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<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradl… 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/<http://www.ihear… 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap<https://lists.w…

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<http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bradl… 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/<http://www.ihear… 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergap<https://lists.w…

Looks like the Chelsea Manning article has been changed back to Bradley Manning:

There is still a discussion ongoing about which name to lead the article text with, however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bradley_Manning#First_sentence Ryan Kaldari On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Carol Moore dc &lt;carolmooredc(a)verizon.net&gt;wrote;wrote: > There have been similar problems at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/** > Chelsea_Manning <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

> 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

> 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

> 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

> used, which implied outing (there's a subsection of the larger ANI

> 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

>> 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/** >>

>> >> 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

>> users set up a section "Namensänderung" that addressed some of the >> criticism (confusion over names, before „Breanna“ was mentioned, how

>> 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

>> 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

>> 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,

>> I >> tried to get people to acknowledge that the final article will

>> 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

>> anybody who doesn't want to deal with this sort of violence. >> >> Every try to get people consider US laws and customs, which differ

>> 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

>> 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

>> 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

>> 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

>> shut down her old account, from before transition for several reason >> (transphobia being one). >> >> The section "Namensänderung" was removed, too. There was no reason

>> 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

>> sections. She managed to get it restored with the help of an

>> Wikipedia admin. Deleting a thoroughly researched section that is >> undoubtedly relevant reeks of erasure, in this case of the existence

>> a >> transwoman. The podcast (in German) is available here: >> http://www.iheartdigitallife.**de/nrrrdz000020-mesh-

>> >> So. There's a group of mostly women, who poured their hearts into

>> 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

>> 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

>> to defend who wrote what when. I also know how Wikipedia works and

>> mailinglist is in no place to officially demand changes, yadayada. But >> this >> is important. If it weren't for some very persistent people, the

>> 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

>> now “Wachowski siblings” and there's about one pronoun used that

>> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>

>> > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org >

I think your approach was well-intentioned but flawed, much like Drmies’ initial post. Unfortunately, your admonition came off like the stereotypical “that’s so sexist to comment on a woman’s body” approach, which triggered defenses that focused on the fact that it was just a joke, Drmies and LoS are friends, why don’t you people have a sense of humor? If, instead, you’d acknowledged the humor (rather than just an attempt at humor), acknowledged that LoS herself likely would not find it offensive, nor that Drmies intended it as such… and then explained that your concern was for other editors who might come across the comment and, not knowing the relationships involved, tick Wikipedia down yet another mental notch in “welcomingness”. Instead you came across as humorless and scolding, which rarely garners productive responses. Powers &8^] -----Original Message----- From: Katherine Casey [mailto:fluffernutter.wiki@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday 17 July 2013 14:24 To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: [Gendergap] Casual sexism on en.wp Another day, another example of casual sexism exhibited by en.wikipedia editors who mean absolutely no harm, but simply don't understand how they could cause harm while meaning none. I seem to have caused significant alarm and offense to a number of male editors be publicly pointing out that I found the comment inappropriate. Was there a better way to handle this? I can't help feeling that saying nothing or hatting the section would have been supporting the notion that it's either not a problem or not remarkable for male editors to make comments encouraging others to comment on female editors' bodies. -Fluff _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

But I did all those things, Powers. I said that I knew it was supposed to be humourous and that LoS might not personally mind it, and I said that my concern was for other people reading it. And the responses I've gotten, both directed at me and among people not talking to me, were pretty horrible. All of them alleged that I had no right to speak at all, and certainly not a right to ruin the fun other editors were having with my silly old "women are equal" crap. I see a large part - maybe the bigger part - of the problem here as the fact that men perceive my intervention as "humorless scolding" that's just out to ruin their good, clean fun (fun that was totally humorous and in no way in need of correction, of course), and that they feel the appropriate response to that is to jeer, laugh, and insult me freely, the better to make sure no woman dares speak up next time. As a thought experiment, Powers, consider: would you ever tell a male editor that their behavior came off as "scolding"? I suspect the answer is no; that's a term almost exclusively reserved for use against women. -Fluff On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Powers &lt;LtPowers_Wiki(a)rochester.rr.com&gt;wrote;wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

He almost certainly would have :) There is nothing inappropriate about the phrase mind and body. What is inappropriate is nerd rage. That's what puts of people (of all sorts) from contributing. But I know I am in a minority singing from the sensible hymn sheet around here so I'll put up ;) hopefully having made a point that might cause at least one person to think carefully. Tom On 18 Jul 2013 17:49, "Ryan Kaldari" &lt;rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap