Forum:Pride-related policy proposals

Wookieepedia > WookieeProject: Pride > Pride-related policy proposals

The Wook has some policies that could use updating. This discussion is intended for WookieeProject: Pride participants and interested parties to identify policies to propose before taking them to the Senate Hall for community-wide discussion. If you are a participant in WP:PRIDE, please feel free to add your proposals for pre-SH discussion. (Don't jump straight to Consensus Track, Immi Thrax notes to self!)

Sexes

Right now, we have Sexes and Sexes/Legends rather than Genders and Genders/Legends, even though the relevant character infobox item is "Gender." Aside from the very big other reasons to change this, it's a matter of internal consistency. If a policy change goes through, a bot could handle the change. Immi Thrax (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC) (ETA: To clarify, I'm suggesting Sexes should be moved to Genders, and Sexes/Legends to Genders/Legends.)

• I think it would be better to change the field to "sex", because biology is objective, whereas "gender" is subjective on the part of the character. Adamwankenobi (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that gender is a far more important aspect of a person than one's biological sex, so I don't think that it makes sense to change the field. VergenceScatter (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd also argue that gender assigned at birth isn't a thing we know about the vast majority of SW characters. The only thing we can assign as objective observers is the gender the character presents unless we're given more specific information; putting "sex" in a character's info box throws you down a rabbit hole no one wants to go down. (As an example: There's absolutely nothing preventing E.K. Johnston specifying in a future novel that Versé is a trans woman, rather than a cis woman, because all canon tells us is that she's a woman. This is the reality for most characters). Minnabird (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I recommend reviewing GLAAD's Glossary of Terms - Transgender for more information on why "biology" is not an "objective" determinant of sex or gender, among other terms related to trans people. Immi Thrax (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Well the root of sexuality is reproductive functions. For instance, a cow or bull cannot (to our knowledge at least) identify as any gender. They simply perform certain functions dictated by their biology. So to say there is no objective basis for describing living things would mean there's no way to know which animals are which. In humans, gender comes on board as part of the conscious mind. Adamwankenobi (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Please see GLAAD's guide linked above and the notice added to the top of this discussion. Immi Thrax (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter whether information is objective or subjective in-universe. Anything said in official, canonical sources is objectively true IU, bar retcons and that, and should therefore be documented on Wookieepedia. Also, "'gender' is subjective on the part of the character" — that's why character infoboxes should list a character's gender; it reflects that character more so than their sex. OOM 224 ^{༼༽talk༼༽} 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Immi--do you think it would still be beneficial to have an article regarding the biological sex of characters? JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 18:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I only think it's beneficial for alien species, and not with that term. Please see GLAAD's guide linked above. Immi Thrax (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I apologize for using that term, I didn't realize it was problematic. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Thank you, Macaroni; I'm not emotionally up to explaining why it's problematic (and not really accurate), hence pointing to the respected source. Immi Thrax (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'd be down for having a field for a character's biological sex and a character's gender. Not just in regards to humans but to alien species as well, as I can imagine there being an alien civilization with more than two sexes and genders altogether. Thus, an individual's sex would refer to their biological sex and their gender to their self-imposed identity. However, we'd only use the gender field if the character's gender conflicted with the character's sex, so we wouldn't list Luke Skywalker as being a male in sex and a male in gender as that would largely be redundant. Commander Boots 00:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to strongly disagree with having a field with that phrase or similar. I'm not certain of this, but I believe that and similar phrases would be incompatible with Fandom's Term of Use. That phrase a highly contest term and has been used to invalidate people's gender identity. Please see GLAAD's guide linked above and the notice added to the top of this discussion. Immi Thrax (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps informative: a no-consensus CT on changing "gender" to "sex" in all character infoboxes (content warning: uses a possibly stigmatizing term for intersex persons). It's over ten years old now, so folks' understandings of the two terms may have evolved since then; but I think it does a good job of illustrating just how conflated the two terms historically have been among Wookieepedea membership and, thus, might provide pointers on how to word any policy proposals or related arguments to avoid repeating what happened there. jSarek (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, you're the one who wrote the very excellent response on that old CT! (#YouTried—but seriously, I thought you did well.) Dārilaros, a new member of this project, also raised the subject on Talk:Sexes yesterday with similar points, and there are older responses on that talk page and (tw: outdated language) Talk:Sexes/Legends that could be useful to review. And yes, let us all keep in mind that an individual's understanding may have changed since their prior statements; what they said then isn't necessarily what they believe now.
    
    The two Sexes and Reproduction pages veer away from in-universe information; writing about the culture and biology of alien species is very different from writing about humans, IMO. The outdated language for intersex people is used on multiple Legends articles, though I haven't reviewed every article (yet) to see if it's only in regards to aliens rather than humans. Basically, it's my personal opinion that with the language being used in official sources, we ought to be extremely mindful of only using it when specifically used in a source—or even not at all—and it may even fall into the Fandom TOU about transphobia, for those who need a policy justification. Immi Thrax (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

They/them pronouns

The Manual of Style currently states: "Do not use the plural pronouns "they," "them," or "their" to refer to individuals of unspecified gender." This is a problem since they/them/their is a singular pronoun used by real people as well as in canon for non-binary individuals. However, I also wonder if we should reserve the use of "they/them/their" for characters who have those pronouns, rather than using them for characters with unknown pronouns (such as visual-medium-only characters). Immi Thrax (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• The way I see it, the intent of that policy is to stop users from referring to characters whose gender isn't specified with any pronouns (e.g. random stormtrooper, Anolo, and Darth Nox). It doesn't affect characters such as Keo Venzee and Terec and Ceret—if sources use "they/them/their" pronouns for a character, Wookieepedia articles should always use those pronouns to refer to that character. For gender, I've already compiled a small list of Canon sources that use that word. OOM 224 ^{༼༽talk༼༽} 14:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That may be the intent, but when I read it, it feels like it's invalidating "they/them/their" as a singular pronoun. Saying it's "not grammatically correct" is an unfortunately common excuse given to invalidate and refuse to use people's chosen pronouns. I'll check out your list, thank you! Immi Thrax (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC) (ETA: ahahaha not me clicking a redirect expecting it to go to your list nope not me Immi Thrax (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC))
    • I suppose so. There's no harm in removing the word "plural" from that line; it points out that it's grammatically incorrect to refer to AD-2508 as a "they," but it's just not necessary for the purposes of the policy. For the list, I haven't uploaded it to the wiki yet, (as you've just found out :P) but so far, I've found that the word "gender" is used in the TFA novel, The Perfect Weapon, and Phasma. OOM 224 ^{༼༽talk༼༽} 15:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • If you need to find a legends source that uses the term, google books is telling me Fate of the Jedi: Backlash uses the term gender on pages 103 and 263. In the physical book, page numbers may be different, but they should be around the same location. Ideally, I don't really think we would need a source to outright use the word "gender" for us to use it, but this presents a legends example nevertheless for those who want one.--Editoronthewiki (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• I absolutely think that we should use they for individuals who use the pronoun as a singular pronoun. However, I do not think that we should use it to refer to individuals whose gender is not specified. The policy definitely should be amended not list they as a plural pronoun. VergenceScatter (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That is precisely what policy dictates. It does not prohibit you from using "they" for individuals who use that as their pronoun. I suppose the word "plural" could be removed but it would in no way impact current practice. 1358 ^(Talk) 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Although it does not impact current practice, it is fairly easy to missunderstand the policy in its current wording. So eventhough it would not impact current practice or change the intention of the policy, perhaps clarrifying it is a good idea. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 15:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • My initial thinking is not using they/them pronouns for in cases of unspecified gender, just rewording that policy, but I'm hoping to hear from people who use those pronouns to learn how they feel about the policy. While a mere rewording wouldn't impact current practice, it would clarify that practice and remove the invalidating language. Immi Thrax (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• I remember the Mofference when this policy was introduced, and thie exact issue-nonbinary characters-was raised, we were assured that this policy did not apply in that case, and practice since this was made policy has always been to use they/them when applicable. I can see why "plural" should be removed-it's downright factually inccorect for one-and it seems fairly simple to start a CT to have it removed. If that's the only rewording issue, then I don't see any problems. Fan26 (Talk) 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would be ok with more inclusive wording, though the policy in practice is fine as is. MasterFred(talk) 17:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Possible rewording rather than just removing the word plural: "When referring to individual characters, singular they pronouns (including "they," "them," "their," "theirs," "themself," and "themselves") are to be used when those are identified as the individual's pronouns, not for individuals whose gender is unspecified. Instead, adjust sentence structures to avoid the use of pronouns. For example, refer to the individual by known characteristics, such as species ("the human"), occupation ("the bounty hunter"), or origin ("the Mandalorian")." Immi Thrax (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think something along these lines makes sense. It keeps the original idea of not using it for unspecified individuals while making it clear that there are cases where it might be the correct pronouns to use for those who are unaware. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with this as well. This also nicely provides a few helpful examples of how to write without pronouns at all, which is another improvement. RattsT (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This sounds good to me. Perhaps it could also refer to a couple of example characters with they/them pronouns such as Keo Venzee or Ceret to clear up any potential confusion. FNines (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• For those who want to review the original Mofference discussion where this policy was implemented, one can look here. That said, while a rewording of the existing policy might meet our needs, it seems to me the issue might be better resolved by just scrapping that rule outright. Claims that the use of singular "they" for indeterminate referents is errant pedantry, and allowing the use of they/them/their for indeterminate singular referents assists in renormalizing it for single referents in other contexts, such as for nonbinary or genderfluid folks. The fact that it allows us to skip making awkward circumlocutions to avoid using an indeterminate pronoun, and that it removes one of Wookieepedia's many myriad rules that can trip up new editors, are bonuses. Nothing stops editors from continuing to write around singular indeterminate referents if they prefer. jSarek (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking online, the Cambridge dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and the Oxford English dictionary all support using the singular they. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You won't hear a protest from me on scrapping it entirely! Instruction creep?. I'm cynical about the possibility of passing that, but I would support such a proposal. Immi Thrax (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
• As someone who primarily uses singular they pronouns, I think the policy to not refer to individuals of unspecified gender with they/them is fine. While it's fairly common for people to casually use they/them to refer to people they don't know the gender of, perhaps it's better for us as an encyclopedia to continue avoiding pronouns altogether when their pronouns aren't known. The word "plural" in the policy definitely should be removed, though, and adding a line stating that some characters use singular they would be a good addition. Roguish Knight (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Scrap the rule I think. We can always recommend sentence structure change for unknown genders if use of "they" is excessive, but one or two should be ok I think. If I'm walking down the street and see a dog, it is still correct to say "they're a good puppy!" without knowing their gender. Manoof (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)