Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity

I noticed that the style guide says to use singular they for people who use neopronouns such as ze/zir/zirs. This counts as misgendering if the person does not use they/them in addition to neopronouns because you're using an incorrect set of pronouns. They/them is applicable (even for cis people) only when:

A) The pronouns are unknown, or

B) the person explicitly stated they use they/them pronouns.

Many people, especially trans, non-binary and otherwise gender non-conforming people, do not use they/them pronouns and using that set of pronouns is only acceptable if their preferred pronouns are not known.

It seems to me like it's Wikipedia's official policy to misgender anyone using neopronouns.

Has there been a conclusion? The thread in the archives seemed to have not reached a conclusion and be archived.--Gyrolover (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Gyrolover (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The conclusion reached, unfortunately, was that a slight majority of wikipedians do not actually care what constitutes misgendering outside of the scope presently offered and that people who fall outside of he, she, or they can and will be misgendered in all references to them that follow the manual of style. SedimentaryGal (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I know. I'm trying to re-open it up for discussion. As someone who has many friends who use neopronouns and dislike singular they, this can be very impactful. It also helps with affirming for the pronouns to be used instead of no pronouns used, as I saw, for example, on Maia Kobabe's article. Gyrolover (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you get more experience editing before trying to change this guideline; this is a Contentious topic, and any proposed change will be controversial. BilledMammal (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Would like to voice my support for this as well. From the communities I'm a part of, there would be significant support for this, and I'd like to note that Wikipedia's own guidelines on this very same page outside of this specific section do not bring up neopronouns at all, instead using constructs like "Refer to people ... using the name and gendered words (man, woman, person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources". I think that pronouns very much are covered underneath "gendered words", and that then using they/them pronouns for those who dislike it would be covered under WP:RVDEADNAME if the contentious section wasn't present. Another point is that in the making this decision that there was distinctly minimal argument for the currently chosen option, and that many arguments for it that did have any actual reasoning would fall under criteria for assuming bad faith themselves. I'm not an expert editor, but I do think that a lot of this should be brought up in whatever discussion is had. VivianIsBee (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I am also here to support this, as a neopronoun user. I use they/he too, but a person shouldn’t have to use they or be misgendered to be referred to on Wikipedia. MapleScripts (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I also support your reasoning, there should be a change to this. If neopronoun users don’t use binary or the nonbinary pronoun “they/them”, use their pronouns. It’s genuinely not that hard. sacherra_official (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I just looked at one archive of the conversation and the people really think that misgendering someone that doesn’t what they/them pronouns used is “professional”. Fucking ridiculous. sacherra_official (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this and I'm glad that you brought it up. Some people use multiple or neopronouns that do not include they/them. Although I'm sure whoever wrote this meant no harm, using a different set of pronouns from those which someone prefers is still misgendering, even if the intentions are pure. Dofrg (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Among cisgender people who have legally changed their names, it is common practice to include their birth name regardless of fame or notoriety prior to name change. The current rule on using deadnames would make more sense if it were applied universally, but as is it is not and thus does not. We should come to a consensus on whether we care more about privacy or containing as much information as possible. Personally I'm throwing my hat towards privacy.

As an aside, among cisgender people, the tendency is to say John Smith(born Joe Smith), while among trans people the tendency is to say John Smith(formerly Jane Smith). Some standardization would be nice. Dpug8405 (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

If a cis person who has changed their name is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, and their birth name is included in the article, it is almost certainly because their birth name is well-known. So I don't see this as a privacy issue different from how we handle trans bios. Funcrunch (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The rule isn't that the birth name should be included if the birth name is well known, the rule is that it should be included if the person was well known while they used their birth name. It explicitly states we shouldn't use well-known dead names if the trans person wasn't famous pre-transition. But as I said, this rule is not applied to cis people. Take Dean Martin, who changed his name in 1940 and didn't sell his first album until 1946, under this rule his birth name shouldn't be listed. So why would we selectively apply it? Should be that either everyone gets their names listed or nobody does. Dpug8405 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The possible harm caused by people knowing that Dean Martin was originally named Dino Paul Crocetti is minor to nonexistent. Celebrities change their names all the time, often before they become famous. Many women change their names after marriage as well, and for non-notable people, there is indeed a privacy issue; it's no one's business that Jane Doe used to be Jane Smith. But trans people, unlike cis people, face discrimination and harm when they are addressed by names that don't align with their gender identity. So there is an extra need to omit this information when there is no compelling reason to include it in the encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

> Personally I'm throwing my hat towards privacy.

I'm against the use of deadnames in articles at all. My point in bringing up that the rule is applied inconsistently was just to demonstrate that it's a poor rule. Dpug8405 (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC)