Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Activist in opening sentence

I would like to add "transgender rights activist" to the opening line. I wanted to take it to the talk page first, as this is a very highly trafficked article. In response to Jenner considering running for California governor, many mainstream RS refer to her that way, including the New York Times; Politico; the Associated Press; and others. I think leaving that out is an omission on WP's part. What are other editors thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Since no other editors have voiced an objection, I am going to be WP:BOLD and add "transgender rights activist" to the opening line. --Kbabej (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I am going to remove it. She's not a transgender rights activist; almost the opposite.--Jorm (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: That's a personal opinion of yours. Most RS refer to her as a transgender rights activist. We go by what RS state, not personal opinions of editors. --Kbabej (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Kbabej, I only count two, and they are passing mentions. The NYT source doesn't say that. Jorm (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are some more RS that I've found in around 1 minute of googling that explicitly call her a "transgender rights activist" or a "trans rights activist". Including the sources above: Associated Press, Politico, NY Times (note: not the previous NYT source, which doesn't explicitly say that), Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News, The Times, La Times, The Independent, Time, etc. These are all in the article's first, broad description of her, rather than passing mentions. Again, your personal opinion is irrelevant, Wikipedia does not publish original research. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: Many, many sources state that. The Washington Post ("transgender rights activist"); NYT ("Ms. Jenner, the transgender rights activist"); Marketwatch ("transgender rights activist"); Hollywood Reporter ("Jenner considers herself a transgender rights activist"); KHN.org ("transgender rights activist"); The Hill ("Transgender rights activist"); the list goes on. As for "passing mentions", they are descriptors, much like "socialite" and "reality tv personality". --Kbabej (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note I have struck the original NYT article mentioned, as it referred to her as "transgender activist", missing the "rights". --Kbabej (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: Given the many RS presented, what are your thoughts? I want to reach consensus before adding this back, and I think both Volteer1 and I have presented enough RS to easily support this addition. --Kbabej (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: It appears Jorm has moved on from this conversation. You are the remaining editor in the thread (besides myself). Would you agree we have reached consensus regarding adding back "transgender rights activist" to the article? The number of sources supporting that is incontrovertible. --Kbabej (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see you had added back before I wrote the above comment. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

This needs more research. They’re not “ transgender rights activist”. It’s an insult to trans people that you’d even suggest this. OmgImAlexis (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the above. Saying that is non-factual, since no trans rights activist would espouse anti-trans viewpoints. Casspedia (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

She espouses multiple anti-trans positions, probably as a result of her being far removed from the general trans experience. I don't care what multiple RS say, if in fact the writers of those otherwise reliable sources have engaged in lazy thinking by tacking on this phrase without doing deeper research. Darkprincealain (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

May I point out that following Caitlyn Jenner's transition, a petition was launched to strip her of her Olympic medal and it gained enough traction to reach family members, news outlets and politicians [1]. This was a cruel and futile gesture that people we eat dinner with supported. 6 years later, with Caitlyn Jenner running for California Governor, the groans flow more easily from all directions, particularly in light of her flip-flops on transgender athletes' rights to compete and unforced errors about her political engagement--including outright lies [2]. Despite these blunders, Caitlyn Jenner has an organization that advocates on behalf of transgender people[3], and she has made forceful statements in support of trans rights in the past--particularly for the famously embattled #RightToPoop [4]. So while I personally agree with many that Caitlyn Jenner is loathsomely self-serving and disengaged, she was and is a "transgender rights activist" and I think she has to do a lot worse before the mob comes to take that designation away from her. LkeYHOBSTorItEwA (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove "Transgender activist" from opening line

I propose removing "transgender activist" from the opening line and replacing it with "transgender woman" or somthing similar. As a transgender woman myself, I strongly disagree with the recent characterization of her as an activist--she may be the most visible trans woman in the world, but she has not spoken out against attacks on transgender rights such as those passed by US state legislatures in Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota. The word "activist" suggests she has been campaigning for political/social change, which she has not. Episcopal.167 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion above, and please read WP:OR. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

She is absolutely not a trans rights activist. Example of a reputable source recognizing that she is about herself, not trans rights

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/caitlyn-jenner-governor-trans-rights-b1837554.html

"Does that mean it was expected Caitlyn Jenner would become a civil rights leader and dedicate her life to trans equality? Of course not. No trans or non-binary person should be obligated to centre their lives in advocacy, and no one person in this community can speak for all of us. The trans and non-binary community is not a monolith. If Jenner had wanted to stay away from politics and just focus on living her authentic life, there would have been some disappointment at the lost opportunity to use her enormous platform for advocacy, but it would have been understandable. Instead, Caitlyn Jenner not only declined to pay it forward in advocacy for other trans people but went in the exact opposite direction by taking absurd political positions publicly and endorsing Donald Trump, helping pave the way for the most anti-LGBTQ presidential administration in modern history." Jerilyn Franz (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To reinforce the point that that descriptor is misplaced and needs to be removed, this transgender woman points you to this source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56960011

