Hi John - I'm tired so I could have just missed someting, but I'm not not really sure how you got your post out of Emily's post, or for that matter, out of the rest of the thread. A discussion about archaic gendered terminology (and face it, aviatrix is archaic) is not an attempt to define all genders as the same, and equally, it is not an attempt to invalidate anyone's gender identity. Invalidating someone's gender identity is a very serious problem; please don't suggest that someone has done so without very clearly explaining what you mean. (And by serious problem, I mean that if I see a situation occur on this list where I honestly feel that someone is attempting to invalidate someone else's gender identity, things are going to go BOOM.) Thanks, Kevin Gorman On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM, john allyn &lt;jaddtwo(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: > Somehow you appear to think that equality and sameness are synonymous. It > is not possible to close the gender gap by defining male and female as the > same. This kind of thinking will drive the wedge deeper because each will > be invalidated for who they are. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* &quot;gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&quot; < > gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > *To:* gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 17, 2013 6:00 AM > *Subject:* Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 10 > > Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to > gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > gendergap-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 9 (john allyn) > 2. Re: Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 9 (Emily Monroe) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:21:07 -0700 (PDT) > From: john allyn &lt;jaddtwo(a)yahoo.com&gt; > To: &quot;gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org&quot; &lt;gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 9 > Message-ID: > &lt;1379366467.96269.YahooMailNeo(a)web120001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com&gt; > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Somehow you appear to think that equality and sameness are synonymous. It > is not possible to close the gender gap by defining male and female as the > same. This kind of thinking will drive the wedge deeper because each will > be invalidated for who they are. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: &quot;gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&quot; < > gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 6:00 AM > Subject: Gendergap Digest, Vol 32, Issue 9 > > > Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to > gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > gendergap-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Archaic gendered terminology (Lane Rasberry) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 15:43:47 -0400 > From: Lane Rasberry &lt;lane(a)bluerasberry.com&gt; > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the > participation of women within Wikimedia projects." > &lt;gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Archaic gendered terminology > Message-ID: > &lt;CAJb6Kh5SLCkCo9BFB4LHJCf+NJkAcMno6XNk+Mk0EhKUAez8qQ(a)mail.gmail.com&gt; > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hello, > > I expect that many people will continue to use the term "actress" for > females in the profession. I notice that the Amy Johnson discussion raises > that. > > A couple of years ago I got to review an elementary English textbook being > distributed in very large numbers in North India. It was an original work > seemingly derived from public domain content and had a section on gendered > nouns, including "negro" and "negress". I looked at the time for a style > guide on best practices for gendered term and I could not find anything > clear when I looked then, but obviously there is bad information to be > found online among the public domain texts and it really grated on me that > new print works were being distributed to teach children such things. > > We might not be so far from the day when someone could publish a Wikipedia > Manual of Style and expect it to be an authoritative text. I am not sure > what the right answer is in this case but whatever you find please > consider > noting on the manual of style because this question will come up again. > > Thanks for sharing. > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Gobonobo &lt;gobonobo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > I've been going through a lot of historical biographies lately and am > > surprised to see how often archaic gendered terms such as poetess, > > sculptress, and aviatrix crop up in Wikipedia articles. I know some of > > these come from the older sources such as the 1911 Britannica, but in > other > > cases their inclusion is the result of decisions being made by editors. > > There's currently a discussion on [[Talk:Amy Johnson]] over whether she > > should be referred to as an aviatrix, for instance. > > > > I'm wondering how this has been dealt with previously and if there are > > specific policies surrounding such uses. I've found the essays > > [[Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language]] and [[Wikipedia:Use modern > language]] > > and note that [[WP:MOS]] says "use gender-neutral language where this > can > > be done with clarity and precision". It seems as if despite these fairly > > clear precepts, the use of these terms persists. > > > > Are there any archaic terms where it has been broadly agreed that using > > them is not encyclopedic? I would be much obliged if anyone could point > me > > to previous discussions about this. > > > > ~Gobonobo > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap< > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap> > > > > > > -- > Lane Rasberry > 206.801.0814 > lane(a)bluerasberry.com >

What is it I am allowed to say about my gender identity or anyone elses and what is it I am not allowed to say?

I'll leave the rest of your post to the others on this list, but I can answer this question: You can say anything you want about your own gender identity. What you cannot (politely) do is contradict what someone else says about his or her own gender identity. So if someone (anyone, not just a list participant) says "I'm a woman and I always have been", you should never say "No, you aren't." Nor "That person is only pretending to be a woman." Nor "He may feel like a woman but until he's taken a legal or surgical procedure, he's a man." It's that simple. Powers &8^]