Talk:Preferred gender pronoun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylorstevens12. Peer reviewers: Erinsalomon, Ejpark0111.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 02:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dreaterry.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 02:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Mental health

Hi @

doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.02.003) and found that (A) they both used the same data from 129 respondents and (B) they did not consider pronoun use, but rather use of the individual's chosen name. Cheers, gnu57 13:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi Genericusername57, I simply located two research articles to cite that the research exists, and that perhaps a citation-needed would have been a bit more constructive. I agree that an exhaustive bibliography on the connection between suicide, gender dyspohoria and preferred pronouns is probably out of scope for the article. But if you think additional citing research would help I can do that. About your point (B) the choice of name often entails a change in the pronouns that are used to refer to that person. So I think that the research is still relevant in this context. Edsu (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to use primary research sources (particularly ones with small sample sizes) for information about suicide causes and prevention (please see
WP:MEDPRI). I think information about use of transgender youth's preferred names would be a better fit in transgender youth than in this article. Thank you for offering to find better sources--I think the section as presented now is misleading, because it suggests a relation between mental health outcomes and pronouns which is not borne out by any of the cited sources. Cheers, gnu57 16:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, that make sense. I thought your edits to clarify the background and findings of the study were helpful. Thanks! Edsu (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched about quite a bit for references addressing specifically the effect of PGP use on mental health and not turned up anything. I'm going to remove the material for now, but please feel free to re-add it if you find sources. Cheers, gnu57 21:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to search. There is already a cited reference. Just because you can't follow a link and read a paper doesn't mean you can just removed text from this article. Edsu (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
third opinion in order to receive input from another editor. Cheers, gnu57 00:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@Genericusername57: Russell (2018) states their results pretty plainly: "After adjusting for personal characteristics and social support, chosen name use in more contexts was associated with lower depression, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior. Depression, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior were lowest when chosen names could be used in all four contexts." Thank you for requesting a a third opinion to try to help resolve the issue. Note, I did not put the original text into the article and am defending its removal by you by adding a citation. So I am basically a third party already. Edsu (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Russell does mention pronouns in passing, but doesn't ascribe benefits/detriments to them specifically; the bulk of his/her focus is on use of chosen names (which is related, of course, but not the same). Cheers, gnu57 02:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3O
Response: If we have this as an article then the section strikes me as intrinsically connected enough to be included in it, as long as it's made clear that the specific studies technically only measured chosen name use. We also have sources supporting a connection between the two and which seem to take it as given that mental health outcomes for names, among other things, can be safely extrapolated to pronouns as well:

For me, that's enough to keep the section titled as it is (as opposed to changing it to "Chosen name use" or something). But that's just my opinion. Cheers, ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "preferred" to "personal" in article title

As noted in "The Radical Copyeditor’s Style Guide for Writing About Transgender People", specifically section 2.4.3:

2.4.3. Pronouns are simply pronouns. They aren’t “preferred” and they aren’t inherently tied to gender identity or biology.

Use: pronouns; personal pronouns; she/her/hers; he/him/his; they/them/theirs; ze/zir/zirs; Sam/Sam/Sam (and any other pronoun or combination)

Avoid: preferred pronouns; masculine pronouns; feminine pronouns; male pronouns; female pronouns

As J. Mase III once succinctly put it, “my pronouns aren’t preferred; they’re required.” A person’s correct pronouns are not a preference; neither are pronouns inherently masculine, feminine, male, or female: for example, a masculine person could use she/her/hers pronouns and a female person could use they/them/theirs pronouns.

The University of Massachusetts Amherst also has a handout (linked from this page) that addresses this:

Don't [...] Describe the pronouns someone uses as “preferred pronouns.” It is not a preference. The pronouns that a person uses are their pronouns and the only ones that should be used for them.

As such, at the very least "preferred" should be avoided in the article title. "Gender" should arguably be avoided as well, but an article already exists at

Personal gender pronoun accordingly, and probably adding a section about the reason why "preferred" is... not the preferred term. I do recognize that "preferred [gender] pronoun" is a common term used to refer to the concept, which is why this should be addressed in the body of the article. V2Blast (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I support this change, nice work @V2Blast:! Edsu (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Can we make this change? Triangular (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is based on multiple instances of incorrect understanding of grammar.
E.g. "Gender" is a fundamental grammatical concept. Any writing about pronouns that is based on avoiding it is similar to writing about arithmetic that is based on avoiding mentioning numbers, or about football that is based on avoiding mentioning balls.
E.g. The article is about the preference that an individual might have about which pronoun others should use when referring to them. It is clearly a personal preference as another person, such as the person doing the referring might have a different preference about which pronoun to use: they might base their preference on attaching importance to correct grammar. In that situation both such people would have different preferences, the perferences are, at least, a personal choice. One person prefers adhering to grammatical rules, whilst the other prefers considering a different set of criteria to be more important than correct use of grammar.
If a personal decision were the overriding criterion it would be just as valid for one person to prefer that all animals are referred to as "dragon". It might filfil the wishes of that person but not those of most other people. The liklihood is that the minority view would be ignored by he majority in the interests of pregmatic communication. Similarly, although there is a small, albeit vociferous, minority that supports an individual being able to dictate to everyone else how they should be referred to, and using justifications such as indifidual rights, respect, etc, the liklihood is that most people will ignore this preference except in certain mandated and limited contexts. For example, a quick check of a few contexts where people are listed with brief information (newspaper contributor lists, university contact lists, etc) found a very small number of people who specified their own preferred personal pronoun and a large majority that preferred the normal rules of grammar.
Interesting discussion, though. 86.139.37.148 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of availability in other languages

Mmhmm. Interesting how this subject is not available in any other language. Could that be saying something? Is the subject of (third person) pronouns even a thing to speakers of other languages? I mean, it won't be to Finnish speakers for one, being that they, quite sensibly, haven't gendered any pronouns. Gallovidian85 (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply not Encyclopedia-worthy. 121.45.171.107 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns. One of our oldest articles, supposedly adapted from h2g2. Hard to find at that title, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This could be briefly mentioned in this article rather than as an interwiki link, but gendered third person pronouns are not really used in many languages (maybe as constructed words for the purpose of translating English). It could be worth noting the extent to which this topic doesn't apply to other languages, as a caution for internationalization. --Nidaana (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legal enforcement

Should we add a section for legal enforcement?

The recognition of preferred gender pronouns varies across the globe. In the USA and canada, the use of preferred gender pronouns at places of employment is mandated by law.

75.166.137.201 (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have a section as of now, so these can be added, I suppose. Historyday01 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Overall, the supporters of the move have not made the case that "personal gender pronoun" has become the most common usage, or that any issues with the term "preferred" being misleading would override the fact that article titles policy generally prefers the most common and recognizable name. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


naturally disambiguate this topic. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

2.4.3. Pronouns are simply pronouns. They aren’t “preferred” and they aren’t inherently tied to gender identity or biology. Use: pronouns; personal pronouns; she/her/hers; he/him/his; they/them/theirs; ze/zir/zirs; Sam/Sam/Sam (and any other pronoun or combination) Avoid: preferred pronouns; masculine pronouns; feminine pronouns; male pronouns; female pronouns As J. Mase III once succinctly put it, “my pronouns aren’t preferred; they’re required.” A person’s correct pronouns are not a preference; neither are pronouns inherently masculine, feminine, male, or female: for example, a masculine person could use she/her/hers pronouns and a female person could use they/them/theirs pronouns.

  • In addition to that, here is a selection of prominent reliable sources and relevant authorities discussing the topic of gender pronouns:
    My point with all these is not to demonstrate usage, but to demonstrate lack of usage. All of these articles and style guides in major publications and organizations discuss gender pronouns, but either avoid referring to pronouns as a preference, or explicitly instruct against this usage. These selections span the last five years (the Washington Post added gender-neutral pronouns to their style guide in 2015 but I can't find it to link to specifically) so this is not a recent development. Compare recent major news coverage on a transgender actor's pronouns:
    • Time: "announced on Tuesday that they are transgender and their pronouns are he/they."
    • CNN: "Page said their pronouns are 'he' and 'they.'"
    • CBC: "shared that he is trans and that he uses the pronouns he or they."
    • The Washington Post: "announcing his new name and pronouns, ..."
    For a
    WP:TITLES
    -based argument:
    • WP:COMMONNAME
      "prefers the name that is most commonly used", which really is "gender pronoun" or "gender-neutral pronoun".
    • WP:NDESC
      , which suggests using a non-judgemental title. Per several of the sources above, implying that a person's pronouns are a preference can be taken as offensive by some, and while you may not agree, I challenge you to find offense in the word "personal" in this context.
    • WP:PRECISE
      instructs to use a title sufficiently precise to identify a topic, but no more precise. "Pronoun" is nowhere near precise enough, "gender pronoun" is ambiguous with another topic as I noted in the nom statement.
    • WP:NATURALDIS
      suggests that "natural" disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical, when a title is ambiguous. Adding "personal" satisfies this guideline.
    -- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ivanvector's reasoning. I would also note that, even if "preferred gender pronoun" is more common than "personal gender pronoun",
    WP:COMMONNAME states "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." GreenComputer (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@V2Blast and Edsu: Pinging participants of the previous discussion about the title. I've also notified WikiProject Linguistics and WikiProject LGBT studies. GreenComputer (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a title being the most common doesn't negate the fact it can be misleading, and research in the relevant field even indicates this being incorrect. When a better, still relatively common, title exists, it should be used instead. Kingsif (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All of this is nonsense on its face - people do not use pronouns for themselves or "personally". Pronouns are what other people use outside of the company of the person they are talking about. This makes the "personal gender pronoun" a nonsense phrase. People can and do state the preference for the pronouns others should use, and that is reflected in the current title. Stop redefining language. It is you that is supporting a misleading term. -- Netoholic @ 16:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's "personal" because it refers to a person. It's not just a "preference", for the reasons already stated in the sources cited above. Unnecessary aggressiveness is not a counterargument. V2Blast (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look to the comments from Ivanvector above, you'll see that I am in no way promoting a neologism. This is well sourced, cited, and current use. Megs (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On further reading, suggest instead Gendered pronoun. This term seems to be used more in scholarly use than "gender pronoun". This would also fit better structurally, with this article being considered the parent article to Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Cautions" subsection.

For context, I trimmed the section, @Crossroads: reverted, and I adjusted a second time and here we are.

Using this 2018 opinion columns as an example is a form of editorializing, as there is no other indication that this perspective is encyclopedically significant. Further, it is presumptuous to imply that anyone claims this is "universally accepted or advised". A section for this emphasizes a couple of minor perspectives based on flimsy sources. Further, Levin's opinion says quite a bit more than just "don't do it". It also reaffirms the idea that these are not "preferred" pronouns at all: "In the last few years, we realized that pronouns aren’t “preferred” but simply correct or incorrect for someone’s identity." If the opinion belongs here, it should be properly summarized. Lacking support from other sources, shorter is better here. Grayfell (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I have partially reverted your
WP:BRD please and keep to the status quo unless there is a consensus to change it. I can compromise on the 'not universally advised' sentence, and you can expand on the Levin and other sources if you like, but as for the rest: All the sections are short, and the cautions are not part of the rationale, so it should have its own heading. It makes no sense whatsoever not to explain why the custom could upset some of those it is intended for. As for its significance, it is a fine source and no more poorly sourced than much of the rest of the material; nor is there any evidence that these are "minor" perspectives (I doubt Stonewall's perspective is minor). Crossroads -talk- 01:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Template 'Article pronouns' is available

For

biographical articles, template {{Article pronouns}} is now available for Talk page usage. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Previously called {{
Preferred pronouns}}, the name of the template was changed after a discussion at the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Page protection

This article definitely needs some protecting in my view. John Zillerson (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"preferred"

There is a short "Terminology" section that explains some criticism of the term preferred pronouns, but I suggest that popular/common alternative terms should be explicitly mentioned, which may include proper pronouns (see [1]) and personal pronouns (see above discussion topic).

—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Broaden scope to mention written correspondence in general

I suggest that the article also can mention the benefit of conveying information outside of an LGBT prism, when dealing with written correspondence when there are no visual or audio cues.

Traditionally the correct pronoun to use could usually be inferred from a person's given name. For instance "John" implied he/him/his, and "Mary" implied she/her/hers. When encountering uncommon names in written correspondence, such as "X", or names from a culture that we happen to be unfamiliar with, such as (perhaps) "Bryndís" or "Myung-hwan", it would be helpful to have an explicit written pointer as to the applicable pronouns.

(Traditionally one such pointer would have been inclusion of a title, such as "Miss. J. M. Harroway". However, titles are used less frequently now. And some titles are non-specific, such as "Dr. Bianchi" — albeit that historically "Dr." and "Prof." did statistically imply use of he/him/his.)

—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Legal position on preferred pronouns

Do we need a section on the legal position here? It could explore whether there is a legal obligation to use preferred pronouns, even when institutions strongly recommend them. Some cases suggest that it is not a legal obligation, as that would breach a person's right to free speech. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nero Calatrava (talk • contribs) 10:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Romine, Taylor. "Federal appeals court rules in favor of Ohio professor who refused to use transgender student's pronouns". CNN. Retrieved 18 December 2021.
We have a section for this already and it will be expanded, carefully.--Historyday01 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Compelled use of a preferred pronoun"?

I don't believe this paragraph is actually relevant. That is to say, I don't believe it provides anything of substance to this article:

  • The 2018 criminal trial of trans woman Tara Wolf provides an example of compelled use of a preferred pronoun.[25][26] Wolf was convicted of assaulting the radical feminist Maria MacLachlan.[27] During the trial, the judge instructed MacLachlan: "The defendant wished to be referred to as a woman, so perhaps you could refer to her as 'she' for the purpose of the proceedings."[27]

First of all, why are we bringing up "compelled use" at all? There's no evidence provided that this is any kind of widespread or notable phenomenon. One example of a judge suggesting (not ordering or compelling) that a plaintiff refer to a defendant by her preferred pronouns (a suggestion which, according to this article, she did not even follow) is completely immaterial to the article as a whole. This whole thing reeks of transphobia. If someone has evidence that "compelled use" of preferred pronouns is a real thing that's actually notable and relevant, then fine, gather some reliable sources and write about in in NPOV. But don't just tack a paragraph in the middle of the article about some woman who was asked by a judge to refer to the defendant correctly. I am going to remove this paragraph from the article.

-Sensorfire (✎|‽) 04:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have no idea why that section was added in the first place. I think it definitely should be removed. There has to be a better example of use of pronouns in a court setting than this case. Historyday01 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm assuming
Wikipedia:DUE
to include it, and indeed it would not be NPOV to exclude it.
If there are other examples of pronouns in a court setting, great, let's include them. But the current absence of other examples is not a good reason to remove this example. AndyGordon (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to be included at all then it needs to be completely rewritten. This language of "compelled speech", when it is merely referring to people correctly, is absolutely not something we can be doing in Wikipedia's own voice. It is a highly POV conspiracy theory and we must not be legitimising it in this way. If we want to explain what this claim of "compelled speech" is, and cover it properly, then I guess we can but I think it might be a broader issue than can be contained in this article as the same claim is made about many other things, not just pronouns. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DanielRigal, I've qualified the first sentence to make reference to Kathleen Stock, rather than being in wikivoice. I hope that addresses your concern. AndyGordon (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I've attempted to tidy this paragraph up. The previous wording did feel like it was just Stock's words rewritten, and certainly had Wikivoice concerns. Long quotations from the article were not necessary and needed clarification as to whether it was a instruction or request. I've also mentioned that the party who was asked to use the pronouns did not do so, and provided a reference for this. Tvcameraop (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I still find this whole thing rather unsavory. The passage looks significantly better after the new revisions, but I think it's silly that we're giving any serious weight to the notion that there's some serious compelled speech issue at hand here. Sensorfire (✎|‽) 02:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. There has to be a better example of use of pronouns which could be used, or alternatively not having the section at all. I really don't think the section adds anything to the article. Historyday01 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's good as rewritten. The matter of how gender pronouns intersect with speech rights is certainly a noteworthy topic and should be covered, with viewpoints having in-text attribution as needed. Crossroads -talk- 05:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads, this section does not help with the "matter of how gender pronouns intersect with speech rights." It really doesn't. It seems biased against trans people. I know you are talking more about how gender pronouns intersect with speech rights, from what I understand, but I would not say this incident is a "noteworthy topic" that "should be covered." Historyday01 (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the discussion. If anyone has more time to devote to this page, the lead needs work as noted at the top of the page. AndyGordon (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that it is, in theory, important to note if using preferred gender pronouns is legally required by some countries. However, the content in question is not that, and should be removed as
coatrack behaviour here to attach an unremarkable judge's comment to an article under the guise of it being a potential instance of being "legally compelled" to use particular language.
In summary, the content needs blanket removal. There's no way to improve it so that it is due weight or neutral. — Bilorv (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi @Bilorv, re consequences, according to the Feminist Current article "In his summing up, the judge said I had shown “bad grace” and used this as an excuse not to award compensation". Do you think we should include that information? AndyGordon (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to completely agree with Bilorv here and I support full removal of the section and do not believe it can be improved so it has due weight and is neutral at the same time. Historyday01 (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also fully agree with Bilorv, and this brings me back to my original stance that the content was not notable or relevant enough to be included in the first place. Mitigation attempts aside, I think Bilorv's arguments hold and this content requires blanket removal. Sensorfire (✎|‽) 16:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree with Bilorv. Removal is required as including the paragraph is
undue weight. GreenComputer (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Folks, I wish we could discuss this face-to-face but that's not how Wikipedia works, I guess.
Anyhow, the paragraph starts with the viewpoint: "There have been accusations that institutions have compelled people to use preferred pronouns in certain scenarios." and then describes the MacLachlan incident. From WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." We have 4 sources to back up the viewpoint.
Here are 2 further reliable sources that confirm the viewpoint, and actually go further and suggest that the source is the Equal Treatment Bench Book:
In addition, in her notable book Trans, notable author Helen Joyce writes: "...Maria MacLachlan, was assaulted by a transactivist in 2017. Under the influence of the Equal Treatment Bench Book, the judge ordered her to refer to her transwoman assailant as 'she' while giving her evidence. Though the defendant was found guilty, the judge reprimanded MacLachlan and denied her financial compensation because she kept forgetting to use female pronouns for the obviously male person who has punched her in the face."
Also, Carrie Clark of the Free Speech Union writes in an article in Spiked that: "Stonewall has even reprimanded government bodies for using ‘gendered terminology’ in maternity policies, because words like ‘mother’ and ‘woman’ are apparently ‘trans-exclusionary’. The courts have been impacted, too. In 2019, 61-year-old Maria MacLachlan was criticised by a judge for ‘misgendering’ the male-bodied trans woman who was later convicted of assaulting her. These stunningly skewed priorities seem to have been the result of guidance issued in the Equal Treatment Bench Book, which relies heavily on Stonewall sources." Stonewall should call off the pronoun police - spiked (spiked-online.com)
That's 6 sources for this viewpoint. Suppose for the sake of argument, that the majority view is that nothing interesting happened here, a judge simply reminded MacLachlan of the reality of the situation and the pronouns she should be using. I think that's why some of you may be thinking there's nothing interesting here (forgive me if I'm wrong). But the sources I've described represent a minority view (for the sake of argument) that something startling happened. WP:DUE requires us to represent that minority view in the article.
Regards all! AndyGordon (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AndyGordon, I am not sure about that, as I still believe that the "MacLachlan incident" really is undue weight, building upon what Bilorv said. The sources cited in that paragraph are: the
WP:RS states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That is definitely the case here. Keeping the section in contention in the article is not only harmful but clearly runs afoul of Wikipedia rules with a section having undue weight. This section shouldn't have been added to the page in the first place. Historyday01 (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It is a conspiracy theory, largely advanced in bad faith, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't cover it at all. It just means that we have to cover it carefully, not overdoing it, not endorsing it and not adopting the conspiratorial terminology used to advance it (e.g. "male-bodied"). In particular it must not be used as a coat rack to introduce a lot of individual examples that those authors have chosen as illustrations which (very conveniently) all seem to involve drawing disproportionate attention to minor offences, infractions and annoyances committed by trans people. Some of this stuff isn't even true. Anybody old enough to remember the 1980s will recognise claims like "you can't say 'mother' any more" as lazy riffs on old right wing tabloid tropes like "loony left council says you can't say 'fairly cakes' any more". Instead we should keep it short and note that a connection to compelled speech has been made and name a few of the most notable proponents. We can link compelled speech, which is helpful because that enables interested readers to find out what compelled speech actually is. I'm thinking two sentences maximum. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying and understand, but I also think there has to be a better example to use instead of this. I don't see how this current example really helps readers and I'm not convinced it helps them. Historyday01 (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you both make good points. I will concede that AndyGordon is correct that there exists a large group of people who believe in pronouns as compelled speech as a significant phenomenon (and that therefore we ought to afford it some degree of coverage), and I am sympathetic to DanielRigal's view that there is indeed grounds to cover it without giving it any weight. I think HistoryDay01 is correct that the Tara Wolf example is simply a bad one to include (hence why I removed it in the first place). I feel it is quite unfair to put TERF talking points slandering a particular, living individual on Wikipedia, where anyone in the world can see it, even approached as neutrally as possible. -Sensorfire (✎|‽) 03:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01 peace, but I disagree with "That is definitely the case here". What is the contentious material about living persons? It appears to be a widely reported fact that Wolf was convicted and MacLachlan was admonished by the judge. Is anyone disputing the facts in the paragraph?
@DanielRigal the paragraph doesn't use the phrase "compelled speech" and AFAIK neither does Kathleen Stock who talks about compelled use. I tend to disagree about individual examples; individual examples are concrete evidence of a phenomenon.
If there are more examples, great, but again I don't see that as a reason to exclude this particular widely-reported example.
@
slander is "the oral or written communication of a false statement". What is the false statement you are thinking of? AndyGordon (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to be honest and say that I am getting a little frustrated here.
"Compelled use" is not a synonym for "compelled speech"? There are "examples" of an alleged "phenomenon" but we can't say what the phenomenon actually is? I'm sorry, but if this "phenomenon" really is so utterly nebulous and unsubstantial then I don't see how we can cover it without engaging in OR by defining it ourselves. This is leading me away from my suggestion (above) and towards supporting excluding the matter entirely. We can't have "examples" of something without saying what they are examples of. That would be giving implied credence to a conspiracy theory without saying what the conspiracy theory actually is. Listing examples and allowing people to join the dots into the shape of a conspiracy theory is not acceptable. Using this as a coatrack to talk about quite unremarkable infractions committed by trans people is also unacceptable.
Either this is about compelled speech or it is about something else or it is about nothing at all. I'm not seeing a candidate for a "something else" here. I'm still inclined to think that the writers cited are making unambiguous allegations of compelled speech and that we can mention that, very briefly, in the article without falling into OR. If it is not that then I can't see that it is anything to cover here at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree completely with DanielRigal. AndyGordon, I was referring to the fact that the section provided is contentious material and it is poorly sourced since the sources are negative and questionable, as I previously pointed out. Its not like an article in the New York Times or Washington Post is cited, rather ALL the sources you have cited and those cited in the text seem to have the same slant and viewpoint. Hence, the sources are negative and questionable. And since those sources are used for the paragraph, it puts everything within it into question. Historyday01 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the phenomenon is simply "There have been accusations that institutions have compelled people to use preferred pronouns in certain scenarios." Stock is talking about institutions compelling use (but not necessarily via legal means which I think is the legal concept of "compelled speech" which I'm not that familiar with). You might well be right that this is about compelled speech in the legal sense but I'd be more comfortable if that's what the sources said. Perhaps I'm being too conservative.
Dear @
WP:REPUTABLE
helpful here:
"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement."
In this case, the given statements in our three sentences are pretty simple and factual. The sources including the Evening Standard, the Daily Telegraph, Stock, and Feminist Current are in agreement about them, and I would say provide very strong support that Wolf was tried and convicted, what the judge said, etc.
Best regards, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I am using my "judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources" and I would say that all the sources provided as not appropriate sources. As I have said before, if there is a better example of this, then that would be fine, but the current section is supported by sources which are clearly biased toward a particular viewpoint. I would not say the sources provide "very strong support" as they are questionable sources in and of themselves. Historyday01 (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyGordon: I was using "slander" in more of a colloquial sense, that of dragging someone's name through the mud. My point is that we shouldn't be giving so much attention to an example (which in my view is, in fact, a non-example) that involves further publicizing an incident involving a living person who frankly shouldn't have been subject to so much media attention in the first place. -Sensorfire (✎|‽) 21:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought too. I don't think there should be so much attention to something that involves, as you put it, a living person who shouldn't have "been subject to so much media attention in the first place." Historyday01 (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Historyday01 do you have any evidence of the Telegraph or the Standard being unreliable regarding simple observations of what was said in a court of law? Said otherwise, what are your reasons to regard their reporting to be unreliable?
AFAIK, nobody has claimed these events didn't take place. Are you saying these sources are biased towards the viewpoint that these events took place, when in fact they didn't? The passage we're discussing is not about ideology; it's claiming simple facts about proceedings in a court of law.
OK, so I read through
WP:BLPNAME. Wolf was convicted, and MacLachlan voluntarily gave an interview to Feminist Current. Both have been named in reliable secondary sources that are not newspapers. So I don't see any prohibition from naming them. However, their names don't add much to an article on pronouns so if you would prefer we could rewrite to avoid naming them. AndyGordon (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It puzzles me as to why you continue to defend these sources. They clearly have a conservative slant and are against trans people. I'm saying that because the sources are biased, we can't use them to say "oh yes, this event happened." Hence, they are unreliable. As I've said previously, the whole section should be removed. I would not say that Feminist Current is a reliable secondary source either. I don't think a rewrite would solve the problem, only a removal. This section should have never been added into the article in the first place and its inclusion does not add anything of value to the article. Historyday01 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is pretty much argued out now. My interpretation is that we have a rough consensus for removal. Even I, who thinks that inclusion could be possible if done much more carefully, do not support inclusion the way it has been done. I am going to boldly remove the paragraph. If we want to continue discussing this then I suggest somebody make an RfC with a proposed wording.

My view is that if the proposal can avoid the deficiencies of the current text then it might yet stand a chance. If it is another coatrack to drag a non-notable person's name into this then I think it is dead in the water. (Note: This is to say that I will !vote "strong oppose" to any proposed text that introduces negative coverage of any named living (or recently deceased) individual who does not already have an article about them already including valid coverage of whatever the hell it is we are on about here.) --DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will rewrite to avoid naming Wolf. I'm going to revert your edit, and add in some additional text to better explain Stock's views about pronouns. AndyGordon (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I included some other critics of preferred pronouns. I'm not particularly happy with the current structure. Perhaps we should have a section on criticisms?
WP:GOODFAITH
WP:CIVILITY
Regards! AndyGordon (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding of the discussion, there is not consensus to add that section in right now as you have done. Not sure why you thought adding it in is in line with this consensus. Hence, I have reverted your addition. The article has been improved to have more neutral, rather than negative or questionable sources which note PGPs. And there are likely many other such sources out there, like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this If you want some sources being critical of pronouns, maybe articles like this one would be good or Justice Samuel Alito’s out there dissent in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which is noted in this article, and this (critical of them being mandatory, although usually they are just encouraged), to give a few examples. If there are good sources for it, perhaps those could all be moved to a "Criticism" section, just as other articles have a criticism section. Historyday01 (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't have time to work on this for a wee while. I'll note though that most of the sources you are linking above are
WP:SELFPUB and so not considered reliable. The text you have deleted was based mostly on secondary sources (the exception being Stock's book, although it was backed up by a relevant quote from a book review, a secondary source). I was responding to @DanielRigal
deciding to delete the whole paragraph, and I was acting on the suggestion I'd made to remove the name of the convicted trans woman.
You write this: "Not sure why you thought adding it in is in line with this consensus. Hence, I have reverted your addition." Please help me here, what is the policy you are following?
On this: "The article has been improved to have more neutral, rather than negative or questionable sources which note PGPs." It's not an improvement to remove sources that take a negative perspective - we should be including negative views on PGPs in proportion to their occurrence in the reliable sources. Said otherwise, we want the article to be neutral, but that doesn't mean we exclude sources with a negative or positive view about PGPs.
Having read this: WP:STRUCTURE, I'm not so sure about having a separate section about criticisms. Better that they be co-mingled with the text.
Best regards to all. AndyGordon (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that a section that is specifically about criticisms would allow people to go to that specific section for criticisms, concentrating everything there rather than interspersing it. I've seen it used on other pages, so I wouldn't see an issue adding it for this page. Some of those above sources, certainly, are self-published, although others are not. Just a quick search of the U.S. Supreme Court site finds Alito's dissent in Bostock and Kagan's dissent in a 2018 case, all of which mention PGPs. So, those would be better sources to use than the ones I removed, while adding in more neutral and primary sources, which actually say more than the Times or Telegraph could. There are various sources out there which criticize PGP usage, so I don't think there would be any problem with finding sources "including negative views on PGPs." You just have to know where to look. And I think that including sources like the Times and Telegraph, and those like Stock, does begin to throw the page's neutrality into question. The sources I recently added are more neutral in that they are mainly just focusing on specific institutions using PGPs. Some have a positive view of PGPs, but that's not the majority of the sources I added. In terms of saying "not sure why you thought adding it in is in line with this consensus. Hence, I have reverted your addition," I am referring to
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS here. But, I'll see what I can do to improve the page in the future.Historyday01 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Update: A section about criticism has been added. I'm taking a break from editing the article after adding almost 30,000 bytes in recent edits. The Kagan opinion is a bit too ambiguous to be used, so I'm going to disregard that. But, I would say that the sources used in the article are much better than those before, which were ones which were negative and questionable. As I said before, it is possible to use sources other than the Times, Telegraph, and others in removed sections, that have criticism of PGPs. I've found some sources and I'd guess that there are others out there.Historyday01 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Historyday01, why do you want to use sources other than the Times and the Telegraph? These are respectable newspapers with a reputation for fact-checking. We were only using news reports not opinion pieces.
For example, you've removed this article:
Civil servants to be asked to include pronouns in email sign-offs (telegraph.co.uk)
And also removed this sentence sourced from the article, which reports the two sides: "Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Government Leslie Evans dismissed the poll results as "disappointing", while campaign group For Women Scotland described the government as "authoritarian"."
At some point I will get around to replacing the deleted material if nobody helps first, but I'd like to understand why you did this.
Thanks, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I stand by saying that the Times and Telegraph are negative and questionable, specifically when it comes to the topic of this article. That is why I did not use them. I tried to use more neutral sources, either government reports or something else, rather than something like the Times and Telegraph. And additionally, both are behind a paywall, whereas the sources I have added are not, so that also makes them more accessible to readers. My main interest here is that I don't want readers to be mislead by the sources on the page. Historyday01 (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Historyday01
I'm sure we mean well, and we have much common ground including not wanting to mislead anyone.
Being behind a paywall is not a good argument for excluding a source.
The government report you've used to replace the Telegraph report re the poll of Scottish civil servants is both
WP:SECONDARY
source. Our articles ought to largely be based on secondary sources, so your edit makes the article worse in terms of sourcing.
It's great that you've time to contribute to this page, which needs lots of work. But it's not neutral to exclude material reported by these papers unless there's good reason.
Both the Times and Telegraph are listed in
WP:GREL
. It says: "Arguments to exclude such a source entirely must be strong and convincing".
You are saying they are "negative and questionable, specifically when it comes to the topic of this article" ie PGPs.
What's your evidence for that?
Unless you have evidence, I'd like to encourage you as an editor to restore the well-sourced material that you have removed.
Many thanks. AndyGordon (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm willing to add back in some of those sources, if the information is reported in a reliable source other than the Telegraph or the Times, but I'm not going to remove any of the sources I added. Government reports are fine as sources and were actually more informative than the Telegraph or Times articles. Although I will not be re-adding the section in contention which was the focus of this discussion in the first place, nor the part about Kathleen Stock which you added on February 20, which I believe was undue weight, I did re-add some previously removed sections, but with better sources, especially those which are not negative and questionable when it comes to PGPs, like with inflammatory headlines (like articles I removed titled "Rise of the pronoun underlines the City’s conversion to woke agenda" and "Leeds University students demand staff state their gender" which incorrectly view those encouraging PGP usage), sympathizing with those who are critical of trans people, and are used to cause confusion on the page, like with this section that I removed. For this page, I think we should use the best sources possible and try to avoid, if at all possible, those who are hostile and negative toward PGPs, in order to make sure the page remains neutral and doesn't mislead those reading the page, and make sure there isn't undue weight like the previous line which noted Jordan Peterson's pronoun usage, to give an example.Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Historyday01, thank you for restoring the content. I feel we are having a productive conversation.
Still, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It's just not neutral to censor sources because of what you call inflammatory titles or "sympathizing with those who are critical of trans people". NPOV is non-negotiable. It's a basic principle of this website.
To make the page neutral, we need to include both negative and positive views, in proportion to the sources.
I stand by my proposal to include the incident, that started this thread, where the judge penalized a witness for not using PGPs. It has 6 secondary sources so it should be included in the page. There are plenty of sentences in this page supported by just 1 source.
Many thanks, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I still stand against the inclusion of the incident for the reasons I have previously stated and would argue that consensus currently stands against its inclusion at the current time. I would add that per the argument made at Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section that a criticism section for this topic is appropriate because "the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and...readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location." I don't think it would be a "Troll magnet" either, as long as it is carefully watched. Historyday01 (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My specific proposal is to include the following text:
There have been accusations that some UK institutions have compelled people to use preferred pronouns. Philosopher Kathleen Stock and journalist Helen Joyce give the example of radical feminist Maria MacLachlan, a witness in a trial that resulted in a trans woman being convicted of MacLachlan's assault. The judge reprimanded MacLachlan and denied her compensation for failing to use female pronouns to refer to the trans woman on trial.
I won't repeat the six sources here but you can find them in the Use section of this version.
Hi @Historyday01 the key point of your argument against the previous text is that: "They [the sources] clearly have a conservative slant and are against trans people. I'm saying that because the sources are biased, we can't use them to say "oh yes, this event happened." Hence, they are unreliable."
In response, I've tried to explain that neutrality is about representing the significant viewpoints (including what you might call "biases"), with due weight. In this version of the text, we are clearly attributing the viewpoint to Stock and Joyce, who are notable for their books on transgender issues.
Would you now accept inclusion of this new version of the paragraph?
Thanks, Andy AndyGordon (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "some" when we only provide one example is a bit tenuous if you ask me. Tvcameraop (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Tvcameraop on this one and would argue that the whole section is tenous. I still stand by not including the section, as I'd argue its inclusion goes against
WP:UNDUE. Besides, it isn't needed on the page anyhow. Its not like its inclusion makes the page better. In fact, the page is much better off without the inclusion of the proposed section. Historyday01 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Please @Historyday01 if you're going to argue that inclusion is against WP:UNDUE please present a reasoned argument, rather than asserting its undue. It does make the page better, more neutral, by representing concerns about PGPs raised by Joyce and Stock.
Dear @Tcameraop you are right. I suggest an additional sentence, to provide a second example of an accusation against a UK institution (again a judge, actually):
Moreover, Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, concerned that David Mackereth lost the employment tribunal arising from his refusal to use preferred pronouns, said that: "this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech".
David Mackereth: Christian doctor loses trans beliefs case - BBC News AndyGordon (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a couple sentences about David Mackereth though, and that exact article is noted. I decided to not use the quote from Williams there, as it made sense to be more concise and not have the perception the article was supporting a certain point of view. I would still have to disagree that the inclusion makes the page better. Its inclusion makes it appear that the sources cited are neutral, when what I was saying makes clear they are not. All of the sources seem to be biased in favor of Maria MacLachlan, while the trans woman isn't even named, which seems weird. It seems our back-and-forth is going circular, as I don't want to make the same arguments I made against inclusion earlier. I don't see the need to restate myself. I stand by my view that the inclusion of the section would not help the page, and I'm not sure why you keep pushing its inclusion. Its not like rephrasing the section is somehow going to get to change my opinion. I still remain unconvinced at this point.Historyday01 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Historyday01, thank you for engaging in this discussion. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think that you, in good faith, are misunderstanding what "neutral point of view" means for Wikipedia. Please see this essay:
WP:YESBIAS
To quote from that essay: "NPOV (
Neutral Point of View
) is our most sacred policy, yet its use of the word "neutral" is constantly misunderstood by editors and visitors who feel that NPOV occupies some sort of "No Point Of View" middle ground between biased points of view. Points of view and criticisms are by nature not neutral, and all types of biased points of view must be documented, often using biased sources, so the resulting content should not be neutral or free of bias."
You don't want to include a description of this incident because "Its inclusion makes it appear that the sources cited are neutral, when what I was saying makes clear they are not." As neutral editors we should be including accusations that some UK institutions have compelled people to use preferred pronouns, but we should be clear that they are accusations from particular individuals, like the ones we mention.
I hope that is clear. I would propose that we accept to include a discussion of these accusations, based on the sentences in italics in my previous two messages. The final text can be edited within the page, but I hope we can agree in principle to include these accusations.
@DanielRigal you were open in principle, I think. Would you agree with my proposal? I removed the name of the trans woman because I think @DanielRigal was concerned about a BLP violation.
I'm tagging also those editors who've contributed to this discussion: @Sensorfire @Tvcameraop @Crossroads @Bilorv @GreenComputer AndyGordon (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not keen on anything that doesn't link compelled speech when we first mention it. That is required to make the fundamental nature of the complaints clear to readers. I see no reason not to link it if we are to raise the matter at all. I'm also not very keen on the example used to illustrate the claims because it seems such a minor matter. A clearer example, demonstrating more genuine controversy, would be to mention C-16 and the resulting strange kerfuffle about "Imaginary Canadian Pronoun Jail" (Yes, I know that we can't use that phrase in the article but it does amuse me to use it here), which precisely zero people have ever been thrown into on account of it not actually existing. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with DanielRigal wholeheardedly. I really feel that this is a minor matter and there have been other incidents which are much more prominent, including about Mackereth which is already within the article. Historyday01 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple pronouns

