User:Drmies/close

This was a long discussion, and the close has been a long time coming: unsurprising, since it's not an easy thing to do. I beg your indulgence, I hope you accept that I approached this dispassionately and as objectively as I could, and I hope that my numbers aren't too far off.

Option 1 ("preserve historic gender") receives broad support (51-19), though it should be noted that "historic name and gender" essentializes the notion of gender in a way that I personally feel somewhat uncomfortable with--but it seems clear that participants in the discussion take it as "the name and gender when the listed achievements were made", without speaking out much on the more philosophical but here less relevant issues of essentialism and gender unity. Opponents, some of whom point at the language of MOS:IDENTITY, argue that transgenderedness is to be expressed retroactively; in this case the compromise "Caitlyn Jenner (formerly Bruce Jenner)" is proposed (this became option 3), but there is not much traction for this, no doubt because athletic competition is gendered from the get-go. That this is transphobic is argued by at least one editor, who notes that one other editor remarked that "gender [is] an immutable biological component"--that latter comment was wisely struck. But this also does not gain much traction, and most of the arguments in favor do not rest on biological essentialism. It is worthwhile noting, and this is prompted by one of the support votes, that a notion of "historic gender" here, as troublesome as it may be, is confirmed by then-Bruce Jenner having entered athletic competition as a man, thus providing a kind of male identification. Other counterarguments are that making by way of historic gender "basically invalidates people's identities", but that in itself validates their identity at the time which, as was noted, was by definition male because of athletic competition. Another claim, that "whatever identity the person adopts should be used for every phase of their life", also aligns with MOS:IDENTITY, though one should note that if a "new" identity is to be applied retroactively, then the--in this case, and according to many of the supporters of proposal 1--clearly previously male-gendered life is invalidated. The argument that the proposal is "retrograde nonsense" is unclear and adding monosyllables to that phrase, as one editor suggests, does not add weight. In general, most supports for this option clearly take into account not so much "historical gender", which would be a difficult thing to define, but the historical situation, made more pregnant by participation in gendered competition--note that many supports say "for sports achievements".

Option 2 ("use most recent gender across all Wikipedia articles") is clearly rejected or, at the very least, gets a "no consensus" (14-24)--no consensus at all. Many of the opponents argue that there should be no "historical revisionism"--some argue this more cogently and more sensitively than others. One support suggests that revisionism is precisely the point.

Option 3 and 4 are related (use both names, current name first; use both names, previous name first) and receive roughly equal ratios of support (17-8 and 24-10). Supporters of 3 argue that this option prevents confusion, opponents argue that this entails historical revisionism. A convincing support argument for 4 is that it takes into account both past and present. Because 3 and 4 were presented later there are fewer editors who spoke out for them; this is perhaps unfortunate, though one could, in principle, pull out supporters of proposal 1 and figure out whether they support 3 or 4. At any rate, here also the same tendency is discernible that gave such broad support to proposal 1: the notion that gender identification at the time, for this particular case, is of great importance.

A subsection ("oppose both") is not much of a discussion but presents an interesting talking point, in the combination of the GLAAD guideline: "Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent, use the name and pronouns preferred...." The argument is made, and cited with approbation, that in this case Jenner's previous accomplishments are both newsworthy and pertinent. Finally, proposal 5, to treat this on a case-by-case basis, gains no traction at all but places an interesting note, and that is that the result of the RfC, in my opinion, is really that no general rule can be generated from this discussion.

Now, roughly 29 of the 51 supports for proposal 1 explicitly mention some aspect of Jenner's athletic achievement. Most single out the 1976 Olympics, etc., and a number of those say explicitly, in bold print, "Support for sports achievements". (What is noteworthy is that most of the early supports follow that tack, and that many of the later supports don't.) It is equally relevant that most of the opposes for proposal 1 do not make explicit reference to Jenner or Jenner's achievements. In other words, and this is what finally points to the conclusion of the RfC, opposers align themselves with the unambiguous blanket statement currently in place in MOS:IDENTITY, whereas supporters squarely endorse the preservation of "historic gender" in one shape or another (see proposal 4) for this individual case.

In conclusion: there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article. This particular discussion does not support the broad and "retroactive" application of any "new" gender in the way suggested by WP:Gender identity. All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem of how to properly describe a changing world. And it seems to me that this discussion does indicate we need to revisit the discussion in MOS:IDENTITY, since the support here for proposal 1 is really broad and suggests, more or less, the rejection of the formulation in MOS:IDENTITY. Do NOT read this as "MOS:IDENTITY is rejected"--it is a suggestion, and thus an incentive to have a broader conversation. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)