I think it would be most fair to say that she views herself as a transgender rights activist, but that the transgender community in general disagrees with that notion. How can you be an actual activist for your community while simultaneously advocating for social policies that specifically harm that community? Thoughthaven (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely something to be said about this, though e.g. the BBC saying Ms Jenner's views on trans athletes put her at odds with many activists in the trans community doesn't actually contradict the other sources calling her a trans rights activist. You're an activist for something regardless of how true to the cause others perceive you to be/how much others like your work/etc. Have a look at the discussion above to see the sourcing on the label, it's fairly extensive – I don't think her controversial nature in the community is enough get the label removed, unless other sources actually contradict it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the articles cited as reputable sources have interviews with exactly one transgender woman: Caitlyn Jenner. And as far as I know, all of the articles were written by cisgender individuals. If they had interviewed other members of the queer community and found them agreeing with her, I might find it easier to accept the moniker, even if I disagree with it. It's not as if our community is unavailable for interviews; we simply haven't been contacted for comment.

I'm not denying that the sources in question are generally reputable; but their abdication of fact-checking in this case makes the articles in question suspect, to day the least. Donald Trump has made repeated claims that he won the election and is the true POTUS; but journalists have taken the time to fact check this spurious claim. That is not the case here.

If you still require sources from journalists to get this removed, please let me know. I will actively reach out to my journalist colleagues and make it my mission to ensure the queer community's voices are heard in future publications. That way, Wikipedia can unequivocally remove this blatantly false descriptor from her entry. Thoughthaven (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thoughthaven: FWIW, I added a source by a trans journalist that included reactions from several trans activists, but Volteer1 removed it in favor of the BBC article you posted upthread. I don't want to get into an edit war (I'm trans myself and this is a stressful topic for me) so I'll leave it at that. Funcrunch (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: the reason I swapped that article for the BBC one linked to above, is that that is an article from a Forbes contributor. See WP:FORBESCON – articles from Forbes contributors are not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, because basically anyone can post a contributor piece and they have little to no editorial oversight. To be clear it shouldn't matter much though, the text is still the same. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1 Clearly the other sources lack editorial oversight as well. Donald Trump can claim he's president all he wants, but he's not going to get POTUS added to his page since he's been fact-checked. By that same token, sources that fail to fact-check Caitlyn Jenner should not be considered reputable. Your logic regarding her believing herself to be an activist is fundamentally flawed. She can believe she's POTUS as well; that does not make it so, even if journalists report it as such. Thoughthaven (talk) 01:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources on Wikipedia are still reliable sources even if you disagree with them. Usually, we give prominence to the labels used in reliable sources rather than the ones people identify with – obviously e.g. a white nationalist's denial that they are a white nationalist shouldn't be given prominence over what reliable sources say about them – and reliable sources call her an activist. I'm not making any argument about what I believe to be truth or saying that because she believes herself an activist that makes it so, I'm just saying we have to reflect what is published in reliable sources. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem isn't that I doubt that her standing amongst the trans (and trans activist) community is controversial, at the very least. The problem is that Wikipedia is based off what is published in reliable sources – if I see a bunch of articles saying that she is a trans activist, and then (especially more recently) articles saying she is controversial among activists and her views often, or even largely disagreed with – I see a bunch of sources saying she is something and nothing actually saying she's not, so we follow the sources and say that she is. It isn't our place to judge how good of an activist someone is (though we can include the views of other people with attribution), if reliable sources claim someone's an activist we reflect that. Regarding the identities of the authors, standpoint epistemology is yet to make its way to en-wiki's reliable sourcing guidelines, so there's no reason we have to discount the articles linked to above.

All that being said, there's still possibly something that could be said in the lead about her being an activist but a controversial one, or one many trans activists do not like/do not agree with/do not think represents them/something like that. To be included that should probably be accompanied by some more material about her controversial standing in the community in e.g. the section on her reception amongst the LGBT community (I encourage you to be bold!), though it may be undue to spend too much time discussing all that in the lead. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I added this sentence to the lead: "Her views on transgender issues have been criticized by other transgender activists." I cite the BBC article discussed above, and this Vox article by trans journalist Katelyn Burns. Hopefully that should improve things up a bit, although I'd still prefer a change to the first paragraph—maybe "controversial trans rights activist"?

Full disclosure, canvassing-wise: I was linked here from someone complaining about the lead. Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

That addition looks good to me. Regarding "controversial trans rights activist" (or a similar adjective), I'd probably like to see more reliable sources describing her that way to add the label – it's quite prominent as the first sentence of the lead so we'd have to ensure it's due. Similar lines like Jenner’s politics and controversial existence as a self-professed trans advocate has long put trans Americans in a double bind, forcing them to defend her from transphobic attacks while deploring her political views from that Vox article would be on the right track, at least. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I've added this, feel free to change it/add to it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the label out of the first sentence of the lead for the time being as it was still fairly recently added, and while consensus existed at the time, that's clearly not the case anymore (hello to all). It's seems clear that an ample amount of reliable sources describe her as a "transgender rights activist" or a "trans rights activist": [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14], etc. For those new here, Wikipedia reflects what is published in reliable sources, making sure to represent the significant views published by those reliable sources in proportion to their prominence.

I think given e.g. this Vox piece the label is probably disputed enough that there's a reasonable argument to be made to at least not state it in wikivoice in the first sentence of the lead (note to Jerilyn Franz, that article you linked above is an opinion piece, which we usually don't consider to be a reliable source for statements of fact). The way it's stated now is an attempt at balance, but I still do think there isn't really sufficient conflict in reliable sources to keep that "has been described as" from being changed to an "is". ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Strongly support removing it, per her anti-trans views on sports. Casspedia (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

We go off what is published in reliable sources. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If we go off what those sources have published, especially since those were published prior to Jenner openly espousing anti-trans views, this may be factually inaccurate. Casspedia (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably something to that, I mean her comments were made like yesterday, so articles from even a week ago that we were talking about before she made these comments might be outdated in a sense. All I could really find from today was Reuters calling her a "transgender activist" [15] (plus mentions from other, less than reliable sources), so if it ends up being the case that those comments made the media change their tune about her then we can too I 'spose. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I added a disputed inline tag just so people are aware that it is currently disputed (so they can come here to discuss), although there aren't many sources pointing to it so I'm not putting any further changes or removing it altogether. This remains a current development and sources should adjust themselves as time goes on. Casspedia (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Casspedia: I've removed the disputed tag from the fourth paragraph, as the claim we're making now is that she's been described as an activist, which is an uncontroversial fact AFAIK. Whether or not she is one is a different question, but that's not what we're saying. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gaelan: Saying "described" should be fine, but I still doubt that that satisfies accuracy criteria since that may not hold true as of now. That statement was factual prior to, eh, last week. I changed it to "previously described" in order to maintain accuracy, without needing to invoke the disputed template again. Nonwithstanding that, I would suggest a complete rewrite of said paragraph owing to it being potentially confusing. The fact that there were multiple edit requests on this page suggests that someone would eventually WP:BOLD it. Casspedia (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Casspedia: Hmm, not sure how I feel about the "previously." That kinda feels like we're claiming that people no longer describe her as an activist, which I don't think is a claim we can back up. I'd lean towards just "has been", which (to me) doesn't necessarily imply that people still describe her that way (it is past tense, after all), nor does it imply that people definitely don't anymore.

But then, this is very much a question of implication—I think, from a strict logical perspective, "has been" and "has been previously" mean the exact same thing—so I don't think either wording is too wrong. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you looked at the sourcing? For ease, I've copied from above: Including the sources above: Associated Press, Politico, NY Times (note: not the previous NYT source, which doesn't explicitly say that), Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC News, The Times, La Times, The Independent, Time, etc. These are all in the article's first, broad description of her, rather than passing mentions. Again, your personal opinion is irrelevant, Wikipedia does not publish original research. The Washington Post ("transgender rights activist"); NYT ("Ms. Jenner, the transgender rights activist"); Marketwatch ("transgender rights activist"); Hollywood Reporter ("Jenner considers herself a transgender rights activist"); KHN.org ("transgender rights activist"); The Hill ("Transgender rights activist"). Come on. --Kbabej (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kbabej: Formerly does not mean currently. Most of these sources come from before Jenner turned around and started espousing transphobic views. This statement is disputed by many, which is why I'm establishing it as such whilst newer sources can either confirm or deny (hopefully deny) this claim. Casspedia (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I think that you are attempting to defend your WP:BOLD placement of said phrase, and that said view is in the minority (as established by the large number of semi-prot edit requests and other complaints about said phrase). Removing it, owing to it being a disputed statement, would be in the best interest of maintaining accuracy on Wikipedia. Casspedia (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No, following reliable sources until a majority actually agree with your personal opinion is the way to go. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It is wrongful to claim that these are merely personal opinions. Stating that Jenner is a transgender rights activist is wrong since these sources are outdated, and Jenner has not espoused trans-exclusionary views until very recently. If I were using my own personal opinion I would have directly denounced Jenner as a trans-exclusionary feminist (although sources saying that is limited). Per IAR and the interest of accuracy, not saying that Jenner is a transgender rights activist, or at least saying that it is factually inaccurate, is the only right thing to do. Plus, WP is known to have a bias against women, so keeping that in mind is important too. Casspedia (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well we aren't here to right "great" wrongs, and the opinion of a handful of transgendered people is what is not factually accurate per WP:RS/WP:OR and WP:V... especially when a bunch of non-notable people try to tell a former Olympic athlete, and transgendered woman that her opinion on transgendered women and sports is wrong/invalid. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

First, I won't hesitate to say it: your use of the term transgendered is a slur and is highly offensive. Additionally, there are notable news sources, etc. denouncing Jenner. Trying to dismiss these opinions as non-notable is frustrating, to say the least. Casspedia (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Episcopal.167: Since the original additional was a WP:BOLD addition, I removed it. As for later statements saying that Jenner is an activist, added {{Disputed inline}} owing to recent events. Casspedia (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Life is offensive; it is not my obligation to walk on eggshells. My use of the term is a descriptive adjective. Do not vandalise my page with warnings. If there are notable news sources and they reach a consensus that she is no longer a {non-offensive term} activist, then the page should be changed. Consensus can be frustrating to achieve, but that's because there are multiple opinions in life. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand your POV, but please avoid using the term transgendered since it is offensive. As for consensus, I feel like this would be difficult to achieve until news sources are updated; if nothing happens an RfC could be called in. Casspedia (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Floydian, we say "trans" now. It's fewer characters to type and fewer syllables to say, which in theory should make it easier to deal with than a three syllable, outdated term. I'm cis, not trans, but I find that things work much better when we treat each other with kindness and compassion. It's really not that difficult to treat others with respect. Darkprincealain (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

People can have different views on what constitutes a trans rights activist. On Wikipedia, it would be inappropriate WP:OR to remove the descriptor "trans rights activist" simply because some people disagree with Jenner so much that they would not call her a trans rights activist. For instance, some people think that Germaine Greer is not a feminist; others think that Judith Butler is not a feminist. We go by reliable sources and label both feminists. The same should go for this article. DaysonZhang (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to the now-multiple talk page discussions on this topic. Funcrunch (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What I am concerned about is the use of "trans rights activist" despite the recent change in events that made said term inaccurate by many standards; criminalizing trans women's presence in sports runs directly afoul of trans rights activism. If sources continue to label Jenner as a trans rights activist, going ahead that route would be correct per WP:OR. However, with the current lack of information (much of the backlash against Jenner being on social media, where Jenner initially espoused said views), it would be in Wikipedia's best interest (as a non-biased encyclopedia) to eliminate a controversial statement until reliable citations, ones published after the matter of fact, are used to back said claim up. Casspedia (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, the transphobia. Caitlyn is a transwoman and an olympic medal winner and has their own views on what intersex competition is appropriate and not, which they are allowed to do. Whatever rights they advocate for, they are still an advocate. You disputing their opinion and calling it hateful, despite not being an athlete yourself, is denying their lived experience in this regard. This is especially egregious as Caitlyn is (afaik) the only person in their position in the entire world.

This applies as well to refusing to refer to Caitlyn as Bruce when discussing their olympic record, which is Caitlyn's stated preference post-transition. By fighting to use the Wiki rules where Caitlyn has specifically asked otherwise you're denying their chosen pronouns. Some people's pronouns change with the moon, Caitlyns change with periods of their life. InverseZebra (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Casspedia on this one. After recent events like wanting to create a commission in California to "decide which players are "truly trans" enough to play on the teams that match their gender identity" (per Newsweek), I think the term is definitely inaccurate an the term should be removed until reliable citations are used to back up the claim. Historyday01 (talk) 03:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is asking if you *like* Caitlyn's activism, but clearly they are an activist for trans issues. Imagine trolling a Nickleback article and saying they shouldn't be called a band because you don't like their music - that's what you're doing here. InverseZebra (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I don't even think she is an activist anymore. I don't know how anything she is doing benefits the trans community, in fact, many would probably say she is harming it. I'd say she is a conservative politician (and personality), who happens to be a trans woman, but that's about it. Historyday01 (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

We all hear you, that you think Caitlyn's activism is counter-productive. But considering that Caitlyn is running for office, and will undoubtedly be more trans-focused than many would, it seems wrong to say they aren't an activist. We should not weaken or change the article.

Especially, and let's call out the elephant in the room, when the proposed change seems driven entirely by people not happy with Caitlyn's message. Nobody was here before this drama, arguing a specific threshold someone must meet to be called an activist, or making a broad rule which would apply to everyone. This is targeted because you dislike their political views. InverseZebra (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason why "transgender activist" was kept is because reliable sources said that, with agreement on that as shown on this talk page, even by those who don't agree with her. I do not, personally, agree with the consensus, but there is nothing I can do about that. In terms of my opinions on Jenner herself, that is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm just looking at her actions and how others respond to them. That is all. I wouldn't mind having a definition on here of who can be defined as an activist in the future. In fact, I'd argue that would be beneficial. The article will be changed, as are all Wikipedia articles, it won't just stay stuck in some time warp. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

And the reason sources said "transgender activist" is that Caitlyn does speak about what they think trans people need. You're arguing that they aren't an activist right now, because supposedly they stopped advocating, and even if true that's like arguing that an athlete no longer should be described as such because they aren't competing this year. Caitlyn is and will remain an activist as much as an olympic athlete. Fwiw though, Jenner considers this activism because they fear a backlash against the basic right to express yourself as trans from pushing unreasonably into single-sex spaces. I seems you just disagree on what the right course is but you're both trying to steer the ship - presumably from an honest place.

