming the unlikely high number of 4.6% for the trans editor population, that puts the expected ratio of female+trans to male editors responding at 1 in 6. Basically, there is no possible way that the outcome can be anything but a "male sports fans" opinion, which would be in no way representative of what our readers want and would necessarily be significantly (and likely severely) skewed toward the less accepting male view of transgenderism.

Unless a better way can be found to do this, these results are completely invalid and should be ignored, leaving MOS:IDENTITY as it is, as the previous consensus was arrived at through discussion about transgender individuals who were not athletes, leading to a more balanced and more accepting result. That is, the past consensus more accurately reflects the general opinion of Wikipedia editors as the inherent biases were not exaggerated by the disproportionate attraction of sports fans to the previous discussions, resulting in the slightly less skewed ratio of ~ 1 to 5 female to male response. I could not find statistics on the acceptance of transgenderism among male sports fans, but I suspect that it is much lower than that of the general male population. Skyerise (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Aka I don't like the answer I'm getting so you all don't get to vote.

Crazy

From all of the yelling about this on the page(s) I would say that they are over-represented on WP with regards to the general population.

When pigs fly · Unread post by **When pigs fly** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:15 am

2-5% of the population? That's insane or the definition is looser than a car door on a 72 Pinto

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:18 am

Skyerise (T-C-L) is playing Sceptre (T-C-L)'s role as LGBTQPWWLWOTAP* PC provocateur in the current debate. The monologue is so similar that I could swear it's the same person...

RfB

* Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and People Who Wear Leg Warmers On Their Arms People.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:21 am

When pigs fly wrote:2-5% of the population? That's insane or the definition is looser than a car door on a 72 Pinto

I might give 'em 0.2 to 0.5% although that is still probably a little high...

RfB

When pigs fly · Unread post by **When pigs fly** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 2:42 am

Randy from Boise wrote:Skyerise (T-C-L) is playing Sceptre (T-C-L)'s role as LGBTQPWWLWOTAP* PC provocateur in the current debate. The monologue is so similar that I could swear it's the same person...

RfB

* Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and People Who Wear Leg Warmers On Their Arms People.

Occzams razor

Alison · Unread post by **Alison** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:14 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
When pigs fly wrote:2-5% of the population? That's insane or the definition is looser than a car door on a 72 Pinto
I might give 'em 0.2 to 0.5% although that is still probably a little high...

RfB

More like 1 in 12,000 for Male-to-Female, and 1 in 30,000 for Female-to-Male, but it depends on the study, criteria, etc. 2-5% is waaay off the mark.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 6:22 pm

Alison wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
When pigs fly wrote:2-5% of the population? That's insane or the definition is looser than a car door on a 72 Pinto
I might give 'em 0.2 to 0.5% although that is still probably a little high...

RfB
More like 1 in 12,000 for Male-to-Female, and 1 in 30,000 for Female-to-Male, but it depends on the study, criteria, etc. 2-5% is waaay off the mark.

Of course there are population clusters based on resources and acceptance. I often have business in a community (Hillcrest, San Diego (T-H-L)) that has a high percentage of both gay and transgender residents. Those percentages would probably not be far off there. I agree that for the population at large, they are way too high.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 7:59 pm

It's good to keep in mind that your everyday well-adjusted transgendered person has about as much in common with the transgender activists as your everyday well-adjusted christian has with the Westboro baptists.

OTOH, good for Caitlyn, so far. Hate the name, but then I don't know why people give these kitty-cat cutesy names to girls these days in general.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:34 am

WaPo's coverage of wp's clusterfuck.

How Caitlyn Jenner won Bruce Jenner’s Olympic medals

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:19 am

SB_Johnny wrote:It's good to keep in mind that your everyday well-adjusted transgendered person has about as much in common with the transgender activists as your everyday well-adjusted christian has with the Westboro baptists.

OTOH, good for Caitlyn, so far. Hate the name, but then I don't know why people give these kitty-cat cutesy names to girls these days in general.

+ many.. like TDA, they are missing the "but don't be bloody stupid" switch.

When pigs fly · Unread post by **When pigs fly** » Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:37 am

SB_Johnny wrote:It's good to keep in mind that your everyday well-adjusted transgendered person has about as much in common with the transgender activists as your everyday well-adjusted christian has with the Westboro baptists.

OTOH, good for Caitlyn, so far. Hate the name, but then I don't know why people give these kitty-cat cutesy names to girls these days in general.

Well adjusted as possible you mean. But then again anyone having to suffer like that is bound to have some deep seated issues. And let's not even talk about the trans gendered.

Try the veal.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:10 am

Even the Wikipedia page for “Can’t Stop the Music,” a poorly received — and pretty darn obscure — film featuring the Village People that Jenner appeared in in 1980, lists “Caitlyn Jenner” as a star.

Do they have any source that says that Caitlyn Jenner was in that film? If they argue that Bruce Jenner was in the film and it's the same person, that's original research or synthesis.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:38 am

Randy from Boise wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
The Adversary wrote:Right on target, Jon Stewart:
No. He's just a moral posturing fuck wit.

Not content with people being happy, he has to turn it into a dig at people who don't agree with him and yet another round of moral positioning to prove just how much better he is than anyone else.

Because it's not about Caitlyn or equality or recognition. It's about preening.
Ummm, you are aware that he is a comedian doing a comedy show, are you not?

Next thing we know, you'll be criticizing The Onion for unprofessional journalism...RfB

No, that's a bullshit cop-out. He doesn't get to establish a snide, self-congratulatory preaching tone and then claim he was "just joking".

If he wants to be "just a comedian", then he should stay the hell away from political statements on a television show in which he has significant editorial input. If he wants to make a political point from a bully pulpit, then he (and his supporters) can't claim that he's "just a comedian".

But even if what you say is true, he was used in this conversation as someone who has "nailed it". Even if you completely ignore the political leanings of The Daily Show, its first use in this thread was absolutely fair game.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:41 am

Midsize Jake wrote:
Moral Hazard wrote:"Preening" as in "grooming"?
The Daily Show has a base demographic that expects a certain kind of reaction to most things, and a certain amount of Fox News-bashing (if not cable-news-in-general-bashing) whenever they have the chance. Right-wingers don't like this, and try to "spin" it as Jon Stewart's personal grudge-bearing. The more accurate criticism is that Stewart and the show's writers take easy shots at easy targets, but since it's ostensibly a comedy show they can't really go after difficult targets. In addition, right-wingers also don't like the fact that they're easy targets.

Sure, Somey. You're the fucking model of non-partisanship.

Jon Stewart is a left-wing political commentator who uses humour to make his point. There's nothing wrong with that, so long as no one tries to pretend it's something else. He is no different, no different at all to the likes of Mark Steyn or Tim Blair.

Heck, even Salon recognises it.. although of course, only under certain circumstances, we couldn't have intellectual integrity or anything.

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/sorry_j ... _comedian/

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:10 pm

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/col ... sor-afraid