Jump to content

Talk:Fallon Fox

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

Past pronouns

[edit]

According to the GLAAD media reference guide on transgender individuals:

"It is usually best to report on transgender people's stories from the present day instead of narrating them from some point or multiple points in the past, thus avoiding confusion and potentially disrespectful use of incorrect pronouns."

Fallon Fox should be referred to as a woman even when discussing her past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenect2 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I tend to do it, it seems polite. I do wonder if we have a Wikipedia policy about this yet though. Ranze (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Manual of Style guideline section MOS:IDENTITY: "...reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." --Geniac (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except in direct quotes. Just to be clear. Ignatzmice•talk 06:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we addressing past issues with the pronoun of "she", when that is inaccurate. Just because you want to be a different gender, doesn't give you the right to change your past, if you have always been a male. Now if he wants to refer to himself as a "she" post surgery, that is different, but the correct term would be a "post-op" female.99.6.4.126 (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this article is the biography of a trans woman, it should adhere to Wikipedia's guideline on identity for trans women. According to MOS:IDENTITY, such a woman should be referred to using the gendered names and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect [her] latest expressed gender self-identification." This applies in references to any phase of her life. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia takes the position that verifiability trumps truth. If it says female on his drivers license than that is verifiable. The truth is unimportant according to the standards of this "encyclopedia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2014‎

Some of us take the position that FACT trumps ignorance masked as "truth." The scientific fact is that transgender people suffer from a condition in which their body is the wrong sex in comparison to their brain's sex. The scientific fact is that the only effective treatment of gender dysphoria is for the person to live & be recognised as their brain's gender. Neurology, neurochemistry, and psychology all come into play & verify this. (And before someone pulls the "transgenderism is a mental illness" card, that's just something spread by uninformed people with no psychological or psychiatric background. All the empirical data says that being trans is NOT some kind of delusion.)

Also, it's a fact that insisting on using pronouns for a trans person that don't correlate to their gender identity is actively harmful, psychologically & emotionally abusive, and is the same 100.14.32.111 (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Along these lines, can we please fix this pronoun? "As a teenager, Fox believed *he* may have been a gay man"Andraleia (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andraleia,  Done. Best, Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of objections

[edit]

Regarding some of the protests, while guys like Matt Mitrione are clearly being bigoted, I am hoping the basis of objection from more respected sources like Joe Rogan could be clarified. There is a bit of a valid objection regarding things like testosterone levels, physical strength, etc. Like could we clarify if FF's test levels are down to the usual level of females, or if they might be higher and closer to average males? Ranze (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • For trans sportswomen who are taking anti-androgens, testosterone levels are a misleading measure, since those reduce the effects of testosterone (including on physical strength) more than they reduce the actual blood concentration of testosterone (although they do reduce that as well indirectly). Fallon Fox however has had reassignment surgery and therefore her testosterone levels are highly likely to be within the typical range of those of cisgender women. Even if that were not the case, it's unclear how it would help to ask whether her T levels are "down to the usual level of females"; the mean testosterone level in females is a different thing to the range of testosterone levels in females, which is a different thing to the range of testosterone levels in female MMA fighters. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can drugs reduce male bone mass that much if drugs weren't started till she was 30 years old?From what i understand someone that started these treatments in their younger teens would have a different outcome than someone that started treatments well after maturity into adulthood. Oct 7th 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.206.56 (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between men and women beyond muscle mass is pretty large. Men have 30% increased lung capacity due to the lungs being larger in proportion to their body. Their hearts are larger in proportion to their body. They have larger hands and feet and thicker wrists and ankles. Broader shoulders, Different shaped hips, stronger chin structure. Men have more spacial skills than women. They have an increased reaction speed. They have a different fight/flight reflex. ect. And then of course there is the muscle mass which when someone went through puberty with male hormones does not ever reduce to the amount of a woman. I don't feel the need to source these well known facts because I know it's not getting into the article because of bias. The talk page will have to do. Carry on with your encyclopedia article claiming that estrogen completely balances out the athletic differences between men and women in combat sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The pesky problem with "well-known facts" that don't have to be sourced: So often the source is "freshly pulled from the speaker's prejudices." La Maupin (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lung capacity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12773331. Heart differences, at least with age: http://www.livescience.com/52523-male-female-heart-differences.html. Reaction times: http://www.pwlk.net/reaction/experimental_report.pdf. Muscular differences (male muscles are not only larger, but stronger for their size): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683. Men tend to gain type 2 (fast-twitch fibers for strength) muscle during puberty, while women gain type 1 (slow twitch for endurance): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442138. I cannot find a good source for spatial abilities related to fighting, but men tend to do better in time-sensitive spatial tests. There's also evidence muscles get permanently enhanced with anabolic steroid use (e.g. by growing more nuclei), but I cannot find a source linking similar effects to puberty. I hope I don't need a source for the skeletal differences. While I'm sure Fallon's treatments have significantly reduced her athletic potential, its frankly ridiculous to say there aren't numerous sources of possible advantage. Males adapted to fighting over millenia of violence, and these adaptations are more than hormone-deep. Glbeaty (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph separation

[edit]

Under Fallon_Fox#Controversy could we have a paragraph break between "report on the issue." and "Due to controversy"? The discussion of the fight being postponed is very distinctive from the discussion about what commentators like Joe Rogan are saying, in terms of different contexts of results. Ranze (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy violation

[edit]

{{editprotected}} "Still living as a heterosexual male, Fox impregnated her girlfriend at the age of 19."

This should be deleted; it is irrelevant to the article and a violation of Fox' and her girlfriend's privacy. Since it is a privacy violation, please also delete this Talk section once the edit is made. --Daira Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Irrelevant, perhaps; privacy violation, most definitely not. From the Sports Illustrated interview:

    "I did experiment, trying to figure out what I did and didn't like," said Fallon. "Around 19, I got a girl pregnant. I really didn't want to get married, but I was raised with the belief to marry that person and take care of our child."

    I really don't think it can count as a privacy violation if she herself said it. Note that Fox said "a girl", not "my girlfriend", though. Maybe that should be changed. Ignatzmice•talk 22:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This New York Times profile should clear up a lot of things. (She was in fact married to that woman, and remained so until 2007.) It also includes what appears to be a consensual reporting of her birth name. (The Times is a pillar of journalistic ethics, after all, and acknowledges and complies with her request that her daughter not be named.) Shall we include the name? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 06:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to expand all the refs (I guess I'll put the accessdate as today, though that's a bit weird) and I'll see if I can incorporate her birth name. Maybe just in the infobox—"Born: Boyd Burton, Toledo, OH", and leave it at that. Ignatzmice•talk 15:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fallon's age

[edit]

The fight tonight listed her as age 36. Wikipedia lists her as 43. Please investigate.  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.1.103 (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note on birth name

[edit]

Time gives her birth name as Burton Boyd, while the New York Times and other sources give it as Boyd Burton. Since blog posts tend to get a bit less editorial oversight than articles, and since a Google search gets pretty much nothing, I'm pretty sure that the Time guy just made a mistake. Still, if anyone else sees it given in that order anywhere, we can throw in a footnote saying that it's unclear. (Like with Scooter Libby or a similar article.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronoun warning template

[edit]

A very basic user-warning template can be found at User:Ignatzmice/uw-transpronoun (apparently caps are important), if anyone wants to use it. I'll be AFK for the rest of the day, most likely; if someone with more experience wants to add bells and whistles, feel free. Ignatzmice•talk 14:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage: {{subst:User:Ignatzmice/uw-transpronoun|number of equivalent warning}} (note: use 1, 2, 3, 4, 4im)
{{subst:User:Ignatzmice/uw-transpronoun|number of equivalent warning|IP}}(to add shared-IP notice) Ignatzmice•talk 15:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category question

[edit]

Is there a reason she isn't included in Category:Female_mixed_martial_artists? (Not sure how to link to it without attaching it to this talk page.) --98.220.56.22 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can link categories in either of two ways: put a colon before the word Category, as in [[:Category:Female mixed martial artists]] or you can use the {{cl}} template, as in {{cl|Female mixed martial artists}} which gives Category:Female mixed martial artists. Anyway, I can't think of a good reason why not. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the category to her page, then. Thanks for the info! --98.220.56.22 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defining "cisgender"