Depending on how much references have to say about this, it might be appropriate to expand the examples (he/him, she/her, they/them) to mention that sometimes multiple pronouns are accepted, in which case typically just the subject pronouns are listed, e.g. she/they. (Also, might be appropriate to repeat or expand upon the wording about how pronouns are listed in the body, and not just the lead.) -sche (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely support expanding that. Maybe something from the Neopronoun page (or Spivak pronoun page) could be moved over to this page. Just a thought there. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we can find good sources then I'd be in favour of explaining about multiple choices. I certainly found combinations like "she/they" confusing the first time I encountered them, and even for a while after that, until I found some people on YouTube explaining why they used those combinations. It is definitely plausible that people might come to this article looking for an explanation of this so it would be good if we can provide them with a valid answer. We can at least explain that "she/they" means that either "she/her" or "they/them" is acceptable but it may be hard to explain why people choose this as different people may have many different reasons. I think we should also include "any/all" in this explanation as that turns up quite a bit and might also be confusing to people encountering it for the first time. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There should be some good sources out there, I would think. It might take some time out there to find them, but I'm guessing there are some reliable sources about this.--Historyday01 (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Inhersight" should be "InHerSight"

The casing follows the company's preferred format in the source, but in the main text of the article, it's written out as "InHerSight." Weareketura (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two fired for pronouns in signatures

This should be added https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/nyregion/houghton-university-employees-pronouns.html

Saving here for future reference. AndyGordon (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. You should add it!
talk) 14:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There have to be more articles than that one, considering this part of the article: "Houghton’s firing of the two staff members has dismayed some of its alumni, nearly 600 of whom signed a petition in protest. And it comes as gender and sexuality have become major fault lines in an increasingly divided nation, and after other faith-based organizations, including Yeshiva University in Manhattan, have argued that First Amendment protections of religious freedom allow them to treat gay and transgender people differently than others."
Found some other articles in USA Today, ABC, The Guardian (notes the Times story, but also quotes the petition/letter), and Fortune Historyday01 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They Does, now proper English?

Question asked and answered. Closing thread as it has devolved into off-topic squabbling.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Should we add a section on change to the English language, namely terms who’s use have signified ignorance, like “they does” are actually proper English in a singular they/them form of speech? 65.195.242.118 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not mention "they does" and I don't think that many people would regard it as correct. The normal thing is to say "they do", the same as in the plural case. e.g. "Although Alex is an accomplished musician they do not play the harmonica." --DanielRigal (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal I think it may be more proper to say “Although Alex (peace be upon they/them) is an accomplished musician, they doesn’t identify as someone who plays the harmonica.” 50.231.19.165 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't use "you does" as a proper English, as that's what the
concord. 189.75.138.21 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Says who? The nethandrals who wrote our language with the thinking there were only 2 genders? 50.231.19.165 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concepts and linguistics don't "say" anything, they are decided by conventions. And "they does" is ungrammatical, just as "you does". That doesn't have anything with genders. The subject of discussion here is grammatical person, not grammatical gender. Now if you think that prevails gender identity, then you have to study it more. Also "nethandrals" (aka neanderthals) sounds a biased term to describe ancients and our ancestors. 189.75.138.21 (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are our ancestors is debated. But it’s perfectly acceptable amongst left who controls displays to call people who don’t subscribe to modern day ideologies neanderthals. I understand the idea of always looking for a problem in what people say here though. 50.231.19.165 (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preferred_gender_pronoun&oldid=1208403620"