One thing I find interesting about the discussions on this is that people seem to be, sometimes, applying different standards from how we normally handle ourselves. So on WP normally, there is some deference paid to expertise (as distinct from credentials). Normally, editors will often defer to others who are known to have subject-matter expertise in a particular area. We express expertise through research: editors who have done a lot of reading and who cite reliable sources have more weight accorded to their views than those who have not done that reading and citing.
It feels to me like on this issue people are often seeming to substitute "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" for expertise/knowledge. There has been lots of scholarly work on transgender issues, in the fields of psychology, gender studies, medicine, and so forth. So it surprises me to have editors making off-the-cuff comments, and expecting them to be taken seriously. A lot of people's expressed assumptions (that Chelsea may change her mind tomorrow, that Chelsea was a man and is now a woman, or even that a person's gender is easy to determine) are just flat-out wrong. It's okay for people to be wrong, but their wrong assumptions shouldn't determine what goes in an encyclopedia.
(In saying this, I'm not responding directly to Helga or Carol. It's just something I've noticed on the enWP discussions that I think is interesting.)
Thanks,
Sue
There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning
Obviously there have been a number of comments that are obviously transphobic. However, there also have been repeated false charges of transphobia against those who cite good policy reasons for not changing the name. I personally oppose the change to Chelsea as premature for a number of reasons, FYI.
And there are good reasons to question what happened at that article process wise (the policy reasons for and against the change are discussed ad nauseam at the talk page where editors are just trying to get it changed back to Bradley Manning, though I think that's morphed into a final discussion - hard to tell!! ):
* an admin changed the title to Chelsea Manning with no discussion on the talk page, given it's a controversial move in such a high publicity figure
*the admin then spoke to the press about it, wrote a blog entry with their opinion, tweeted about it, and got even more media publicity for their blog entry and/or tweets
*I would not be surprised if a number of editors also alerted the media to her writings and actions in order to try to influence the outcome of a Wikipedia policy decision
*I don't know how much off wiki canvassing there was, but I did start a list of wikiprojects alerted, so at least that aspect of WP:Canvass would be covered
*an editor threatened anyone moving the title back would become a minor celebrity for a few days, a threat only to those whose actual names were used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI thread on that threat and related insults)
Wonder if I'll get shouted down *here* yet again for expressing my opinions... sigh...
CM
On 8/24/2013 7:34 AM, Helga Hansen wrote:
In the German Wikipedia a huge discussion has erupted over the question how to change the Wikipedia page for Chelsea Manning and it's another textbook example over how to drive women of Wikipedia. You can see the gory details here (in German of course): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradley_Manning
I don't want to discuss this because it has already exhausted me to no end but it's another example of “How not to deal with women” and especially “How not to deal with transwomen” and it's important to understand the dynamics.
After her statement on Today, one user went over the article, changing it from Bradley to Chelsea. When discussions about this started, two other users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how the support network has handled the name question) and provided sources. They did this on an etherpad and then moved the complete section into Wikipedia. By the way a modus operandi that I have heard from several women, to minimize chances of their work being deleted again.
One admin locked the article title to Chelsea Manning. Some friends told me how happy they were to see the page presenting her in this way.
Over the night, though, the discussion exploded. Changes were made by the minute, or rather, the article was reverted. Every try, to change something back or to reason with people was made impossible. To keep up, you would have had to be there, writing and fighting not only during the day but also the night. That is just not possible for anybody except students.
Somebody mentioned that “commonly referred to names” were ok to use, so I tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will influence how Manning is referred to in German speaking countries. No avail. Instead, the amount of transphobic statements was disgusting. People wanting to check her therapy progress, ID documents or in her pants. I cannot blame anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence.
Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ from much stricter German transgender laws and guidelines, was totally ignored. Also, guidelines by transgender organizations on how to write about transpeople were ignored. Somebody brought up the fact that Manning hat entered the military in a profession reserved for men at the time. Instead of asking an expert how to deal with it, it was solely used as an argument. It was all just opinions, instead of facts. While some people were still talking about knowledge, someone else would start a vote and then the majority decided.
(In case you wonder: one way would be to keep referring to Chelsea as female while noting that the profession was reserved for men at the time and she entered presenting as male.)
Of course, people who identified as women or worse, transwomen, were shouted down to no end and accused of being too emotional or having a political agenda. Wanting to be treated with respect and having human rights is indeed a political agenda but none to be insulted for. Also: one transwoman was not egligible to vote, her account was too “new”. She had shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason (transphobia being one).
The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason given and Kathrin, the author, later told in a podcast how difficult it was for her to find out, how and when this happened as it was removed with other sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an experienced Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence of a transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: http://www.iheartdigitallife.de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-up/
So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into work, defended it thoroughly and were insulted and shouted down. I honestly see no way, how we are even in a position to get people to change guidelines anywhere in Wikipedia. Plus, we're all exhausted.
Still, there are some ideas what to do:
- The guidelines on naming need to include how to deal with transpersons.
- As does a policy of using pronouns.
- If guidelines and policies are expanded on how to deal with marginalised groups, their expertise has to be valued.
- Removal of sections should be easier to reconstruct
Once again: I don't want to discuss the issue at hand or even be forced to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and this mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But this is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the German entry would not even mention the fact that Manning has asked to be referred to as a woman.
All the best
Helga Hansen
PS: It has to be said that Lana Wachowskis entry was changed without much kerfuffle, but then it's always been a “Wachowski brothers” entry that's now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that refers to “her” and not “them”.
PPS: Please realize that I feel the need to ask not be treated to any explanations because I have experienced that way too often.
__________________
Helga Hansen
@hanhaiwen
helgahansen.de
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap