Talk:Isla Bryson case

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

Response from the LGBT community[edit]

Would it be appropriate to include a section on this? (testing testing 123) - the response has been either indifference or support for the Scottish Govs decision on the matter. Of course I refer to reliable sources issuing a response, such as Stonewall. SinoDevonian (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything available then I think it would be worth including. This is Paul (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns[edit]

I know that we usually refer to people by the pronouns they prefer, but should we make an exception in this case? PatGallacher (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure what to do here. I've referred to Bryson as "he" when discussing the subject's pre-trans life and "she" everywhere else. I don't know if that's correct though. This is Paul (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:GENDERID requires we respect self-identification when it comes to pronouns. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:IAR? PatGallacher (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a tough case to make when all sources use “she”. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want a exception in this case? Per MOS:DEADNAME Bryson should not have her previous identity mentioned or male pronouns. Dougal18 (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this is an unusual situation, and one I suspect we haven't had to address before now, I wonder if it's worth getting some wider feedback. I'll add a few thoughts here though after consulting the guidelines. The article discusses an individual in the context of a legal case rather than being a biography, and her actions (including her decision to change gender) have had a bearing on some of the events. I wonder if her previous identity is relevant here because she committed the offences and was charged under that identity, and had not legally changed her gender. It appears all she had to do was tell the prison authorities she self-identified as female. From a descriptive point of view though, using the same pronoun throughout the article works better and is less confusing. She had self-identified as female so we should reflect that in the article, but do be aware that male pronouns are still used when using direct quotes (that is relevant because we're quoting someone's words and should stay faithful to what is said). This is Paul (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DEADNAME encourages editors to either paraphrase or redact pronouns that reflect pretransition gender identity, following a widely-participared RfC specifically about such quotations. Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, reflecting on the use/mention distinction - there is no policy-based reason not to mention the subject's sex assignment or prior gender identity. However, the article should not use that identity by including pronouns etc. reflecting their pre-transition status. Newimpartial (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name[edit]

In "Background", I've changed the opening sentence from "Originally a male named Adam Graham" to "Previously a male named Adam Graham" as it appears "Adam Graham" may not be his birth name. Someone changed the text earlier but I've changed it back as unsourced. The discussion thread at the end of this article makes reference to a different birth name, however. The source wouldn't be regarded as reliable, and there's no way to verify it, but in case of any doubt I've altered the opening sentence in the interests of reflecting the situation as accurately as possible. This is Paul (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I haven't seen any policy-compliant reason to introduce the Isla's deadname to this article, nor have I seen a consensus established anywhere to Ignore All Rules. Newimpartial (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have seen a policy compliant reason. You are just ignoring it because you don't like it. I repeat, the very page you linked me to said this:
"In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name"
That is obviously the case here. This rapist was known as Adam Graham both when he was raping women and when he was initially appearing in court for those offences. I look forward to seeing your argument as to why, in those circumstances, the fact that his name, at that time, was Adam Graham, is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in one of my prior edit sunmaries, you don't seem to understand how notability is used to assess deadnames of trans people on Wikipedia. What matters is when the coverage was published, in relation to the name change. I have tried, and failed, to find any coverage of this case that included the former name that is dated prior to the name change.
Also, please stop misgendering this person. You can feel as hostile towards them as you want, but by misgendering them you are communicating - wittingly or unwittingly - hostility towards all trans editors, in violation of WP:CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note you still offer no coherent argument as to why Adam Graham is not notable under that name, even though sources confirm that that was his name at the relevant. I struggle to see how the dates of those sources are remotely relevant.
Also, perhaps realising that you are losing the argument, you are now trying to obfuscate by attacking me for 'misgendering'. Stop it. It won't work. Firstly, you do not speak for all trans editors, so please don't act as if you do. Secondly, I think all objective editors - whether trans or not - would realise that there is a clear and obvious distinction between being hostile to rapists (which I freely admit I am) and being hostile to trans people generally. Id you cannot see that distinction, that is your problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On your last point, please read what I actually wrote, q.v., You can feel as hostile towards them as you want. My point is that by misgendering them, you create a hostile environment for trans editors in contravention of WP:CIVIL. I do not pretend to speak for any trans editors apart from myself, when it comes to feelings about this, but the fact that misgendering (and the tolerance of misgendering by a community) contributes to a hostile environment is something that many other editors have pointed out before, notably in this ANI discussion and its sequels. There are ways to express your hostility to rapists, even as BLP subjects, without misgendering them or contravening WP:CIVIL.
There is an on-wiki distinction between verifiability and notability. There is no doubt that this person's former name is verifiable, and has been frequently mentioned. However, this isn't a policy-based reason to include the former name of a trans person in a WP article: the threshold is, was this person written about in multiple reliable sources, using their former name, before the name change based on their gender identity? I haven't seen any evidence presented showing that this test had been met in this case, nor have I seen any consensus to ignore all rules because they are a convicted rapist. Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at the sources shall we. We have the source in the article itself (which you keep trying to censor). In addition, we have the following:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63823420 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-two-rapes-scamming-courts-says-wife/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23302287.confusion-sturgeon-refers-double-rapist-she-her/ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/four-of-five-trans-inmates-in-womens-prisons-are-murderers-pbfvdqqft
As you can clearly see, mainstream respectable sources consistently mention Adam Graham's original name. Why? Because it is so obviously and patently relevant. Because - as everyone but you seems to understand - where a man rapes women as a man, and appears in court as a man, and then sudden;y claims (without evidence) to be a woman (raising the completely obvious suspicion, which even the First Minister has articulated, that he is simply faking it to get access to vulnerable women - it is vital that his original identity is remembered and acknowledged.
And whinge about 'misgendering' all you want, but when someone rapes people, their subjective stance about what gender they suddenly are doesn't mean very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:B00A:6B67:B89E:61FF (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether multiple respectable sources mention the subject's pretransition name, according to WP policy, if they only do so in reports published after their transition (which all these reports you have linked seem to be). The current article version most certainly does "remember and acknowlege" the convicted rapist's prior gender identity, it simply does so without violating WP policy (by using male pronouns or mentioning the former name).
Also, I'd advise you not to accuse other editors of "whinging about 'misgendering'", especially trans editors: that is clearly a CIVIL violation and probably a reliable WP:NOTHERE indicator as well. But if you have edited Wikipedia previously, you should know this. Newimpartial (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 'previously known as Adam Graham' should be included in the first sentence because that is what the person was known as when they did their most notable act (the rapes). It is therefore similar to the examples of Chelsea Manning and Elliot Page which is mentioned in MOS:DEADNAME Munci (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not similar because the subject was not notable under their previous name, unlike Chelsea Manning and Elliot Page who both had notoriety/fame under their previous names. The only rationale I can see for including the previous name would be if reliable sources adopt the stance that the subject’s transgender identity was faked (cf. Sturgeon’s comment). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll find out in time if that's the case, but it's worth noting that the name everyone is using here doesn't appear to be the person's birth name (see here for example). This is Paul (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, the article is not neutral and unbiased[edit]

Could there be an active effort to provide both sides of the debate? JDBauby (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An accused person isn't under obligation to declare the information to a college or university if they enrol at that institution, so this is one area where both sides of the argument can be included, but I doubt we'll find anything supporting the decision to send a convicted rapist to a women's prison. This is Paul (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The prospect of a convicted rapist serving a sentence in a women's prison sparked heated political debate"
If there is a debate, I do not see those who don't oppose it in the article, only those who oppose Bryson in a women's prison. JDBauby (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "strong criticism from a number of sources" would be better, as that's basically what's happened. This is Paul (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! So far I haven't seen anything defending the decision to send her to Cornton Vale, if anyone knows of it please bring it to our attention. The college was hardly in a position to search through court rolls about cases pending, point taken, although some might question if a transwoman should have been allowed on a course like this. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. The only thing the LGBT community+allies and trans groups have had to say about this is "this is the correct decision, case by case, but don't let this become a blanket rule" etc.--SinoDevonian (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further information[edit]

I haven't edited this article for a while, because instinct told me it was possibly wise not to do so since any topic involving transgender people appears to be quite divisive these days. But I shall be doing more work on it once the sentencing hearing takes place. In addition to that information I think we'll also need to reflect Sturgeon's comments here and possibly find a rebuttal to them (if there is one). I'll copyedit a couple of the sections as well, but don't propose to take anything out other than some repetitive stuff (for example, the 10 Downing Street spokesman's comments are also reflected by Dominic Raab, so that could be merged). When I've finished I'll submit it for a WP:COPYEDIT as I'm sure it could do with an experienced copyeditor taking a look at it. This is Paul (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When was she first arrested?[edit]

I know she started transitioning in 2020, but the page doesn't say if that was before or after she was accused of rape. I think that detail is relevant to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.152.110 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe she was arrested and charged before she started transitioning. Certainly the crimes were committed before she started transitioning. This is Paul (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People can be curious about various things, but what matters in terms of possible inclusion of a former name is whether the BLP subject met Wikipedia's notability standards pre-(social)transition. Neither committing a crime nor being arrested for it matters in that determination; only the publication of sources does. Newimpartial (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of sources mention the previous name, so it's a matter of public record. It seems quite strange that we can discuss the history of someone like David Carrick, but can't do the same in this case. This is Paul (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Conservatives' statement[edit]

As I noted in an edit summary, false statements about the law should not be included even with good sources, when other sources - as good or better - exist contradicting them. This is a WP:BLP, which raises the threshold for inclusion. If this is to be re-added, sources clarifying the law should also be added.

Also, This is Paul, the article text you re-added[1] makes the additional error of attributing to Police Scotland - as a factual statement - what is actually prented in the source as a political demand by the Scottish Conservatives. Newimpartial (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Police Scotland did say they would record this crime as having been committed by a man (see here). Indeed, the Scotsman says A police spokesman confirmed Bryson was arrested and charged as a man and the crimes would be recorded as such. So what is wrong with including that? The law also states that only a man can commit rape (find me a law book that doesn't say that). Also, with regard to your statement that sources clarifying the law should also be added, those sources would need to be discussing that in the context of this case, otherwise it would constitute original research, which we must leave to the academics and the media.
One of the problems with this article is that people are so busy trying to be politically correct and/or worrying about offending someone that it now ignores the basic facts of the case. This person was a man when they committed their crimes. This person was charged as a man, and initially appeared in court as a man. This person only chose to undergo transgender therapy after they were charged. The very controversy of this case is that a person with male genitalia, who had committed a violent sexual crime against two women, was sent to a women's prison, prompting a political storm. Had Bryson not been sent to a women's prison (and just gone straight to Barlinnie or somewhere similar) then this article wouldn't exist because there would have been no reason to write it. Now let's turn to the question of when anonymity should apply. While transgender people deserve anonymity and the respect of us all, should we really be extending that to criminals, especially when the crime they committed was committed before they transitioned. If the answer is yes, then the article cannot be impartial because it doesn't reflect what actually happened and can't faithfully report the events in an impartial way. In fact, we appear to be getting to the situation where it can't reflect what happened because there's a danger of someone kicking off about it. It's also worth mentioning that our gender policy suggests that a previous identity should only be mentioned if the person was famous before they underwent transitioning. I'd argue that we should extend that to people who commit serious crime, where the crime was committed before the person transitioned. I've no doubt this will come up again at a future point with a future article, and it needs to be addressed. This is Paul (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to discourage the participation of other editors, so I have tried to concentrate on key points:
  • Concerning Police Scotland did say they would record this crime as having been committed by a man - yes, and the article text on this was untouched by my edit.
  • Concerning The law also states that only a man can commit rape - For purposes of Wikipedia, a non-opinion source on Scottish law would be required so this is not simply original research - for instance, Police Scotland says something different: The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 states that rape occurs when a person intentionally or recklessly penetrates another person’s vagina, anus or mouth with their penis, where the victim does not consent and the person responsible has no reasonable belief that the victim is giving consent.
  • Concerning This person was a man when they committed their crimes. This person was charged as a man, and initially appeared in court as a man. This person only chose to undergo transgender therapy after they were charged. The very controversy of this case is that a person with male genitalia, who had committed a violent sexual crime against two women, was sent to a women's prison, prompting a political storm. - yes, and both the current version of this article and all previous versions I've looked at communicate this clearly, as far as I can tell.
  • Concerning It's also worth mentioning that our gender policy suggests that a previous identity should only be mentioned if the person was famous before they underwent transitioning. I'd argue that we should extend that to people who commit serious crime, where the crime was committed before the person transitioned. I've no doubt this will come up again at a future point with a future article, and it needs to be addressed. - This was discussed recently at the relevant policy page with respect to a different case (of a convicted sex offender) that raised related issues. The proposal to change MOS:GENDERID was in that instance WP:SNOW closed in the discussion found here (closed but not yet archived). That Talk page would be the preferred location to seek a change to the relevant guideline (as a new discussion).
Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the discussion and look at opening a new one. I'm concerned you think the Scotsman article is an opinion piece. Is it not a piece of journalism reporting what somebody said, which is slightly different. An opinion piece would be if someone wrote an op-ed discussing the case. There are plenty of those to be found, but this isn't one of them. This is Paul (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my writing wasn't clear. The piece that I removed is WP:RS journalism, but the claim it was used for, that the crime was recorded as it was because "in law, rape can only be committed by a male" does not appear as a statement of fact in the source. We don't have a non-opinion source presenting this as fact.
The assertion also does not appear, as it did in the version you re-added,[2] as a statement by Police Scotland. Rather, it is a statement by the Scottish Conservatives: But the Tories said SNP ministers must give the police “unequivocal direction” that rapists must always be recorded as male criminals because “in law, rape can only be committed by a male”. Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While The Scotsman's article is reporting, the "in law, rape can only be committed by a male" quotation seems to be from the Scottish Tory party, or possibly from Russell Findlay who is quoted in the following paragraph. That would therefore be the opinion of either the anonymous party spokesperson or Findlay, depending on who actually said it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fairly sure when I wrote this article I found something supporting the statement as it appears here, but I don’t recall the title now. I probably thought the Scotsman the more credible of the two sources, so should double check in future. It may be the other article was amended because it was misinterpreting what was said, but I guess the original text is lost now. I did spend some time Googling some key words, but without success. Having said that, the Scotsman source does say that Bryson's crimes would be recorded as having been committed by a male, so it should be a legitimate source to support that statement. At the moment there's no reference to support that sentence, and there should be one in an article like this. This is Paul (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I have added the ref for the relevant statement. Newimpartial (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of her former name[edit]

I edited the article to include her former name in two locations, as I believe its inclusion is required under WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE for the first instance, and WP:NOTCENSORED for the second. However, Sideswipe9th reverted the edit, so I am opening a discussion here.

For the first location I believe WP:NPOV requires the name due to how widely reported it is, including in WP:HQRS. This includes the BBC, Sky News, The Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Atlantic, and many others.

Reliable sources consider it a sufficiently important piece of information to mention; as we are required to reflect all significant views in reliable sources in this case MOS:DEADNAME is overruled by NPOV, because of WP:POLCON which tells us that when a guideline and a policy conflict the policy takes precedence, and because of NPOV itself which tells us that it is non-negotiable and cannot be overruled by consensus.

The dispute over her name is also a key part of her notability and thus by excluding it we are failing to fully explain the story; the disconnect between the name she was charged under and the name she adopted allowed her to get access to women as young as 16 in sensitive settings.

For the second location, we should not be modifying quotes to censor them. The original quote is "He was charged under his original name, Adam Graham, and presumably they knew him by his new name, so they (fellow students) probably wouldn’t have been able to find out anything about this person. It’s absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."; in our article it is "[She] was charged under [her] original name, ..., and presumably they knew [her] by [her] new name, so they probably wouldn't have been able to find out anything about this person. It's absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."

This is an improvement over the previous version, where we were silently censoring the name, but it is still a violation of policy and given how obvious the censorship is will leave the reader questioning why we are omitting the name and generally make the article harder to read and understand. BilledMammal (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to NPOV, this is a WP:BLPPRIVACY issue. Bryson changed her name prior to becoming notable, with her only achieving notability due to the media frenzy that occurred after her sentencing at the end of January 2023. The second paragraph of MOS:GENDERID is crystal clear on this, if a living trans or non-binary person was not notable under their prior name, it should not be included on any page, and we should treat the former name as a privacy interest. That we can verify the name through reliable sources is immaterial.
On the elipsis on the quote, this is compliant with the fifth paragraph of GENDERID, which tells us to Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. Even if we come to a consensus for including Bryson's name elsewhere in the article, this paragraph will still apply to the quotation from Smith. In this circumstance I chose to use an elilpsis, but I could have easily put Bryson's surname into square brackets. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The standard set by BLPPRIVACY, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, has clearly been met; there are hundreds of reliable sources that include the name. You're correct that MOS:GENDERID is against the inclusion but WP:BLP is not.
Regarding the elipsis on the quote, because WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy while MOS:GENDERID is part of the MOS, NOTCENSORED is controlling per WP:POLCON. To change that would require modifying NOTCENSORED, a change that I doubt would get consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't trample MOS:GENDERID, as much as you want it to. And WP:GNG doesn't trample WP:GEOROAD, but that's another story for another day. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case, we include Bryson's current name. Former names however are treated as a privacy interest greater than their current name, and the criteria for inclusion of the former name of a living trans or non-binary person excludes those who were not notable prior to changing their name. This application of GENDERID has been discussed many, many times, most recently in January 2023, and each time the consensus has been that it is a privacy issue regardless of sourcing.
On the NOTCENSORED point, I will direct you to the RfC that added that paragraph to GENDERID. Opposition to that paragraph was made on NOTCENSORED grounds, and resoundingly rejected by community consensus. The current consensus is that inclusion non-notable former names of living trans or non-binary people creates a BLPPRIVACY violation, and that includes quotations. Paraphrasing, eliding, or square brackets are all accepted options to avoid the privacy violation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Former names however are treated as a privacy interest greater than their current name, and the criteria for inclusion of the former name of a living trans or non-binary person excludes those who were not notable prior to changing their name. Unless I'm missing something, that's part of MOS:GENDERID, not WP:BLP. While whether BLP or NPOV is controlling can be argued given they are both core policies (although NPOV should always "win" that debate, per This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.), the same cannot be said about whether GENDERID or NPOV is controlling.
Sometimes we can exclude the name without engaging in censorship; in this case, however, we cannot - excluding that name requires us to literally censor that quote. BilledMammal (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GENDERID is an application of the BLP policy that has broad community consensus. As I said in my last reply, this application of GENDERID has been discussed a great many times, and each time the consensus has been that it is a BLPPRIVACY issue. You are welcome to take this to WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN if you desire, but I am confident that the response will be the same. I would suggest you review the previous discussions on this before doing so however, you can find a list of all of the major discussions at MOS:GIDINFO.
On the quotation point, the second paragraph of NOTCENSORED clearly states that content can and will be removed if it is judged to violate other content policies, especially those involving BLP. During the discussion for the RfC that added the fifth paragraph, NOTCENSORED concerns were raised by some and refuted by the consensus. Again, this wording and interpretation has broad community consensus. As with the other issue, you are welcome to take this to BLPN or NPOVN if you desire, but I am confident that the response there will also be the same. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll open an RfC on the topic; I believe in this case there are some policies that are directly applicable and in doing so override the manual of style.
Regarding NOTCENSORED and other content policies; the MOS is a style guideline, not a content policy. BilledMammal (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the inclusion of Isla Bryson's former name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include Isla Bryson's former name in the body, but not the lead of the article. Additionally, there is no clear preference between quote A or quote B, but weak consensus to include the information included in the quotes in some form (either paraphrased or one of the two options). I note that editors often voted in the positive or in the negative on both questions and many editors who voted against including the quotes did not mention a preference if there was consensus to include them.
As many editors commented, this is a particularly nuanced case where our guidelines on deadnames and neutral coverage are not explicitly clear. However, the arguments of those wishing to include her deadname on the article were stronger due to the common use of the deadname in reliable sources both about the name itself and its relation to what makes the subject notable. Editors opposing the inclusion of the name argued that she was not notable under that name and thus GENDERID forbids us from including the name. However, they were unable to convince the community that not only was she not notable under that name but that the name is not pertinent to this article (see MOS:GENDERID: Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent.). — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


This RfC consists of two questions related to the inclusion of Isla Bryson's former name.

Question One: Should Isla Bryson's former name be included in the lede?
Yes: The rapes occurred prior to Bryson's gender transition when she was known as Adam Graham.
No: The rapes occurred prior to Bryson's gender transition.

Question Two: How should the quote[a] from Susan Smith be included in the article?

A:

"[She] was charged under [her] original name, ..., and presumably they knew [her] by [her] new name, so they probably wouldn't have been able to find out anything about this person. It's absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."

B:

"[She] was charged under [her] original name, Adam Graham, and presumably they knew [her] by [her] new name, so they probably wouldn't have been able to find out anything about this person. It's absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."

19:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Yes and B.
    For question one, while MOS:GENDERID is possibly against the inclusion (while the rapes that she became notable for committing were committed before transitioning, the coverage of those rapes occurred after transitioning), GENDERID is not controlling in this instance as WP:NPOV, specifically WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, tells us to include it. This is because of how many high quality reliable sources consider it important information to include, including The BBC, Sky News, The Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Atlantic, and many others.
    Per NPOV, we must follow the sources; we cannot make our own determination that the sources are wrong and this isn't important information to include. We also cannot choose to override NPOV; WP:POLCON tells us that when a guideline and a policy conflict we must follow the policy, while NPOV tells us that it is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. It is also important contextual information to include; a significant part of her notability comes from the disconnect between her former name and her adopted name allowing her to get access to very young women in sensitive situations.
    For question two, option A would require us to censor the quote; as this is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, another policy, we cannot do that regardless of what the MOS says. Further, to censor it in this manner will confuse the reader and make the article less usable; it will be obvious that we are excluding the name and the reader will wonder why. BilledMammal (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and A. MOS:GENDERID is pretty clear: If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists (emphasis mine). I don't need to say anything else. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faulty premise, but still no and A. Starting with the faulty premise, the issue at hand with MOS:GENDERID is not what name Bryson used when she committed the rapes, or even what name she was using when she was on trial and convicted. The issue is what name she was using when she became notable. Those are entirely separate concepts. Looking at the timeline and available sources, she became notable on or around 26 January 2023, approximately two years after she had changed her name. No reliable sourcing for her exists prior to 19 January 2023, though one unreliable source was published (The Scottish Sun) on 17 January. According to reliable sources published after the conviction, Bryson changed her name some time in 2020. In this situation, the second paragraph of GENDERID unambiguously applies. Bryson was not notable under her former name, and it should not be included in any page. We are required to treat it as a privacy issue that is both separate from and greater than Bryson's current name.
    With respect to the quotation, and irregardless of whether we include or exclude Bryson's name elsewhere in the article, the fifth paragraph of GENDERID applies. That paragraph tells us to Paraphrase, elide, or use square brackets to replace portions of quotations to avoid deadnaming or misgendering, except in rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided, as where there is a pun on the notable former name, etc. This is not one of the rare cases where exact wording cannot be avoided. There is no pun involving the former name, nor is understanding of what Susan Smith said impeded by excluding the name. Currently the quotation is elided with ellipses, as I think that's better than using square brackets in this situation. We could also paraphrase and summarise it, however I would be wary of summarising this as it blurs the line somewhat between what is and is not in Wikivoice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and B. The subject’s change of gender is an important factor in this article, because Bryson herself is only notable as a result of the offences she committed, which occurred before she changed gender. While the deadname principle rightly applies to a public figure if they were unknown before transitioning, I would question whether this should be extended to someone convicted of a violent crime such as rape, especially when those offences were committed while the subject was male and identified as such. Because of these offences, Bryson's former name is a matter of public record, whereas this would not not necessarily be the case with a public figure. Our task is to report the facts of the case as they are. This is Paul (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to single you out in this, but While the deadname principle rightly applies to a public figure if they were unknown before transitioning, I would question whether this should be extended to someone convicted of a violent crime such as rape, especially when those offences were committed while the subject was male and identified as such. is a pretty horrific argument to make. It's akin to saying that if a person is the wrong type of trans or non-binary (in this case convicted of a terrible crime, but could equally be used to justify any manner of other categories that we deem less than worthy), we don't need to follow the clear and unambiguously guidance that states that because they were not a public figure prior to changing their name we should exclude the former name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject’s change of gender is an important factor in this article - yes, it is, and the article covers the subject's change of gender. I don't see how that argument impacts on this decision, however. Knowing what the subject's prior name was doesn't make the article easier to understand or shed a different light on it. As I type this, I am undecided on the question, but I don't find this argument persuasive. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and A. MOS:GENDERID is clear on this – Bryson was clearly not notable prior to transition – and a local consensus cannot override our policies and guidelines. The community has typically also been rather reticent to allow any exceptions to GENDERID – as typified with the RfCs as of late – and the assertion that Bryson is somehow different and isn't covered by BLPPRIVACY isn't one that stands up to scrutiny; after all, if we can't say the name of a man who shot unarmed children in the back because of BLPPRIVACY, then the bar on who we can name when considering BLPPRIVACY is clearly very high. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC you are referring to was based on WP:BLPNAME; WP:BLPPRIVACY, given that it discusses what information should be provided about an identified individual, doesn't make sense to refer to and indeed it wasn't referred to. BLPNAME doesn't apply here because it relates to identifying individuals and we have already identified Isla Bryson.
    Further, BLPPRIVACY is in favor of us including the name; Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. Isla Bryson's former name is reported in hundreds of reliable sources, a number that easily meets the requirement of "widely published". At this point it makes little sense to consider her former name a privacy interest. BilledMammal (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly leaning yes and strong neither (came from neutral notice on WP:BLPN). GENDERID is a strong guideline and should be followed in the overwhelming majority of cases, but occasional exceptions may apply, and the case of "someone becoming notable after transitioning, but entirely for something that occurred before transitioning" is not well-covered by it. BM persuasively notes that for this specific article, a substantial amount of coverage revolves around the name we would not usually use and the role that namechanging played in this situation. The quote, however, is not a question of presenting names -- it is a question of writing a good article, and neither way of presenting this quote is in service to it. This sort of giant block quote for a statement of opinion is poor encyclopedism at the best of times, and especially so when combined with the pronoun-changing (rightfully) required by both presentations of it. I am also unsold on the neutrality of "highlighted the ease". Susan Smith from For Women Scotland, a campaign group that opposes proposed changes to allow individuals to self-declare their legal sex, said she found the ease through which Bryson changed her legal name "absolutely terrifying"; she claimed that this allowed people to "hide their identities and gain access to young women". (Did Bryson legally change her name by that point? It's not clear from the article, because we present this as a huge quote with no meaningful context.) Vaticidalprophet 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Choosing to clarify a little given discussion of further possibilities: "weak lean" is including in lead, but I more strongly support 'including at all'. I still emphatically do not think the giant quote is good encyclopedism in any presentation with any name or lack thereof. Vaticidalprophet 02:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this is a case of someone becoming notable after transitioning for something that occurred before transitioning. She didn't become notable for the rapes, she became notable for transitioning in prison and getting transferred to a women's prison. Both those events happened during or after transitioning. Loki (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and A but with the following logic. 1) Person was not notable by their original name. 2) Person's orginal name is only notable because they transitioned. There are thousands/millions of rapists in the world without Wikipedia articles, the only reason for this one has an article is because of the unusual facts of the case. 3) Does including the name add any encyclopaedic value? No. 4) Does option A cover the important parts of the quote, without violating MOS:GENDERID, highlighting Susan Smith's concerns? Yes. So it's the best option. Red Fiona (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft No and B (also came from neutral notice on WP:BLPN)
    I don't think the name needs to be in the lead; or at least not in the first sentence of the lede, but I do believe it should be included in the article.
    For terminology, I am going to use "Given Name" and "Chosen Name".
    I agree with MOS:GENDERID that someone is well known under more than one name, both names should be included in the article. I'm not convinced it needs to be in the first sentence in every scenario; however, it makes sense for a few individuals whose transition has garnered much media attention - like Jenner and Paige.
    However - out of curiosity I pulled a list of celebrities known by a stage name, and every one I looked up - we're using their Given Name in the lead. For example, see Brad Pitt, Reese Witherspoon, and Alicia Keyes. I didn't dig, but I never see these public figures being referred to by their given names, why is that the first thing you see on Wikipedia?
    If we really want to be fair and consistent, then in this case - we should use both names in the lead, and there is a real case for that. But I honestly don't think we should even put someone's maiden name in the lead of an article while they are alive and going by a different name.
    I would put Given Names and Maiden Names in an info box, or reference it in the article (If it's a biography article, X was born Y is fine, mention name changes when they happen mentioned in the article).
    I do think that this individuals name change is a significant piece of why the case has drawn media attention, and should be included in the article, but it doesn't need to be in the lead, it could be, but not the first sentence at least. For the quote - I don't like the idea of changing quotes in general, and this individual's given name is well known, should be in the article, and therefore the quote should stay as-is.
    Ultimately: We shouldn't go out of our way to hide well known names, but we should refer to people using the name they are notable for at least in the first sentence, but I feel that should be across all articles for living people... but that's not how we're currently handling names across Wikipedia and we should consider changing that across the board. Denaar (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through comments; I did want to push a little bit on the "not notable under their given name" comments. I disagree.
Think of people who weren't covered in the news during their lifetime, but historians research and write about them. They weren't notable for coverage in wikipedia during their lifetime, but now they are. That doesn't mean "only stuff that happened after they died is notable"... the things they did were notable once they were written about.
The argument that "this person did nothing notable under their given name" is following that pattern of argument, that because it wasn't written about in the moment, that makes it non-notable - but that's not how notability works.
In this case, it's the combination of events and continued coverage that makes it a notable case - which includes the original crime, and the arrest, and the court case, and the conviction - it's a series of events that ultimately make it worthy of notice to people so that they write about it, thus making it notable for wikipedia.
So while it's true the case wasn't "notable for coverage in wikipedia" when it first happened, the events that happened ARE one of the pieces, that later on, make it a notable event. And that even happened under a previous name, and should be included.
It might be different if the person was notable, and this was a small blip in their life story barely worth a mention. But we've got the opposite: the event, the arrest, the case, the sentencing - that's what people are writing about, it's all notable. Denaar (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I have understood correctly, you would support including the name elsewhere in the article in Wikivoice, just not in the lede? Perhaps in Isla Bryson case#Background? I have no objection to including it there rather than in the lede; it isn't the placement but the inclusion that is important in my opinion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also inclined to agree with this. Vaticidalprophet 21:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the given name should be included somewhere in this article where it fits and makes sense. It seems reasonable on this article. Denaar (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and neither -- Much of the point of allowing notable names in the cases of people who were notable before transition is so that they can be associated with older references and coverage using that name. There seems to be a lack of such previous discussion; the fact that anything that uses the old name also uses the new name makes the older name unnecessary for those purposes. And in my mind, any time we need more than a couple [rephrasings] and [...]s to make a quote, we're probably better off not using that part of the quote at all, but summarizing it in text; the impact and the flow are just too disrupted by those constructs. Better to summarize at least the start of the quote. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I look into the quote, the more I come to belief that it should not be included at all, even in summary. I only find one news source using the quote (STV News), so the quote is not so vital in coverage of this matter that WP:DUE requires it. The quote is speculative in nature, which should cause concern in a BLP. And if Ms. Smith has some relevant expertise, it's not showing up in the first couple articles I find about her group. Instead, she is being quoted as the head of a group that has been understandably described as anti-trans, using this occasion to comment in a way that supports her group stance, which is not particularly informative. (I'm at least open to the idea that this article shouldn't be presented as a BLP at all, but rather should be reworked into an article on Scottish handling of trans prisoners.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and B — as much as I appreciate the guidance of MOS:GENDERID, WP:NPOV is policy, and her former name is a significant view that has been widely published by reliable sources on this topic. And the topic of this article is her "case", evidenced by the name of the article. And it also appears to me her notability derives from this "case", or otherwise we wouldn't have a BIO article on Isla Bryson, as she wasn't notable under that name until this "case". But now, she is notable because of both names, connected to this "case". And BTW, it's Graham, not Grayson. Independent — Reuters — The Guardian — The Times — Telegraph — Glasgow Times — The Scotsman — Barrons — The Herald — BBC — Euronews.— Isaidnoway (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And BTW, it's Graham, not Grayson Fixed, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly per Vaticidalprophet (weak yes and strong neither); no mention in lede. (Also here from BLPN.) GENDERID is an important style guideline that gives us good guidance on how to handle the vast majority of transitions. As Vati says, this is an edge case that it was not written to cover. Absent a global consensus to the contrary, it seems reasonable to include her former name somewhere in the article; but the lede would seem to be undue, as it's not a detail readers really need to know to understand the case, and we should still follow the spirit of GENDERID to the extent possible (i.e. minimizing focus on a detail we would normally outright exclude). I also agree with Vati that the quote should go either way. -- 'zin[is short for Tamzin] (she|they|xe) 08:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong No and strong neither. Inclusion of the name does not contribute anything to the understanding of the topic. Trying to base an argument for inclusion on WP:NOTCENSORED does not work. This is simply not the kind of thing NOTCENSORED is intended for. This is evident from NOTCENSORED itself where it says "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)." So NOTCENSORED obviously does not mean that we cannot leave out information. It merely means we cannot leave out information because we find the information objectionable or offensive. Trying to base an argument for inclusion on WP:NPOV does not work either. NPOV is about points of view. Trying to frame the name in terms of POV stretches the concept of POV far beyond breaking point. WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE in particular are explicitly about POVs and do not apply to the issue at hand. It is true that WP:BALASP does not explicitly refer to POVs. But since it is part of WP:NPOV that is implicit. Yes, leaving out facts can be a violation of NPOV. But this is clearly not the case here. MOS:GENDERID is not itself a policy, but it is clear that it is intended as an implementation of WP:BLP. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue of deadnaming recently. E.g. here, here, and here. The reasoning used here to argue for inclusion of the name would basically make MOS:GENDERID irrelevant. Ultimately this is a legalistic argument that runs counter to community consensus. Should these arguments prevail, the logical consequence will be yet another RFC on the matter, this time about including an explicit rule about deadnaming directly in WP:BLP. As far as the quote is concerned that is just awkward writing either way. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and either. I think that having the deadname/given name in the article and/or as a redirect is fair since it's in the sources and might be what people are looking for, but I don't think it needs to be in the lede. As Tamzin said, minimizing focus on the given name is still a fair idea even if there is due cause to include it somewhere in the article. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SomeoneDreaming: As discussed above, would you support including the former name in Isla Bryson case#Background? I proposed the lede as possibly a natural place to put it, but in my opinion it isn't the placement but the inclusion that is important. BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's probably the most natural place, yeah. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and neither (or exclude entirely); this is the sort of thing better covered with a paraphrase than with a fairly lengthy quote to someone whose opinion isn't particularly noteworthy in an individual sense. Massive quotes like these tend to clutter articles and risk turning them into WP:QUOTEFARMS. Secondary coverage of this quote in RSes is absolutely minimal, and the one source we have is a passing mention - why are we including it at all? If we include every quote by everyone with a strong opinion on the subject, the article will become unreadable; and the feeling one gets from this quote is that it was included because of its stridency, which is not a reason to include a quote per WP:QUOTEFARM. The fact that some people hold this opinion can be easily cited and mentioned in the article in a more neutral tone without relying on fire-breathing quotes like these; this isn't something for which only this quote exists. But if we must include it, we can paraphrase it down to its essential points in more neutral wording. Regarding the name, coverage prior to their transition is so minimal that it seems difficult to argue that they were noteworthy under it; the fact that the crime occurred then isn't relevant when it had virtually no coverage until afterwards. --Aquillion (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the former name being in the lead, but support adding the quote from B to the article or mentioning the former name in the Background section. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on whether to include former name in lede, the more important issue for readers to understand is that the person presented as male during the rapes, and simply stating so may suffice. The rapes occurred prior to Bryson's gender transition, when she was still presenting as male. Support having the former name in the body per Denaar and Tamzin, we can put it in the Background section. Reliable sources have been provided by Isaidnoway and BilledMammal, whom provided views that I agree with that the policy of WP:NPOV trumps the guideline of MOS:GENDERID, and that since the former name has been widely published, WP:BLPPRIVACY would not prevent publishing it in the body. As for the second question, if we are to include the quote, then B, as it brings immediate understanding to the reader what the situation rather than have them having to rack their brains to imagine what the original name could be. starship.paint (exalt) 15:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support having the former name in the body Whilst a strict reading of MOS:GENDERID would seem to preclude naming - that guideline says nothing about people notable for deeds committed prior to transition (as is the case here) and in which the gender before transition, and indeed the transition itself, is highly relevant (ditto). The omission of the name, while not strictly necessary for understanding the subject is stylistically odd and current (nameless) wording draws attention to an absence IMO. Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully endorse this comment. starship.paint (exalt) 02:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and weak neither (tho I'd strongly prefer A if we include a quote). This person does not really appear to have been notable prior to transition. Most criminals are not notable for their crime, and it doesn't seem there was much coverage of the crime itself. (If there was, it'd change my mind.) This person is actually notable for her transitioning and the ensuing implications on whether she's placed in a man's prison or a woman's prison. As such, MOS:GENDERID applies.
    As for the quote, I usually don't like extended quotes in articles. I feel that they are often a way of avoiding the responsibility of paraphrasing or summarizing a source with a strong opinion. If we do use the quote, because MOS:GENDERID applies we should use version A, but ideally I'd prefer to paraphrase the quote. Something like: Susan Smith from For Women Scotland said it was likely that the college couldn't have found out that Bryson had raped two women, as she had been charged under her original name but applied for the college under her new name. Loki (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I don't find the arguments that we should override MOS:GENDERID to include the subject's former name compelling; the fact of her gender transition is important to the reader's understanding but her former name is not. If the quote has to be included, I would prefer A, but I agree with several other voters that paraphrasing it would be better. Hatman31 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong yes and strong B - Whether we like it or not, both names are commonly used in reliable sources: the BBC, Sky News, The Scotsman, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Times. We need to reflect that, however uncomfortable it may be for some. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak no to inclusion of birth name in the lead, and weak neither to inclusion of the quote per Vaticidalprophet and others. As mentioned before, MOS:GENDERID isn't really written for cases like this, but this seems the most logical in this instance. I also agree with Vaticidalprophet, BilledMammal and others that this may be mentioned in the article text – this isn't about erasure, but a question of prominence. But I agree with others that this is an edge case. – GnocchiFan (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and B - Per MOS:GENDERID her deadname doesn’t belong in the lead, but it can be used in the body: "Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent." ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 08:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC) (originally 17:24, 24 July 2023 but I forgot to sign it)[reply]
  • Yes and B, her name and identity prior to transition is well known and documented and makes the page more clear. I don't think DEADNAME applies.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and A (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I agree that this person became notable after transition and therefor inclusion of a new name is not informative for the lead. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For question one, weak yes; for question two, paraphrase instead. Despite the MoS guidance, Bryson's former name is extensively covered in RSes, and so privacy concerns over inclusion of her former name are effectively already moot. Policy takes preference over guidelines, and I believe minimally including Bryson's former name would satisfy NPOV, BLP, and NOTCENSORED (which I believe to be the most relevant policies), even if it would go against the MoS (which is ultimately only a style guide). However, I'm not sure if it needs to be placed in the lead; perhaps § Background would be more appropriate. As for the quote, I believe that the amount of bracketed edits needed suggest that it would be better paraphrased anyway; this would also solve the question of whether to include or omit Bryson's former name in the quote. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No and A. Reliable sources report this person as having a transgender identity, and MOS:GENDERID is entirely clear. Revisit if/when reliable sources adopt Nicola Sturgeon's stance. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name in body, not in lede per Tamzin; xe knows whereof xe speaks. Slightly differing on quote, though; including it as a long quote is undue weight, true. However I would support a good shorten-and-paraphrase, possibly not even crediting to Smith, since the opinion expressed - that Ayrshire College and fellow students would never have heard of the case due to the different name being used - seems to be a powerful and commonly held one, not just by Smith. --GRuban (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read this long discussion and note sensible arguments from both sides. As others have said, the quote would be better dealt with by a shorter paraphrase. As others have said, this is an unusual case and MOS:GENDERID doesn't address a case where actions that make the subject notable occurred under the old name, but the subject didn't become notable until after adopting the new name. MOS:GENDERID does, however, refer us to WP:BLPPRIVACY, saying, "Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name." WP:BLPPRIVACY then notes that, "Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified." So, just having a reliable source for the old name would not be enough. However, WP:BLPPRIVACY also says, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". In this case, the old name has been and continues to be very widely used by reliable sources. So, I think we can give the old name as per WP:BLPPRIVACY. We should respect MOS:GENDERID and lead with the new name. I don't see any particular need for the old name to be prominent or in the lede. Bondegezou (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and B per BilledMammal.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

@This is Paul, Munci, and Barnards.tar.gz: Ping editors involved in a prior related discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question for clarification for @BilledMammal: Above you wrote: The dispute over her name is also a key part of her notability and thus by excluding it we are failing to fully explain the story; the disconnect between the name she was charged under and the name she adopted allowed her to get access to women as young as 16 in sensitive settings. As far as I understand it it is relevant that she used a different name. Is that all you meant or are you going further and saying that it is relevant what name she used? If so, why do you consider it relevant what name she used? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I consider it relevant what name she used because of the emphasis that reliable sources place on that name, and because a significant part of her story is how she used different names to get access to teenagers in a sensitive setting; while it is possible to explain this without providing the reader with the name it leaves the story incomplete. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Follow-up question: You have argued that WP:NPOV dictates including the name. Can you elaborate on why you believe that NPOV is relevant to the issue? The opening sentence of NPOV says: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (Emphasis added by me.) In what sense are we talking about a point of view here? Prima facie we seem to be dealing with a statement of fact, not opinion. I don't think that NPOV says anything that would rule out leaving facts out of an article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE speaks to this, but perhaps WP:BALASP speaks to it best; An article ... should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Given how many reliable sources choose to include her former name we must do the same if we are to treat that aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.
    I'll add that I would consider "all the significant views" to include significant views about what facts are relevant. For example, excluding the fact that Henry Kissinger was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize would be counter to NPOV as much as excluding the significant views around that award would be. In the end we shouldn't be arbitrators of what facts are relevant; if we allowed ourselves to do that we would introduce the ability to engage in lies of omission. BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems quite an expansive redefinition of a "point of view". There are not conflicting "points of view" over what the name was (well, if we overlook the error introduced in this discussion.) We are absolutely not denying the fact that she had another name. The inclusion of the specific name does not add to an understanding of the debate. We do not need to follow the punctuation of sources either, even if most sources use the same punctuation and it does not accord with our MOS, because punctuation is (similarly) not a point of view. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Style is very different to content; when it comes to content, we follow the sources.
    Even if you don't agree that "points of view" extends to the facts that are relevant - and thus that WP:BALANCE is not relevant here - WP:BALASP and WP:DUE both refer to "aspects", which certainly includes facts. BilledMammal (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those are in reach of what you are claiming. WP:BALASP is about giving undue weight to minor matters, and there is nothing that is given much extra weight by not naming the name. WP:DUE is about viewpoints, and particularly giving coverage to minority viewpoints. Neither of these things do what you say. This attempt to overthrow MOS:GENDERID is without base. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at my quote, WP:BALASP is about giving every aspect weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. That includes not giving aspects too much weight and, more relevantly here, not giving aspects too little weight.
    WP:DUE isn't just about viewpoints (... minority views or aspects ...), and like BALASP it doesn't just discuss avoiding giving minor viewpoints or aspects too much weight - it is also about giving more significant viewpoints or aspects too little weight.
    Logically, this makes sense. We can bias an article by de-emphasizing a majority viewpoint, or a fact considered relevant by the majority, as easily as we can bias it by emphasizing a minority viewpoint, or a fact considered relevant by the minority. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're dancing around again. The emphasis or deemphasis of certain factual aspects may speak to a viewpoint -- say a focus on the race of someone on either end of a crime -- without actually mentioning that viewpoint. That's relfected in how "aspect" is invoked in sections about viewpoint. But what bias is set by including or omitting the name. Is there some particular view about people who were granted those initials at birth? Some deep religious significance? Because it sure looks like you are avoiding the actual relevance of the matter at hand. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to speculate why editors or reliable sources may wish to include or exclude a name - though I suspect your own speculations are wildly incorrect - but in this case the viewpoint is as simple as whether this name is relevant. Reliable sources believe it is; you are free to disagree, but when writing Wikipedia our personal opinions are irrelevant. BilledMammal (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your replies! I have thought a long time about this and I watched the debate. Ultimately I am unconvinced by your arguments and therefore have to vote "no". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified WikiProjects LGBT studies and Biography Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified the rest of the relevant WikiProjects WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Women. BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I'd gotten distracted by someone at my front door, and had completely forgotten to do the rest by the time I got back to my PC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Wikipedia:LOCALCONSENSUS, here cannot overturn WP:DEADNAME. Therefore, Question One is invalid, as policy is pretty clear that the deadname cannot be included in the article, "even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists", no matter what the consensus of this discussion is. casualdejekyll 22:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A consensus here can, however, decide that a different policy is controlling, which is the main argument being made in favor of "Yes" for Question One. I'll add that DEADNAME is a little ambiguous on this; see Pincrete's !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ "He was charged under his original name, Adam Graham, and presumably they knew him by his new name, so they (fellow students) probably wouldn’t have been able to find out anything about this person. It’s absolutely terrifying that people can hide their identities and gain access to young women in this way."
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.

Many names[edit]

I'm not sure how many editors were aware, but upon researching the situation, Bryson went under many names. To the first rape victim in 2016, Bryson was known as Adam Graham. To the second victim in 2019, Bryson was known as DJ Blade. To Bryson's wife and Bryson's mother, Bryson was known as Adam Bryson. To Bryson's classmate at Ayrshire College in 2021, Bryson was known as Annie. After reviewing all of this, it is clear to me that a strict adherence to MOS:GENDERID was not a good fit for this article. Perhaps the opposition to including the former name hindered the research into all of these? Just a guess, may be wrong. In fact, the consensus above got it absolutely right since this person had so many names that just including "Adam Graham" in the lede wouldn't be good enough, all the other names should be left in the body. starship.paint (exalt) 14:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the name she used at Ayrshire College because I came across that when I wrote the original article. Then all reference to other names was removed citing the WP:GENDERID policy, although I agree it wasn't a good fit in this particular case. Good work on the article btw. This is Paul (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit[edit]

@LokiTheLiar reverted my edit which stated that "while a man" is more justified language than while "presenting as a man" for two major reasons:

Again, to repeat: none of the references - all 43 - in this article use the phrase "presenting as a man" in any way.

I may also add that WP:GENDERID under "Retroactivity" indeed acknowledges that the term "presentation" is disputed; some describe transitioning as a sort-of "reveal" of gender, whereas others describe it as a change:

  • "A person coming out as trans is usually not making a change in their gender (though they often make a change in their presentation); instead, they are revealing their gender (gender identity). Coming out as e.g. a trans man is often best understood as saying "I am a man and have always been a man." However, some trans people do not subscribe to this model of lifelong gender, and may instead understand themselves as having previously been female, and now having become male, or having been some combination of both."

The fact that these guidelines are so ambiguous, combined with absolute unanimity of the absence of the term "presenting" in any of the sources, drives me to conclude that the phrase "presenting as" should not be used; rather "as a man", because it is clearly and abundantly sourced.

Zilch-nada (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the phrase. I see no ambiguity of MOS:GENDERID or WP:GENDERID: it instructs us to ignore reliable sources that use gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification. Moreover, the phrase is redundant to "prior to Bryson's gender transition" (in combination with the previous description of Bryson as a "transgender woman"). It's BLP inappropriate and a better phrasing of the same information was literally present in the same sentence.
The instances of the same phrase in the body are also redundant to the surrounding passages, which bookend with "assigned male at birth" and "began the process of gender transition" which events happened before and after Bryson began publicly identifying as a woman. — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that - considering it is abundantly, and I mean abundantly considered in news media - the fact that this person was previously a man, is important? The controversy surrounding this case is that there is someone who raped a woman whilst a man, and then changed gender: that is the very reason why this is a notable topic. I.e., it isn't per se important that this "person" is transgender, but specifically that they were previously a man: that is more important. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While we have to follow the facts reliable sources publish we do not have to use the exact same language or phraseology they do. Saying that Bryson was convicted for crimes committed before she transitioned is enough, as it carries the same meaning. The UK media being sensationalistic in their coverage of Bryson, by hammering that particular phrase wherever they could, is not a convincing reason for why we should also be sensationalistic in our article about her. Bilorv is right that what was removed was utterly redundant to the rest of the content in those sections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on: do you describe the phrasing "when she was a man" as "sensationalistic"? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above: this story is important because it is a person who was born as a man, who raped, and was considered for a womens' prison. To mention this person's previous gender is not even remotely sensationalistic. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the phrasing "when she was a man" is overly sensationalistic, completely redundant, and altogether not necessary. Simply stating that Bryson is a trans woman, and that she was convicted of crimes committed prior to transitioning conveys exactly the same meaning, in a much more neutral and succinct manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"When she was a man" is sensationalistic. That is seriously an absurd statement. Various sources, including very reputable ones like the BBC, have used this language. If all sources - respected news sources - employ such language, then I'm afraid you have to really reconsider what you just said.
"Following Bryson's conviction, Police Scotland confirmed she had been arrested and charged as a man, and that her crimes would therefore be recorded as having been committed by a man"
SIMPLE QUESTION: The crimes were committed by a man. Isla Bryson is a trans woman. Was that - or was that not - a different person? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Various sources, including very reputable ones like the BBC, have used this language. Yes, and the UK media's coverage of trans and non-binary people and related issues have been widely criticised for years, both within academia and internationally. Saying the UK media is sensationalistic in their coverage of trans issues is not controversial.
I fail to see the relevance of your "simple question", as there is no question that Bryson was convicted of rape, for crimes that were committed prior to her transition. The article quite clearly states that, without bias or sensationalism. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you clearly answer "no" to my question, right? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither a no or a yes. I do not see the relevance of your "simple question", so I am declining to answer it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why it is relevant: Was Isla Bryson previously a man? That is the question here. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Widely criticised for years": This is a British topic, an article covered entirely by sources in the British press. Include foreign sources if you want to. But to accept British sources - as we are doing as this article probably wouldn't exist otherwise - and only nit-pick parts of it you think are relevant, even if more supposedly controversial language is used, is outright uncalled for. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accepting British sources does not mean we have to accept the exact terminology and phraseology they use. Again, we are beholden to the facts our sources report, but not the words in which they use to report them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In accepting British sources, which we have done, we most focus on language that is repeatedly used, not just random or "exact terminology". There is a vast trend in using the terminology similar to "when she was a man". Zilch-nada (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we most focus on language that is repeatedly used No, we really don't. Policy requires that we write content in our own words. This is not a topic where there is only one specific way to convey the exact meaning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We employ terminology that is generally used: perhaps that's what I'm getting at. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it's not even individual terms per se that we are debating over. It is the logic - that this person was previously a man - that is universally sourced in the sources above, but rejected here. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that that logic is "sensationalistic." If the press continuously employ a general logic or syntax in their reporting, then, if anything, describing the logic that the press employs is even more important than individual terms. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the facts pertinent to understanding this case are rejected. As I said in my reply below, all of the relevant facts relating to Bryson's conviction and personal circumstances are clearly and succinctly stated, using terminology that is appropriate for this topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think the fact that this person committed the crime while a man is relevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said a few times now, we clearly and succinctly state that the crimes Bryson was convicted for were committed prior to her transition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the question; I'm not trying to be facetious here. Do you think the fact that this person committed the crime while a man is relevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said a few times now, I do not see the relevance of this question, so I am declining to answer it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How on Earth is this contention not relevant when you are deviating from the language used abundantly by sources above? It absolutely is relevant. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me give you an example from a somewhat related topic. Pro-life is terminology overwhelmingly used by the anti-abortion movement, even within some sources, however our article refers to them as the anti-abortion movement. Conversely, pro-choice is the terminology overwhelmingly used by the abortion-rights movement, even within some sources, but again our article refers to them as the abortion-rights movement. If we were to use either pro-life or pro-choice terminology in our articles, then we would no longer be following WP:NPOV, as we would be engaging in a dispute, not describing one.
Coming back to the context of this article, the terminology that we're using (trans woman, assigned male at birth) are standard, neutral terms when writing articles within this broader topic. It is also language that is recommended by many highly regarded and relevant styleguides, such as the current edition of The AP Stylebook. Conversely, language choices like "while a man" or "born a woman" are not neutral terms, and are even explicitly recommended to be avoided by the same styleguides. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not addressing our fundamental disagreement. Like I said, it is not a disagreement about individual terms, but logic and the syntax of the news reported. That is a really pathetic comparison to "pro-life" movements. Absurd. The police report describes the culprit as a male when the crime was committed. Every source I have provided above refers to this person's previous status.
I put emphasis on "refers" because what is referred to in general is this person's previous status as a man; that status is a referent, not a term, and this person's status as a man is reported universally throughout the news sources. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I must add. I am not concerned at all about Bryson's current gender is. I find it appalling that there is an effort on this article to purge any reference to Bryson's previous gender; they committed the crime as a man. The fact that you describe that as sensationalistic is utterly appalling. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly urge you to read the article in full. There is no "effort on this article to purge any reference to Bryson's previous gender". We clearly and succinctly state that Bryson is a trans woman, that she was assigned male at birth. We state her former name. And we state that she was convicted of crimes that were committed prior to her transition. We do so using terminology that is appropriate for this topic, in a neutral manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's hard to say without asking her, and/or deep metaphysical knowledge about the nature of gender. Loki (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Without asking her"
Do you people even know that we are talking about a rapist here? The sheer amount of respect: "asking her" - what a deeply insulting thing to say. Police reports describe the crime as being committed by a man. Should we not consider the police's or media's word at all, only "asking" a rapist? Are you serious?
I again must address that I do not consider the person presently to be a man. We are talking about previous status. This article previously read "presenting as a male" and refers to "assigned male at birth" but deliberately omits any semantics similar to "while a man" mentioned by press and police. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about rapists are still BLPs. And I second everything Sideswipe said about the British press being sensationalized, especially about trans women. Loki (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the press, but the police, the prisons, and the courts. Are they wrong too? Zilch-nada (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are no-doubt sceptical of British reporting on trans issues. Why does this article exist then? It contains solely British sources about a trans topic. Are they therefore not reliable? Or only unreliable in places where you find it unreliable, including the wordings of the police? Because this nit-picking is getting extremely out-of-hand. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all British sources are equally unreliable on trans issues, but to be honest, if I was the only voter at WP:RSP I don't know if this article would have sufficient sourcing to exist. I think most of the coverage of Isla Bryson is itself sensationalism and that without that sensationalism I doubt she would be notable. Loki (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"without that sensationalism I doubt she would be notable": it's a pretty sensational story. A man rapes a woman, transitions to female, and is considered for a woman's prison. I don't see how you couldn't see that as controversial. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similar things happen in the US all the time and they don't make national news. Loki (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Example? Zilch-nada (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to give specific examples because examples of specific people really don't hit the news at all, but there's several jurisdictions in the US that have housed trans prisoners as their post-transition gender for over a decade now.
The first one I could find articles on is Cook County, i.e. Chicago. But at least according to Lambda Legal, Denver and Washington, DC also do this, among others. Loki (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically for rape though; that is an importantly specific crime. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that this person "decided to transition while awaiting trial for rape"? Are all transitions equal, or is this one to play the system, as Nicola Sturgeon has accused Bryson of "faking" it.? I think it's an obnoxious suggestion that all transitions are equally valid - and I do support transitioning - but that is a question for MOS as well. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:GENDERID definitely doesn't have an exception for allegedly insincere transitions. We've sometimes ignored occasional cases of clear trolling by WP:IAR, but I'd strongly oppose that in this case, as Bryson has remained on hormones after she's clearly been denied transfer to a woman's prison, which is not something one would normally expect from someone who's transitioning insincerely.
Furthermore, the sources clearly don't support that. "When she was a man" is pure semantics, but the fact that she's not a man now is a fact supported all the sources, no matter what Nicola Sturgeon's opinion is. Loki (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"doesn't have an exception for allegedly insincere transitions": So is there such a thing as an insincere transition? The transition occurred while on trial. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely the occasional right-wing troll who says they use she/her pronouns for a laugh.
I seriously doubt there are cis men who would voluntarily take and stay on HRT for any significant length of time even given huge material incentives for doing so. HRT taken over long periods of time causes permanent changes in your body that would be extremely uncomfortable to a cis person. You'd find about as many people who would willingly cut off a limb. Loki (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you just implied that there would never be a cis man who would ever buy into the "huge material incentives for doing [HRT]"; that's quite a contradictory statement: "huge incentives, but I seriously doubt it would ever happen." This is getting quite off-topic. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically there could be a political incentive for someone to transition dishonestly, as such a case would have obvious propaganda potential for the anti-gender movement. Such an incentive may also have the potential for financial rewards.
In practice though, the effects of cross-sex feminising or masculinising hormone therapy on a cisgender individual would likely be akin to giving a cisgender person gender dysphoria. I say likely because to my knowledge no research has ever been done on this, as it would be completely unethical. The physical effects of HRT (ie development of secondary sex characteristics) start pretty quickly, as do the mental effects of changing which sex hormone is dominant in your body. As a result it would be very unlikely for a cisgender person to remain on such a HRT regimen for any prolonged period of time.
Conversely this is the reason why the rate of regret related detransitions is so low, typically 0.3-4% depending on study methodology. Once a trans person starts an appropriate HRT regimen and becomes stable after titration, they are generally happy with the results. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not in disagreement here, only off-topic. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"When she was a man" is indeed pure semantics; such semantics is clearly and abundantly sourced, yet ignored by members of this discussion. "that she's not a man now": I did not dispute that, as the sources refer to as "she" Zilch-nada (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:OUROWNWORDS says clearly, we don't source wording. There is no way to source a particular phrasing, only particular facts.
And I'm not sure why we're talking about insincere transitions if you weren't trying to insinuate she was a man. Loki (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"we don't source wording. There is no way to source a particular phrasing, only particular facts."
Huh? I said "semantics" which is sourced. The logic of this person previously being a man - not any particular wording - is eschewed. That's what I have continuously referred to.
"insincere transitions" - I agree that discussion of this is getting somewhat off-topic. The topic is still: whether or not to employ the semantics of the criminal previously being a man. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Bryson started transitioning while awaiting trial is not really that important to us, beyond documenting it within the same level of detail as reliable sources do. It's not our job to second guess nor speculate upon the circumstances of any article subject. We're not here to pass judgement on our article subjects. Our role is merely to document in a neutral manner. To paraphrase William Lenthall, "Wikipedia has neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, but as reliable sources are pleased to direct us".
As for whether or not GENDERID needs guidance surrounding insincere transitions, I would say no. Right-wing trolling (eg Tucker Carlson) aside, it is theoretically possible that someone might transition for insincere reasons, but I'm not sure that has ever convincingly been documented in reliable sources. I certainly can't think of a case off-hand where it's happened. There's an American legal maxim hard cases make bad law that would seem to apply here. Unless and until it does happen, I don't think we need to worry about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: if reliable sources describe it as insincere transitions, we should include it. I am not suggesting that the Bryson case is a case of insincerity; I am only considering the possibility of insincerity. There's clearly a possibility. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond Nicola Sturgeon's commentary, which we include in the article, it's really inappropriate for us to speculate on an article subject's personal circumstances. If something in relation to Bryson's transition changes, and it is covered by reliable sources, we will likely add it. But unless and until that happens, we should not speculate on it even being a possibility. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"instructs us to ignore reliable sources that use gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification"
It is more ambiguous than you make it to be here. Firstly, is describing someone as "previously a man", an example of "gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification"? If yes, then is "while previously presenting as a man" an example? Because considering this person's past as a man - whether a "presentation" or not, etc. - is absolutely important, and it is an example of considering a "previous" gender, i.e., "words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification" regardless.
I.e. any consideration of this person's previous gender is itself an example of "gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification". That is an absurd omission. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised the question, as it relates to style, at the MOS. I don’t know if that will help here, or just suck in more people to waste time bickering.
I think @Bilorv’s solution (avoid either linguistic attitude) is a fine one for now. That sources consistently use similar language is a fine point in support of such an attitude, but I think the disagreement is coming from the fact that we need a good reason to include it too; it’s not enough to just blindly follow the language of the sources. (Especially when the present middle-path works well enough.) The substantive point—that the reader is helped along by our pointing out Bryson’s gender at various points in the timeline—is weak enough that honestly I think it really just isn’t worth the continued arguing at this point.
@Zilch-nada, if someone vehemently opposes the language of “when X was a man”, then you can take it as given that she just doesn’t believe X was previously a man; clearly no amount of badgering is going to solve your fundamental disagreement here. — HTGS (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one point: it is not the language of "when X was a man" that I am concerned about. It is the syntax. Any reference to this person's previous status as male - which is clearly different logic from "presenting" as male - is continuously omitted from the article, even though such status is referred to in above sources. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean semantics, not syntax, but either way you’re splitting hairs here; it’s all one thing. (I say “linguistic attitude” because I mean the words as well as the meaning behind the words.) — HTGS (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant, yes. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of Bryson's case beyond what this article says and no interest in defending rapists. It is a matter of consistency and style guide that we refer to people with gendered words that match their latest self-identification. As analogy, however despicable a person is, we would never describe them with "it"; we don't describe a person who identifies as a woman as having "used to be a man". This language is factually wrong, not correctly describing the experiences of transgender people.
Bryson describes knowing of being a woman at the age of four, so it is an unverifiable assertion that Bryson is lying. (We can describe who has said Bryson is lying with attribution in prose, yes.)
That mainstream media are systematically and consistently wrong is not new to us—for instance, mainstream media are generally not reliable for medical information (WP:MEDPOP). — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The police stated that the crime was committed by a man. The person who committed the crime was Bryson. Are or are they not the same person? Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. You people are unbelievable. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isla_Bryson_case&oldid=1206464078"