[edit]

Per WP:LINKSTYLE, in general, if readers may not be familiar with a certain important term, we should explain it briefly in the article in addition to providing a link to a fuller explanation. To that end, I included a brief explanation of the term cisgender after its first usage in the article. (I'm the one who made use of the term here in the first place, for what it's worth.) I did that after User:Silverhand's edit a few weeks prior; while the link he added was redundant, I certainly saw his point that "cisgender" is likely too technical a term for many of our readers.

Anyways, now it seems that there's some disagreement as to whether the explanation is necessary. IP user 96.40.167.57 (talk · contribs) contends that it is not; User:Ignatzmice appears to support its inclusion. So I thought I'd bring us all together to talk about this. The way I see it, there's two questions here:

  • Is the explanation necessary in the first place? I've already made my argument for this above.
  • Is the definition I gave accurate? IP 96 says that it's not. I'd like to hear his reasoning. If I've misstated things, I want to clear them up as much as the next guy.

Let me know what y'all think. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 12:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the issues for me 1: cisgender was incorrectly defined, 2: are you going to explain cis/trans on every single transperson's page and if not then how do you decide which ones, 3: it was not the best place in that article for explaining cis/trans 96.40.167.57 (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't have the time or mental energy to get into this right now, and I'll not try to think about whether your points 1) and 3) have merit. (Most likely they do.) But point 2) is invalidated, I believe, by the guidance page WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Look at the page in question as a separate entity, don't hold it up to every other page. Ignatzmice•talk 05:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, I don't understand the concept of explaining a technical term in a seperate article, when an article for the technical term itself exists. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but doing so seems to eliminate the need for links entirely or, in the alternative, reinvents the wheel. Maybe I'm missing something?SilverhandTalk 19:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender is a pejorative and has been removed.Factchecker170 (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advantage

[edit]

Should advantage read "unfair advantage" or perhaps "unique advantage"? Every superior athlete has an advantage. Advantages are generally not controversial. The controversy is over if the athlete has an unique advantage that give her an unfair edge over other female athletes. Certainly as the only transitioned female MMA competitor she is "unique", and the claims that her former male body is stronger than any biologically female bodies implies that the advantage is "unfair".Factchecker170 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna have to come up with a new term if/when the next comes along. SChalice 05:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call a man beating a woman an unfair advantage. AntonFMD (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "cis"

[edit]

The use of the word "cis" does not fall under Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. "Cis" is a politicized term used by the far left, it would be the equivalent of replacing the word "transgender" with "tranny" which would be an equally loaded term. I would recommend the paragraph reads as follows:

Current state of research indicates that some trans women have less muscle strength and bone density than men, even though still higher than women, prior to medical treatment. The researchers concluded that this was likely due to a difference in lifestyle, not some innate biological difference in trans women.[9][10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.24.191 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"cis" is Latin, meaning "on the same side"; "trans" is also Latin, meaning "on the other side of". The two terms are clearly a related and complimentary pair (we find them used as a complimentary pair in chemistry, see cis–trans isomerism). So saying "cis men" and "cis women" is no more (and no less) loaded than saying "trans women" twice. If you want to remove one form, you must also remove the other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Men" and "women" are the default. "Trans" is a prefix indicating a difference from the default. The prefix of "Cis" is a politically loaded term used almost exclusively by left wing idealists. Therefore it should not be included in a neutral encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.24.191 (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that it's a politically loaded term used almost exclusively by left wing idealists? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term "cis" is almost exclusively used when describing biological men and women in a negative sense by either members of the trans activist communities, or the hard left. The term has no place in an informational document about an MMA fighter, regardless of their abuse of gender politics to beat up biological women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.203.134 (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"biological male"

[edit]

The phrase referring to her as a biological male isn't actually supported by a citation. On Wikipedia Trans women are defined as "assigned male at birth". Do better, you cis white gay men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:F446:9D10:466B:8D6D:1499:F7CA (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear in this article that Fallon Fox has XY chromosomes in his her body cells. (i.e, he she married a girlfriend and had a child) This, according to all science and biology rules, makes him her a biological male. The fact that he she thinks that he she is a female is entirely a different topic. Per WP:GENDERID the correct pronoun to write in this article is 'she', but it is nonsense to write that he she "was assigned male at birth": at his her conception he she already had XY chromosomes, which as said earlier, makes him her a biological male. L293D (✉) 15:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L293D: Your WP:POINTy strikeouts is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Please stop that. The current language is to say "assigned male at birth" (see Sex assignment or transgender). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How was that decision reached? What authority is being cited as the one who "assigned" a gender at birth? Gender isn't assigned, like it is something that can be given or taken away from you, your gender is determined before you are born when you either develop as a male or female. Did that debate include only Wikipedia editors or actual members of the relevant scientific community? 2605:6001:E39D:C900:6054:3330:45BD:C5EC (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir:OK. Frankly, I know I am biased and you are probably too, but which Wikipedia policy says to write "assigned male at birth"? From a biological or scientifical standpoint, it is utter nonsense: she was not assigned male at birth: she was (and still is) male at birth. L293D (✉) 19:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2018

[edit]

Revert Fallon's pronouns to female ones. Vandalism Teckiels (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* "OpenLY trasngender"

[edit]

In the opening paragraph, transgender is an adjective, so it should be openly transgender, "openly" being an adverb. If you're going to edit lock a page at least make sure there aren't stupid mistakes like this

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

[edit]

Please change "He is the first open transgender athlete in MMA history." to "She is the first open transgender athlete in MMA history.", As Fallon Fox identifies as a woman, and the rest of the article refers to her as such. 107.77.202.114 (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 14:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't been corrected or was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.127.169.59 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word cis

[edit]

Necro on this semantic argument. The word "cis" is not a Wikipedia-friendly neutral term. User Redrose64 contests this by bringing up a silly Latin-source etymology. First of all, the term "cis" as used to refer to non-transgender people is much more recent than the assimilation of the Latin prefix cis- into English. Latin trans- and cis- were, of course, not a complimentary pair as Redrose64 so claims, neither in Latin nor in English. The Latin prefix cis- derives from PIE *ḱe whereas The Latin noun trāns derives from PIE *terh2. The former was an affix for relative positioning (deixis) and the latter was a root meaning to overcome or pass across. These are not only completely different types of words but they are also not even semantically similar. The claim that cis- meant "on this side" and trans- means "on that side" in Latin is absurd. Latin modified *terh2 into trāns such that "overcome" became "beyond." The only source I could find that said trans meant "on that side" is a Wiktionary page which cites a dictionary with a conflicting definition.

What really matters isn't the Latin or the PIE it came from; in English, the term cis is specifically used as a curt form of cisgendered. It is a common pattern indeed for English speakers to shorten adjectives when attempting to make them derogatory (contrast "black people" with "blacks," "Communist" with "commie," or "Hispanic" with "spic"). Cis follows this pattern (although with a lesser intensity) and thus has no place on Wikipedia. The same applies to the term "trans woman," it should be changed to "transgender woman." SapientiaBrittaniae (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender, but okay. As for the etymology stuff, WP:NOR please. Trans and cis as shortened adjectives seem fine to me and are rather standard now when discussing gender identity. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cis in Latin

[edit]

The Latin-source etymology outlined by Redrose64 is not silly: 'cis' and 'trans' were in common use to refer to the provinces inhabited by Gauls on 'this side' of the Alps ("Cisalpine Gaul" - Gallia Cisalpina), and the side across the Alps ("Transalpine Gaul"). Cisalpine Gaul stretched from the Alps to the Rubicon. Anyone who has studied Latin or Ancient Roman history knows that these, as the actual names of two Roman provinces, are completely mainstream terms. The prefix 'cis' was used in relation to various mountains and rivers, but this was by far the most commonplace usage. It seems likely that the modern neologism 'cisgender' was inspired by the common designation of these two provinces and the need to find an opposite to 'transgender': Burchard first used it in 1914 for the opposite of 'transvestite'...though as a scientist it is also possible he took it from organic chemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.2.103 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of Tamikka Brent's "thoughts"

[edit]

This Wikipedia page has this supposed experience from Tamikka Brent about fighting Fallon Fox:

"During Fox's fight against Tamikka Brents, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round. After her loss, Brents took to social media to convey her thoughts on the experience of fighting Fox: "I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can't answer whether it's because she was born a man or not because I'm not a doctor. I can only say, I've never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right," she stated. "Her grip was different, I could usually move around in the clinch against other females but couldn't move at all in Fox's clinch..."

This text comes is found in alt-right, transphobic news websites, and it's supposedly cited from "an exclusive interview with whoatv" but without much proofs about the interview being actually real. (Plus, if the interview was actually real then Tamikka Brent didn't in fact "took to social media to convey her thoughts").

Can someone help me with the fact-checking of this cite, and remove it if it's indeed fake? IgnacioCastroM | Talk page Sup? 20:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No such place as Bangkok National Hospital

[edit]

Unfortunately, reliable sources say Fox had her surgery at Bangkok National Hospital. Google that with quotes and nothing comes up. What is undoubtedly meant is BNH Hospital, which means “Bangkok Nursing Home Hospital,” which was known as a sex change hospital until a few years ago. Can we add a footnote suggesting that or would it be WP:OR? Google search of BNH and Fallon Fox could not find confirmation. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article still says "Bangkok National Hospital" (though it has been {{sic}}ed) but wikilinks to "BNH Hospital". I notice that other sources I can find (e.g. books about Fox) say only that she had surgery in Bangkok, without specifying which hospital, which seems like an insignificant detail, anyway. In general, whenever most sources make a general claim about some minor thing (surgery in Bangkok), and we know the one source which says something more specific (surgery in Bangkok National Hospital) got it wrong, let's just say the general thing they all agree on: "...surgeries at a hospital in Bangkok." or "...surgeries in Bangkok." -sche (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks! Do you happen to have an additional source we can put here because the only current inlined source has Bangkok National Hospital. Theheezy (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

[edit]

please remove she with he Guy from fortnite (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. She/her are the preferred pronouns. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

[edit]

This is Fallon Fox. This is a request for the photo in this Wikipedia article be updated from what it is now to the following.

You can find the updated photo here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_photo_of_Fallon_Fox.jpg


Please feel free to reach out to my official website www.thefallonfox.com if you need more information or confirmation. ThePinkFoxx (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Image is a WP:COPYVIO. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ThePinkFoxx would you mind confirming this? Putting a notice on your website that the image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International would work - you could also go through OTRS, but that's more effort. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fallon fox is not the only transgender professional mixed martial artist.

[edit]
Moved from Special:PermaLink/1022831791

I Jaelah Michelle Russell am an open transgender professional mixed martial artist. there is a documentary about me in the Nebraska state athletic commisions website as i came out in 2015 while competing professionally. www.athcomm.nebraska.gov is the website then search pre op transgender fighter Michelle russell. tehn update your wikifacts because your facts are incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.152.236.138 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say "only", it says "first". 2013 is two years before 2015.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

[edit]

Delete Joe Rogan quote. It is violently transphobic and completely unnecessary in this context 98.116.167.50 (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Don't edit war.

[edit]

Newimpartial, Fleets. Please discuss your concerns instead of edit warring. Theheezy (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there isn't really anything to discuss. This is the last good version (to which I reverted); the edits by Fleets are in violation of MOS:GENDERID. Newimpartial (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think getting rid of the pronoun makes the sentence structure clunky. Would you be okay with something like, "Fox and her daughter moved to Chicago, Illinois ... undergo feminizing gender reassignment surgery, breast augmentation, and hair transplant surgeries at Bangkok National Hospital." I've added the bold to point out where I'd like to make the change.
It can be confusing sometimes to discern whether we're talking about a trans woman or a trans man which is relevant for clarity of the rest of the page, and hopefully this addresses everyone's concern. Theheezy (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is 100% the concern, one her in that sentence, not the multiple she/her's. Otherwise the sentence states the opposite of what happened.Fleets (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Theheezy on this and have inserted the suggested text in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the word from that sentence to avoid the confusion; you absolutely cannot go in for gender reassignment surgery as a her, and come out a her in a sentence. Not asking for she/her to be removed elsewhere, or biological male to be input, I am removing a gender identity from gender reassignment surgery.Fleets (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've split the sentences out to a new paragraph to avoid the her in her out of a successful gender reassignment surgery. Unless I'm missing something an it was unsuccessful, then the rather odd sentence does begin to make sense.Fleets (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fleets, this is definitely in contradiction to MOS:GENDERID. Despite your feelings on the topic in regards to correctness or clarity, we refer to any person with their latest expressed gender self-identification. What is the issue with the wording I proposed? Theheezy (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fleets, this has become disruptive. Please obtain consensus for text *before* inserting it into the article, now that your BOLD edits have repeatedly been reverted.
I don't know how carefully you have read MOS:GENDERID, but that is the relevant guideline, and it is quite clear that Wikipedia follows a person's latest expression of gender identity - including pronouns - for all previous periods. If you disagree, or find this confusing, the place to express your views is at the MOSBIO Talk page, not here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can read that MOS and see that it should be there, ie overemphasis. Combing Gender Identity, Gender and a Biological operation is just plain wrong. As before she, her can be before, it can be after, but to have it in that sentence is just plain wrong. I have no issue with someone's identity. Fox could've identified as a woman before -> wikipedia can have Fox as a her before the operation, but to have her and a gender reassignment surgery, even feminising gender reassignment surgery would still lead to reader to question what happened. Removal of a her from a sentence (or that paragraph, and only that one) is in line with the MOS. Fleets (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just about everyone who seeks Gender confirmation surgery already uses the pronouns appropriate for their identity prior to surgical transition; traditionally that was actually a requirement. So I don't see how that could be just plain wrong. Also, is there anything in the MOS that actually supports your edit, in your view, or are we actually discussing your feelings? Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The overuse angle certainly does. I've made it clear that the single sentence is the offending one; her can go before and after, as that would fit with their gender identity, but to mash it into that sentence is just 180 degrees wrong, as the most respectful way to deal with that sentence and to Gender Identity, Gender and Biology is to remove it, so that one not trump the others. I've not made assumptions about you and your feelings, so that is quite an odd thing to say.Fleets (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy and guidelines do not see biology - much less Biology - as relevant to pronoun use. Why do you feel it to be worth mentioning, much less a factor to be respectful about? Pronoun use in English has never been based on biology.
Also, I don't see anything in the MOS about the "overuse" of pronouns. Perhaps you could explain what you mean. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent)." would be a quick grab.Fleets (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biology was a reference to the operation that is gender reassignment surgery, as every surgery minor or major would be. It would be the umbrella term in which surgery falls under, and not as I believe you are reading between the lines and seeing biological sex. Fleets (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here. Is there some part of the article text that you interpret as having the same issue as Jane Doe fathered a child? I don't see anything of the kind. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all of the quick grab would be relevant for combining gender id, gender and biology in a sentence. Omission does not indicate one is superior to the other, and all of my quick grab would heavily lean into that.Fleets (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your use of the concept of quick grab here runs afoul of the community's concept of WP:WIKILAWYERING (while also being a kind of VAGUEWAVE). That doesn't strengthen the WEIGHT to be given to your opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll leave it there. I've acted in good faith, but if you can't see a sentence that has her in - gender reassignment surgery - her out as an issue, then I'll just say you're an interesting person, and good luck in the world.Fleets (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most recent, reliable sources in English use exactly the same pronouns in such instances as are currently used in this article. But best of luck with your priors. Newimpartial (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please ask you to explain what you mean by priors.Fleets (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, "one's beliefs ... before some evidence is taken into account". Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to unwatch the page, albeit with something interesting to read up on, so thankyou for that. I was half thinking you were calling me a criminal, and as that was not the case I bid you and this page adieu.Fleets (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fallon_Fox&oldid=1207282885"