Talk:Barry O'Sullivan

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018
Barry O'Sullivan has come out as transgender. It is respectful to use her preferred feminine pronouns throughout the article. 116.240.48.207 (talk) 09:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No. O'Sullivan is not being serious. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have protected the article. Whilst it is reasonable to make comment about his statements to parliament the reporting of them, and public reaction, it is not reasonable to change the gender and names through the article based on his statements to the Senate. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

We don’t get to determine his intent - we have to respect his stated wishes. It’s disrespectful not to acknowledge his statement and honour his gender-identification. I’m quite surprised that these changes were considered vandalism. They’re clearly not. They’re in keeping with his stated views. Col tom (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Dammit. - her. Apologies, Barry. Col tom (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't like it, that's not our problem. He is not a transgender person. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

In that case, Wikipedia needs to be more clear about exactly how they intend to recognize transgender and non-binary people within the scope of biographical articles. Under self-identification policies (such as the proposed national policy in the UK), O'Sullivan is to be regarded as a woman the moment they begin identifying themself as such, and edits reverting the senator's gender to male constitute transphobia and trans erasure, regardless of Wikipedia's views on the matter or the senator's actual intent. We already have Donald Trump trying to erase us, don't you dare start doing it too. It is not your place to decide who is or is not a transgender person. Clairebeargoesrawr (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An obvious and disruptive attempt at trolling. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. Yawn. Close, block, move on. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yawn all you want, it doesn't change facts.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Like hell it is. I just raised a perfectly valid issue: how does Wikipedia determine who is and isn't trans? Calling me a troll and ignoring the issue says a lot more about you than it does about me, and doesn't look good for Wikipedia. You can either pull your head in and find what what that policy is and resolve this dispute accordingly, or you can wear everything I just said about you and this site. Getting all huffy and authoritarian about it doesn't solve anything; this problem isn't going to go away just because you pressed a few buttons. Clairebeargoesrawr (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, Senator O'Sullivan did personally state her gender as female in the Senate. Whether it is an anti-abortion protest or not, for the time being she clearly wants to identify with female pronouns. This page should be changed to she/her pronouns unless Senator O'Sullivan wishes for them to be changed back to male pronouns. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.44.24.22 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is very clear. "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. [...] Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Gender_identity goes on to say "We accept the person's latest identification of their gender, as documented in reliable sources, at face value. To do otherwise — to refer to transgender or genderqueer people by names or pronouns which disregard their gender identities, i.e. to misgender them — is deeply offensive and causes harm."

There is literally nothing in the policy that says we must judge whether the declaration is "serious" or whether the person really means it or not. Whether she is serious or not, we cannot let ourselves be the judge. To do so sets a dangerous prescedent where we get to judge the validity of a trans person's gender identity. The policy is very clear - use the person's latest expressed gender self-identification in the most up-to-date reliable sources. The latest declaration, available in numerous sources, is clear - "I am going to declare my gender today... to be a woman". The pronouns in the article must be updated to reflect this. 2A02:C7D:72A9:9600:5CF8:3A:66FD:B065 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018
Please use Barry’s preferred pronouns, this is disgusting behaviour. IhateTaxes (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Read the source at https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/nationals-senator-barry-osullivan-gender-female-abortion and the comments in the section above with which I concur: nothing indicates that his statement should be understood literally as in "I now identify as a transgender person". Sam Sailor 13:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. This issue has now gone beyond one politician's gender identity; it's starting to raise questions about how Wikipedia treats transgender people who self-identify, and what admin intends to do to ensure this policy is not based on bigoted sentiment. Questions that certain users have very pointedly ignored, or tried to fob off with accusations of trolling. Wikipedia has some explaining to do. Clairebeargoesrawr (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The talk page of an article about an Australian politician is not the place to debate Wikipedia policy about transgender biographies. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is debating policy, people are asking you to enforce it as written. --2607:FEA8:7AA0:61A:0:0:0:2 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This is seriously distressing
I am extremely shocked that we are living in 2018 and people are still refusing to acknowledge trans people's existence. She CLEARLY stated that she identifies as female, and we are to treat her as such. She is a transgender woman. Cosanostrapizzaman (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018
Barry O'Sullivan has told parliament he is declaring his gender "to be a woman”

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aliceworkman/nationals-senator-barry-osullivan-gender-female-abortion Bubbles4000 (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the buzzfeed article implies that this was done as a joke. See the other edit requests above DannyS712 (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

So... we are taking Buzzfeed's opinion over the text of Hansard? ok then...Leeborkman (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the statement in parliament coming out as transgender.
It is extremely clear under MOS:GENDERID that O'Sullivan should be referred to as the gender she wishes.

"Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources"

She is Australia's first openly trans politician and that is extremely notable. L32007 (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We would if they did come out as transgender, but they have not. O'Sullivan is not a woman, or transgender. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you know?Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 20:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Coordinated effort to misgender this woman
There is a coordinated effort to misgender this woman, which is against MOS:GENDERID, it's bizarre and transphobic. L32007 (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Barry has made it very clear that she identifies as female. It’s not up to others to question that. Col tom (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Is it reasonable to have a RfC or something to try and reach consensus on this? It's clear that people feel strongly both ways about how to correctly apply MOS:GENDERID in this unique case and I don't think the current pattern of editing back and forth is helpful. That said I'm not a very experienced editor, so if more experienced people believe that RfC or something of the sort isn't called for, I'd believe them. KenyonP (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They're pretty obviously trolls, mocking Wikipedia's policies on identifying transgender people. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Trolls? WP:ADHOMINEM, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL all apply. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  20:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2018
She has declared herself a female, you do not have the right to decide her pronouns by reverting the female pronouns back to male. You may think it is a political stunt as many including myself do, However if someone says they are a gender nobody has the right to tell them otherwise. Claybryse4 (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See above. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia become the arbiter of who is transgender?
I'm genuinely curious as to how this is decided? Is it that anyone who leans to the right (wing) cannot be transgender according to Wikipedia? If this is the case then explain Zuzanna Mroz, a transwoman with outspoken right-wing views and is an author for Breitbart. In western society it is expected to respect a trans persons preferred pronouns and it's not expected to disregard them just because "we don't like or disagree with this person."

The idea of a single arbiter who judges a persons own identity is absurd, especially when that arbiter isn't going to be immune from bias. Someone raised a similar issue in the "gender/pronouns" discussion but it was literally called "trolling" and dismissed in a pathetic attempt to avoid it because it was a difficult question as to why Wikipedia should determine people's identities for them. Shameful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezza2K01 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia designates Caitlyn Jenner and Blaire White as transgender women, and they are right wing. O'Sullivan isn't transgender or female. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

why are we refusing changes?
When Caitlyn Jenner came out as a transwoman, nobody blinked an eye. So, why do we blink now? Why are we choosing NOT to use HER pronouns? please, enlighten me. Because all I am seeing at this current moment are bigots refusing to identify her as she chooses to identify. Starius (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Fake Vandalism Warnings
Add facts to an article, and a biased and disruptive admin will issue a fake warning against disruptive editing and a fake warning against vandalism in order to punish you. That is abuse of admin position.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 02:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You added the article to LGBT and transgender categories. That is disruptive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is your 'opinion' that it is disruptive. It is my opinion that you are violating WP:AGF and WP:ADHOMINEM with what you wrote.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  04:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This diff appears to be a possible example of a template misuse. Please see WP:CIVIL vandalism warning messages not intended to be used in a manner that can be regarded as bullying editors in a content dispute; disputes should be discussed with civility or resolved on the article's talk page. Regarding Sullivan's LGBT status: based on the  video of recent senate proceedings, remarks by Barry O'Sullivan show she apparently  self-identifies as trans.  If she has further clarified or withdrawn this declaration, then please show the source. --Mysidia (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the manner in which the template is supposed to be used. This is plainly vandalism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not plainly vandalism, and that is not the manner in which the template is supposed to be used. Unless you mean "Anyone who disagrees with Onetwothreeip is a vandal." Is that what you mean? Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  20:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Discussing it isn't vandalism, but most of the changes regarding pronouns have been vandalism, and anything in good faith has been against manual of style and biography of living persons policies. A similar situation happened on the Elon Musk article and its talk page, and I have been closing and collapsing the incessant demands to change male pronouns to female using the Elon Musk incident as precedent. We can deal with what you have to say but we're not reopening every single request that has been made. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One could also call it vandalism to repeatedly attempt to close a discussion about fake vandalism warnings. It would be accurate to do so.  Yes, discussion isn't vandalism.  The way you're treating discussion is. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  20:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to say other than to comment on this section being moved? Except for that, this section is finished. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, one thing to say: Stop the bad faith editing. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 00:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You think I should say more? Okay then.  Stop vandalizing the article. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  03:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Reopen discussion
We need to reopen the discussion that was prematurely closed by a POV-pushing editor with an agenda to prevent discussion. I tried to do it, but had my change reverted on the grounds that all I need to do is edit out the "collapse" tags. When I try that I get an empty section. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Clearly O'Sullivan was NOT being serious in his suggestion he'd change his gender. He made no revision to his dress style, he made no changes on his web site, and besides, the guy will no longer be a Senator as of mid May 2019.   What we really need for this article is to get some of those heavily needed citations and backup for some of the banal claims made in the article, that are - I grant you - almost certainly correct, but not at the moment, verfiiable, which BLPs desperately need. TheBustopher (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not know that she wasn't being serious. I know she stated it.  Are you a mind reader?. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  00:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hiding everything so people can't see there is an issue
What's funny is by reading the discussion is that those who are arguing in favor of recognizing a self-proclaimed status did indeed demonstrate that the status proclamation was made. The counter-argument of "I don't believe it" was all that the other side offered. Strangely, "I don't believe it" was considered a very weighty and serious argument. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 00:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2018
Change "she" to "he" in "O'Sullivan's grandson, Patrick, made headlines across the nation after she was flung from an amusement park ride", as the grandson and not O'Sullivan was flung. KenyonP (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

✅ Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor edit needed
Change "On the 14 November 2018, O'Sullivan told Parliament the he" to "On the 14 November 2018, O'Sullivan told Parliament that he" to make sense of sentence. Djbcjk (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for the catch. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate gender pronouns
I see that this article still references to Barry as "he". What is the reason previous edits were reverted? Since the above section was marked "closed" I created this one. Barry has publicly come out as a woman, wikipedia needs to honor her preferred gender and associated pronouns. 68.183.234.134 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Anonymous
 * This seems to be the subject of an unresolved edit warring/content dispute, and the discussion was archived by one of the involved editors after only a couple of days. --Mysidia (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are editors involved who insist their point of view is the only accurate one, and anyone who tries to make a serious but contrary contribution is a vandal.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, neither Onetwothreeip nor The Drover's Wife are admins. Although they are quite free with their vandalism warnings, they carry no official weight.Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  19:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor The Drover's Wife have claimed to be admins. as far the article is concerned, there isn't an edit war or content dispute. Users who are not authorised to edit the article may make requests to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * as far the article is concerned, there is a content dispute. The article is being protected by a pair of very determined editors. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  20:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's being protected by people who weren't fooled by a political stunt (and don't want our readers to be fooled either) against people who were fooled or who are just trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point for their own reasons. People who already knew about Barry O'Sullivan were unlikely to accept the veracity of his claim at face value (it's as plausible as Donald Trump declaring himself a woman) or, not knowing about him, took the time to seek supporting evidence. For example, Barry O'Sullivan's profile on his own website fails to mention any gender change and continues today to use the male pronoun in describing himself (so if we want to take MOS:GENDERID literally, today he's back to being a man). Or perhaps noticed that quite a number of our mainstream media (e.g. the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) didn't even think the remark worthy of a news item, let alone any serious interview about the gender change (which has occurred when high profile people have announced gender changes). Maybe they noticed the guy was recently dumped by his party and won't be on their ticket at the next Senate election and perhaps feels that he's doesn't need to take his role very seriously any more (although he said equally silly things before that point, so arguably nothing changed there). Kerry (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no one outside of these accounts interpreted this as anything but an obvious joke. We don't edit BLP articles for the lulz to make fun of stupid comments - ever - and no amount of showing up on the talk page to defend it makes it anything other than vandalism. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, you need to remember WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ADHOMINEM. You are assuming motives, declaring your position to be the only valid position, and telling us that we are falling for an obvious joke.  This is a content dispute, has been a content dispute, and continues to be a content dispute. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  02:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP. The disruptions to the article are over, there's nothing more to say that hasn't already been said, this is only a ghost of a dispute now. Kerry Raymond has restated all the facts to an extent far greater than I would've found necessary to do myself. I recommend focusing on improving the article, or on other articles, rather than hoping you can have this article pretend O'Sullivan is female or transgender. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Recognizing the gender issue is HOW I plan to improve the article. Not by pretending the discussion is over. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  03:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither Onetwothreeip nor The Drover's Wife has to be an admin for their argument to be persuasive. Jason Harvestdancer, I don't see why you should be more impressed when something is said by an admin. However, if for some reason this does impress you, then I'll point out that I am an admin. Now, either (a) demonstrate that reliable sources take this remark seriously enough to describe O'Sullivan as female, or (b) drop the stick. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So seeing as your statement right now says that the MOS is moot (because it's directly contrary to your claim that a reliable source taking it seriously is required). Are we seriously going to have to take it to ANI in order to get an actual official ruling if MOS is still something to refer to on Wikipedia? Because [WP:BLP] does still refer back to the MOS that Harvestdancer is basing his argument on. Neither you nor any of the others who oppose the change has yet to provide ANY argument for the MOS should not apply and instead, as an admin, you should have been admonishing the other two for personal attacks which violates a full blown policy and not "just" a guidelines referred to in those policies. Opposing it on the grounds of you thinking the claim was not serious, is a perfectly rational position to take (one I hold myself btw), but that doesn't change that at the end of the day, that IS a content dispute and you can't just go around accusing everyone that doesn't happen to share your view on it as being vandals. Especially when by policy, at least one of the accusers are by policy a vandal for violating the 3RR, which only exempts OBVIOUS vandalism and gives examples of blanking and adding offensive language. This CLEARLY does not reach that level even if you are of the view that it is vandalism as such. 2001:470:DF84:0:0:0:0:100 (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We are following MOS. He identifies as a man, so we are referring to them as male. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Except they've said they identify as a woman. You're just of the opinion that they were not being serious and they most likely are not. But, if they are serious or not, is a determination that MOS states that it's simply not Wikipedia's job to do. Wikipedia is to take AT FACE VALUE, what the subjects themselves have most recently stated that they identify as. Unless you have something more recent, and no, the official website does not cut it, because it wasn't published after the statement, then no, currently, this article is not in line with MOS as it is written.2001:470:DF84:0:0:0:0:100 (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To claim that "I'm going to declare my gender today - as I can - to be a woman, and then you'll no longer be able to attack me." is an expression of gender identity demonstrates a fundamental failure to understand gender identity (or a willful misrepresentation). -- irn (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No one has said it's an expression of gender identity. What is said is that it's an outright statement of what their gender identity is. There's a difference between those two things. And there's nothing questionable about that being an outright statement of what their gender identity is. The only question is if they were serious, but that's a content dispute and having a different view from you or anyone else, is not vandalism and you have to actually provide a policy based reason in such a dispute. Anything else simply erodes the trust in Wikipedia and you know as well as I do that that trust is at an all time low.2001:470:DF84:0:0:0:0:100 (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An "outright statement of what their gender identity is" is an expression of gender identity. -- irn (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Highly disagree on that. Expression of gender identity is more commonly referring to things like wearing a dress. As in, a behavior or trait that is generally associated with a specific gender. But let's use your definition then. So what we have here is a very clear "expression of gender identity". The policy refers to a guideline, which states that we are to take a person at face value for what their gender identity is. That means we should NOT start interpreting if they're serious or not as then we're not taking it at face value. So, what is your argument for why we should not be following the policy on this, why the policy doesn't apply, or newer source for a different gender identity?2001:470:DF84:0:0:0:0:100 (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "I'm going to declare my gender today - as I can - to be a woman, and then you'll no longer be able to attack me." is not an "outright statement of what their gender identity is". To believe so is to fundamentally misunderstand gender identity. -- irn (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it NOT a declaration of their gender identity. It outright says "I'm going to declare my gender identity today - as I can - to be a woman," Whatever follows that is irrelevant unless followed by another declaration of a different GI. What you're doing is injecting values into the words, something the policy says we are NOT to do. You saying it's simply fundamentally misunderstanding gender identity, does not change what the policy says, nor is it an argument for why we should ignore policy, nor is it a reference to Barry giving another statement of their GI so regardless if I have or not, it does not change that policy, as written, says we are to use the stated identity, which this is still the latest version that I'm aware of.2001:470:DF84:0:0:0:0:100 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Gender identity refers to one's identity, their sense of self. It's fundamental to who they are as a person. It's clear that O'Sullivan is not referring to his sense of self because he literally said so. He says that he is making the statement so that "you'll no longer be able to attack me". He's not referring to his identity, nor is he even claiming to. -- irn (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's clear to you perhaps by interpreting what is said, but you are by policy not allowed to make such interpretations. Or rather, you're not allowed to take such interpretations into account for the content according to policy. What you do personally is ofc your own choice and privately, I think we both agree that he's not serious but serious or not, the policy DOES say that such interpretations are inappropriate. And your comment says NOTHING to contradict that it's a declaration of a gender identity. WHY they choose to declare their identity to be something, is completely irrelevant to content on wikipedia because the policy says that we are to NOT take such things into account.2001:470:DF84:0:0:0:0:100 (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:GENDERID states Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns [...] that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. How we determine "expressed gender self-identification" necessarily requires interpretation. You seem to think it's self-evident in the words themselves that they are an expression of his gender identity. But that's your interpretation. I strongly disagree. And, for what it's worth, so, too, do all of the reliable sources I've seen on this. -- irn (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that this discussion even exists to begin with means that the first requirement is fulfilled, and their latest expressed gender self identification is that of being a woman. The way we "determine" it to be an expression is that that's how the words of the language is defined. We can't just go around saying "goihgkrhg osirghlsrkgn sroghusogn" and expect anyone to understand us. We all rely on predetermined definitions in order to communicate and by the definitions of the words used, it really is self evident that it is an expression of their gender identity. That they're not serious is moot as long as the policy says to take their claims at face value and you still have not provided any argument for why we should disregard that in this case.2001:470:DF84:0:0:0:0:100 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I know of no policy that mandates the uncritical acceptance of claims at face value. That is definitely not what is meant by a person's "expressed gender self-identification". -- irn (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You just referred to it, yet claim to not know of it? "We accept the person's latest identification of their gender, as documented in reliable sources, at face value". Reliable sources have reported that is what was indeed said. That they are not taking it as a serious claim, is their interpretation of it, but Wikipedia policy is to take the claim at face value.84.219.252.47 (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I think all the relevant arguments about this have been made, and I would like to close this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any sort of rationale for closing? It seems to me that not a single one of the requirements are fulfilled.2001:470:DF84:0:0:0:0:100 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Because these requests are disruptive spam. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you actually believed this discussion to be spam. You would have treated it as such and not attempted to close or collapse it. Policy does not allow for closing of spam as it's simply the wrong procedure then. 84.219.252.47 (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It is easier to call it "spam" than to actually deal with the issue. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)