Talk:Isla Bryson case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many names

I'm not sure how many editors were aware, but upon researching the situation, Bryson went under many names. To the first rape victim in 2016, Bryson was known as Adam Graham. To the second victim in 2019, Bryson was known as DJ Blade. To Bryson's wife and Bryson's mother, Bryson was known as Adam Bryson. To Bryson's classmate at Ayrshire College in 2021, Bryson was known as Annie. After reviewing all of this, it is clear to me that a strict adherence to MOS:GENDERID was not a good fit for this article. Perhaps the opposition to including the former name hindered the research into all of these? Just a guess, may be wrong. In fact, the consensus above got it absolutely right since this person had so many names that just including "Adam Graham" in the lede wouldn't be good enough, all the other names should be left in the body. starship.paint (exalt) 14:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I was aware of the name she used at Ayrshire College because I came across that when I wrote the original article. Then all reference to other names was removed citing the WP:GENDERID policy, although I agree it wasn't a good fit in this particular case. Good work on the article btw. This is Paul (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edit

@LokiTheLiar reverted my edit which stated that "while a man" is more justified language than while "presenting as a man" for two major reasons:

Again, to repeat: none of the references - all 43 - in this article use the phrase "presenting as a man" in any way.

I may also add that WP:GENDERID under "Retroactivity" indeed acknowledges that the term "presentation" is disputed; some describe transitioning as a sort-of "reveal" of gender, whereas others describe it as a change:

  • "A person coming out as trans is usually not making a change in their gender (though they often make a change in their presentation); instead, they are revealing their gender (gender identity). Coming out as e.g. a trans man is often best understood as saying "I am a man and have always been a man." However, some trans people do not subscribe to this model of lifelong gender, and may instead understand themselves as having previously been female, and now having become male, or having been some combination of both."

The fact that these guidelines are so ambiguous, combined with absolute unanimity of the absence of the term "presenting" in any of the sources, drives me to conclude that the phrase "presenting as" should not be used; rather "as a man", because it is clearly and abundantly sourced.

