Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Asexual

Regarding this and this? To repeat, the first source states, " 'Let’s go with ‘asexual’ for now,' he said." Second source states "ultimately identifying as asexual." We can leave out the asexual piece and remove Jenner from the asexual category, since it's doubtful that Jenner identifies as asexual in the technical/sexual orientation sense, but "asexual for now" was stated at the time. Åüñîçńøł, regarding the asexual bit that I reverted you on, what are you talking about? The two sources are very clear. Jenner stated "asexual for now." We go by what the sources state, not our own interpretations. And beyond what the sources state, this came out of Jenner's mouth. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Paul August, thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Paul August ☎ 10:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted this per my edit summary: It is already clear that Jenner is a trans woman. No need to state "identifies as a transgender woman." And the text wasn't an update on Jenner's sexual identity, which is not the same thing as one's gender identity. If we are to remove the "asexual for now" aspect from the article and Jenner from the asexual category, we should make a solid case for it and have WP:Consensus for it. Above, I stated, "We can leave out the asexual piece and remove Jenner from the asexual category, since it's doubtful that Jenner identifies as asexual in the technical/sexual orientation sense." By this, I mean that asexuality is very much misunderstood, often being conflated with celibacy or sexual abstinence (as made clear in the Asexuality article), and this is especially the case the further we go back in years. But if we remove the "asexual for now" aspect based on this, it would be removing it based on personal interpretation rather than what a reliable source or Jenner states. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

(This discussion is regarding content in the last paragraph in the article’s section “Coming out as a transgender woman”.)

The article (as it stands now) is incorrectly ascribing to Jenner something Jenner does not say: This article says that Jenner “would identify as asexual for the time being”. Not true. Nowhere does Jenner say that. “Identify” is the wrong word there. Jenner considers that (in her words) “sexuality is who you are personally attracted to. But gender identity is who you are as a person”. Other people may identify in terms of sexuality (or any other category), but Jenner repeatedly says that she identifies as a trans woman, and never says what this article is claiming about asexuality. Self-identification is important and should be accepted (as is stated in a box at the top of this talk page.) The People Magazine article points out that Jenner acknowledges “that it can be confusing for some people to understand that sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing.” Jenner also says that there is a “misperception that people transition because of their sexual desires.” When Wikipedia suggests that Jenner identifies as asexual, it’s wrong, it contributes to the confusion that Jenner refers to, and it is also what Wikipedia considers Original Research. There is a 2nd citation — both citations are based on the same thing — a more-than-5-year-old TV interview. Again Jenner never says in that interview that she “identifies as asexual”, but the unnamed author of the 2nd citation interprets Jenner’s comments and says that she was ultimately identifying as asexual. So a Wikipedia editor may insist that that allows Wikipedia to refer to her as identifying as asexual — in spite of her quoted self-expression. But it is contradicted in the original TV interview, in many other reliable sources, and in Jenner’s autobiography, which was recently removed as a source in this section. Removing more recent and up-to-date sources from this section, goes against Wikipedia’s Manual of Style that says that Wikipedia should give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources. (This is also repeated in a box at the top of this talk page.) More from the boxes at the top: This article is a biography of a living person, and it needs to be edited carefully, and needs to be accurate. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately from this article. The section needs to be corrected.Åüñîçńøł (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be right, but the cited article quotes Jenner as saying "“Let’s go with ‘asexual’ for now,”. What are we to make of that? Paul August ☎ 23:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you are going on about. The sources are clear. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And you most certainly did not add any "recent and up-to-date sources" on Jenner's sexual identity. To repeat, the text you added wasn't an update on Jenner's sexual identity. You redundantly added "She identifies as a transgender woman." We already know that! Readers will already know that because the lead and "Coming out as a transgender woman section" are clear about that. The trans woman aspect is gender identity, not sexual identity. MOS:GENDERID is also about gender identity, not sexual identity. And to repeat something else, it is not uncommon for people to use "asexual" to mean "celibate" or "sexually abstinent," as made clear in this section of the Celibacy article. However Jenner meant "asexual" back then, we do not know. We can guess. But we don't have Jenner's word on it. What we do know is that "asexual for now" was stated. Should Jenner have used other words instead, given the "never been sexually attracted to men, but always to women" aspect? One can argue that, yes. But what was stated was stated. It came out of Jenner's mouth. There was no misquote. All that is left now is to form consensus on whether or not to remove any mention of the asexual bit. If it is removed, it will leave some readers assuming that Jenner identifies as a lesbian. The article might occasionally get added to the lesbian category, which would need to be removed each time per WP:BLPCAT. We go by what BLP subjects identify as. If there are more recent sources on this, and the asexual or lesbian aspect is therefore clear, then we can tweak the section and categories in that regard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted again. I took this to the WP:BLP noticeboard. I'd rather not keep debating this when Jenner's own words/the sources relayed what they relayed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No mention of the video game?

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.

---

I wasn't able to find a reference to his video game from the 90s any way we can put that in? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Jenner%27s_World_Class_Decathlon SJMccarthy (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It is mentioned, along with other video game appearances, in the Television and film career section. VQuakr (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Damn I thought I looked everywhere. Ok, thanks. SJMccarthy (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Why do the Wikipedians here disagree on whether to use "his" or "the" in the header of this section?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It's just not what I said. We figured it out, so stop being weird about trying to change what I said. SJMccarthy (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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.

I suggest an additional source be added to the lede

The lede mentions Jenner's racing career, but the source provided (NYT) does not. I suggest adding the relevant source from that section of the article, but it's been ages since I've edited and I don't feel confident to do so myself. If someone would like to do so that'd be great, and if not that's cool too. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wheaties box confusion

Currently (July 29, 2020) this article shows a Wheaties box with the person then known as Bruce Jenner on it. The caption indicates that this box dates from the 1970s. That is incorrect. It is a decades-more-recent throwback box.

As a temporary fix I will correct the caption.

I will leave it to other Wikipedians to find a usable image of the older box, which seems preferable in terms of historical value. Such a box can be seen here: https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/bruce-jenner-1976-wheaties-cereal-box-auction-article-1.2200926 --X883 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

NO PRONOUNS IN OLYMPIC SUCCESS SECTION

Why are there no pronouns in the Olympic Success section? It says Jenner non-stop and is very repetitive. Why can't this sentence be changed to: At the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal, she achieved five personal bests on the first day of the men's decathlon – a "home run" – despite being in second place behind Guido Kratschmer of West Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.136.102 (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification. Read it thoroughly. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

"has been called the most famous athlete in the world" => "has been called by Americans the most famous athlete in the world"

I live in Europe and basically no one has ever heard of her. I guess it's the same in Asia, Africa, etc. It's a common problem with Wikipedia in English and, although mentioned in Wikipedia's rules, generalisations like this should be avoided. 84.102.204.97 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Nowhere in the article is she labeled “the most famous athlete in the world.” Mathglot (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No Filmography section, needed?

No Filmography section, ..needed? I'm looking for Bruce Jenner's / Caitlyn Jenner's although s/he was not involved as Caitlin back when this was a show, looking for this person's involvement in an MTV show I believe it was called The hills? Young people thought it was reality TV but it was clearly scripted and acted, and edited! I'm surprised it's not on this person's Wikipedia article, nor is that show mentioned on Kim Kardashian's article. Thoughts? -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 20:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

Aha seems really only Brody Jenner was on The Hills https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hills_(TV_series) my mistake.. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 20:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC).

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

General question on consensus regarding deadnames

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.

---

All personal opinions aside, it's objective to state that it is contentious to use a trans person's deadname.

With Caitlyn Jenner, she happens to hold notoriety from prior fame, so it makes sense in some respects to recount this possibly through usage of her former persona/name/identity/etc., but I'm curious if it is wise/viewed as respectful to denote a trans person's birth name? Is there anything fundamentally gained by stating it? Is there an exception to be made for someone who is famous so that older, pre-transition information is understood more clearly?

My initial inclination would be to say that stating the deadnames, especially in some of the first, head-lining information on an article is possibly contentious and may be interpreted as unnecessary (and, thereby, offensive), but I'm curious if anyone thinks this is a fair enough question to pursue or address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.117.163 (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The raison d'etre of Wikipedia is to transmit knowledge and information -- to aid in understanding a given topic. Sacrificing clarity (in this case by creating a name-conflict with previously published materials) for the sake of avoiding potentially offending the subject of the article does not aid in this purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.242.163 (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

Well written article

I just had to say that this article reads extremely well. I was skeptical knowing how chaotic the consensus-forming process can get with articles that include disputed topics (especially on how to depict them as per WP:MOS). I am sure there are pages and pages of heated discussion but whatever it took to get to this place, this is fantastic. I really strikes a fair balance between being respectful to the subject and being a clear and informative article. You don't hear positives enough on these talk pages. Great job to everyone involved! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021

Change "Assigned male at birth" To "Born a male, he wanted a sex change" 66.222.111.230 (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:GENDERID EvergreenFir (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

do not use transgender celebrities dead names. this should not say “(born william bruce jenner)” 70.48.239.122 (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see MOS:GENDERID and WP:BIRTHNAME EvergreenFir (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

change "Feminist author Germaine Greer" to "Radical feminist author Germaine Greer" so as to briefly identify the school of feminism Germaine Greer belongs to. The page on Germaine Greer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germaine_Greer states in the first sentence that Greer is "regarded as one of the major voices of the radical feminist movement" so I believe it makes sense for consistency. CassandraPrime (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Unnecessarily specific for the context. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Section about Caitlyn coming out as transgender

On the section about Bruce coming out as transgender and choosing the new name “Caitlyn,” it says that she underwent “six reassignment surgery.” The proper way to say this would be “six reassignment surgeries.” Because there was more than one surgery, you would use the plural term for surgery. Alessandra-the-great (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alessandra-the-great: Hello, Alessandra-the-great, I am unable to find any instances of the phrase "six reassignment surgery" within the article. Is it possible you may have misread the phrase "sex reassignment surgery", which appears twice in the article?Cassandra Prime (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns

There seems to be a concerted effort to keep male pronouns from this article, even when they refer to Jenner pre-transition. I cannot find any instances of the pronoun "he" in the section referring to his olympic career, including in cases where omission of the pronoun would be grammatically incorrect, such as "Jenner watched teammate Fred Dixon get injured in the 110 meter hurdles, so took a cautious approach to the hurdles and discus." There is no pronoun between the bolded words when there should be. Jenner was indisputably male before 2015, so he should be referred to as such when concerning his Olympic career. The current situation also possibly counts as WP:CENSORSHIP as there may have been a deliberate purge of male pronouns. 053pvr (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Jenner's stated pronouns are female. We will continue to use female pronouns. You may feel free to argue this policy elsewhere, but this article will continue to follow that policy. It certainly isn't "censorship."--Jorm (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

She is currently female, but not before her transition. A gender change is not retroactive. 053pvr (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you. Go have your policy discussion somewhere else. Jorm (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

To quote the policy:

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. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article.

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. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "[sic]" may be used where necessary). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person only if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first.

I mean, is this interview not a case of Jenner indicating that they consider the transition to be forward moving... "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." To quote the article I've linked:

"says Jenner, “I had a life for 65 years. OK?” Besides which, “I liked Bruce. He was a good person. He did a lot in his life. Oh, ‘he didn’t even exist’. Yes he did exist! He worked his butt off. He won the [Olympic] Games. He raised amazing kids. He did a lot of very, very good things and it’s not like I just want to throw that away.”"

Seems like a good case for "Avoid[ing] confusing constructions" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:GENDERID, pre-transition pronouns are not to be used in this article and ones like it. This has been decided in repeated RfCs and, while CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, the tide seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Add website

The official site for https://caitlynjenner.com/ does not come up on a Google search. Please add to the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disclaimer777cc (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Disclaimer777cc: The website is in both the infobox and External links section. —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

Can we remove her old (dead) name 89.100.84.198 (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Change "She ended up voting for Trump in the 2016 presidential election." to

"Jenner claimed to have voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election. But, voting records show that she never cast a ballot in the election. Thedeamonlord2 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I've slightly changed around the wording and added an extra source (to make sure there's no question that it might be WP:SYNTH), but I basically added it as you requested. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

Remove her birth name from the page. That is considered a “dead name” to transgender people and is very offensive to use. 2600:387:A:902:0:0:0:11 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Current policy (from MOS:GENDERID) states "A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it". Since she was quite notable under her former name prior to adopting the name of Caitlyn, we include her former name. If you disagree with this policy, this is not the place to voice it. It has been extensively discussed at WT:MOSBIO; I suggest raising your concerns there. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

Change transgender rights activist label as she is actively lobbying against transgender rights 2001:8004:E00:C77C:A8C9:E7A9:F76E:FE10 (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

See above. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@2001:8004:E00:C77C:A8C9:E7A9:F76E:FE10: It's been labeled as disputed. Not enough sources to remove it altogether though, because most sources come from before Jenner started denouncing the presence of trans women in sports. Casspedia (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Caitlyn Jenner and Trans Rights

Calling Caitlyn Jenner a trans rights activist is like calling Candace Owens a BLM leader. It is not only provably false but incredibly offensive and should be removed from Wikipedia immediately. Didacdoodle (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Didacdoodle: The thing is, no accurate news sources have pointed that out. I've tried removing it but it has been met with some backlash. Most of this backlash has been on the fact that these claims were backed up with citations; however, these are outdated citations predating Jenner's bigotry. As such, I slipped in {{Disputed inline}} into the non-facts and added a section on Jenner's transphobia. Feel free to remove it once you have a citation pointing that out. Casspedia (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested rewording in order to eliminate "trans rights advocate"

This is my suggestion as to how it can be worded, once sources cease mention Jenner as a trans rights advocate (although it could be put in earlier). Formerly, this has been accurate, but with the recent events surrounding Jenner, this statement has become misinformation. This rewording does not involve any mention of "trans advocacy", which should be more accurate:

Assigned male at birth, Jenner publicly came out as a trans woman in April 2015, announcing her new name in July. From 2015 to 2016, she starred in the reality television series I Am Cait, which focused on her gender transition. She has been called the most famous transgender woman in the world. However, her views on some transgender issues, notably on trans girls' inclusion in sports, have been criticized by LGBTQ+ and trans activists.

Please let me know what you think and whether this should be implemented or no. Casspedia (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that description could definitely work. Historyday01 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Casspedia, I think this is great wording and can serve. Jorm (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"However" is WP:Editorializing. I don't see what's wrong with "Jenner has been previously described as a transgender rights activist,[11][12][13] though her views on transgender issues, notably on trans girls' inclusion in female sports,[14] have been criticized by other LGBTQ+ and trans activists.", as it is currently, although "previously" should probably be removed per WP:RELTIME and because one of those sources are very recent. I get that some folks on social media are convinced that this term is inaccurate and has to go, but here we go by WP:Due weight, and the term appears to be very well-sourced. Transgender people, like any other group of people, can have a variety of views and combinations thereof; they aren't of one mind, no group is. Social media sites are not necessarily representative of the wider public (trans or in general) and their views. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would argue to this latter point that a non-editorialized view. Removing "however" might be the right move. As for due weight, since this remains something quite contentious for the moment being, phrasing it in a way that does not either eschew or espouse "Jenner is a trans rights activist", until newer formal sources are introduced (and then giving due weight to said sources), would be a good stopgap solution. Casspedia (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

A stopgap solution like that is the best we can strive for at the present time. Historyday01 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is being canvassed

It appears that this article is being canvassed from Reddit and Twitter by people who want to remove the words "transgender rights activist" from the lead. This Reddit post relating to this article has reached 4000 upvotes. Note that just as canvassing is forbidden on Wikipedia, brigading is forbidden on Reddit. Please do not interfere with the linked Reddit community; an np (non-participation) link is used above as a reminder of this.DaysonZhang (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, how much fun! Not really. I'm not even a part of that community as it is, so they can talk about it all they want... I'm not surprised by discussion on that, not at all. --Historyday01 (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at the outrage at all. Branding Jenner as a TERF would be inaccurate, but calling her an activist, more specifically "trans rights activist", in a direct, unbiased voice would fall within the same umbrella. I think simply reducing it to "activist" or omitting any mentions would be the best way to proceed. Casspedia (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not surprised by it either. I think educing it activist would work, except it would still, arguably be contentious. Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC: "Trans rights activist" in fourth paragraph

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 describe Jenner as a trans rights activist based on coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Should Caitlyn Jenner be described as a trans rights activist or no? Casspedia (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Please reformat this RFC, it fails WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Just ask the broader question, don't include your own reasonings for/against the options in the RFC statement. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Casspedia (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say, no she should not. I think that instead of calling her an activist, or formerly an activist, that whole section should be reworded. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I am against keeping it; "formerly" is too recent to invoke (formerly being literally 5 days ago), and calling her an activist is no longer true. Removing it altogether (via rewording or via another means) is the easier path to take. Casspedia (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I support the current wording, has been described as, though... Yes. The sourcing on the label "transgender/trans rights activist" is extensive, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] (note that many of those sources are from as recently as a couple weeks ago). Support Pincrete's comments made below. It seems, however, after her statements a few days ago regarding trans girls in school sports, the media is starting to change their tune a bit, not ascribing the label to her (that I've seen) and describing her as being in conflict with/taking criticism from trans rights activists. I don't think we have sourcing on anything saying that she used to be a trans rights activist but stopped being one a few days ago, or that all of the other sources are wrong, and that she was never a trans rights activist, so we have no policy based reason to just take it out or replace it with something like "used to be"; all we have against including it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove it. She's not a trans rights activist. Sources say she is because they have nothing else to say and assume that anyone who is trans is also a trans rights activist. The fact is that this entire thing is boned up.

Further, this is definitely not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning and to insinuate that is disingenuous and minimizing.--Jorm (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Well sure, to be fair, saying that all the sources are wrong but I'm right so we should ensure the article reflects what I personally believe is a different type of problem, but original research is no better substitute. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that she was also criticized earlier (by more than a few outlets) for her vocal support of Trump, even going so far as claiming that he would be 'good for trans people', while Trump was simultaneously actively campaigning and promising to curtail trans rights. There are ample sources for this, along with Caitlyn's relatively recent backtracking on her statements. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Where are you saying to include this? In the lead, or the in the text body? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph from the beginning; it's "already" there and this RFC is concerning whether to remove or keep it. Casspedia (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As a trans person, I think it would be a better idea to change this to its own section regarding trans rights because it's obviously controversial and complicated. However, should the sources be there, no reason why we can't say Jenner isn't regarded highly by the trans community etc. etc. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 18:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Is or isn't highly regarded? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, not to be too blunt, but Jenner is regarded as a walking dumpster fire by the trans community, which typically loathes her. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 17:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

By the "trans community" and you are two very different things. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes in the fourth paragraph - there is an abundance of sources, it is verifiable, and it should be maintained for a historical perspective. Wikipedia shouldn't be engaging in cancel culture based on editor's opinions, we follow the sources, not lead, we are not a newspaper that reports breaking news. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe just calling her a trans activist could resolve this, as it neither refutes descriptions in reliable sources of her as a trans rights activist nor takes a stance on the correctness of that characterization. Funcrunch (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  That just seems obfuscatory – does that mean she's an activist who is trans or an activist for trans [rights/people/whatever]? I mean, I guess that's what you were going for, but I really don't think an encyclopedia should ever set out to intentionally equivocate. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  I was thinking that keeping it ambiguous here would also be a good way to proceed. "Transgender activist" implies that Jenner is "trans" and is "an activist", whilst "Transgender rights activist" implies that Jenner is fighting "for" trans rights, which is factually incorrect. Casspedia (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes: we don't write what idiots on the internet want us to write. We write what reliable sources say, even when those sources are systemically transphobic (as they are here). Until someone gives a reason to change the text that fits with our policies, guidelines and principles, and is not about caving into pressure from social media drama, none of this has any weight. In the converse direction, the descriptor is well-sourced, and you can see lots of sources at #Activist in opening sentence above. It's worth saying also that "transgender rights activist" doesn't mean "good person", "agrees with me on transgender topics" or "undertakes useful and net positive activism in the direction I want the world to move towards". It means that the subject is involved with activism that relates to transgender rights, with slight subtext being that they're in favor of advancing legal or social rights rather than regressing them (but not necessarily the same rights or with the same methods that you and I might choose). — Bilorv (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Bilorv: Please don't trivialize the reactions to Jenner and how this article refers to her as being from "idiots on the internet" or "social media drama". We can agree to follow reliable sources in this article while simultaneously recognizing that this is a highly emotionally charged issue for trans people and our allies. Funcrunch (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't believe that I trivialised concerns that Jenner is transphobic or that it is reasonable to personally think that Jenner is not a trans rights activist, to disagree with her or to be hurt by the things she does. If I did, then now I'm making it clear that that is not my intention. However, I looked at the reddit thread and—just like the last reddit thread about Wikipedia I looked at, where people were calling us all pedophiles and saying we were censoring them because we hate free speech—9 out of 10 of the comments have no factual basis in reality. Like, they just factually relate to something that's not true, something that's irrelevant to the way Wikipedia works, or a criticism that assumes something false (e.g. that admins protect articles to protect content they added in a content dispute). The last 1 in 10 comments were surprisingly reasonable, though they look to mostly be coming from Wikipedia editors. But overall, no, I won't take seriously the criticisms of a group of people who couldn't tell you the first thing about what Wikipedia is or how it works. You need to understand how something works at present to be able to usefully suggest a better way it could work. Being hurt by something doesn't give you a free pass to misdirect that hurt at a group of volunteers who aren't responsible and who write the encyclopedia you read every day, for free, only to get insulted for it and never praised. — Bilorv (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I didn't read that reddit thread. I just wanted the context to be clear: This is not merely drama regarding some celebrity, but a celebrity who is running in a gubernatorial recall election, who made a widely-reported statement about an issue that is being contested in numerous other state legislatures at this moment. Again, that doesn't mean that we can or should ignore what reliable sources say about Jenner. But it does mean a lot of eyes will be on this page and it's important to get this right. Funcrunch (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, this is what highly reliable sources say, and it has WP:In-text attribution. Arguments for removal based on personal definitions of trans rights or anything else are not relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

has been described as seems sensible enough to me. We can't say anything that implies she is no longer one or is no longer called one, because we don't have sources for that. That being said, there is evidence that many trans activists are distancing themselves from her—see the current citations to AP and Vox in the fourth paragraph—which leans me way from applying the label in Wikivoice. That being said, I would be alright with any wording as long as it was closely followed by the caveat that many trans activists disagree with her.

As I said earlier on this talk page, full disclosure wrt canvassing: I first became aware of this issue from people on Reddit complaining about the Wikipedia article, though when I was first there, the thread contained neither links to Wikipedia nor any calls to participate on the talk page. To come here and participate was entirely my own decision. (I used the word "linked" in my earlier disclosure; that was imprecise.) Gaelan 💬✏️ 21:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes The vocal minority needs to accept that they can't bully their opinion into fact. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Reports from reliable sources. Sea Ane (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, but in opening lead line. WP goes by RS, not canvassed reddit SPA users. There's no need to bury it, or to add the qualifier of "has been described as". --Kbabej (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think this is anywhere near the clear-cut "RS vs IDLI" issue people are making it out to be.

  There is a conflict in reliable sources here. We have several RSes that describe her, in passing, as a trans rights activist. That's clearly a viewpoint we need to cover. But there are also several recent RSes (for convenience: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]) describing the trans community distancing themselves from her. For better or for worse, "xyz activist" generally implies a somewhat ideologically cohesive community. To call her a "trans rights activist", no caveats, when many trans activists are making it clear she doesn't speak for them (again, not my opinion; see links earlier in this comment), in my view, is misleading and disregards what is at minimum a significant minority viewpoint.

  I don't believe there is room to give this the nuance it needs in the lead sentence, so I support leaving it out; but if someone has a way to do it concisely, I'd be happy to mention it. Gaelan 💬✏️ 07:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. Even though RSes does exist, recent RSes say the exact contrary. Casspedia (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  The concept that every trans person is part of a harmonious community with one set of ideals, one set of goals, one set of advocates, is as laughable as saying that all females watch Oprah. There is no "trans community". There's a handful of people with a megaphone claiming to act on the behalf of everyone else. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 13:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Saying "There is no trans community" and that there's only a small group of people upset is a... big statement to make, mate. Not to say that every trans person agrees on everything ever like a borg hive-mind, but sports participation is something the trans community has fought for for a long time. I think you're showing your own biases here. Stelith (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Sourced extensively. I'm not really seeing any arguments against inclusion besides WP:IDLI. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I think we need to clarify what this RFC is on. Do the people !voting yes support the current wording of has been described as a transgender rights activist (I think that's what Casspedia, who initiated the RfC, thought a "yes" vote meant, judging by her replies), or do they support a full-on Wikivoice statement? Some of the participants have made which one they want clear, but not all. I'd encourage participants to clarify that. Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

When you have multiple reliable sources that say she is a transgender rights activist, then we follow the sourcing, and not introduce our own editorializing or an element of doubt. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - Clearly established by numerous RSs. Her controversial opinions on various things should be mentioned by the article if they received sufficient coverage, but they do not disqualify her from being a trans activist. There are plenty of feminist activist whose opinions are seen as highly controversial by other feminists, but their status as an activist doesn't change. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - While she holds some positions I find odious, she's largely described this way in reliable sources. There's a bit of WP:OR shoehorning going on here with a few of the new editors involved farther up; deciding on a bright line when a label from reliable sources has to suddenly be "re-earned" with everything prior being ignored based on the editor's belief that the person is no longer "entitled" to a label because of ideological positions taken is in itself WP:OR. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (invited by bot) - Per those above, we follow reliable sources, not lead, and there is enough reliable sourcing to make the label appropriate. Addressing the concern that some media sources no longer use the label "trans rights activist" when describing her - that may very well be true, but it's not verifiable to note an omission; omission could be for any reason, so to say it is because she is no longer one (whether true or not, and it's probably true) runs afoul of WP:OR and verifiability. Urve (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  Just a note - I notice that Jenner is included in Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States. Inclusion there seems to be a more difficult question, since categorization is definitive and the lead wording is attributed. Some attention to this in the future may be warranted. Urve (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Jenner has been extensively and widely described as a "Trans rights activist" and thus should be described by such in wikivoice. We go by the sources not the small minority who critise Jenner to what extent Jenner is one.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 06:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to the Current Wording. Describing her as a trans rights activist with wikivoice, while ignoring the disagreement of a large segment (if not majority, but it's not like we have a gallup poll) of the community she claims to represent, is disingenuous. The current wording, which says "She is, some people disagree" is about as balanced as it will ever get. It's a controversial topic at the moment, and will probably continue to be, and clearly describing it one way or the other is choosing a side in a current controversy. Stelith (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC), a Trans Woman.
• Yes (Summoned by bot) Sourced extensively. I'm not really seeing any arguments against inclusion besides WP:IDLI. per Dr.Swag Lord, and others, and to be clear, as phrased, the RfC asks "Should Jenner be described as a trans rights activist" and implicit in that phrasing of the question is rejection of the chronically disingenuous current phrasing which does its utmost to loudly proclaim editors wish to distance themselves from describing Jenner as an activist. Current phrasing screams blatant editorialising. The proper place and way to say that some critics have distanced themselves from Jenner's views is to record that critics have distanced themselves from those views and why! Not to editorialise as at present. Pincrete (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment, I find it ironic how, while claiming to preach tolerance, you condemn anyone whose opinion doesnt align with yours. Jenner never said "ban trans people from sports" - (and look at her own sports history! mind you, it is not her position that SHE should have been banned had she been out, either). But, because she dares to say females and males are separated because females are the weaker sex, you condemn her - silencing every alternate opinion is what our enemies (and your enemies too - fascists) do. No activists of any kind will get anywhere by taking up that practice. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  That is entirely mistaken. The euphemism "protect women's sports" now 100% means "banning trans women/girls from sports". Casspedia (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  FireJuggler, Please keep discussion related to the topic, we are not here to debate her comments, dogwhistling, or the meaning behind them. Stelith (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes supported by RS. ~ HAL333 23:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• YES activism should be politically agnostic. gandhi, hitler, nambla, peta, jane fonda, dan savage, MLK are all activists. a ton of reliable sources refer to caitlin as an activist. it should stop there. as it's currently written, it makes no sense. it refers to "other trans activists" that criticize caitlyn. that implies caitlyn is an activist, despite the confusing and unnecessary passive voice that precedes it and severely degrades the quality of wikipedia.2600:1003:B1A3:E983:2C96:DBD0:E13E:1BC5 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, the description is from reliable sources and her opinion on various issues which seem controversial should not disqualify her from such but should be mentioned. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, per RSes and CoffeeCrumbs. Whether one agrees with her politics or not, is not at issue. Mathglot (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as supported by many RS around AutoPrime (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Voting record confusion

In the Politics section of the article, the following statement appears: "Jenner said she voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election, although according to Politico, voter records show she never cast a ballot in the election."

Jenner's participation in the 8 November 2016 election was officially certified on 26 April 2021 by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, Dean Logan, based on data held in the county's voters' roster (link to Logan's officially certified document). Indeed, Logan certified that Jenner voted in every quadrennial election in the period he documented, from 2000 to 2020 — in all six elections.

While a citation is provided in the article to support the claim that "she never cast a ballot in the election" this is contradicted by official public records and by the officially certified statement by the county official. This contradiction requires resolution. I am inclined to prefer the official county record over a claim published by Politico. — O'Dea (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Biological boys??

The article says:

Jenner has backed her views by stating that it's unfair for trans girls, who were biological boys, to compete against girls because their bodies are biologically different.

Taken literally, this implies that all people are biologically cisgender and that transgenderism must be something that exists exclusively because of nurture. Can anyone discuss this statement?? Georgia guy (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

"Biologically cisgender" is a meaningless sentence. InverseZebra (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but that's the quote from her. Perhaps the formatting could be cleared up to make it clear that those are *her* views and not the page's editorial staff. Stelith (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I can agree with that. The way it is written now makes it seem it is ok'd by the page's editorial staff. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Added quotes to the statement, since otherwise it would directly contradict science. Casspedia (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Gender isn't science. Gender is culture. Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sex is forcibly assigned at birth; it is a widespread social construct built atop of biology. Genitalia, which is not binary, is the science (and the biology). Additionally, sports performance and testosterone levels are directly correlated; if a cis woman were to inject testosterone depot, she would perform better. As such, attempting to discredit my argument by discrediting my claims remains 100% mistaken. Casspedia (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Human sex is the same as canine sex: male and female, determined genetically at conception not birth. Dogs don't have much culture and yet manage to breed, which always requires one male and one female, no exceptions - thus showing 'sex is cultural, not biological' to be wrong. InverseZebra (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

What was the RfC consensus?

Kbabej, claiming a consensus on RfC, made this edit. I'm not sure that edit is supported by the result of that RfC.

The question in that RfC was Should Caitlyn Jenner be described as a trans rights activist or no?. From the RfC author's other comments (it's "already" there and this RFC is concerning whether to remove or keep it, I believe her intent was that a "yes" !vote supported the status quo, an attributed mention, and a "no" !vote supported removing the claim altogether. Reading the comments, some of the "yes" !voters also thought they were supporting an attributed mention (e.g. Crossroads: it has WP:In-text attribution; Stelith: Yes to the Current Wording; Urve: lead wording is attributed), while others are clearly in favor of a wikivoice mention (e.g. Pincrete rejection of the chronically disingenuous current phrasing, Spy-cicle: should be described by such in wikivoice, Kbabej: There's no need to bury it, or to add the qualifier of "has been described as"). Most !votes (ones with shorter comments) aren't clear either way.

The consensus, as described by buidhe, is to describe Jenner as a trans rights activist based on coverage in reliable sources. We clearly have a consensus to describe her as a trans rights activist in some form, but I don't see, either in my reading of the discussion nor in the close message, a consensus either to use in-text attribution or not, and certainly not a consensus to remove "though her views on transgender issues have been criticized" clause, which was discussed very little.

To be clear, I have very little desire to re-litigate this, and I haven't reverted the edit. But I don't think it's at all clear that the edit here is supported by consensus, so I'm not comfortable just letting it stand without discussion. Gaelan 💬✏️ 22:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That was my understanding of the RfC, though I admit what people were !voting for was unclear from the onset. The RfC doesn't say "Should Caitlyn Jenner be described as a trans rights activist with a qualifier or no?". It asks if she should be described as an activist outright. I believe the qualifiers are not needed; they're complete shoehorning, as another editor mentioned above. --Kbabej (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think that this RfC addressed exactly how to mention it in the article. There wasn't a clear consensus in the discussion whether to attribute because as noted there were different opinions expressed on whether attribution should be used. I think both the "current wording" and a non-attributed wording would be consistent with the close. In future, it's best to be extremely clear in an RfC question what the disagreement is to get the most useful close. (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

In my understanding, though the RfC was a bit badly posed, it does read to me that the consensus was against the attribution "has been described as", though I'm not sure about the qualifier at the end, "though...". It could make sense that if we're happy to call her a trans rights activist in wikivoice then we shouldn't need to qualify it with "though...", but the body of the article does describe criticism against her from other trans activists – either way I think it's hard to draw a conclusion on that from the RfC, I think we'd need to discuss this separately. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you be opposed to either of these?

• is a trans rights activist, though her views…
• is a trans rights activist. Her views…

As I've said in the RfC, the fact that her views have been criticized by other activists is well-sourced. When people read the label "xyz activist", they will naturally assume that the person described holds a set of views shared by most people with that label (for example, you probably have a pretty good guess for "X is a BLM activist. Does X believe Breonna Taylor was murdered?"). Of course, there are exceptions—we're talking about one—but my view is that when we say something that is likely to create a false assumption, our commitment to accuracy dictates that we must promptly counter that assumption. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to ping Volteer1. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Gaelan, the current wording could set up an expectation for a reader that would be contradicted later in the article. We don't need to bury the lede, and we 'do have RS talking about how her views are seen by members of community she is seen to represent. In the current entry it's just there, as a sentence fragment, so it needs to be at the very least merged with another sentence for grammar, or expanded upon to fix the bad expectation it creates. Stelith (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a sentence fragment because initially it was added to the opening line, which I think makes the most sense. I think it should be moved back. --Kbabej (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Gaelan the difference is that BLM is a specific charity. The correct comparison would be BLM to Stonewall, and Trans' rights activist to black-rights activist. This is important because many supports of black rights do *not* believe Breonna was murdered, and in fact think the story is knowingly false and actively damages black rights. See the backlash against Jussie Smollett and consequently those who supported him (gay + black activists) when he was revealed to have lied. InverseZebra (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)