To pretend feelings aren't an issue in this edit request, explain why so many people are in a tizzy to have this change made *now*. If you believe it is correct, let time handle it. Once the world comes to consensus on what level you must reach to be called an activist. InverseZebra (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

She expresses her own views which have been criticized by other trans activists, and due to the fact she is running for political office, she could, arguably be called a politician, but more accurately she is a public personality. She is formerly an athlete, but not currently an athlete, as I don't think she is participating in any organized sports at the present time. I'm arguing she isn't a trans activist currently based on her current views, its that simple. And others on this page have made the same argument. Like many things, this is a hot button issue now because of her views. Historyday01 (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"She is formerly an athlete, but not currently an athlete", we refer to people in this state as athletes. When people retire they are often known for their previous job, "Bob the retired welder". Similarly an inactive activist is still an activist.

"her own views which have been criticized by other trans activists" and the key word is 'other'. Caitlyn is an activist, and there are other trans activists. They don't all agree with everything the other says.

"hot button issue now because of her views" because you disagree with those views. There's no hurry to update the article for the sake of a good article, only to remove any perceived authority Caitlyn has because of their recent *activism*.

InverseZebra (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If you think Caitlyn was, or isn't an activist, that's wonderful. But don't come here to share your opinion if you aren't going to provide a source that is consistent with it.Dillermand I Cannot Control (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

New proposal for women's rights

Can we say that Caitlynn Jenner was celebrated as a trans rights activist in the 2010s before she offensively mis-gendered young girls as "boys" (in her words) in 2021 and called for their exclusion from women's sports? She caused outrage by continuing with her transphobic misgendering and doubling down on her exclusionary stance.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:D9B6:98DF:8F00:FA79 (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Why should we say that? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

First, you can't misgender (or deadname) everyone, only individuals, and Caitlyn was talking about all transgirls/women in sport - not just the Connecticut ones. Second, Caitlyn did not call a transgirl a boy, they said "biological boy" which is true because it's about sex which is immutable. InverseZebra (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You write as if t girls have become Mildred Didrikson's of women's sports. This is paranoia. What percentage of professional women athletes are even trans girls with "unfair advantage"? Black people made up 75% of NBA players in 2020. No one complains or should. Even if t girls made up 70% of female athletes, it would be okay.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:7447:EA49:FCD6:C7CC (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, it would hinge on more secondary sources eschewing Jenner post-May 1st, 2021. My initial RfC was closed owing to how there were enough sources pre-May 2021 and not enough sources post that flashpoint in order to justify eschewing it. I feel that this sentence will be revisited in the future, although my hopes for its removal remain low for now. Casspedia (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@2601 Black people and white people are all people, but males and females are not all females. It's super racist to use black acceptance to push for colonization. InverseZebra (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC) — InverseZebra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@InverseZebra: To also note: the terms 'biological sex', 'biological (insert name of sex here)', etc. can be difficult to establish. Both sex as is commonly determined in society (via the genitals) and via other means (gonads, hormones) can be malleated. As such, Jenner is either purposefully being transphobic or implying "chromosomal sex", which actually is immutable. Casspedia (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Casspedia: We aren't talking about intersex people, this is like the black/white comment above. In reality, sex is trivial to determine in all but the rarest case. But the misdirection here shows why we should, as you suggest, use genetic testing to determine sex for sports and other uses - it's even easier and more accurate than looking in your pants and it handles the edge cases. InverseZebra (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC) — InverseZebra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This fails to acknowledge how sex is by (societal) definition malleable. A post-op trans woman will not have genitalia implying a "male" sex, nor will she have hormones implying a "male" sex, nor will she have gonads implying a "male" sex. And I'm not assuming any chromosomal irregularities. A post-op or even pre-op (with hormone blockers) trans woman WILL be weaker physiologically than a cisgender man, and vice versa applies to a trans man taking testosterone. I'm frankly highly surprised at how being trans and the validity of trans people is still a matter that is being continously debated, despite overwhelming evidence pointing towards "yes". Casspedia (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Have you found a source that says she "was" an activist? Or is this just your opinion?Dillermand I Cannot Control (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

please remove sentence from Impact section

The sentence: "Thompson's victory was perhaps tainted by the U.S.-led boycott of the Moscow Olympics in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, though the top American, Bobby Coffman, was not expected to push Thompson or challenge Jenner's record." is inaccurate and superfluous, and essentially maligns Thompson without any basis in fact. The sentence even acknowledges that in saying that Coffman was not expected to push Thompson.

done -- FMSky (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2021

Change number of Children from 6 to 10 as confirmed in the all round to Mrs Brown interview in 2020 51.7.104.189 (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

How not to rewrite history, and how not to confuse readers

For events before 2015, when referring to Jenner, "Jenner" should be used instead of either "he" or "she." For events after 2015, "she" is fine. If you use "she" for Jenner's 1970s activities it is a 1984esque rewriting of history, but perhaps more importantly, the it makes things very unclear for the non-expert reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your reasoning at talk. I'd prefer using both 'she' and 'Jenner'. My preference is aligned with a Wikipedia guideline developed via consensus, MOS:GENDERID. I don't see any reason for this particular article to ignore centralized consensus and the guideline. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's convention is not to split the difference like that. Jenner says she always was a woman, so we refer to her as such. Whether it was publicly known at the time is irrelevant. SecretName101 (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Jenner has been quite forthright about how she was Bruce at the 1976 Olympics.[16] - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

She has clearly talked about having been "trapped" as "Bruce" in 1976, meaning that she believes that, at the time of the Olympics, she was indeed a woman trapped in a man's body. SecretName101 (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide a source that does indeed say that, because in the source given by Floydian it states that "Jenner tends towards use of the male pronoun when referring to her pretransition life" which personally would lead me to believe that Jenner herself would prefer the "Jenner"/"Jenner or she" split. However, if Wikipedia policy disregards her wishes, that's fine, and it would be better yet if we also have good, recent sources that state she feels differently than the Guardian article says. Kensai97 (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The general Wikipedia consensus seems to be too stick with the most standard pronoun use that person accepts ie: stick to one set of pronouns as in Elliot Page. Since visitors aren't assumed to be aware how to interpret any other uses of pronouns. Not sure how I personally feel about that, but it is consistent with the current use of she/her pronouns in Jenner's youth.

The other problem with following Caitlyn's usage of pronouns is that it will probably lead to some collateral damage to the transgender comunity, as doing so will in some way give weight to the idea that missgendering someone when talking about their pre-transition self is ok. This is a point of vulnerability for an already quite vulnerable community. Since this is only a question about how we present information, and not what information we present, and that Caitlyn has not shown to my knowledge a disdain of referring to her pre-transition years as "she", it's probably prudent to stick to the current convention here. Some2Guy (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Just so that we are clear, what we would need before entertaining rewriting the pronouns would be some clear declaration from Jenner that she prefers masculine pronouns for the earlier era. Reading the tea leaves of her own practices is not sufficient - lots of people differ in their own usage from what they prefer others to use. Newimpartial (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with both of you and as Some2Guy stated it's certainly a reasonable enough policy when it comes to which pronouns to use. However, it should be noted that using masculine pronouns was never suggested, at least not in this topic. The initial post suggested rather than using any pronouns for that portion of her life, referring to her simply as "Jenner" for those times and only using pronouns at all (and of course only feminine ones) after coming out. Out of curiosity after having read the initial suggestion I skimmed through the article to see just how much would need to be changed and was honestly surprised that the answer was very little. "Jenner" is overwhelming used already all throughout the article (for events before, after, and as generalities). The only times pronouns come up in situations which would be relevant to situation are 3 instance of 'She' in "Television and Film Career" and two could be very readily changed to 'Jenner', and once in "Business". That and the remaining aforementioned one both only become repetitive at worst if replaced with 'Jenner', but that would be an easy fix. 'Her' is used three times, twice in early life and once in television, though granted they are all at least a little bit more difficult to reword as 'Jenner'. Anyway, note that just because I'm saying it wouldn't be difficult to change it that that's a reason we should so much as pointing out that the article is already nearly all of the way there to what was suggested anyway. Mostly I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on what seems to be the original point which is not about adding any masculine pronouns. Only replacing pronouns for a portion of the article with proper nouns. Kensai97 (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Unneeded repetition of dead name

Should her dead name be in the info box, and then repeated twice in the Early life section? I understand the need to have it mentioned in the introduction, and then once later. but any more then that in unnecessary. Some2Guy (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the lede, info box, and once in the early life section is enough and that the early life part could be reworded so that it doesn't need to be mentioned a second time especially immediately after. I'll try and do that now. Let me know what you think. Kensai97 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

6. Politics - "She supported women's right to undergo abortion but found the right to legislation of competent state institutions to supercede it."

There has to be a better phrasing than the current sentence "She supported women's right to undergo abortion but found the right to legislation of competent state institutions to supercede it."

Something along the lines of "She supported women's right to undergo abortion but also believes in the ability of a state legislature to supercede it."

Or

"She supported women's right to undergo abortion but also supports the believed ability of a state legislature to supercede it."

Any further ideas?

The way it's currently written does not have an neutral point of view, because the phrasing incurs the belief that a state institution has the ability to supercede the right to undergo abortion, but that does not appear to currently be a widely accepted view among legal experts, to my knowledge (can anyone chime in here on this?).

The article shouldn't take a point of view about the power of state legislatures or even about whether abortion is or is not a right, unless legal consensus supported by WP:RSLAW citations saw otherwise. I'm not educated on law, so I can definitely be wrong here and I apologize if this is in fact a neutral sentence, but to my current understanding of law, the way the sentence is written does not in fact reflect the current consensus today of legal experts.Stephenamills (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Redundant sentence

"Assigned male at birth, Jenner publicly came out as a trans woman in April 2015" should be changed to just "Jenner publicly came out as a trans woman in April 2015", as trans woman already contains the first part. (see definition in Trans woman: "A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth") -- FMSky (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

This should be an obvious edit that shouldnt need discussing (see also MOS:REDUNDANCY), but for some reason someone was bothered by it and told me to take it here first... FMSky (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Because I disagree. Calling attention to Caitlyn's sex assignment here, rather than leaving it as silent background behind "trans woman", makes the event more vivid for the reader. Newimpartial (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It also says "born william bruce". its not needed, people arent that stupid -- FMSky (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Do not underestimate unawareness and ignorance, which is not the same as stupidity, and some people are that uninformed. An encyclopedia can inform the ignorant, but cannot cure stupidity. However the article is about a specific person, and the technical detail and terminology are covered adequately by links, so I see no necessity to belabour the point. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• While it's not a huge deal either way, I feel it reads better with "assigned male at birth"; this is a key point in her bio and it's important to make sure readers don't miss what it's saying, since as a turning point in her life it serves as the bridge between the second and fourth paragraphs. Some redundancy is fine in a situation like that. --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep it. No-one's "stupid" for being confused if this is the first time they've come across the notion of transgenderness, which many readers could be (she's one of the most famous trans people in history). I know plenty of people, mostly in older generations, who might read Wikipedia but not be familiar with the concept of transitioning. Small redundancy may not clear up all the confusion but I think it's a good way to portray it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes it should be changed, it is not necessary, it is redundant, and is just plain awkward and ridiculous. This is 2021, it's not a foreign concept, and is also a frequent right-wing talking point that bigots use to insult and shame trans-girls and falsely claim that they should not be allowed in female sports – "athletes assigned male at birth should not be allowed to participate in female sports". And too many states are creating discriminatory laws that use the same language to deny rights to people in the LGBTQ community. Keep it plain and simple, the only thing relevant in that sentence is when she came out. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The argument that "someone will do the wrong thing with the truth" is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. That said, the shorter sentence is better. InverseZebra (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I agree. it is a redundant and awkward sentence. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes it should change, it is hard to understand it in the current form. Sea Ane (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

Why is this page transphobic and linking this human being transgender woman with her Dead name listed as her born name Making it seem to be the proper name for this individual? Seen why is it being protected from editing? This seems like so meshing Catlin jenner would not appreciate. And that would cause them harassment and make them the butt of jokes. I feel that she should be linked and listed as her current legal name and her history should be changed to reflect the transition and legal changes she lived through. 2601:282:901:5090:E444:761C:7A52:E99B (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There's a centralized consensus at MOS:DEADNAME to mention the deadname in limited circumstances for people who were notable under the name. Firefangledfeathers 04:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does this post like this woman to her pre transition name and identity?

This seems transphobic. This entry promotes the opinion that this transgender woman was a man. 2601:282:901:5090:E444:761C:7A52:E99B (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

See the reply to your edit request. Cannolis (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

She has specifically stated that she IS NOT a trans rights activist

The main article should be updated to reflect that direct statement by her.

‘I Am Trans But I’m Not a Trans Activist’ 31 March 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowhare (talk • contribs) 09:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Clothes

We've got an edit war going over "cross-dressed" vs. "wore gender-affirming clothing" vs. "wore women's clothing". I agree with Ariana Williscroft that "cross-dressed" isn't ideal. FMSky is right that "gender-affirming clothing" adds confusion. I like "women's clothing" a lot. It may not have even been noticed in the edit war. AW, can you accept "women's clothing" as a compromise? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

shouldn't the first step be to restore the original version before discussing a change like this? FMSky (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not willing to join in on the edit warring, but I agree that we should keep the status quo ante version up while discussing. Ariana Williscroft, it might help if you read or re-read WP:ONUS (part of the Verifiability policy) or WP:BRD (a ubiquitously adopted essay on discussing new edits rather than edit warring). A self-revert here would go a long way toward demonstrating a willingness to collaborate with others here.

Process issues aside, any thoughts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that "women's clothing" is a perfect phrase to use :) Thank you for negotiating between us. Ariana Williscroft (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

???? and why did you revert this version then? FMSky (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. If we've found a version that works for everyone, maybe this conversation can be over. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Now that I think about it - what do both of you think of the phrase "traditionally women's clothing"? I feel like it expresses what Jenner did coherently, whilst also acknowledging that clothes don't inherently have a gender (thus including women who wear different clothing men and non-binary people who wear traditionally women's clothing)? Ariana Williscroft (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree there's an issue with "women's clothing". I'm not sure "traditionally" fixes it, as my first thought on reading the phrase would be that Jenner was wearing Victorian gowns. We have a tension between writing plainly for a broad reader base and trying to avoid unnecessarily gendered language. I come down on the side of "women's clothing" here, but it's a tough call. We could also go with "wore dresses" which is supported by the ABC source at the end of the sentence. Not perfect either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I think wore dresses would be a good replacement, although I'd be delighted to hear why you think that isn't perfect either. Thank you :) Ariana Williscroft (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's see how others feel, if "women's clothing" is reasonable enough to stay up for at least a few days or so. "Dresses" could work for me, but the ABC source only really mentions dresses from when Jenner was a child. Maybe she just wore skirts and blouses thereafter? It's a silly question, but I do get itchy if I stray too far from the sources' language, which is mostly of the "women's clothing" variety. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Awesome :) Ariana Williscroft (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realise you'd typed that in those cases. I thought you'd reverted the phrase back to cross-dressing. Ariana Williscroft (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry for calling you a coward. Ariana Williscroft (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Lia Thomas opposition

Jenner has said she opposes trans women competing in women's sports. However, this is found in tabloids[17] and is predicated upon an interview in The Daily Mail,[18] (see WP:DAILYMAIL), though Jenner's later Tweets supported her alleged comments in the interview.[19] Perhaps we should wait until more reliable sources pick up on this? Solipsism 101 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The reliability of PinkNews would be question by many too I think. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would PinkNews not be considered a RS, @Emir of Wikipedia? It's listed as "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise" on WP:RSP. --Kbabej (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2022

Misgenders Jenner in last sentence "published his (should be her) book the secrets of my life" 172.97.191.188 (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Jenner's memoir, The Secrets of My Life, was published on April 25, 2017. Am I missing the misgendering? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You're not missing anything. I didn't see "his" used either. --Kbabej (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Early life

@User:Newimpartial your last edit confused me, could you explain it please :) I got the "not wrong" bit but the rest of the msg was unclear Stephanie921 (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Striking sock comment (SPI). See also [20]. 82.132.187.238 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"Girl" does not improve the text, compared to "child" - the emphasis of the latter seems more encyclopaedic to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thank you @User:Newimpartial Stephanie921 (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC) Striking sock comment (SPI). See also [21]. 82.132.187.238 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Can someone help reword this sentence?

I'm having a lot of trouble parsing the following sentence: "She supported women's right to undergo abortion but found the right to legislation of competent state institutions to override it." Help a fellow editor out? Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

She supported women's right to abortion, but found out that the state has the right to override the right to abortion. WPEditor42 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it means that the competent state institutions have the right to restrict or modify the right to abortion. WPEditor42 (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, WPEditor42! Birdsinthewindow (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

IP Question

Shouldn't the first part of the artile include the male pronoun etc as he then identified as a man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.153 (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

No, according to the community consensus embodied in MOS:GENDERID. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

No Caitlyn is a she. Gatorbearratica (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Deadnaming

I don’t think her deadname should be mentioned 5.225.253.58 (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME covers why we mention the notable deadnames of notable people. Caitlyn Jenner was quite notable under her deadname, and should be mentioned in that capacity. If Caitlyn had not been notable before the transition and name change, we would not mention the deadname. Thanks! King keudo (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The misgendering of Jenner in this article is a bad idea

The following discussion 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.

---

This article is a good case example of the shortcomings of Wikipedia's policy on articles about transgender people, which seems to be to just refer to them as though they actually were the gender they claim a desire to be. I don't know whether these editorial policies are set by Barnes or just coalesce by group consensus, but this one is silly at best and creepy at worst, and it's amazing (and sad) to me to see Wikipedia, where accuracy ought to be paramount, continue it.

In the case of someone this high-profile it serves less to confuse the reader (to whom Jenner's likely to already be a known figure) than to simply discredit Wikipedia as a truthful source. 173.166.60.89 (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

Family tree

What's the point of a family tree that even shows Jenner's stepkids' spouses, but doesn't include four of her OWN children? 2001:4C4D:218D:4000:50FD:DF3D:6CE7:8D83 (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Why should we include these 4 children? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)