Zilch-nada (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase. I see no ambiguity of MOS:GENDERID or WP:GENDERID: it instructs us to ignore reliable sources that use gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification. Moreover, the phrase is redundant to "prior to Bryson's gender transition" (in combination with the previous description of Bryson as a "transgender woman"). It's BLP inappropriate and a better phrasing of the same information was literally present in the same sentence.
The instances of the same phrase in the body are also redundant to the surrounding passages, which bookend with "assigned male at birth" and "began the process of gender transition" which events happened before and after Bryson began publicly identifying as a woman. — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Don't you think that - considering it is abundantly, and I mean abundantly considered in news media - the fact that this person was previously a man, is important? The controversy surrounding this case is that there is someone who raped a woman whilst a man, and then changed gender: that is the very reason why this is a notable topic. I.e., it isn't per se important that this "person" is transgender, but specifically that they were previously a man: that is more important. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
While we have to follow the facts reliable sources publish we do not have to use the exact same language or phraseology they do. Saying that Bryson was convicted for crimes committed before she transitioned is enough, as it carries the same meaning. The UK media being sensationalistic in their coverage of Bryson, by hammering that particular phrase wherever they could, is not a convincing reason for why we should also be sensationalistic in our article about her. Bilorv is right that what was removed was utterly redundant to the rest of the content in those sections. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Hold on: do you describe the phrasing "when she was a man" as "sensationalistic"? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Like I said above: this story is important because it is a person who was born as a man, who raped, and was considered for a womens' prison. To mention this person's previous gender is not even remotely sensationalistic. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the phrasing "when she was a man" is overly sensationalistic, completely redundant, and altogether not necessary. Simply stating that Bryson is a trans woman, and that she was convicted of crimes committed prior to transitioning conveys exactly the same meaning, in a much more neutral and succinct manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
"When she was a man" is sensationalistic. That is seriously an absurd statement. Various sources, including very reputable ones like the BBC, have used this language. If all sources - respected news sources - employ such language, then I'm afraid you have to really reconsider what you just said.
"Following Bryson's conviction, Police Scotland confirmed she had been arrested and charged as a man, and that her crimes would therefore be recorded as having been committed by a man"
SIMPLE QUESTION: The crimes were committed by a man. Isla Bryson is a trans woman. Was that - or was that not - a different person? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Various sources, including very reputable ones like the BBC, have used this language. Yes, and the UK media's coverage of trans and non-binary people and related issues have been widely criticised for years, both within academia and internationally. Saying the UK media is sensationalistic in their coverage of trans issues is not controversial.
I fail to see the relevance of your "simple question", as there is no question that Bryson was convicted of rape, for crimes that were committed prior to her transition. The article quite clearly states that, without bias or sensationalism. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
So you clearly answer "no" to my question, right? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
It is neither a no or a yes. I do not see the relevance of your "simple question", so I am declining to answer it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Why it is relevant: Was Isla Bryson previously a man? That is the question here. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
"Widely criticised for years": This is a British topic, an article covered entirely by sources in the British press. Include foreign sources if you want to. But to accept British sources - as we are doing as this article probably wouldn't exist otherwise - and only nit-pick parts of it you think are relevant, even if more supposedly controversial language is used, is outright uncalled for. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Accepting British sources does not mean we have to accept the exact terminology and phraseology they use. Again, we are beholden to the facts our sources report, but not the words in which they use to report them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
In accepting British sources, which we have done, we most focus on language that is repeatedly used, not just random or "exact terminology". There is a vast trend in using the terminology similar to "when she was a man". Zilch-nada (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
we most focus on language that is repeatedly used No, we really don't. Policy requires that we write content in our own words. This is not a topic where there is only one specific way to convey the exact meaning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
We employ terminology that is generally used: perhaps that's what I'm getting at. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
In fact, it's not even individual terms per se that we are debating over. It is the logic - that this person was previously a man - that is universally sourced in the sources above, but rejected here. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that that logic is "sensationalistic." If the press continuously employ a general logic or syntax in their reporting, then, if anything, describing the logic that the press employs is even more important than individual terms. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
None of the facts pertinent to understanding this case are rejected. As I said in my reply below, all of the relevant facts relating to Bryson's conviction and personal circumstances are clearly and succinctly stated, using terminology that is appropriate for this topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
You don't think the fact that this person committed the crime while a man is relevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
As I've said a few times now, we clearly and succinctly state that the crimes Bryson was convicted for were committed prior to her transition. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Please answer the question; I'm not trying to be facetious here. Do you think the fact that this person committed the crime while a man is relevant? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
As I've said a few times now, I do not see the relevance of this question, so I am declining to answer it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
How on Earth is this contention not relevant when you are deviating from the language used abundantly by sources above? It absolutely is relevant. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Let me give you an example from a somewhat related topic. Pro-life is terminology overwhelmingly used by the anti-abortion movement, even within some sources, however our article refers to them as the anti-abortion movement. Conversely, pro-choice is the terminology overwhelmingly used by the abortion-rights movement, even within some sources, but again our article refers to them as the abortion-rights movement. If we were to use either pro-life or pro-choice terminology in our articles, then we would no longer be following WP:NPOV, as we would be engaging in a dispute, not describing one.
