Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Criticism of Jenner [redacted]

[section title and some posts redacted by User:Dweller, per WP:BLP. --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)]

There's a lot of shocking criticism of Jenner [redacted]: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, "The Blaze" (this and other articles have over 500,000 shares), "The Federalist"; should some of this be included for balance or ignored? Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of the criticism you have linked to is notable enough and none of it would help with balance. If we added Limbaugh's comments from transcripts to every topic he espouses on it would pretty much ruin Wikipedia for everyone. -- haminoon (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As encyclopedia editors, we aren't here to judge the criticism. [redcated] -- all irrelevant to the task at hand, which is to cover the controversy. Taken individually, the references you give probably wouldn't work--as they'd border on WP:SYN. But a credible wrapup piece (or more) that summarizes the criticism of Jenner would absolutely belong here. Barte (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

As above. These are primary sources, and even the widely shared ones like Snoop Dogg calling it a "science experiment" are trivial. The two radio hosts listed are [redacted] with an opinion on everything, whether that opinion is notable is another matter '''tAD''' (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. Barte (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that this is not so simple: WP:NPOV commands us to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", but the results of doing so could be distressing to the subject in a case such as this. However, I think we should ignore distress to the subject in this case, it's our job to build an encyclopedia, not to avoid hurting people's feelings (or rather, the second goal is very much secondary, if it is a goal at all). The standard for inclusion of sentences, as I have to keep reminding fellow editors, is not notability (that is the standard for inclusion of articles in the encyclopedia) but significance. Is it significant that relatively mainstream people such as Snoop Dogg and Rush Limbaugh have made derogatory comments? I'd say it is, regardless of whether you are transphobic or not; if you are not, it illustrates how far trans people still have to go in America.--greenrd (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Just for a little analogy, there are people out there who don't believe gay people exist. Sure, there are people who call themselves gay, men who sleep with other men, have relationships with other men and so on. But—according to these people—they aren't really gay. They just suffer from some kind of mental or spiritual disorder. These anti-gay attitudes are widespread in some religious communities, and such views have a historic and cultural significance. There's no reason we shouldn't cover these views. But there's a difference between covering the anti-gay views of some significant people and inserting their views into the articles of the targets of their articles. The same is true of transgender people: there are notable people who have a lot of animus for transgender people. That's not a reason to insert such toxicity into the articles on those people any more than we should insert anti-gay rhetoric in the biographical articles of individual gay/lesbian people. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this Washington Post story is a serious attempt to cover the conservative reaction and put it in some cultural/political context. And another from The Atlantic. Barte (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I please remind everyone that WP:BLP applies equally to talk pages as article space and we should not voice our own accusatory or derogatory comments about people, no matter how much we think they're self-evident or deserved. --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Issue now has spread to feminists, see this Opinion in Sunday's "New York Times": "What makes a woman?" with over 600-comments! I noticed there isn't any criticism section in any of the articles on transsexualism or transphobia that address many of the issues answered at WP:Gender identity, regarding DNA, calling yourself a cat, etc. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the constant use of "he" in the article... Raquel Baranow please refrain from making disparaging comments about trans people and comparing them to thinking you're a cat. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is criticism from radical feminists about transgender women in general (as expressed in the NYT article). There is also criticism from those that chose sex-reassignment surgery or call it Harry Benjamin syndrome and make a distinction between transgender women that can't stand the image of themselves with male genitalia vs. transgender women that don't have an issue with that aspect. It's probably not a topic for an individual's biography though. They are real and divisive issues with valid opinions, though, even if modern feminists wish to silence that aspect of feminism. Not every experience of transgender women is the same nor is everyone equally supportive especially when an individual has enjoyed the privileges of being male for most of their adult life. --DHeyward (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have never used "he" in the article, talk pages or elsewhere. I just don't understand why criticism of transsexuals is nowhere to be found except in WP:Gender identity. How is Jenner or any other TS going to know how to respond to people saying, "you're not a woman because of your DNA" or, "you're mentally ill and I'm the king of Spain or a cat". Look at the comments in the New York Times article I cited, it's full of such "cat" and "DNA" rubbish. I suppose the appropriate place for this is on the transphobia page. I'm done here, sorry for bothering you. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My comment on "he" usage was in reference to the NYTimes article, not you. And I see what you meant now. I did indeed misunderstand. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

IOC respond to petition

Despite the misgendering... IOC will not do anything to Jenner's medals. link. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think the historical context of competition indicates misgendering. They are discussing the winner of the Men's decathlon and use gender pronouns appropriate for that category. Even post-transition, Jenner would not be qualified to compete as a woman in the Olympics. I believe she could still compete in Men's events. Records for the event, just as other historical uses of the name, will be "Bruce Jenner" --DHeyward (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Calling the term misgendering is a prejudicial remark indicating a mistake. No mistake was made. Bruce Jenner, at the time, represented himself as a male. That is not subject to change 45 years later. And the specific regulations that would prevent him from competing as a female have been cited and discussed above, so you have the opportunity to know better. The problem is wikipedia's guideline, written by advocacy groups supporting egalitarian transgender rights, is out of line. I'm all for transgender rights, but that should not allow wikipedia to rewrite historical fact. Obviously the IOC has a similar opinion. Trackinfo (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Referring to a trans person by past pronouns is misgendering. But that was just my personal comment on the article. The point of me posting it was for the fact they won't do anything. @Trackinfo: MOS:IDENTITY was written in part with input from trans folks. They say using the wrong pronouns is misgendering. It is. Non-trans folks opinion on what is or isn't offensive to trans folks doesn't matter. Just as white folks don't get to tell anyone the n-word isn't racist or straight folks don't get to tell gay/bi folks that "fag" isn't homophobic or men don't get to tell women that "cunt" isn't sexist (though some have tried). You want to complain about advocacy groups, go to WP:VP or the MOS talk page. Not here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Given EvergreenFir's previous comments on how to refer to Jenner, I don't think that EvergreenFir was referring to the name "Bruce Jenner" as misgendering, but rather the pronoun usage in this sentence: In its response to the petition, IOC Communications Director Mark Adams tells Yahoo, "Bruce Jenner won his gold medal in the 1976 Olympic Games and there is no issue for the IOC." Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 is correct. That is what I'm referring to here, if that wasn't clear or I misunderstood what was being discussed. Been a very long day, so the latter is entirely possible. Though not terribly keen on using "Bruce Jenner" in general, I won't complain about that here as I know trying to change that would be WP:SNOW. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GLAAD Media guide is pretty clear in present tense articles, pronouns should match gender identity. However, it's understood that past tense and historical documents may use gender pronouns that match the point in time. Our bio articles use present tense and female gender terms. The IOC release use past tense and appropriate pronouns for the time period. It's not like the IOC is anti-trans or ignorant about press releases. They didn't misgender Jenner as they consistently used the proper gender terms. Believe it or not, this also protects trans folk that don't want a connection to their deadname or past and specifically may not want it to be known they are transgender and have transitioned. Nothing announces that more than a gender/name mismatch and change. It is not the place for organizations to change gender pronouns of historical events and people's names. It is not misgendering if it is consistently reflecting the past and is past tense. ESPN's articles follow this and the Washington Post is ridiculing Wikipedia for misguided beliefs regarding the proper use of name and pronouns. --DHeyward (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

GLAAD also makes it clear to avoid using old pronouns even when discussing past events. Avoid pronoun confusion when examining the stories and backgrounds of transgender people prior to their transition. Ideally a story will not use pronouns associated with a person's birth sex when referring to the person's life prior to transition. Try to write transgender people's stories from the present day, instead of narrating them from some point in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns.[1]. The assumption is that most do want to "disconnect" and it is misgendering to the vast majority of trans folks to use old pronouns. If Jenner ever says she's totally cool with using masculine pronouns when referring to the past, that's awesome. Until then, it's misgendering. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and implicit in that is the realization that people and events cannot always be written from the present day and in those cases it is possible to be consistent to avoid confusion. It is not "misgendering" as that implies it was transphobic whether intentional or not. The IOC statement was specific, past tense and consistent to avoid confusion. If anything, bodies such as the IOC (or universities, or any organization that has a historical record) should NOT be announcing present tense transgender identification for precisely the reason you identified: "disconnect." One women here committed suicide when a journalist went to confirm educational credentials many decades later and received the proper pronouns and the name on the degree (i.e. "as Bruce Jenner" as we are seeing throughout wikipedia or "Caitlyn Jenner" under mens athletic events.) The giveaway by the university was not their place and they should not have confirmed anything in the present tense since their association was in the past. The microfiche records are unyielding regardless of the gender and name. The IOC very thoughtfully and very carefully answered the question without "misgendering" as it is their record about the 1976 Men's decathlon. Treating it as a "deadname" indeed a dead person disconnected from the present is not misgendering and is really the only ethical option for a generic policy on record release and confirmation. As a policy, we should be doing the same instead of parenthetical/asterisk/whispers that Jenner is a transgender woman through the use of inconsistent terms and splashed across every article mentioning Jenner. Jenner has already said she doesn't mind masculine pronouns in the "Vanity Fair" article and indeed still says "Bruce" out of habit. We should be respecting the person and their whole life, not just focus on their transition as if it were a prurient spectacle. --DHeyward (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the fact that she is 65 and hence wouldn't be competitive, it is not true that she cannot compete in the Olympics in the female categories post-transition. There are some conditions to be met, details of which are not relevant to this article. -- KTC (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

She is post-transition. She can't compete as a woman based on the rules regarding surgical transition requirements (some interviewer brought it up). It's her personal choice but it is rare to have the necessary surgery. --DHeyward (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

XY sex-determination system

The article should mention the following:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

XY sex-determination system

The XY sex-determination system is the sex-determination system found in humans, most other mammals, some insects (Drosophila), and some plants (Ginkgo). In this system, the sex of an individual is determined by a pair of sex chromosomes (gonosomes). Females have two of the same kind of sex chromosome (XX), and are called the homogametic sex. Males have two distinct sex chromosomes (XY), and are called the heterogametic sex.

74.98.33.46 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Its not relevent to this article. -- haminoon (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant to anything here. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Correct. The article already wikilinks to transgender and list of transgender people. That should be enough for anyone curious about the causes of physical and social gender in humans. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"born (name)"

I asked a question about this but it was deleted. The question was whether saying someone was "born (name)" is the best way to do it. In this case, if Caitlyn Jenner was born a female, then to say "born William Bruce Jenner" seems to imply something about the birth process, whereas I think what is meant is that her parents named her as W B Jenner (either before birth, or at birth, or after birth). It's not a gender issue, but a style issue, but I think this page highlights it. Inasmuch as William and Bruce are considered boys' names, she was not born as William Bruce, but was (mis)identified as such by her parents. ps Wikipedia Talk page guidelines: Editing comments Editing comments Others' comments Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but its best to get their permission and normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by (user)] (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)]".

As it happens, there's a discussion going on at the Village Pump which seems to be finding widespread support for changing "born" to "formerly" in all articles about trans people. As I commented there, I have no strong opinion on the matter. Feel free to change "born" to "formerly" in this article. -sche (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems more than reasonable. In Genealogy the reference to a person born a different name is nee. Considering that this is not an issue of marriage or adoption, "formerly" seems most encyclopedic and appropriate in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've done this (in particular, see my edit summary). -sche (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Where is the RM discussion?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The move of this article is clearly controversial which means there is supposed to be an RM proposal and discussion to determine whether consensus supports such a move before the article is moved. I don't see that in the Talk page history, and yet the article was moved. Tom Morris refers to "name change" in the edit summary associated with the move, but that hardly necessarily justifies a move. See Cat Stevens, for an example of a name change which did not lead to a title change. I don't really care either way, but I don't like to see policy and process subverted like this, because it sets bad precedent. --В²C ☎ 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC) We had a move discussion immediately above. It was SNOWBALL closed in favour of keeping the article where it is. This was the correct decision, and your failure to find that discussion on the very page you're posting this message is not a requirement that everyone else perpetuate in tolerating and entertaining this truly ridiculous idea that gender transitions are at all analogous to name changes on their own, hair cuts, or whatever other example people are going to use to publicly demonstrate their ignorance and lack of empathy today. And if you think this message is blunt - rude, even - imagine how shitty it would feel if I decided to change your name and gender arbitrarily, too. Ironholds (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC) I don't know which "move discussion" you're referring to. If there is a formal RM discussion, then I don't see it. Please link to it. If there isn't, then the controversial move was made without establishing consensus through a formal RM discussion, which is against policy. No need to be rude. --В²C ☎ 21:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC) There's no policy requiring process to be adhered to for process's sake, and it would be for process's sake because there's no way in hell this should be a controversy. The very top of the page you're commenting on has a section explaining that our rules demand we refer to Caitlyn by female pronouns; why on earth, then, would we refer to her by a male name? Policies and guidelines provide guidance for people operating individually or for people operating in groups where a rule of thumb is needed. They don't require us to declare the sky is green. The discussion you want is here; notice the bit where everyone except the proposer thought her article should be at "Caitlyn Jenner" and then please explain your basis for declaring this a controversial decision. Ironholds (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I moved the article per WP:BRD and WP:IAR. WP:MOVE says that one should have a RM discussion "[i]f you believe the move might be controversial". At the point I moved the article, there had been repeated attempts to cut-and-paste move the article and the world's media had already started using the new name without any significant controversy. I thought—perhaps hoped rather optimistically—that for a variety of reasons, the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner name change might not be a colossal mess like the Chelsea Manning one was. I also closed it knowing that if my judgment of the situation was in error, the community could override my action through a Requested Move discussion to move it back. Promptly after I moved it, there was a requested move to move it back. Here's the RM. It closed per WP:SNOWBALL fairly promptly though. The talk page archiving might be a bit messed up. Lowercase Sigmabot moved it to Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 3 but there's also a Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 4 and things are slightly out of order. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC) When a name change is so new (regardless of reason) changing the title should be automatically known to be controversial. Moving it and then having the RM is totally wrong. The correct thing to do is move it back, and then have an RM. That's BRD applied to moves. This case is far more complicated than the Manning case because Bruce Jenner is far better known and there are many more sources out there referring to him, not the least of which are the Olympic records. In that respect it's more like Cat Stevens. --В²C ☎ 01:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC) So, let me get this straight; we had a discussion in which people overwhelmingly said "the current title is fine". And you think we should be obliged to move it, even though moving it would be actively in violation of policy, because people didn't get to discuss it before the move? Because BRD - which isn't a policy in the slightest - demands it? This is process for the sake of process, it's an utter waste of every editor's time, and it's incredibly offensive to Jenner. Ironholds (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC) There is a 0.0% chance of the consensus being anything other than Caitlyn Jenner as the appropriate title. There is no point in going through the formality of an RM. --B (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC) While I agree that the move may be controversial, the article should be at the "Caitlyn" name per WP:IDENTITY. Epic Genius (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia shouldn't be a bureaucracy. If someone pops up and says "my name is X", and then the world's media start referring to them as X, and they take active steps to try and get people to call them X, we should perhaps grant them the simple bloody courtesy of calling them X rather than engaging in a long-winded and tiresome amateur bureaucracy re-enactment. This is why we elect humans to be administrators rather than just set up a robot army to run the website. I don't consider ensuring that the article accurately uses a subject's new, chosen name to be "controversial" and I don't think that we need to have months and months of discussion on this just because some people enjoy bureaucracy for the sake of it. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC) The problem is that it is not just that simple. While Jenner may say that hisher name is Caitlyn, the IOC records indicate that the winner of the 1976 men's decathalon was Bruce Jenner; we do not yet know whether Kris Jenner and Linda Thompson will say that they were once married to someone named Bruce or Caitlyn. The issue is not just what Caitlyn should be called on her article, but whether every reference to Bruce across the encyclopedia should be changed to "Caitlyn" and whether all male pronouns referring to Jenner should be changed to female. There is a valid argument that changes to Caitlyn and female pronouns should not be done robotically across the site without any discussion of how those changes may impact other articles. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Her. While Jenner may say that her name is Caitlyn, and enjoy your discretionary sanctions notification. Read the notice at the top of this talk page and grok some basic etiquette. Ironholds (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC) It was an honest mistake--quick typing that led to carelessness. Look at every other instance I have referred to Jenner on this page and every other discussion on the issue; I have used the pronoun "her" (including in the same paragraph). There's no need to get on a high horse and lecture about basic etiquette. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC) My apologies; this week has been...not a great week for Wikipedia demonstrating how sensible it can be :/. Ironholds (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Mine as well. That last sentence of mine was a bit snippy. Considering some of the less-than-civil discourse (to put it mildly) that's gone on at this page directed against Jenner over the past week or so, I can understand the frustration and assumption that "his" was more than just a typo. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC) If there hadn't just been an RM, I would've surmised that any RM would involve the same arguments as the months-long Manning RM and hence come to the same conclusion as it. Lo, the RM came to the same conclusion — and did so using only what many who opposed naming Manning "Chelsea" regarded as a weak argument, viz. invocations of MOS:IDENTITY; the SNOWed RM didn't even get into stronger arguments in favour of current-naming, since no-one made any arguments against, and I haven't seen any arguments against that weren't made and rejected in the Manning RM. (The "whether Kris Jenner..." argument was made and allayed in the Manning RM about people Manning had relationships with. The "IOC records indicate..." argument was made and allayed about Army and prison records. Etc.) Hence, pace the editor above who said a second RM would be process for the sake of process, I would say last week's RM was process for the sake of process, and a second RM — and the suggestion above to move the article to Bruce Jenner against the previous RM's consensus — would be more like an attempt to filibuster renaming the article. -sche (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I am arguing vehemently about how Caitlyn's past public history is treated (see above), but I have no objection to using her current name and identity for the article. We had months of (premature requests) discussion about what would happen when this was a developing situation and we defined that the changes would take place as soon as Jenner announced them. The gender transition and name change have been publicly announced and sourced to Jenner. Case closed. Trackinfo (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Move discussions are really only necessary when the move would have to be done by an administrator. A move can normally be reversed so in such cases you don't need to discuss it in advance any more than you need to discuss a content edit in advance. It's sometimes a good idea, but in an obvious case like this I personally wouldn't have bothered. Creeping bureaucracy is something that needs to be actively fought. --TS 00:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC) An obvious case like this? This person has been widely known as Bruce Jenner for decades. The only thing obvious aspect about the move is that it is a blatant violation of WP:COMMONNAME. I say again, Cat Stevens. Just because the reason for the name change is a gender change should not affect the title decision process here. We don't make these decisions - we follow the lead of reliable sources. We should only change our titles after reliable sources change how they refer to the subject. Now maybe that's already the case, and if it is, I have no issue with it, but I see no evidence of that being the case, and, more importantly, that was not cited as a reason when the move was made. Now, I know this is a very emotionally sensitive issue but is it too much to ask everyone to put their emotions aside and look at this objectively like any other title case? --В²C ☎ 01:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Please read WP:MOSIDENTITY. Yup its obvious. -- haminoon (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC) @Born2cycle: Your argument is valid and was significant argument for Chelsea Manning. Manning was not known for anything except during the period she was enlisted in the Army (like Cat Stevens). Arguably she has not done anything notable after announcing that she was Chelsea. After much nashing of teeth, COMMONNAME and an ArbCom case, along with perhaps the largest RfC ever, one thing became clear: In a tidal wave ("title" wave?), all the reliable sources covering "Bradley Manning" switched to "Chelsea Manning". Wikipedia became one of the first to transition...and one of the last when the RfC and RM discussion was pending along with ArbCom. In hindsight, it's obvious that the tidal wave was happening and it is happening now. We are going a bit overboard on references to historical things like the name and gender of the 1976 Olympic Men's Decathlon (the IOC says it was Bruce Jenner and he won the gold medal). Anyone that watches his guest appearance on CHiPs will be confused as the credits on the show will not be updated just as 'The Matrix' still credits 'The Wachowski Brothers.' (Hollywood does reshoot closing credits). We write present tense with present names and genders and where old names as well as gender are relevant to a notable event (i.e. the winner of the Mens Decathlon is a widely known name and gender is relevant to the context), we should be less zealous. We should never be the first to transition names but unnecessary bureaucracy over what is an obvious trend is unnecessary. Arguably, we should slow down but the move is not controversial. --DHeyward (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC) If someone comes across a mention of "Bruce Jenner" and they type that name into Google or into Wikipedia's search function, they'll come across an article that says "Caitlyn Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner, October 28, 1949), known as Bruce Jenner until 2015...". The reader is informed in the opening sentences what has happened—phew, epistemic crisis quickly averted. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Not to mention that as a normal part of the Page Move operation the page Bruce Jenner is a redirect to this page. Everybody who ever looks up Bruce Jenner will find this article and it will probably be the first search result they see on all major search engines. The encyclopaedia thus works as it's supposed to. --TS 12:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Because of redirects deciding which title to use is never about making articles easy to find. Pointing out that it's not an issue in this case too is irrelevant, but thanks for letting us know you think it's important. No wonder you guys don't think this is an issue. --В²C ☎ 16:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC) It's not an issue. This whole discussion -- most of the discussion on this page in the last few days -- is bureaucracy for its own sake and unnecessary drama. Bottom line: consensus clearly shows the change was valid and proper and that isn't going to change no matter how many fruitless and agonizing discussions take place. It's called common sense. freshacconci talk to me 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Born2cycle, we've established redundantly, through repeated discussion, that nearly everybody wants the article at Caitlyn Jenner. So what issues, if any, remain to be discussed? --TS 19:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC) You do realize we don't decide article titles based on what people "want", don't you? See WP:JDLI. That said, we do follow consensus, and if there aren't others concerned about the apparently blatant disregard for WP:COMMONNAME here, I'm not going to push it. I did just mention this issue at WT:AT. --В²C ☎ 21:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC) You just cited a personal essay (JDLI) by a fellow volunteer as a reason for endlessly discussing a decision that's already been made and that fits well with current policy on transpeople. Nevertheless, thanks for being reasonable about this and letting it go. --TS 21:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC) There's board consensus for the page move. You apparently want to start a Manning dispute again. Feel free, it's your funeral after all. Or you can just drop the stick. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC) WP:COMMONNAME, for the record, does not override any other consideration in a naming dispute — it's a guideline of last resort in a situation that can't be easily resolved by other policies or guidelines, not a trump card that automatically wins the hand by itself regardless of how important the reasoning may be for a purportedly "less common" choice. See, for example, the part of COMMONNAME where it explicitly says that if the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change — which puts this move in full accordance with COMMONNAME, because Caitlyn is the name that complies with that consideration. Since her old name redirects to this article anyway, it's not as though this is actually causing any genuine problem. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Olympic medal non-revoking and the blather about golf handicap

This seem to be incredibly trivial points to be making. We are comparing them even though there are striking differences, and really neither rises to a point of inclusion. We could fill a book with the rediculous things people have suggested that have been rejected. And it's not that noteworthy that she has to earn a new golf handicap, I suppose die-hard golfers would care. Can that all be removed as other things that don't matter to her life and really have little impact? Missruption (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The Olympic medal thing might be worth mentioning, because it's obviously important that she won it, so I can at least see the argument that it is important that the IOC decided not to take it away. The golf handicap, on the other hand, is, in my opinion, wholly trivial and should be removed. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either of them are significant enough to be included. I don't think the IOC "decided" not take the medals away; they simply responded to a stupid online petition. -- haminoon (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A better analysis (although I can at least see the argument to keep it in); I should not have used "decide" quite as liberally. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that both points are trivial and hardly worth including. -sche (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The only thing different is that I believe she joked about golf. (something like "I didn't do this so I could hit from the Ladies Tee box.") I presume that means she plays golf. I don't think USGA cares which tee box is used. --DHeyward (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The IOC wouldn't take the medals away, period. It's, as noted, a response to an amazingly inane petition. The one famous case where it was established that an Olympic gold-medal winning female athlete was (partly) male, the medals and records (though long since surpassed) were not revoked by the IOC or the IAAF. Stanisława Walasiewicz was an intersex athlete who set numerous world records (which are still on the progression lists) and won medals at the 1932 and 1936 Olympics, his/her intersex status discovered upon his/her death in 1980. Canada Jack (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It's "her" for Stanisława Walasiewicz as she lived and identified as a woman. The IOC is in a tough spot for verification. Absent fraud, they are not likely to revoke anything especially without a hearing and allegation of wrongdoing. On the other hand, they need to meticulously guard their history. I think, for protection of the privacy of the athletes, they need to have very methodical recitation of their records which means, unless an athlete succesfully petitions for a change, the name, gender and pronouns all reflect what the competition was and who participated. For them, the statement was very by rote report of the history. "Bruce Jenner won his gold medal in the 1976 Olympic Games and there is no issue for the IOC." It deliberately uses the name, gender pronouns and the event. They almost have to do that for ethical reasons and also not open the door to petitions like the one that failed. It's very thoughtful and methodical to protect everyone involved (make no mistake, there will next be a petition to remove "Men's" from the name of that event since a woman won it - this could come from anywhere including LGBT groups that are senstive to gender norming roles). Now, if Jenner petitioned them for a name change or petitioned them to change their references to him in press releases, that can be completely different outcome. They can't be the organization, though, that validates the gender change of an athlete. Same should be true for hospitals, schools, jails, police records, etc, etc. It would be disastrous if an FOIA request breached the deadname and past of a transgender individual that made a clean break. We had that disaster locally when a human interest story on a locally notable transgender woman (who had abandoned her previous name and background but needed her educational credentials) resulted in a background check to her University (she was in her fifites and an engineer by trade). The university progressiveness dutifully used the current pronouns with the microfiche record and name. School used current name and gender with old transcript, same student ID, so there was no doubt there was a transition instead of a "mistaken idneity". Resulted in her suicide. Had the school reported the "No records found under that name" or anything other than identifying a transition had occured at some point in the past without informing her how it was being communicated, she may have been able to respond in her way instead of being confronted and asked to confirm it (the journalist was also young and progressive and simply asked to confirm her credentials as reported). Being transgender was not an issue for the article and most likely would not have even been mentioned except for the PC university that put 2+2 together and decided "misgendering" was worse than a possible privacy violation. At best, an organization that has already been informed of a transition, either through a name change address update or something else, should use great care in understanding when and how that will be communicated in response to request for historical information like university degrees and transcripts. The IOC has nothing from Jenner and so should report, verbatim, what they have. If the person who finished 4th transitioned privately, I'd expect no less from the IOC and certainly nothing that publicly confirms anything not explicitly requested. --DHeyward (talk)

So that whole policy of going with the name people are known by is out the window?

I know the genderist community is chomping at the bit to control every aspect of this article, but isn't "Bruce Jenner" the name every human on Earth knows this person as? One article comes out where Bruce Jenner is going by "Caitlyn", no legal change, no sense of permanence, and that's now the Wikipedia article's title? If he's going by Christina or Caylee next week, will you change it again? inb4 hurr genderfluidity bias, transbias, etc. I just don't like tabloid or activist Wikipediasm no need for up to the second updates, you people kick out the feet of the guy in front of you to immediately change articles, and no business doing social activism on Wikipedia, though admittedly the trans-crowd is falling way behind their rivals, the feminists who have dominated altering every article to have a feminist bias. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Caitlyn is more famously known by Bruce, but her name is now changed. Articles change over time, that this is not the first article to get renamed. There are literally hundreds of articles referring to Jenner as Caitlyn. She will not change her name again, this is permanent. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Her name has been legally changed. That's her name. As long as it's noted in the heading that she was formerly known as Bruce, there's zero problem here unless you're just trying to be a contrarian. 100.11.179.133 (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Caitlyn Jenner, a female did not compete in the Olympics. Nothing Bruce or anyone else does can change the fact that Bruce Jenner, a man, did. It's silly and ridiculous to say a "she" won the men's competitions that he won. If Bruce were to become blind due to illness or accident, would we speak of how a blind person competed and won? No. Time is linear, not all at once. There was a time when Bruce Jenner was a man - we can't erase that or go back in time and change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.84.74 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand gender. Jenner identified as female from an early age, she just didn't tell anyone about that until much more recently. So, all sources prior to 1 June 2015 unknowingly misgendered her. It's that simple. Skyerise (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

+1. Ironholds (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It is good to know the entire planet -1 was wrong for decades. XavierItzm (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

By your logic the Olympic medals should be stripped since the mis-gendering took place at an early age. I don't think it has to go that far. Jenner insists on separate identities. Why would the accomplishments under the name Bruce not remain as such? Let the other Jenner make her own fame. Who cares what he/she calls herself now. Leave the history books alone. Tigercadd (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Then Bruce Jenner did not understand gender either as he represented himself as a man in the Olympics and more importantly 3 times as a man on an application for a marriage license. QuintBy (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone was "more famous" as a blonde than as a brunette, we don't say "yeah, they are still notable as a blonde, so let's not refer to them as a brunette because they are commonly known as a blonde". Their name is Caitlyn. Referring to them as Bruce is simply factually inaccurate, which is generally a bad thing for an encyclopedia to be. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

To me, only natural hair color matters (with no hair dye used) so that part of the argument I don't get. I also don't see any factual inaccuracy in calling someone by their birth-name or by their maiden name, or by a nickname that is their primary identification within a community. The names are factual because they are (or were) correct and true. It may be morally wrong to refer to (s)he as Bruce Jenner, but certainly it can't be biographically wrong to call (s)he Bruce nor as Caitlyn. As a side note, just the fact that Bruce decided to use a Y instead of an I, like in the (previously primary) spelling of Caitlin. It annoys me of all the parents deciding to try and make their kids names "unique" by changing an I to a Y. It isn't unique if so many people are doing it. Yes, I'm ranting. I don't care. 71.205.142.20 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're ranting and don't care you might want to wander off, grab a cup of tea and stop editing for a few hours. Nobody cares what you or anyone else thinks about "natural hair colour"; it's factually inaccurate because this is not their primary identification. Someone's primary identification is what someone wants to be called. And you mean "she", by the way. Not "(s)he". Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It simply is factually inaccurate. If you refer to someone who has gotten married and changed their name by their old name, you are using the wrong name. The old name was applicable before their name changed. After their name changed, the old name is out-of-date. This crazy idea—that the truth value of statements changes based on the intervening change in facts about the world—really shouldn't be too controversial. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

What you are trying to argue is so incredibly unscientific it's unreal. A simple blood test will prove to anyone that Bruce Jenner is a man and always has been and always will be; that is the only thing factually accurate. This article is crap and everyone knows it; full of a false revisionist history only to suit the view of those writing it. Give it up already; you're not fooling anyone.

I'm not going to enter into a discussion about what a common name is or isn't, I'm just going to say that if someone out there has access to wikipedia (aka: has internet), they clearly are not living under a rock. Even with mainstream media only covering her name change as of the other day, without living under a rock, there's just no way the common public at large doesn't already know that Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner. So long as there's a Bruce Jenner re-direct linking to this Caitlyn Jenner article (which there is), I really don't understand why this conversation is being had???Cebr1979 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Because change and empathy are hard, basically. Ironholds (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

And some people like drama and some people, often the same people, are obsessed with perceived biases and agendas. This issue was actually quite simple and Jenner made it all the easier for us by announcing what her name is. freshacconci talk to me 15:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

But Freshacconci, if I have to accept that gender identity is a fluid and non-biological thing I might have to learn things! Surely you understand how hard it is to expect Wikipedians to learn new things! Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't the title make reference to both names? "Caitlyn (Bruce) Jenner" or "Caitlyn/Bruce Jenner"? Jenner rose to fame and lived for decades as a public figure as Bruce Jenner and it seems to me that political correctness is coming at the expense of clarity. If someone had never heard of Jenner and this was the first article they read, it would be very confusing. R5452 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Few trans-people or celebrities on wikipedia are labeled both by their chosen AND assigned names (Laverne Cox, Janet Mocl, et. al.). Even Billy Tipton's Wikipedia article should be corrected to place his birth name in the "Early Life" section, and equally Caitlyn Jenner's birth name should be in that section too, if people are adamant that it be mentioned.

I can't imagine why this should matter to us: Caitlyn was always Caitlyn and was 'assigned' a name and gender that society pressured her to maintain until she reached an age where she just didn't give a damn anymore. She's now telling us that we were wrong if we thought she was a man. If a natal woman pretended to be a man to survive, and entered the Olympics, and we found out afterward that the Olympian was a woman who 'passed' as a man, would we still have her listed in Wikipedia with the male name and gender? I doubt it. Give the woman the respect she seeks, deserves and has apparently earned. StacyOnEarth (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015

I would like to see if you can change the picture of Caitlyn Jenner to an actual picture of Caitlyn instead of Bruce as it's insulting to Caitlyn and her fans. http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/vulture/2015/06/09/09-caitlyn-jenner.w529.h529.2x.jpg i feel like this image would be more acceptable.Fknkels (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Fknkels (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC) FknKels

 Not done that image is a copyright violation - a crop of the Vanity Fair cover.
The entire Vanity Fair cover is used further down the page, under a fair use rationale, but Wikipedia cannot allow a non-free image to be used in a living persons infobox.
Please see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 4#Vanity fair photo for the full explanation. - Arjayay (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Athletics career, retrospectively

As a woman competing in male events, do those achievements still stand? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Bruce Jenner was still legally a man. If I'm not mistaken, the sex change is not retroactive.

But that prompts me to ask a question : is it really a good idea to feminize the whole article retroactively ? Of course it is normal to use "she" after the sex change, but when I read things like "She attended Sleepy Hollow High School" and especially "She went on to finish in 10th place", which regard events that took place when Caitlyn Jenner was still Bruce Jenner, I'm far from convinced. I understand the idea, but as a reader I think it just looks kind of silly. That's especially true of his/her athletics career. If we don't want to use "him", the best thing might be to stay neutral and just write "Jenner". Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what Caitlyn was "legally", it's our job to get right what she really was. And she has explained that she's always been a woman. It's the IOC or IAAF's responsibility to take action regarding her achievements, now that they're aware of her identity. Until they do so, there is nothing inaccurate about saying "she won the 1976 decathlon", "she won the 1976 Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year Award", or "She had the best long jump of any woman in the world in 1976." It's not my job to educate you, but go look at the MOS:Identity page. This is not controversial stuff and it's frankly appallingly transphobic that her athletic achievements are being belittled. It's dehumanizing.

162.235.91.193 (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan

Yes, that's a mistake many cisgendered people make. A transgender person does not simply one day choose to "change their sex". They have usually identified as the opposite gender from that assigned at birth from the moment they become conscious of the difference, usually around age 5. They choose to hide it and pretend to be their assigned gender until the lie becomes too much to maintain. It doesn't work very well anyway. Also, gender is not physical, it's in the head. So Wikipedia is completely correct and following current psychological and medical opinion when we insist that the correct gender be used throughout the article: pronouns, like clothes and restrooms are not "sexed", they are gendered. The suggestion above confuses gender and sex. We completely ignore sex because as I said, pronouns are gendered. Skyerise (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There are some seriously problematic and offensive assumptions in your post,Skyerise, though I think that your heart may be in the right place. Please educate yourself more so you can be a more effective ally. That being said, I'm glad we're on the same page. It's absurd that Caitlyn could potentially run into a Wikipedia article regarding her past accomplishments and see "Bruce" referenced. It's offensive, factually false, and potentially harmful.

162.235.91.193 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan

I don't think anyone wants to belittle Jenner's athletic achievements. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who proposes some sort of "gender-neutral" solution is belittling Caitlyn's accomplishment. Caitlyn was a woman when she won the Olympic decathlon. Caitlyn has run the fastest 400 meters of any woman, ever! Failing to acknowledge this - even tacitly - is belittling her accomplishments.

162.235.91.193 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan

And you were trolling when you wrote this comment. You have done the most trolling of any IP on this thread. Failing to acknowledge this – especially tacitly – is allowing you to spread your BS. She was not a woman then, so it's a fabrication to say that in 1976, she was a woman. Epic Genius (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Careful. Generally it's assumed that trans people have identified as trans their entire lives, even if they were not public about it. In that sense, she was a woman than even if everyone knew her as a man. This is not true of all trans people, but it's widely true and the general assumption unless the person says otherwise. (WP:Gender identity). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: So if Jenner identified as a woman at the time, then it is possible that Olympic officials could disqualify Jenner's awards. But we will have to wait and see if Jenner ever identified as a man during this time.

But my point is, this IP editor was taking an extreme point of view, so it sounded like they were trolling. Saying "Caitlyn was a woman when she won the Olympic decathlon" when she won the male decathlon is misleading, although not necessarily untrue. Epic Genius (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: AFAIK, the Olympics are more concerned with sex testing and bioloical sex than with gender identity. It's possible to be male in terms of biological sex and a woman in terms of gender identity. (I acknowledge that the use of male/female for sex and man/woman for gender is a more academic distinction, and also that some trans people dislike this language and prefer to talk about sex assignment at birth. But the point I'm trying make is that the Olympics only look at hormones, chromosomes, and genitals, not at identity. This is why intersex Olympians have such a hard time.) But the norm on Wikipedia is to try to avoid gendered terms when talking about past events that are gendered. This is done in the news as well typically. I have no objection to that and I think WP:Gender identity explains who to deal with it fairly well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: You said he Olympics are more concerned with sex testing and bioloical sex than with gender identity. Now the validity of the awards makes sense. Thanks. Epic Genius (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Uh, you don't know me, so I'll let that slide for now. Everything I said above is correct, and nowhere did I suggest using anything but Caitlyn and female pronouns, so I don't understand why you suggest that I supported that. Perhaps you confused my comment with the above editor's? Skyerise (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

162.235.91.193 wrote "it's frankly appallingly transphobic that her athletic achievements are being belittled" : I just didn't understand that comment, since as far as I know, no one (at least no me) belittled any achievement. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I certainly didn't suggest that you suggested otherwise. Like I said, I'm glad we're on the same page. Caitlyn/She is the way to go universally on this matter. The transphobia by many other members on this topic is palpable. On other pages, they are getting away with keeping things as "Bruce Jenner" and failing to appropriately list her historical accomplishments as a woman, ostensibly because that's "how she identified then." Such an excuse is flatly in conflict with WP on the topic. It's troubling that the only place where this discussion is happening is on Caitlyn's page, and not on the pages regarding her historical accomplishments. For instance, Caitlyn had the best high jump of any woman in the world in 1976, at 2.06 meters. However, that addition to the page listing top high jump performances by year is continually being reverted to a prior version, wherein another performance - a lesser one - is shown.

162.235.91.193 (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)CaitlynFan

Yup, quite palpable. And denied even where obvious. Not sure I like the use of the term "transphobia" - the individuals aren't scared. Perhaps "anti-trans bigotry" combined with lack of self-education and knowledge of gender issues. Fortunately, the many high-profile trans men and women coming out are leading to greater public knowledge of the topic. And this happens on every article just after coming out. In a month or so it will be easier to improve the article without interference from those clueless about gender. Skyerise (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Mmmmh... I don't see how it could be "transphobic" to aknowledge the fact that, whatever Jenner's inner feelings at the time, her victories as an athlete were scored by someone who was biologically male (in muscles, body mass, bone structure, etc : which is what matter in athletics). Isn't being "born in the wrong body" precisely the point of being transgendered ? If wikipedia goes as far as to deny that he/she was ever a biologically male athlete, we might attract ridicule on Jenner, which is exactly what should be avoided. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not transphobic to describe, factually, how the Olympic officials categorized Jenner – as a man, at the time. To answer the IP, if Jenner had jumped in 1976 and was scored as a woman, then yes, she would have been the highest-jumping woman, but at the time, she was biologically a man, so her jump was not the highest of all women's, because she was, for all realistic purposes, biologically a "he" back then. So, that assumption is misleading. Epic Genius (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Caitlyn Jenner did not win a gold medal as a woman in decathlon, that is absurd. Women did not participate in decathlon in the 1976 olympics. In every other case of an athlete changing their name, the record is listed under their previous name. See: Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor), Metta World Peace (Ron Artest) Tariq Abdul Wahad (Olivier Michael Saint-Jean), Mahmoud Abdul Rauf (Chris Jonhson), Domanick Williams (Domanick Davis), and the list goes on. Caitlyn Jenner was competing as a man in the 1976 Olympics, and thus did not break or set any records for women. The claim is ridiculous.104.254.95.106 (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Um, Jenner wasn't a women when she won these awards, so yes, these awards and achievements still stand. Epic Genius (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • She was a woman in her own spectrum but that is irrelevant, she was cleared and competed as a male. Missruption (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
    • But she was not known as "she" back then. She was "he" then. Today, it is okay to refer to her as a woman, but if I was posting this in 1976, then I would have gotten some stares for calling her a woman. Epic Genius (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
      • You might have gotten some stares back then, but she was still a woman then: It's not that trans people suddenly gain a different gender identity when they came out: Most of us see that as ALWAYS having been an aspect of self. I seriously wish people would actually, like, try to learn about transgender people when trying to argue policy about us? Every time these kinds of discussions happens, it feels like it's always a bunch of people feeling around in the dark when they REALLY don't know what they are talking about. Cam94509 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Excuse me, I am not transgender and so I did not understand that. BUT, maybe Jenner could have competed in 1976 as a woman. Sex reassignment surgery has been available for a long time, I think since before WW2, but maybe Jenner did not wish to get that surgery back then. Epic Genius (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
          • What? Have you read Jenner's description of their gender dysphoria in the article you're discussing? It makes clear that she was dysphoric from a young age. Ironholds (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Indeed, she did have gender identity disorder from a young age, but not until now, at age 65, did she undergo surgery. I'm not contesting anything, just pointing out that she could've competed as a woman back then. – Epic Genius (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Don't mind me, got lost in the thread, misread the context. I'm a little confused by how it was argued, but still, I was just confused by context. Cam94509 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
        • @Cam94509: Also, I am not arguing policy. I am arguing whether the achievements are valid. I say these medals have been rightfully earned. What say you? It sounds like you are arguing that they are invalid, because she was female back then. Epic Genius (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
          • My bad, it's really easy to get lost in these threads, and I'm a little on edge because of the number of times I've heard her called "he" in these kinds of threads. Of course she earned those medals legitimately. Sorry for the confusion. Cam94509 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Its not you. This is what I consider the heights of ridiculousness this argument has taken in the outside world. A lot of transgender advocates have signed a petition (I'm blocked from including the link) asking that Jenner be disqualified from the Olympics because she has always been a woman. That is what the IOC is reacting to. Trackinfo (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• All the achievements stand. Missruption (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • http://www.olympic.org/content/results-and-medalists/gamesandsportsummary/?sport=32588&games=1976%2F1&event=32533 for your consideration. Look at the bottom. TEchnically Caitlyn Jenner was never entered into the women's events. Bruce Jenner was entered though and won. They accepted a medal awarded to BRUCE Jenner, not Caitlyn Jenner. These are events that happened. There's no real discussion about this, they knowingly accepted an award for the Men's Decathlon given to Bruce Jenner. What they did later in life did not change the medal recipient to Caitlyn Jenner. Their name change does not retroactively change who the award was given to. The same person who is now Caitlyn Jenner may have accepted it, but the award was given to Bruce Jenner. This is precedent via other athletes who have changed their name. It doesn't change who the committee awarded the medal/title to. Also you are unable to set Women's records while competing in a Men's event. You can only set Men's records competing in Men's events regardless of gender. Their record would only be eligible if they were competing in the women's event at the time, but these were all done competing in the Men's event. Name Changes/GEnder are irrelevant. If Bruce jenner happened to be a genderless alien from Omicron Persei 8, they'd still be named Bruce Jenner when they wone the 1976 olympic gold and only able to set men's records via the events they competed in.65.29.77.61 (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

....Are people genuinely questioning whether a MAN competed in MEN's events? It's not like he's going to compete now but come on. Ladysif (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

On decathlon during the Cold war

The article states that 'Jenner became "an American hero" by winning an event long dominated by Soviet Union athletes during the Cold War.' Actually, decathlon was an event dominated by the US. 90.194.196.82 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

To some people that is a hero. It if it is cited and referenced it doesn't matter.--88.104.141.16 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is not Jenner being or not an hero, as he was. The point is that the article states that decathlon was an event dominated by USSR - and it's false, as it actually was an event largely dominated by the Americans, at least at the Olympics, and it's not even in the article in the reference (it just says he was an hero during the Cold War for his sports merits). 90.194.196.82 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Not only was that assertion unsourced, but as you indicated, looking back at previous Olympic decathalons, it appears that the Soviets did not dominate; in fact, the U.S. had far more decathalon medals than the Soviets from the beginning of the Cold War until Jenner won. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Not that it matters now that the change has been made, but to underline the point, Jenner broke her own world record in winning in Montreal. What may make the original comment a bit more accurate would have been to say that the previous world record holder and Olympic champion from Munich - the Soviet athlete Mykola Avilov - was soundly beaten by Jenner, ending up third in 1976. (Jenner first set the WR in 1975, breaking Avilov's mark, she followed in 1976 with another record, finally setting a third WR in winning gold.) Text along that line appears a bit later in the article, though the fact that she beat the reigning Olympic champion and that that person was Mykola Avilov is not mentioned. Those are the bare facts, though I recognize it would be OR to insert this as is without a source. Canada Jack (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there are definitely some OR problems if we were to say that she became an "American hero" because she beat the former world record holder / Olympic champion. Not only would it be OR, I don't even know if that'd be accurate. I'd say it's fine the way it is now, especially for the lede, where ultra-detailed information isn't really necessary. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The lede was definitely a mischaracterization of the content later in the article, which I wrote years ago. Statistically, previous to 1972 the USA had won 8 of the previous 11 competitions, 7 of the previous 8. By the way, other than Bob Mathias, nobody else has repeated for the title (Ashton Eaton hopes to do that in 2016, of course), so it is not reasonable to have expected Avilov to have retained the title. Aviv's personal defeat vs Jenner is not significant. The meeting of the two a few years ago, where an aging Avilov is noticeably in far poorer condition than Jenner is probably more deserving of comment here, maybe with the two mentions tied together, but I digress. It was simply that Jenner, an American, had won "back" the title which was in the hands of the Cold War hated Soviets and made Jenner a very public, national hero. That is the background explaining why. Calling Jenner a national hero is certainly not OR, we have the quote, Wheaties, meeting the President etc etc sourced to back it up. Trackinfo (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Right; calling her a national hero for winning the event isn't OR. I meant that saying she was a national hero because of a reason more specific than simply her winning the event would be OR. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I've adjusted it per the considerations mentioned. The main point is still that she won the event which, at the time, was long dominated by the Soviets, and did so during the Cold War making her an American hero. Missruption (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Missruption, where are you seeing a source that says it was long dominated by the Soviets or even dominated by the Soviets in the 1970s? The Soviets placed 1st and 2nd in the 1972 Olympics, and the Americans placed 4th. Is there a source that you have that says otherwise? If not, it's OR and needs to be removed. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Missruption: You have it backwards. The Soviets won it once. Americans felt insulted that they had lost the Decathlon (along with basketball and the 100 metres among others) to their perceived enemy in 1972. In Olympic terms however, a one off victory is not a trend or domination. 1972 was Avilov's one year at the top and was not replaced by another Soviet but by Lennart Hedmark a Swede the following year.. And as indicated above, Jenner behind the world record was a known force, the presumed favorite going in. It was no fluke. After the exceptional first day, it was too easy. Trackinfo (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Track: By the way, other than Bob Mathias, nobody else has repeated for the title (Ashton Eaton hopes to do that in 2016, of course.) You forgot Daley Thompson. Canada Jack (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, I was looking backward. Trackinfo (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I still think the current wording violates WP:OR, or more specifically WP:SYNTH. Where is the source that he was called an "American hero" because he won the title back from the Soviets as opposed to simply because he beat the Soviets? If we do not have a source that says it was the former, then we cannot put it in there. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Lets start here.

With an infectious smile, Atlas-like physique, shaggy hair, charming personality and ability to slay his Soviet foe in the midst of the Cold War, Jenner became a real-life superhero at the Montreal 1976 Olympic Games — arguably the first U.S. Olympic icon of the modern TV era.

I'll keep looking for older sources but Google is bombed by current articles. Trackinfo (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I have it that backwards. When the olympics are being aired it's very country-specific and the scope is often limited the the last four-eight years. So even if reality is that the US dominated the sport a reporter's scope may be limited to seeing how the event was dominated in the last handful of years. By the way that wording came from our article so I was not committing original research although someone may have been. I found a quote [2]:

Olympic decathlons first rose to prominence in America when Bruce Jenner competed in the 1976 games in Montreal. He became an American hero by setting the decathlon world record and taking gold back from the Soviets.

Missruption (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember Jim Thorpe, Bob Mathias or Rafer Johnson. Even Glenn Morris played Tarzan in the movies based on his decathlon Olympic fame. The point being, don't bring recentism into the argument. Trackinfo (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any problem with (citing the sources above) just saying "Jenner became an American hero after beating [Soviet competitor's name] at [event]"? That avoids discussion of whether Jenner won the gold "back" from the Soviets, or whether the event had been "dominated" by one side or another. (Alternatively, the wording that's in the article now looks OK.) In any case, good catch 90.194.196.82 (that the event was not "dominated by the Soviets"). -sche (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

That was not the point. As specified above, Jenner was the favorite going in and performed even above expectations. The competition was only dramatic to see if Jenner would improve upon the world record and by how much. Head to head was nothing. It is the underlying story, that during the Cold War, Soviets had won several medals in Munich 1972 that insulted American pride. Jenner won one of them back in a big way and that made Jenner an even bigger hero above the other 30 some odd gold medalists (even multi gold medalists). I hope we do not need to go into detail about how jingoistic USA is about winning in the Olympics (particularly about certain prestigious medals, including the decathlon), but essentially Jenner was the personification of that. Trackinfo (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

To this day, most Americans don't know what a decathlon is or how it works. But they do understand being called the "World's Greatest Athlete" or the World's greatest anything. A typical American decathlon competition, including the current world record holder, might have up to 30 competitors, about half that many coaches and volunteers, a handful of officials and at most a couple dozen fans, mostly family members. Outside of the Olympics (and qualifying), the sport is nothing to the American public and has always been. Trackinfo (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

With all the wacky indenting that's going on here, it's a bit hard to put this as a reply, but with the Bleacher Report source now added, the WP:OR problems have been resolved. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Why the picture change from when she still identified as a male to another picture from this time period?
I think this is absurd transphobic behaviour that I wouldn't expect from Wikipedia, can someone please mention that she used to be called Bruce when the picture was taken or remove it please?
Feel so disgusted that transphobes run this Wiki now.--88.104.141.16 (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Because there is no non-free image that can be used in the infobox, and there is no consensus to remove the image. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Tone it down IP. Once a more recent free image is available, it will be used. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeez. No wonder there is so much emphasis on MOS:IDENTITY. If you don't get everything right, you've hurt somebodies feelings and ergo all of us are transphobic. I thought Jenner was always Caitlyn? What does the image have to do with anything? That is the same person! Is there a term called deadphotoing now? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we just mention that she used to be called Bruce when the photo was taken to help prevent people being confused?--88.104.141.16 (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

IP, for a better understanding of the image matter, see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner/Archive 4#Vanity fair photo. There is also a FAQ at the top of this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offended any of you, but I think you mistook my point. I don't have a problem with photo being used. I just think that is should mentioned that she used to identify as Bruce at the time of the picture.--88.104.132.159 (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you had a problem with the image. After that, you wanted the image caption tweaked. I decided to respond to the original concern. Others can take care of the image caption. Flyer22 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we get a photo up of the 1976 decathalon? This is the still the foremost reason this person merits the page. Admittedly, switching your gender and being on the Kardashian show is also a big deal, but not *quite* as remarkable as winning the 1976 decathalon. Let's see a photo of the athlete too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.51.74.96 (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Legal Name?

Has Jenner had his name legally changed yet? Either way, there should probably be a note of it in the article. --24.131.200.84 (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

her name... and not sure. Not sure it's notable anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In the U.S. generally, and particularly in California, where Jenner resides, there is a distinction between a legal name and the official registration of a legal name. See Name change#United States; a person can change their legal name simply by starting to use a different name. Someone can change their name "by usage alone, with no paperwork", as that article says. So Jenner's legal name is probably Caitlyn Jenner now, regardless of whether any paperwork has been filed to officially register that. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It's speculative at best, but ultimately unnecessary. As soon as she went public under her new name, this is all we should be concerned with. I'm not sure even a legal name change through the courts can be mentioned unless there is a reliable secondary source for that, per WP:BLP — I assume BLP does not allow for primary documents like a court certificate of name change, as that would be too "raw", so to speak. Laval (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree (except perhaps about a court certificate not being an acceptable reference). But I'd also like to mention another sentence I just spotted in the Name change article, since it seems so directly relevant here – the article says "In California the 'usage method' (changing the name at will under common law) is sufficient to change the name." —BarrelProof (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2015

Replace the existing Caitlyn Jenner photo with the official debut of Caitlyn Jenner on the cover of the July issue of a Vanity Fair Magazine Kyleflorence (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kyleflorence:  Unlikely — the current image is licensed under a Creative Commons license. Magazine cover images are typically copyrighted, and Wikipedia policy is to only use non-free images when there is no alternative. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 05:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

See also -sche's response above on this subject. Barte (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox picture, redux

I cannot believe that Caitlyn's most recent picture in the infobox is one that misgenders her! Since when was Wikipedia run by transphobic communists!? I will be the brave one to stand up and SCREAM and DEMAND that things change! I DEMAND that the infobox picture changes from that misgendered and completely conservative-agenda fueled image to one that best represents Caitlyn. There are SO any pictures of Caitlyn out there to use, why the hell is that image there!?

USE THE FOLLOWING: http://cdn.papermag.com/uploaded_images/caitlyn.jpg http://www.etonline.com/media/video/2015/06/24157451/jenner_300_061115.jpg https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-new-pic-bruce-lead-2.jpg?w=600

FIX THIS MESS IMMEDIATELY! I feel faint and ill knowing that so many transphobic monsters operate this page. No wonder the page is SUCH A MESS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.80.135 (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

As indicated in the FAQ at the top of this page, we (Wikipedia editors) are on the lookout for recent pictures which are licensed in such a way that we can legally use them. The pictures you link to are not licensed for free reuse, and Wikipedia would get into legal trouble if it used them. "Per WP:NFCC, copyrighted images may only be used at Wikipedia where the text of the article discusses the image itself. The magazine cover [for example] is only appropriate directly next to the text in this article where the magazine cover itself is discussed. As a general illustration for the infobox, where there is no accompanying text, we cannot include the image in that way." -sche (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

IP, see the #Picture section above. Even if we had an infobox image of Jenner where she is presenting as a woman and included an image of how she used to look (for example, an image of her competing at the decathlon) lower in the article, it would not mean that we are misgendering her and/or being otherwise transphobic. People are too quick to throw the term transphobic around, even in cases of people who are simply confused about transgender matters and have no hatred, fear, or feelings of disgust toward transgender people. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia; this is not the place for advocacy; see WP:Advocacy. Flyer22 (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

See, for example, the image in this section; we have not retained that image to try to hurt Jenner or other transgender people. It is there because it aids the text and this is an encyclopedia. I'm sure that Jenner knows that her male appearance will always be available to the public, and is not trying to hide that part of her past. Flyer22 (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and this image you linked to is inappropriate in every way to represent Jenner since it is a photoshopped image of Jenner's face/hair on top of Kim Kardashian's body. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

186.45.80.135 On a personal view I think that Wikipedia should be as opposed to transphobic fascists and transphobic anyone else as it is opposed to transphobic communists. When dealing with one issue of prejudice please do not cloud issues by adding another. GregKaye 07:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Propose writing a note to the effect of: "Wikipedia editors are currently seeking a recent licence free image of Caitlyn Jenner" underneath the Olympics image. Something like this might encourage a reader with connections to upload a personal or otherwise accessible image. If appropriate, perhaps similar message could be placed under similarly inappropriate images of other trans women.

External image
Friel in February 2013

Up until recently the Anna Friel article presented content as shown on the right:

Perhaps the Caitlin and other trans women articles might do something similar. In the mean time, and depending on any view that Caitlyn may have presented in regard to ways in which she may want to be presented, it may be appropriate to delete the olympics image or move it to a historically relevant point in the text. GregKaye 08:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The continued description of that picture of being an "inappropriate" image is merely reinforcing gender stereotypes. There is nothing inherently inappropriate about the use of that image simply because some editors perceive the image to portray Jenner as male gendered in that photo. There simply is no consensus to remove the image, and people should stop talking about the image of Jenner being anything more than that—Jenner. People who keep talking about that photo "misgendering" Jenner are simply inputting their own opinions that Jenner does not look feminine enough in that photo, and that's not really up to them to decide. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I rather think the IP may not have been entirely serious in intent. In any case, a photo circa the 1976 Olympics would better reflect the reason for Jenner's notability, surely? (I know... it's not easy to find a free one of those, either.) --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Inks.LWC When I said "inappropriate" perhaps I should have said something along the lines of non-representative in relation to current image. Even assuming that the gender reassignment was not partly motivated by pursuit of notoriety (a fairly pursued and effectively pursued goal for many people in the public eye) the result is that she seems to regularly present herself in ways that are widely regarded as feminine. Caitlyn is has now very notably gone through a Transitioning (transgender) process and, regardless of potential questions as to when current conceptions of gender identity may have originated or developed in Caitlyn's worldview, Caitlyn is now, it seems to me notable, for having gone through transition. The picture is of a time when s/he ("Jenner at the London Olympics") self-presented as "Bruce Jenner" at a time we take at face value with self identification as a woman. She has made a very notable change in regard to transition not least in regard to name and image and the article's main photo does not reflect this and I am quite doubtful, though not certain, that the currently present picture is representative of who Caitlyn Jenner is. GregKaye 09:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It is still the same person, probably during transition. The past is a part of her. Afterwards there was a facial surgery, but unless there is an image with creative commons we can't update it, and i don't understand why you want to have all the search engine links there. Everybody knows her today by the Vanity cover anyway. prokaryotes (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)