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