Jump to content

Talk:Sarah McBride

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

Birth name concerns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For those wondering as to why Sarah McBride's former name isn't included, please refer to the FAQ. Thank you! LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Notable by the previous name

Per this reference, McBride was notable by their birth name as student body president at American University and at the end of their tenure she wrote an op-ed announcing her transition. It therefore seems that WP:DEADNAME would allow mentioning her Deadname. Green Montanan (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), the former name should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. She was not notable under her former name. One small town paper that doesn't understand that it's bad to deadname does not override that. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not just "one small town paper". She ran and won a campaign at a university of 10,000 students with her birth name, and then publicly announced her transition. Transgender people who are not publicly notable do not publicly announce their transition. Green Montanan (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The paper cites an op-ed written by Sarah McBride herself. I would argue that being student body president of a major university is enough to be considered notable. Not only that, but she herself published her own deadname, which she would not have done if she had a privacy concern about her deadname. The whole purpose of WP:DEADNAME, according to the Wikipedia policy page, is to preserve a privacy interest after all.
For that reason, I think it would be more informative to mention it at least once in the article, something along the lines of "Sarah was born with XYZ name" or "Sarah changed her name from XYZ to ABC as part of her transition". It is often the case that on Twitter (also called X), one might see her referred to by her deadname. After seeing it, they might be confused and think they are two different people, so it is useful to provide the clarification that they are actually both the same people and that the other name is a deadname. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to mention her deadname, we would indeed do so only once, using the same format prescribed in WP:DEADNAME. Green Montanan (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It would definitely strike the right balance between being informative and following the spirit (and not just the letter) of Wikipedia:DEADNAME. To provide the information, you only have to mention it one time, after all. Any additional mention of the name would not be useful purely for information purposes. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the article in the school's newspaper from 2011 reporting on her election victory under her birth name, as she used that name at that time. Green Montanan (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a student body president does not establish Wikipedia levels of notability. She wouldn't have had a Wikipedia page as just the student body president. It does not reach the levels that WP:DEADNAME demands. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 02:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source does not establish notability prior to transition. Relm (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both above me. There is zero chance that an article on a student body president based on that one source would survive WP:AfD. Those editors further above seem to be using some other meaning of notable than is intended here i.e. notable from an en.wikipedia PoV. Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I think that, frankly, any AfD discussion on a person whose claim to notability is being a student government president would end in a SNOW close. This clearly does not rise to the requirement MOS:DEADNAME makes that a living trans person be notable under a former name for us to consider including this information. AviationFreak💬 13:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that, although not as clear-cut as other cases, McBride does not qualify as "notable before transition", which I would take to mean notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Student government presidents don't get articles on here unless they're notable for something else, even those at the most famous universities. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was that the policy was not clear. It implied Wikipedia standards for notability via a link to the WP:GNG. I therefore added clarity to the policy to explicitly say that it's Wikipedia's standards for quality, along with a footnote in which McBride is an example.
But just because I added clarity does not mean that I think it's a good policy. Green Montanan (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a very clear definition of notability that editors are expected to be familiar with. It unambiguously does not mean "known for having held some position in some community". AviationFreak💬 22:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are all learning though: Wikipedia:Assume ignorance
You can't expect all editors to be 100% familiar with all policy. You can, however, explain your position and cite the appropriate polices.
My approach to editing Wikipedia is that I try my best to follow the spirit of the policies as I understand it, and I will always explain my reasoning. If someone else cites a Wikipedia policy and explains their reasoning, then I don't push things further unless I think there is something else I can add or contribute to the discussion. Anonymous Libertarian (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, I also did not understand the policy as intended to be understood. That's why I clarified it. I assume that I clarified it correctly, as nobody has yet to revert me. Green Montanan (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Anywikiuser (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misgendering controversy

I think a section should be added - perhaps under 'bathroom ban' - about the deliberate slights being directed by republicans who are insisting on using terms like 'Mr McBride' etc. It is also interesting that the practice has been defended on the basis that Trump's executive order recognises two sexes and that sex could not be changed. Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Feel free to draft something and post it here for further vetting. Nowa (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This could probably be added to the bathroom section, expanding in into a "misgendering" section. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu, Nowa, and Slàinte mhath a chàirdean: Added a section for the subcommittee hearing, let me know what you think! Nevermore27 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nevermore27, thanks for your efforts. I don't think the bathroom issue fits properly under a 'misgendering controversies' heading - that is really a different type of issue.
As for your explanation of what happened at the committee heading, I think that is largely fine though part of Self's justification for his conduct was trump's executive order recognising two sexes and that sex could not be changed. Probably needs to be included. Thanks Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bathroom use is only an issue because they're misgendering McBride. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disagree - the behaviour at the committee was completely gratuitously offensive with no possible argument to justify what happened. Someone not wishing to positively affirm a gender identity can always find ways to not use any gender language but they chose to deliberately be provocative. The bathroom bill is slightly different because at least there is an argument about single-sex spaces and whether it is appropriate for those with male bodies to use female single-sex areas. So this issue with bathroom usage is more than just simple misgendering. Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase myself... I completely agree with you that Mace and other House Republicans pulled that stunt for the attention rather than any serious concern about McBride using a women's bathroom. I am the last person who would try to justify their behavior. But the public face that they put on the bill ("no men in women's spaces") is based on misgendering, considering McBride to still be a man, and therefore someone who should not be in a woman's bathroom. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point. I just think that misgendering is where people use the wrong pronouns or insist on using a deadname. I don't really agree that the definition should include situations where people have a genuinely held belief that McBride has a biologically male body and therefore should not use facilities that are classified as for use by those whose sex is female. That is not just simple misgendering - that is believing that sex and gender are different things and that bathrooms are single-sex spaces rather than single-gender spaces.
But ultimately I have no rights to edit this article so the final judgement will be made by those who do. Kind regards, Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an encyclopedia we are tasked with facts, not beliefs. The manufactured concern around "single-sex spaces" was quite literally invented to malign trans women. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make a fair point in differentiating sex controversy from gender controversy, but the issue you raise here is ultimately semantic in nature. Misgendering refers to a wide array of prejudices that trans people regularly face, including issues involving their sex. For many trans people, transitioning involves a physical sex change, and the difference between those who have and have not is essentially indistinguishable. Even the terms "transgender" and "transsexual" are often used interchangeably (although the latter has become disfavored due to sensationalist connotation).
Perhaps I have not illustrated this as deductively as I had wished, but my point is that this context, sex and gender are quite difficult to distinguish – there will be several competing perspectives on what qualifies as a sex/gender issue depending on your personal definition of what constitutes sex, which is ultimately subjective. There is little to no practical difference between sex and gender discrimination, so it doesn't really make sense to partition one instance of discrimination into its own section when it is so closely related to the other offenses. Doughbo (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. No one knows the supposed "biological sex" of anyone else using bathrooms in the capital. No one is checking and testing each person's genitalia, reproductive organs, hormones, and chromosomes. This issue is purely about gender presentation, and has nothing to do with biology. – notwally (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support overturning that woke rule. No one likes it and it's oppressive and disrespectful to people's religions. It's forcing something on people, like Left Wing politics. I thought Wikipedia was politically neutral? OldDiddlyBop (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinions on neutrality are irrelevant, even if you claim they represent everyone. if you want a better understanding of Wikipedia's rules I encourage you to actually read them, maybe starting with WP:Neutral point of view. Intilyc (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd also love to make a discussion about changing that rule, because I believe the rule is politically biased & discriminatory. I would love to know the process when it comes to changing rules on Wikipedia. OldDiddlyBop (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Proposals for the procedure for adding/updating WP policy. meamemg (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_McBride&oldid=1297680050"