Coming back to the context of this article, the terminology that we're using (trans woman, assigned male at birth) are standard, neutral terms when writing articles within this broader topic. It is also language that is recommended by many highly regarded and relevant styleguides, such as the current edition of The AP Stylebook. Conversely, language choices like "while a man" or "born a woman" are not neutral terms, and are even explicitly recommended to be avoided by the same styleguides. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
You're still not addressing our fundamental disagreement. Like I said, it is not a disagreement about individual terms, but logic and the syntax of the news reported. That is a really pathetic comparison to "pro-life" movements. Absurd. The police report describes the culprit as a male when the crime was committed. Every source I have provided above refers to this person's previous status.
I put emphasis on "refers" because what is referred to in general is this person's previous status as a man; that status is a referent, not a term, and this person's status as a man is reported universally throughout the news sources. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
By the way, I must add. I am not concerned at all about Bryson's current gender is. I find it appalling that there is an effort on this article to purge any reference to Bryson's previous gender; they committed the crime as a man. The fact that you describe that as sensationalistic is utterly appalling. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I strongly urge you to read the article in full. There is no "effort on this article to purge any reference to Bryson's previous gender". We clearly and succinctly state that Bryson is a trans woman, that she was assigned male at birth. We state her former name. And we state that she was convicted of crimes that were committed prior to her transition. We do so using terminology that is appropriate for this topic, in a neutral manner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
That's hard to say without asking her, and/or deep metaphysical knowledge about the nature of gender. Loki (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
"Without asking her"
Do you people even know that we are talking about a rapist here? The sheer amount of respect: "asking her" - what a deeply insulting thing to say. Police reports describe the crime as being committed by a man. Should we not consider the police's or media's word at all, only "asking" a rapist? Are you serious?
I again must address that I do not consider the person presently to be a man. We are talking about previous status. This article previously read "presenting as a male" and refers to "assigned male at birth" but deliberately omits any semantics similar to "while a man" mentioned by press and police. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Articles about rapists are still BLPs. And I second everything Sideswipe said about the British press being sensationalized, especially about trans women. Loki (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not just the press, but the police, the prisons, and the courts. Are they wrong too? Zilch-nada (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
You are no-doubt sceptical of British reporting on trans issues. Why does this article exist then? It contains solely British sources about a trans topic. Are they therefore not reliable? Or only unreliable in places where you find it unreliable, including the wordings of the police? Because this nit-picking is getting extremely out-of-hand. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Not all British sources are equally unreliable on trans issues, but to be honest, if I was the only voter at WP:RSP I don't know if this article would have sufficient sourcing to exist. I think most of the coverage of Isla Bryson is itself sensationalism and that without that sensationalism I doubt she would be notable. Loki (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
"without that sensationalism I doubt she would be notable": it's a pretty sensational story. A man rapes a woman, transitions to female, and is considered for a woman's prison. I don't see how you couldn't see that as controversial. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Similar things happen in the US all the time and they don't make national news. Loki (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Example? Zilch-nada (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
It's hard to give specific examples because examples of specific people really don't hit the news at all, but there's several jurisdictions in the US that have housed trans prisoners as their post-transition gender for over a decade now.
The first one I could find articles on is Cook County, i.e. Chicago. But at least according to Lambda Legal, Denver and Washington, DC also do this, among others. Loki (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Specifically for rape though; that is an importantly specific crime. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Are you aware that this person "decided to transition while awaiting trial for rape"? Are all transitions equal, or is this one to play the system, as Nicola Sturgeon has accused Bryson of "faking" it.? I think it's an obnoxious suggestion that all transitions are equally valid - and I do support transitioning - but that is a question for MOS as well. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID definitely doesn't have an exception for allegedly insincere transitions. We've sometimes ignored occasional cases of clear trolling by WP:IAR, but I'd strongly oppose that in this case, as Bryson has remained on hormones after she's clearly been denied transfer to a woman's prison, which is not something one would normally expect from someone who's transitioning insincerely.
Furthermore, the sources clearly don't support that. "When she was a man" is pure semantics, but the fact that she's not a man now is a fact supported all the sources, no matter what Nicola Sturgeon's opinion is. Loki (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
"doesn't have an exception for allegedly insincere transitions": So is there such a thing as an insincere transition? The transition occurred while on trial. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
There's definitely the occasional right-wing troll who says they use she/her pronouns for a laugh.
I seriously doubt there are cis men who would voluntarily take and stay on HRT for any significant length of time even given huge material incentives for doing so. HRT taken over long periods of time causes permanent changes in your body that would be extremely uncomfortable to a cis person. You'd find about as many people who would willingly cut off a limb. Loki (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you just implied that there would never be a cis man who would ever buy into the "huge material incentives for doing [HRT]"; that's quite a contradictory statement: "huge incentives, but I seriously doubt it would ever happen." This is getting quite off-topic. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Theoretically there could be a political incentive for someone to transition dishonestly, as such a case would have obvious propaganda potential for the anti-gender movement. Such an incentive may also have the potential for financial rewards.
In practice though, the effects of cross-sex feminising or masculinising hormone therapy on a cisgender individual would likely be akin to giving a cisgender person gender dysphoria. I say likely because to my knowledge no research has ever been done on this, as it would be completely unethical. The physical effects of HRT (ie development of secondary sex characteristics) start pretty quickly, as do the mental effects of changing which sex hormone is dominant in your body. As a result it would be very unlikely for a cisgender person to remain on such a HRT regimen for any prolonged period of time.
Conversely this is the reason why the rate of regret related detransitions is so low, typically 0.3-4% depending on study methodology. Once a trans person starts an appropriate HRT regimen and becomes stable after titration, they are generally happy with the results. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
We are not in disagreement here, only off-topic. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
"When she was a man" is indeed pure semantics; such semantics is clearly and abundantly sourced, yet ignored by members of this discussion. "that she's not a man now": I did not dispute that, as the sources refer to as "she" Zilch-nada (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
As WP:OUROWNWORDS says clearly, we don't source wording. There is no way to source a particular phrasing, only particular facts.
And I'm not sure why we're talking about insincere transitions if you weren't trying to insinuate she was a man. Loki (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
"we don't source wording. There is no way to source a particular phrasing, only particular facts."
Huh? I said "semantics" which is sourced. The logic of this person previously being a man - not any particular wording - is eschewed. That's what I have continuously referred to.
"insincere transitions" - I agree that discussion of this is getting somewhat off-topic. The topic is still: whether or not to employ the semantics of the criminal previously being a man. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
That Bryson started transitioning while awaiting trial is not really that important to us, beyond documenting it within the same level of detail as reliable sources do. It's not our job to second guess nor speculate upon the circumstances of any article subject. We're not here to pass judgement on our article subjects. Our role is merely to document in a neutral manner. To paraphrase William Lenthall, "Wikipedia has neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, but as reliable sources are pleased to direct us".
As for whether or not GENDERID needs guidance surrounding insincere transitions, I would say no. Right-wing trolling (eg Tucker Carlson) aside, it is theoretically possible that someone might transition for insincere reasons, but I'm not sure that has ever convincingly been documented in reliable sources. I certainly can't think of a case off-hand where it's happened. There's an American legal maxim hard cases make bad law that would seem to apply here. Unless and until it does happen, I don't think we need to worry about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree: if reliable sources describe it as insincere transitions, we should include it. I am not suggesting that the Bryson case is a case of insincerity; I am only considering the possibility of insincerity. There's clearly a possibility. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Beyond Nicola Sturgeon's commentary, which we include in the article, it's really inappropriate for us to speculate on an article subject's personal circumstances. If something in relation to Bryson's transition changes, and it is covered by reliable sources, we will likely add it. But unless and until that happens, we should not speculate on it even being a possibility. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
"instructs us to ignore reliable sources that use gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification"
It is more ambiguous than you make it to be here. Firstly, is describing someone as "previously a man", an example of "gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification"? If yes, then is "while previously presenting as a man" an example? Because considering this person's past as a man - whether a "presentation" or not, etc. - is absolutely important, and it is an example of considering a "previous" gender, i.e., "words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification" regardless.
I.e. any consideration of this person's previous gender is itself an example of "gendered words that do not match a person's most recent self-identification". That is an absurd omission. Zilch-nada (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I have raised the question, as it relates to style, at the MOS. I don’t know if that will help here, or just suck in more people to waste time bickering.
I think @Bilorv’s solution (avoid either linguistic attitude) is a fine one for now. That sources consistently use similar language is a fine point in support of such an attitude, but I think the disagreement is coming from the fact that we need a good reason to include it too; it’s not enough to just blindly follow the language of the sources. (Especially when the present middle-path works well enough.) The substantive point—that the reader is helped along by our pointing out Bryson’s gender at various points in the timeline—is weak enough that honestly I think it really just isn’t worth the continued arguing at this point.
@Zilch-nada, if someone vehemently opposes the language of “when X was a man”, then you can take it as given that she just doesn’t believe X was previously a man; clearly no amount of badgering is going to solve your fundamental disagreement here. — HTGS (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Just one point: it is not the language of "when X was a man" that I am concerned about. It is the syntax. Any reference to this person's previous status as male - which is clearly different logic from "presenting" as male - is continuously omitted from the article, even though such status is referred to in above sources. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I think you mean semantics, not syntax, but either way you’re splitting hairs here; it’s all one thing. (I say “linguistic attitude” because I mean the words as well as the meaning behind the words.) — HTGS (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
That's what I meant, yes. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of Bryson's case beyond what this article says and no interest in defending rapists. It is a matter of consistency and style guide that we refer to people with gendered words that match their latest self-identification. As analogy, however despicable a person is, we would never describe them with "it"; we don't describe a person who identifies as a woman as having "used to be a man". This language is factually wrong, not correctly describing the experiences of transgender people.
Bryson describes knowing of being a woman at the age of four, so it is an unverifiable assertion that Bryson is lying. (We can describe who has said Bryson is lying with attribution in prose, yes.)
That mainstream media are systematically and consistently wrong is not new to us—for instance, mainstream media are generally not reliable for medical information (WP:MEDPOP). — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
The police stated that the crime was committed by a man. The person who committed the crime was Bryson. Are or are they not the same person? Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. You people are unbelievable. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

'sex at birth'

This is an incredibly awkward phrase and is unnecessary. Sex and gender are considered distinct, thus it would be fine to simply state 'sex'. Sex at birth has implications that are not intended. The BBC source does use this phrasing but it is still awkward wording that should be avoided. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This very subject has just been discussed at the admins' noticeboard. A misunderstanding between me and another IP (formerly 151.124.107.114, now editing as Meekaboo111) got in the way at first, and that has been resolved, but they and I still have a content dispute over the use of "sex at birth" versus simply "sex". We have both said we would discuss this here at a later time. I don't want to jump the gun on restarting the discussion just yet, as I am still tired (and presumably so is Meekaboo) from the mess I accidentally threw Meekaboo and myself into. Pinging @Meekaboo111: to let them know the discussion has restarted anyways.
Regarding which wording is used in the source, we should be mindful of the WP:OUROWNWORDS policy (EDIT: this WP:OUROWNWORDS essay, sorry I misspoke), as brought up in the "Reverted edit" discussion above. Wikipedia should not be expected to follow the wording or style of a given source, or even the sources at large, simply because we are getting our facts verified from that source. As I have said at the noticeboard (see there for details), my position is that "sex at birth", while redundant, is the least bad wording suggested so far, because reducing redundancy risks misleading people who don't know sex and gender are different. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd prefer 'biological sex' to 'sex at birth'. Both imply things that aren't true but one is less egregious than the other. I still am in favour of simply 'sex', and if we really think readers may not understand the difference we can always wikilink to sex. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
That still reads, to me at least, as being too superficially similar to the transphobic slogans I mentioned at the noticeboard. "Sex at birth" has the advantage of being a stock phrase (it already has some common currency) that unambiguously identifies we are talking about sex and not gender.
Wikilinking to "sex" will only solve the issue if people are reading on Wikipedia itself and not somewhere else reusing Wikipedia content, where the wikilink might not even be there. And that's assuming that people will even hover over the wikilink, see that it mentions a distinction between sex and gender, and click to read more and learn the difference, before returning to this article. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Sex at birth may imply that one's sex can change, it may also imply that if a man were to be sexed as a woman as a neonate due to ambiguous genitalia that he would be sent to a women's prison. That is far more unnecessary confusion than some slogan might bring about.
I don't think what a mirror hosts has ever been a concern for what Wikipedia should do - the same can apply to notes and references. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Fair point regarding change. I should be clear that my point at the noticeboard was that transphobes sometimes use the true statement of "sex is immutable" as a dog whistle for "and so is gender", so again it isn't the wording in and of itself, but more the way some people might misread it as an endorsement of the idea that gender cannot change. If "sex at birth" leads people to think that sex (as opposed to gender) can be changed, then we are leading people to a different misreading. That would in my view still be less bad than the misreading as "gender is immutable", but it still isn't perfect. Any way we say it, things might be misunderstood, and our job isn't to find the perfect wording (because it probably doesn't exist), but the best or least bad wording.
As for the ambiguous genitalia part (and assuming I understand your point correctly, which I am not entirely sure I am): I think this is a topic where even people who don't distinguish between sex and gender will know that things are complicated, and that a male person being AFAB (or vice versa) will raise societal questions of which prison to put them in if they commit a crime, as happened with Bryson. A person who doesn't believe sex and gender are different will still know that trans people exist, and that the issue of whether to jail trans criminals based on their sex or their gender or some other criterion (such as the appearance of their genitalia) will come up.
If we take it as a given that wikilinking to sex solves an issue, then we would be letting that issue go unsolved in off-Wikipedia copies of this article if we used the wikilink solution. It's better than using "sex" without a link, but still bad because of the hovering-over issue. And in my opinion, we have a responsibility to not let our content be abused, and to take reasonable steps in ensuring it isn't abusable if we can. Even if there is no rule explicitly requiring us to do that, I believe that, if at all possible without going against the existing rules, we should still do it because it's the right thing to do. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
If someone is going to read this sentence and use it to come the conclusion that sex and gender are the same or whatever conclusions about transgenders they come up with they almost certainly had their mind made up. And an article on a transgender rapist is almost certainly going to do far more to influence someone's perception of transgenders than sex versus sex at birth.
'Sex at birth' implies one of two things through it's wording: that sex can change from birth - or that the Scottish prison system is going to use the initial sex determination made by a doctor at birth, even if later incorrect.
In regards to your last point there is nothing stopping someone from forking Wikipedia but using pre-transition names and sex-based pronouns for people. I don't think worrying about what may be abused off-wiki with Wikipedia content should be a concern for us. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, the fact that Bryson is a convicted rapist certainly has done harm to how some non-trans people views trans people. Many people are quick to blame the terrible actions of a person on all members of that person's in-group. It cannot be stressed enough that Bryson is a terrible person who did despicable things, regardless of her gender identity or any other attribute. And it is much easier for transphobes to leverage "this trans person is a rapist" than "this trans person's Wikipedia article used the wrong words".
Most people coming here will already have made up their mind about whether trans people deserve the same respect and compassion as anyone else (in most people's views, the answer is and should be an obvious yes), and there are some people who are set in their ways that the answer should be no, but there are also people who are undecided or only leaning towards no. And in my view, the existence of a greater wrong does not excuse us from working to fix a lesser wrong, and depriving bad actors of any justifications we are unintentionally giving them. If we can find a wording that will lead at least a few people away from potentially becoming transphobic in future, then I believe it might be worth searching for such a wording. I acknowledge that the odds of such a search producing something better than "sex" or "sex at birth" look slim.
With that said, even with all the time and energy I have spent over the past week on this, I don't feel particularly strongly on which wording is better. I had thought there was a policy somewhere, or a discussion establishing a consensus about which wording to use when discussing which sex a child is assignment to at birth, but if there is one, at MOS:GIDINFO or elsewhere, I haven't been able to find it. We've gotten into the weeds here, which I suppose is the whole point of having talk pages, but I'm not hell-bent on pushing this matter if Meekaboo111 and Traumnovelle both think "sex" is preferable to "sex at birth". Input from more people is always welcome, whether they agree or disagree with what any of us three have said. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
“Sex at birth” is preferable because that’s what the source uses. When sources start saying simply “sex” (unqualified), then we can update accordingly. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that "sex at birth" is preferable, but this is not a convincing argument to me. Per the essay WP:OUROWNWORDS, we should not go out of our way to reproduce whatever language our sources use. We have our own manual of style and internal rules to decide what is the best wording, and our sources' styles should not be given special favor just because we are getting our facts from them. And in any case, the sources are, AFAIK, divided on which wording they use. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
While true that we can apply our own style, when it comes to key facts and terminology that are contentious, the sources are the ultimate authority in the resolution of that contention. It’s common to have RfCs that litigate the use of specific words, and they usually come down to evidence of usage in sources. In this topic area specifically, where so much of the contention arises from semantics, it is particularly crucial to use language which accords with the due weight of sources. Policy asks that Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. As this thread illustrates, there is a difference of implication between “sex” and “sex at birth”, which puts us beyond paraphrase and style. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
This may be me splitting hairs, but isn't it more that we should base our terminology on what is in common use off-Wikipedia, not what is in the sources of a specific article? As in, we should be concerned about which wording is used when news media discuss trans people in general, not just the sources we are using for this article that discuss the Isla Bryson case specifically. Regardless, I agree that it is especially important in this topic area to be mindful of semantics, including which language our sources use. While I know some things about the inner workings of this website, I am by no means an expert on this stuff and would be glad to defer to you, since you seem to know a fair bit more than me. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Obviously it's the intended meaning that the policy refers and they're not worried about changing a double entendre. The obvious intended meaning is that prisoners will be assigned initially based on what their sex is. They are not going to put a male who was sexed as female as a neonate into a women's prison. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which thing you are responding to. Did you reply to the intended comment? Could you please clarify what you mean? 188.176.174.30 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
That the policy was not written with the intent of preventing us from editing sentences to be less confusing. We are allowed to editorialise, or else we wouldn't be hosting original content. It'd apply to changing the sentence to say birth gender or gender assigned at birth, as that is a different meaning. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The policy says meaning or implication. This whole thread started with a post about the implications of the phrase. Clearly if we change to a phrase with different implications, we have done something policy asks us not to do.
Now, if this were an article in medicine or biology, we absolutely would want to avoid implying something scientifically nonsensical. But this is not the place to have that debate. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
The implications in this instance are unwanted and a result of poor editorialisation. Encyclopaedic language should always be prioritised over journalistic phrasing. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Are we talking about the BBC source? How do you know what they wanted to imply? “Sex at birth” is common phrasing in this subject area, probably because it can be read by the two sides as meaning what they want it to mean. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I think he is arguing that what they were intending to apply isn't relevant to us because they are journalists and we are writing an encyclopedia, so we should be using them as a source for information, but should not be emulating them because their product and our product are two different things.
On THIS case I suggest: use natal sex. It is neutral, concise, in common use in the wild, means the exact same thing as "sex at birth" but without the potential for confusion - ie natal sex is NEVER used to mean "the bio sex a person is not but were wrongly identified as at birth"; however, "sex (/assigned) at birth" IS used to mean that thing. And here I think we can reasonably presume that meaning is not intended here (because that would be ridiculously absurd if it were!). :) 73.2.86.132 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Common sense. It is obvious what the policy will actually do in effect. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

So what's going on here? Traumnovelle clearly won the argument. Why are people refusing to permit the removal of the redundant words 'at birth' and insisting that I re-open a debate conducted over half a year ago, which their side lost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 333coolgan (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This person should be referred to as male with he/him pronouns. Bending over backwards to avoid hurting a rapist's feelings in an encyclopedia is insanity. People experiencing gender dysphoria don't go around raping people, or at least if you want people to respect your pronouns, don't rape people. If he's hurt by people using incorrect pronouns, I have no sympathy for him whatsoever. All this is just an attack on the cause of genuine transgender people. Faronnorth (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
It is not our place as editors to adjudicate whether someone is lying when they say they are experiencing gender dysphoria. Setting aside the questions of whether such a thing happens with any frequency, and whether that is what's happening in this case, this person should not be treated differently than another convicted rapist who wasn't trans (or claiming to be). The fact that Bryson committed a horrifying crime isn't relevant to whether we should maintain NPOV and treat her like any other person who did the same things. Calling into question the legitimacy of Bryson's transition, especially if we aren't backing it up with ample (but not undue) sources, would violate our verifiability and original research policies, two of Wikipedia's most foundational policies. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Why is it 'neutral' to accept, uncritically, the assertion of a rapist that he has changed gender? Are there any reputable medical (or otherwise scientific) sources which confirm that Bryson actually has gender dysphoria? Without such evidence then, by all means, report Bryson's assertion that he is now a woman. But let's not report it as established fact purely because he says so. Doing so seems to me, if anything, to be a patent violation of the original research policy. Eurobleep (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What is this page for, trans Identified men in prisons or the actual crime Islay Bryson did?

I don't know who is in charge of final edit on this page but I can definitely see the bias to being transgender almost to the point of soliciting sympathy from the reader. Any reasoned educated person will feel this is smothering and a good example of elementary school writing and bigoted research. I will let the editors see in plain facts their bigoted, elitist bias in their own words here. There are 3961 words on this page, and yet the following is all the words you use to discuss the rapes this trans man commited and convicted of :

(quote) "The prosecution described how Bryson had "preyed on two vulnerable female partners" after meeting them online. Bryson denied raping the two women, arguing the sex between them had been consensual, and claimed to be "in no way a predatory male".

2 sentences out of 3961 words. A blind person can see there is a elitist psychological attempt of influencing the reader here. You are no writers. No researchers. No educated fellow. You are indoctrinated tools here to propagate your social construct. IbringFacts (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This page repeatedly references and acknowledges the rapes that Bryson committed - as it should. That said, I agree that it is frustrating that Bryson is primarily referenced as a woman rather than the man that he obviously is. Eurobleep (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
It is completely inconsistent to refer to Bryson as "claiming to be a transgender woman" which clearly disputes Bryson's claim, but then to refer to Bryson as 'she' at places in the article.
This is totally bonkers: "but her legal gender remained male," and is worthy of Orwell's 1984. The pronoun and noun do not agree.
The article can be re-written taking out all references to 'she', but avoiding 'they' or any other such compromise. 'Bryson' would do whenever a desperate need for a pronoun is found.
Does anybody object? Quincefish (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
No objection from me. As I’ve said before, I find it utterly baffling that we all have to pretend that this man is a woman, when we all know he is not.
So as far as I am concerned, if we can remove all direct references to Bryson being a woman, then that would certainly improve the page. Eurobleep (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikilinking

1)Under "Background" the link on "feminising hormone therapy" in the 3rd paragraph leads to an article on "Feminizing hormone therapy".

2)Under "Remand to women's prison", "Reactions", then in the 2nd paragraph and 1st sentence "Sandy Brindles" does not link to any article.

3)Under "Remand to women's prison", then "Reactions" the link on "MSPs" in the 3rd paragraph and 3rd sentence leads to the article "Member of the Scottish Parliament", despite the first usage of the initialism.

4)Under "Aftermath", then in the 5th paragraph "Scottish Prison Service" leads to an article on "Scottish Prison Service", while "SPS" in the 2nd paragraph and 1st sentence does not, despite sharing a header.

5)Under "Aftermath", then in the 5th paragraph "trans women" leads to an article on "Trans woman", while "trans women" in the 1st paragraph and 2nd sentence does not, despite sharing a header.

6)Under "Aftermath", then in the 6th paragraph and 1st sentence "Chief Constable of Police Scotland" leads to an article on "Police Scotland", while "Police Scotland" in the 4th paragraph and 2nd sentence does not, despite sharing a header. IndefinitelyProtectedArticleTalker (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI