Talk:Celia Rose Gooding

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


Articles says that Gooding's preferred pronouns are "she" and "they." I am wondering how to know when to use one or the other. The article as currently written switches back and forth. Are there guidelines for this? Thanks! (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Gooding's pronouns are both she/her and they/them. When a person has two sets of pronouns, the general guideline is to vary it in speech and text. As long as it makes sense, I try to switch every other pronoun use so I know it's roughly equal. Example:
Celia was very kind, they always wanted to work with animals. However, her mother told them she couldn't because she was allergic to fur. GemGemB (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
her mother told them just stupid, no matter how "woke" one is. – 2.O.Boxing 01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extremely rude and incorrect. Please keep to the topic at hand. GemGemB (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent information re: identity[edit]

Gooding has recently made a Twitter thread regarding their gender identity. I wanted this information to be included, but I wasn’t sure whether it’s appropriate to include when the only reference is the thread. Gooding refers to themselves as “queer” both in terms of gender and sexuality.[1]


Redandsymmetry (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twitter is not a reliable source for this type of claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Twitter is a reliable source in this context. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves GemGemB (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since she uses both she and they, the standard "she" should be used. This avoids unnecessary confusion --FMSky (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to what? Both Celia's preference to not be called a woman as well as wiki's rules are backing up the use of they/them. GemGemB (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
doesnt matter if she considers herself a woman or not, she uses "she", her standard pronoun, so that should be the one used --FMSky (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you please cite your sources? Standard pronoun? I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Where do they state anywhere that she is her "standard pronoun"?
Your politics don't matter here. I am acting according to Celia's wishes alongside the wiki guidelines. GemGemB (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She hasn't expressed the wish to be referred to as "they" instead of "she" --FMSky (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] GemGemB (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And where does it say she prefers "they"? Unless you can provide a source that explicitly states as such, it should be female pronouns. This is just getting ridiculous. – 2.O.Boxing 01:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Twitter thread referenced above does lend some support to Celia preferring they pronouns, though it more strongly suggests that Celia is still discovering the right language to use to describe themself. This tweet and this tweet both directly state and imply that Celia is still figuring out what language best reflects who they are.
I don't know if there is a perfect way to handle this BLP. The least harmful and most consistent way I think is to use they/them pronouns while Celia figures things out. Or we could take the James Barry approach and just use Celia's name. I do think that using a blanket she/her is probably the worst way to handle this, especially as Celia has said I'm not "fine with being called a 'woman'". Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Seconded. GemGemB (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on pronouns[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Participants who supported using they argued either one or both of:
  • Singular they is acceptable and noninferior to binary pronouns.
  • The subject prefers they over she.

The main argument in favor of she was:

  • Binary pronouns are preferable to singular they.

The main contradiction in the discussion was thus whether binary pronouns should be preferred when available. Participants who thought so argued that singular they is "confusing" or "surprising", and she more "natural", with arguments largely based on intuition. Those who disagreed contradicted this argument; research was cited to show that singular they is not necessarily more confusing, to which there was no equivalently strong counterargument. I have discarded the argument that pronouns should be used according to "sex" given that it is in direct contradiction with MOS:GID. In summary, I can find no consensus that binary pronouns should be preferred over singular they. It is thus okay to use either they or she for a subject who accepts use of both they and she.

Though the above was the main subject of discussion in the RfC, it doesn't actually address the initial question: which pronouns should be used. Some participants argued that Gooding prefers they over she. Evidence provided for this includes a Twitter thread where they say that she is not fine with being called a woman. However, in that same thread they say: "I use both she and they pronouns." A valid counterargument, that was made in the discussion, is also that one can not want to be called a woman and still be okay with being called she. As such, I do not think this argument has support from this discussion.

It was also cited that Gooding lists they before she in Twitter and Instagram bios, which may be an indication of a preference. Gooding also changed the bios from "she/they" to "they/she" at some point, which was considered further evidence of a change in preference. One counterargument to this was that this kind of extrapolations is original research. It was rightly pointed out that that policy does not apply to talk pages, but it does highlight that order of pronouns when specified like this is a relatively ambiguous indicator without extra clarification, which Gooding has not made. Given this, I consider it to be plausible but not guaranteed that Gooding has a preference for they over she.

In conclusion, either she or they pronouns are acceptable in the article (binary ones should not be preferred). There is some support for preferring they over she for Gooding specifically. Given the complexities of this discussion, I will not give a simple result in bold, but there is no consensus to change to she; the article should continue using they until and unless new, compelling reasons come up. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Celia Rose Gooding has expressed via Twitter ([1]) and Instagram ([2]) a preference for both she and they pronouns. Which pronouns should Wikipedia use when talking about Gooding? 22:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  • she/her. The binary pronouns, while not ideal for every person, are still more “natural” to English speakers and should be preferred when there is no clear reason to avoid them. For Gooding, who has asserted no preference one way or the other, and who is referred to in all external sources as “she”, this should be the easier and more accessible choice for readers. (She/her pronouns would make reading sentences like these easier and less potentially confusing: Gooding attended the Hackley School in Tarrytown, New York, with their sister, and graduated with honors in performing arts. They occasionally took leaves of absence from high school to do readings for the musical Jagged Little Pill.)
    Of course, if Gooding expresses any new preference for different pronouns in future (including a strict preference for they/them), then pronouns should be changed accordingly. — HTGS (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would say she/her, as things stand, per HTGS. As long as Gooding has no expressed preference between the two, it makes sense to go with the pronoun that makes avoiding confusion easier. IMO it would be best to retain (a modified version of) the current note. -- Visviva (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed on note. — HTGS (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • On closer review, it seems like the note may not currently be accurately characterizing Gooding's preferences as "interchangeable". Both the Twitter and Instagram profiles put "they" first, and as Samantha McLaren notes in this LinkedIn staff blog post "the order a person uses (such as they/he vs. he/they) can also be important, since it often signifies which of their pronouns they’d like you to use most often, even if they won’t be offended if you use the other." (I don't know if there is a really authoritative source on the significance of order here, but it seems to be a sufficiently widespread practice that we should take notice of it.) On the whole it seems to me that even such an ambiguously-expressed preference should take precedence over the slight editorial benefit of more easily avoiding singular/plural ambiguity. In addition, Sangdeboeuf's procedural point below seems well-taken overall, even if I do not consider my own time to be particularly valuable. -- Visviva (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Who is Samantha McLaren? I get hits on an actress, a financial adviser, and many others. Plus, there is not one order but two posted up online by Gooding, and they are antithetical; one on Twitter and one on Instagram. So, the point made by McLaren is of no practical relevance, irrespective of who McLaren is. -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural close per WP:RFCBEFORE: Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC. To my knowledge the nominator HTGS had not discussed this topic at all before starting this RfC, and the last active discussion on this talk page reached an apparent informal consensus to use they/them in October 2022. My and others' valuable time should not be wasted on frivolous RfCs when a more straightforward local discussion would more quickly resolve the issue.
    Failing that, they/them should be used per MOS:GENDERID since Gooding lists "they/she" in their Twitter bio and this series of tweets. Absent any third-party sources that discuss Gooding's preferred pronouns, Twitter is a valid source per WP:ABOUTSELF. Binary pronouns are not more inherently accessible since singular they has been in use since the time of Shakespeare and the KJV and is currently accepted by the APA and the AP Stylebook. It's well-established English usage, even if not "standard". My general view is summed up by Sideswipe9th: The least harmful and most consistent way I think is to use they/them pronouns while [Gooding] figures things out ... using a blanket she/her is probably the worst way to handle this, especially as [Gooding] has said I'm not "fine with being called a 'woman'". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) edited 05:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1. It is hard to see the above discussion as non-evidence of attempt to resolve issues.
    2. A (weak) preference for English’s gendered pronouns is not the same as saying that they/them is never valid. Further, use of they/them pronouns for known persons is not the same as use for unknown persons, and in case it was unclear: using intentionally ambiguous pronouns—the entire purpose of they/them, don’t forget—can result in less clear prose.
    3. It is possible for someone to exist outside of a gendered binary, but still use gendered pronouns. Beyond that, extrapolating from discomfort with a word like “woman” to presumption of a non-binary or other trans identity, and then extrapolating that for a preference in pronouns would be synthetic. To say the least.
    — HTGS (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1. You did not attempt to resolve your apparent issues before starting this RfC as required by WP:RFCBEFORE. Nor did the other users on this talk page express any interest in an RfC. It looks like you're simply trying to make an end-run around the existing discussion, which reached an informal consensus to use they/them several months ago.
    2. Using intentionally ambiguous pronouns ... can result in less clear prose – take it up with the APA, AP Stylebook, or any of the other well-regarded style guides listed at Singular they § Acceptability and prescriptive guidance. They/them is no more ambiguous here than any of the other WP articles where it is used (e.g. Zoë Quinn).
    3. Gooding lists their preferred pronouns as "they/she". Ergo either they/them or she/her could be used. There's no extrapolation of any non-binary or other trans identity, or any identity at all. Using they/them simply avoids the issue of binary gender entirely. Still, Gooding expressed their discomfort with the word "woman" in the context of a Twitter thread discussing their gender identity. It doesn't take a mind reader to apply some discretion in the use of gendered pronouns here.
    Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural close per Sangdeboeuf; in the absence of a procedural close, then they/them. It is established that singular they is acceptable and it seems clear that Gooding prefers they, even if not exclusively. Where is the harm in using singular they — importantly both given we have already a consensus to do so and it seems relatively clear that Gooding would prefer it. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm sincerely trying to understand here. Could you point out how do you deduce Cooding's "clear" preference? So far, all we have in writing are two statements, each quoting the pronouns in a different order (a) "I use both she and they pronouns", and (b) "they/she." Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Strongly disagree with the suggested procedural close. The pertinent information text does not dictate that a discussion should in all cases precede an RfC. "Editors are expected" is entirely different from they "must" or "are obliged". Seeing as the issue of gender pronouns has been quiet evidently a contentious and controversial issue in Wikipedia, an editor may choose to cut to the chase and start an RfC for a specific issue related to gender pronouns. I have no idea if this was the motive of HTGS but it's an example of bypassing the suggestion of a discussion. We best carry on with the RfC, I suggest. -The Gnome (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • She/her: If someone uses she/her and they/them it should always be the one thats less confusing --FMSky (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They/them: As Visviva linked above (see also TeenVogue, LGBTQNation), pronoun order is usually important. A pronoun listing of they/she typically means that the person prefers to be referred to by they/them pronouns, but will also accept she/her. From checking an archived copy of Gooding's Instagram profile, they have changed the order at some point over the last year as in May 2022 the order was she/they. Currently both Gooding's Twitter and Instagram bios both state they/she.
    I'd also restate the point I made back in October, the least harmful and most consistent way to handle pronouns in this BLP is to use they/them while Gooding continues to discover themselves. The rejection of using gendered terms like woman would strongly suggest that gender neutral language and terminology should be used in this case.
    I would also strongly object to arguments that are predicated solely she/her pronouns being less confusing, more convenient, or any other such descriptor. The singular they has been a part of the English language for centuries, and is widely seen as acceptable is most if not all professional writing style guides. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The singular they has been used for centuries ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY where the sex of the subject is unknown ("someone on the phone for you" … "Oh just tell them I'll phone them back") or the person referred to is 'generic' ("any student who wants an extension to submit course work should consult their tutor"). The contemporary use as a means of avoiding gendered terms iro an individual is a very recent phenomenon. Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The contemporary use as a means of avoiding gendered terms iro an individual is a very recent phenomenon. That depends on how you wish to define recent. The Chicago Manual of Style started recommending it thirty years ago in 1993. There are also examples of authors like Shakespeare (in Hamlet and A Comedy of Errors) using it to refer to an individual whose gender was known. But in any event, its use is now fully established and recommended by almost all major professional style guides as appropriate for use in gender-neutral language. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    30 years ago is very recent to some of us. The use as a conscious stylistic means of avoiding gendered terms iro an individual, who does not wish to be 'gendered' is even more so. Singular 'they' is widely used and acceptable in the UK - where I come from- and has been in many situations for centuries. But not in this context, its use usually 'sticks out like a sore thumb' IMO. Neither Austen nor Shakespeare used 'they' as a device to avoid pronouns which the subject was uncomfortable with AFAIK. This modern use is becoming more common and consequently less 'sore-thumb'y, but it still has a long way to go IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even once-commonly-used-and-widely-accepted terms for racial/religious categories have become socially deprecated in a shorter time than that. "Acceptability" of usage CAN change that quickly. – .Raven  .talk 07:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • She/her. She offers us the option of using she, and our readers will be least astonished if we take it. She put she in her bio - it's WP:OR to speculate that she didn't really mean it.
    Re RFCBEFORE, yes, it would have been better to have a discussion on this first, but now that the RfC is open, it may as well serve as that discussion. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. Using editorial judgement to select one of two valid options supported by reliable sources is not WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We have it direct from the subject that she's fine with she. Evaluating sources is one thing, but searching for reasons to doubt the plain meaning of what she's published takes us into OR territory. MOS:GENDERID is a carveout of WP:STICKTOSOURCE, designed to minimise harm, but there's no evidence that there is any harm at stake by using pronouns that the subject has herself OK'd.
    Furthermore, the subject of the article is not the only stakeholder in the article. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we have a duty to our readers not to subject them to confusing, ambiguous language when we have a perfectly serviceable alternative (yes, singular they has been part of the language for centuries, but as a means of referencing an indeterminate antecedent, not as a means of avoiding a known sex). We may decide in some cases that the harm of basing pronouns on sex justifies compromising the clarity and/or information content of an article, but I don't see any harm arising in this case. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There have been several assertions that singular they is confusing to readers with no evidence to back this up. Linguist Steven Pinker writes that "singular they causes little or no delay" in readers' comprehension times. The study Pinker is referencing concludes, the increased use of singular they is not problematic for the majority of readers. We propose that in those few cases in which its use is considered surprising, the delays seen in comprehension are due not to the pronoun's ungrammaticality or to uncertainty over the intended referent, but to the suspicious opacity of using a nongendered pronoun for an antecedent whose gender is presumably known (emphasis added). A brief footnote is all that's needed to clear up any "suspicious opacity", which was surely more of a problem in 1997 than today, since they/them personal pronouns are more widely adopted now.
    Compared to the non-issue of reader confusion, avoiding even potential harm to a living subject is a real concern. To infer that Gooding is fine with she based on the tweet where Gooding says they sometimes refer to themselves as a Black woman because "that’s the easiest way to make it through conversation" is a real stretch IMO. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC) edited 04:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you think this is clear: They were born to actress, singer and dancer LaChanze, and Calvin Gooding, who died in the September 11th attacks. They have one sister, Zaya.? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is sort of like the debate over the serial comma—there's a lot of hand wringing about when adds or detracts clarity—famous ambiguous example being: "He met with the stripper, JFK, and Stalin" (serial comma creates ambiguity) and "He met with the strippers, JFK and Stalin" (lack of serial comma creates ambiguity). In 99% of cases, the text can just be rewritten to accommodate any ambiguity. (They and their sister, Zaya, were born to ...). That said ... I'm not sure that sentence is that ambiguous?--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, to me it is perfectly clear that the they refers to Gooding, and not their parents. There are also alternate ways to phrase this of course. For example Gooding was raised in New York, New York. They were born to actress, singer and dancer LaChanze, and Calvin Gooding. Gooding's father died in the September 11th attacks. Gooding has one sister, Zaya. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I concur with JFD and Sideswipe9th – it's clear they refers to Gooding in this context. This statement could be just as awkwardly phrased using any pronouns, including she/her: Her mother is actress, singer and dancer LaChanze. She has one sister, Zaya. (It's unclear whether Gooding or LaChanze has a sister named Zaya.) The pronouns are not the problem here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo—they/them. I think none of the arguments are compelling enough to deviate from the status quo. Gooding lists "they/she" on the Twitter bio, though "she" is put first in the tweet ("I use both she and they pronouns"). I'm slightly inclined to think the order of the pronouns in the bio is more evidence than the order of the pronouns in this prose description, but, regardless, I don't think I'd interpret the more recent of the pair to be sufficiently indicative to change the status quo. In other words, if this article used "she" based on the tweet, and then the Twitter bio was changed to "they/she", I think I'd say we should keep "she" absent a stronger expression of preference. Here, the article uses "they" based on the Twitter bio, and I think that should remain absent a stronger expression of preference than that particular tweet. So, because of that, or—again—in the alternative, because I think the order of the pronoun expression in the bio is probably more indicative than this particular prose description, I'd say they/them. (Update: I now understand that the social media bios originally said "she/they", and that those bios were updated after the posts to say "they/she". As far as I'm concerned, this strengthens the rationale that the order of expression in the bio should probably outweigh the prose description.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)) (I'm also not convinced by the arguments that "they" should be subordinated by default—that is, if a person indicates any acceptance of gendered pronouns, those pronouns should be used in lieu of "they". Frankly, I think that kind of rationale should be discussed in a proposed change to the guidelines, not an article talk page.)--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • She/her as per Barnards.tar.gz - I'm under the belief that this pronoun stuff is nonsense (to be very polite) and that if you're a female = you're a her, if you're a male = you're a he and if you're with other people = collectively you're they.
    So for that reason she should be referred to as she. But either way she goes by "she" on her Twitter account so imho to save confusion she should be referred to as she here.
    Davey2010Talk 19:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Gooding goes by either "they" or "she" in their Twitter bio. Users' personal beliefs about pronouns, including singular they, are beside the point. MOS:GENDERID indicates that we reflect a person's most recently expressed gender identity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My apologies she indeed does, As she goes by both pronouns most people refer to women as she so for that reason the article should imho be in she pronouns, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We don't have to do what most people do. Instead we follow the example of reputable style guides. Since Gooding has publicly expressed discomfort with gendered terms like "woman", the logical choice is to use they to be inclusive of all people and avoid making assumptions about gender per APA Style, which endorses singular they in formal writing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Off-topic discussion
  • It's a mad world. –Davey2010Talk 00:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Once again, personal opinions on the state of the world are beside the point. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wrong, personal opinions on the state of the world are very much relevant. If you don't like what I say then please don't read them. I'm very much entitled to my opinions and as noted in my !vote I was polite and respectful - If I didn't give my personal opinion than my !vote would've made no sense. –Davey2010Talk 13:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to state them on Wikipedia in the manner you are doing. Calling respect for gender pronouns "nonsense" and "mad" is not "polite and respectful". Funcrunch (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Everyone is entitled to an opinion and like I said I was and have been polite and respectful throughout. In my humble opinion it ''is'' nonsense and no amount of disagreement will change that, Now I would respectfully ask that you ignore my comment and focus on the issue at hand which is her pronoun and not my opinion on it all, Thank you. –Davey2010Talk 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since your opinion is not the issue at hand then why not strike it out? This isn't a discussion forum about the broader merits of gender-neutral pronouns. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sangdeboeuf I will not be removing my comment because you don't like it. Feel free to ignore it, Have a fantastic day. –Davey2010Talk 16:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Davey2010: Statements like "I'm under the belief that this pronoun stuff is nonsense" make trans editors like myself reluctant to participate in discussions like this. Please be more respectful. Funcrunch (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm entitled to my opinions although sure you're entitled to disagree with them, Have a great day. –Davey2010Talk 00:35, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am hiding this discussion and the parts of Davey2010's first message that could be considered offensive. A reminder that the Policy:Universal Code of Conduct expects us all not to engage in discriminatory behaviour, including a mention of gender identity:

In all Wikimedia projects, spaces and events, behaviour will be founded in respect, civility, collegiality, solidarity and good citizenship. This applies to all contributors and participants in their interaction with all contributors and participants, without expectations based on age, mental or physical disabilities, physical appearance, national, religious, ethnic and cultural background, caste, social class, language fluency, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex or career field. Nor will we make exceptions based on standing, skills or accomplishments in the Wikimedia projects or movement.

OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They/she - mixed use allowed. I favor respecting the person's desires but here found nothing strong for any position. Googling turned up use of both in references and found no statements of preference other than the mentioned twitter tidbit wanting to not go there, so I'd say take either and just don't make a big deal of it is the best way to respect wishes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Markbassett, Jerome Frank Disciple, and Funcrunch: Just a note, while there was no consensus in the last discussion (above), the article did at that time use a mix of she and they until some IP edits were made more recently to impose they throughout and then add the footnote about consistency. (Another reason I think an RfC is a useful tool here.) — HTGS (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's fair! I did notice this issue was going on for a while, but I figured this was the last stable version (where the "they" pronoun stayed for about a month). Also, I absolutely did not mean to call into question the propriety of the RFC—I apologize if I gave that impression.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Notified WikiProject LGBT studies in this edit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  • They/she - Per Gooding's Instagram profile and Twitter thread regarding gender identity. Note that Gooding goes by they/she pronouns, but use "they" throughout for consistency. Funcrunch (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Notified: Manual of Style/Biography in this edit. — HTGS (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
  • Having strikethru'd my initial position, I am convinced by they/she per Funcrunch and Markbassett, and per Gooding's own expressed preference. (In hindsight this outcome seems rather obvious.) My possibly incorrect understanding of how this would be operationalized is that (1) we provide a note regarding Gooding's expressed pronoun preference and (2) we use they/them throughout the article, but (3) if some variation to she/her crops up in the course of good-faith editing, it should typically be allowed to stand as long as it does not interfere with the article's overall coherence and comprehensibility. (Not sure about #3; Sideswipe9th's argument for gender-neutral language as the least harmful choice seems worthy of consideration here, but I'm a bit wary that we would be substituting our judgment for Gooding's.) -- Visviva (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think this is, on the surface, a really reasonable attempt at a compromise, but, with regret, I'd oppose it more than I'd oppose using just they or just she. It's possible I'm not familiar enough with the topic, but I can't think of a major content producer that mixes pronouns within an article. I'm often a fan of "leave it as is without compelling evidence" (hence my !vote, above), but that's on the article level, not on the passages-within-an-article level. I think we should avoid mixing pronouns for the same reason that we avoid mixing varieties of English (where we also have a "leave as is" approach, with exceptions).--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can see your point. I feel that Wikipedia goes much too far for consistency these days, but I suspect that one's view on the importance of consistency is one of those deeply-held values that are unlikely to be changed through discussion. But I do think that ENGVAR is a good example of how a rule about content is really always going to be a rule about conduct, since our content is simply the sum of our edits. I think it could bring some clarity to frame questions like this one from a "what edits are acceptable" standpoint rather than a "what is the Correct Content" standpoint. -- Visviva (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Having said "they/she", subject is unlikely to be offended by a consistent singular-"they". Perhaps the same would be true of "she"... but I agree with Jerome on not mixing pronouns if we can avoid it, just for the sake of consistency. – .Raven  .talk 09:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the article with the attached note is clear as it currently is, with using they/them throughout while noting Gooding's preference. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Status quo – they/them: per prior consensus, subject's posted sequence (they/she), and minimizing risk, i.e. a wrongful singular-"they" offends less than a wrongful-"she". – .Raven  .talk 09:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • she/her. The binary pronouns, while not ideal for every person, are still more “natural” to English speakers and should be preferred when there is no clear reason to avoid them. The status quo is NOT to use "they/them", it is to gendered pronouns EXCEPT when there is a clearly expressed wish to do otherwise from the individual. I cannot see any such expressed wish, nor other reason to avoid she/her, in fact an acceptance. If Gooding doesn't object, why should we. Why are we pigeon-holing Gooding? Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    > "The status quo is NOT to use 'they/them'" – Check the status quo of this article; what does it use? – .Raven  .talk 08:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The status quo refers to the last stable version of the individual article. It seems like you're suggesting what a standard practice is (although I'm not actually sure you're right about that).--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


@HTGS:—HTGS, I'm pinging you since you started the RFC (and I generally think the people spearheading an RFC should have special say on these matters). The RFC has been quiet for 6 days, and relatively quiet since June started (two comments by the same user since then). In light of that relative quiet and the coming end of the RFC period, I think it's worth asking if we need an official close. From my perspective, things are relatively evenly split, and I suspect (though obviously, particularly as an involved editor, I can't guarantee) that the finding will be no consensus. What are your thoughts?--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The page makes it clear that Gooding identifies as asexual, I am not sure why she should not be included in the asexual people or asexual non binary people categories @FlightTime Mek-laa-ni (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]