A possible new rule for gender sections in our character profile pages

[Antvasima]

Hello.

As you may or may not know, we had a recent discussion regarding whether or not we should follow Fandom's official policy standards of writing "Female (Assigned male at birth)" or "Male (Assigned female at birth)" in the gender sections for transgender characters, which have been developed by Fandom via considerable collaboration with representatives for the trangender community, and otherwise strictly use the characters' preferred pronouns in their entire profile pages.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/guilty-gear-crt.140430/

https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Gender_Identity_Guidelines#General_Style_Guide

In order to get Fandom's official take on this, I asked our current wiki representative Lucas DeRuyter for an evaluation.

Here is what he responded:

"First off, I want to assure you and the VS Battles community that Yamato's and Bridget's pages are currently in line with Fandom's Gender Identity Guidelines. The pages do not currently have to change from my perspective as one of Fandom's Community Managers, as they meet our standards for using inclusive and respectful language.

However, it's understandable that some folks object to the use of AMAB or AFAB on these pages. The preferred way to refer to characters and people of a marginalized identity can be deeply personal and there can be disagreement between folks who share that identity. Inclusive and respectful language is a pool of terms and formats, and people can have different preferences.

As such, I would suggest gauging the members of the VS Battles community and switching to the group's preferred inclusive language."

As I stated in my responses to Lucas, I do not personally mind if we change our rules in this regard, in order to help maintain the peace in our community and not offend valuable contributors, but it is definitely not mandated by Fandom's community guidelines.

However, any changes to our rules still have to be accepted by a staff consensus, and please bear in mind that this is a very socially explosive topic right now, so be very careful to not say anything that might be interpreted as transphobia, and to also remain calm, rational, and polite in your responses. I very strongly doubt that anybody here means any harm.

NOTE: STAFF ONLY

 

[Armorchompy]

As previously stated I think specifying the character's biological or birth sex is very rude and unnecessary. I think just stating the character's preferred gender is enough. I understand the counterarguments and I do not think they outweigh this.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Please excuse me if my priority is viewed as inappropriate to some individuals. Due to the nature of our wiki being a Vs Debating Wiki, I do want the focus on how fictional, magical powers interact with each other, be one of the main priorities of conversation.

What would be the best way to rate the profiles to keep in mind there are fictional, magical powers that are gender specific? Such as genderbending, powers that can not be used unless a woman wields it or men falling victim to ocean siren calls.

 

[The_Impress]

As said, it's insensitive labeling to have AMAB and AFAB on the files, it's not relevant to the character gender and only character's biological sex (something we just don't list), and unless there is a chance scenario for matches, it shouldn't be brought up to begin with.

No cis character gets a "Cisgender Male/Female" in their sections, trans characters shouldn't be labelled distinctly either.

Also I'd argue any openly trans members should be allowed to comment on this thread for their opinion if they wish, as long as they're respectful and considerate that is.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

The actual transgender users of this site, myself included, find the need to list biological sex to be extremely disrespectful, unneeded, and even transphobic. There is a plethora of info we don't list on pages as is, why is this the hill you want to die on?

 

[Antvasima]

Also I'd argue any openly trans members should be allowed to comment on this thread for their opinion if they wish, as long as they're respectful and considerate that is.

That is fine with me.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Agreed with Armorchompy

 

[The_Impress]

What would be the best way to rate the profiles to keep in mind there are fictional, magical powers that are gender specific?

There are various powers dependent on changing a character's morality, or their species and race, we do not have categorisations for this.

Not every fraction of information is to be listed in a field on the character's file, you can just... look at the summary or ask in a debate, especially if it's insensitive.

 

[Antvasima]

There is a plethora of info we don't list on pages as is, why is this the hill you want to die on?

I don't want to die on this hill. There are enormously more important issues for me to fight for (especially against world tyranny by the totalitarian globalist financial elites). As I have repeatedly stated, I am fine with if we revise our standards in this regard if this is considered offensive for valuable contributors to this community, yourself included, but we still need to handle this issue like adding any other new rule text via our standard procedures, as this is not something that is mandated by Fandom.

 

[Damage3245]

I guess I'll post my point of view on this;

I do not think it is rude unless the character in question specifies that it is rude. We cannot necessarily decide on their behalf for this. People's own preferences and what they are offended by can vary a lot. Just because your preference (not specifically anyone here necessarily) is not to include that label doesn't mean that is everyone's preference (real or fictional).

I do not think it is unnecessary; it is factual information that is relevant to the gender section. It is not different than saying that a character who goes by a new name was "previously referred to as 'X'". That would not be deadnaming them, and it is also factual information that should be kept for the sake of clarity.

I don't think it is a double-standard either, I've seen that argument. If a profile just says:

Gender: Male

Then the (Assigned male at birth) is just implied. It would be redundant to include it as no new information is present. That is not the case for characters such as Yamato where it would be inaccurate to label them as being male for their entire life from birth.

Also, this has nothing to do with genitals; a person can be male or female without having either set of genitals or none at all. Trying to say that they were assigned male or female from birth is equivalent to saying "Was/wasn't born with a penis" is inaccurate.

 

[AKM sama]

I can understand why some people might take offense to the terms being used, since they probably don't want a direct indication of being trans. However, a majority of people also do not take offense as they take pride in their identities knowing that they are accepted by the society as who they are. I can vouch that the terms AMAB/AFAB are generally accepted as being inclusive and respectful globally, as they are used in multinational firms too.

Whether or not someone wants these terms to be used for them or not is completely up to the person. Unfortunately for us, we are dealing with fictional characters so we can't exactly ask them. I believe we should stick to Fandom's guidelines since omitting details that can factor into a match is not ideal as far as our indexing purposes go.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the replies. I hope that everybody can continue to remain calm without making any accusations here. Thanks in advance for any help in this regard.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

I don't have a strong opinion regarding this though I'm generally in favor for taking transgender issues into consideration whenever it crops up. The suggested standards seem alright to me since they reflect what a character identifies themselves as and also makes it clear what gender they were identified as at birth which can probably be considered relevant information for whenever an ability that has effects that differ based on the biological gender is involved.

Bridget, who is used as an example in the OP, seems to have begun considering herself a woman later in the story, so that blurries the lines from my perspective since before she reached that point she presumably thought of herself as male even if that wasn't necessarily what she truly felt like. I can understand though if transgender people feel like as if simply automatically outing people as transgender is unnecessary since this is how I generally feel about my autism though I think it is in this case justified due to it being for indexing purposes.

 

[The_Impress]

I do not think it is rude unless the character in question specifies that it is rude.

To be blunt I don't think you cannot judge what a community feels is rude for them, since you're not exactly the one affected.

Character doesn't exist, their treatment on wiki is proxy to official opinion on the topic, and I don't think most trans people just like being listed AMAB or AFAB unless they literally HAVE to address it.

You genuinely don't have to address it and are going out of your way to.

it is factual information that is relevant to the gender section

It isn't the biological sex section. You don't list American (Immigrant) in your nationality, you list American, so the information is trivial, you're ramming it in unnecessarily.

Also, this has nothing to do with genitals; a person can be male or female without having either set of genitals or none at all. Trying to say that they were assigned male or female from birth is equivalent to saying "Was/wasn't born with a penis" is inaccurate.

...if you're born without a penis you'd be assigned either intersex at birth, or you're "assumed" to be male by your logic stated above.

So yeah you're specifically attempting to address their sexual characteristics desperately on the file Damage, otherwise just Male would've been fine.

I can understand why some people might take offense to the terms being used, since they probably don't want a direct indication of being trans. However, a majority of people also do not take offense as they take pride in their identities knowing that they are accepted by the society as who they are.

What makes you a spokesperson of the entire community so confidently that your claim can now override multiple closely associated members of said community to say no.

I can vouch that the terms AMAB/AFAB are generally accepted as being inclusive and respectful globally, as they are used in multinational firms too.

...because you're usually required to disclose that, are you forgetting context of these multinational firms' hiring process.

Whether or not someone wants these terms to be used for them or not is completely up to the person. Unfortunately for us, we are dealing with fictional characters so we can't exactly ask them.

You can ask the community members who are potentially offended by wrong listings and their opinions, and not form it on their behalf since you recognise you're not an appointed spokesperson for said community.

 

[Antvasima]

Just a reminder that Fandom genuinely had very comprehensive talks with representatives for the transgender community to reach their current standards, and as AKM stated, said standards seem to be a common international business practice, so not remotely all transgender people seem to find this approach offensive, so please avoid making unwarranted accusations towards other members here, as I stated previously.

That said, I am still fine with if we create a new rule if several of our valuable contributors consider this offensive, as we need to maintain a harmonic collaborative environment in this community, and this would only affect rather few pages in the first place, so it isn't really a big deal to me.

 

[Damage3245]

To be blunt I don't think you cannot judge what a community feels is rude for them, since you're not exactly the one affected.
Character doesn't exist, their treatment on wiki is proxy to official opinion on the topic, and I don't think most trans people just like being listed AMAB or AFAB unless they literally HAVE to address it.

I've only seen a handful of trans people comment so far; not enough to judge the opinion of the majority of the community.

And I don't think you necessarily need to be a part of the community itself to have an opinion on the topic.

It isn't the biological sex section. You don't list American (Immigrant) in your nationality, you list American, so the information is trivial, you're ramming it in unnecessarily.

It is a part of the character's gender information. It's not being rammed in; it's providing further context.

What makes you a spokesperson of the entire community so confidently that your claim can now override multiple closely associated members of said community to say no.

Fandom also interacts with members of that community, and clearly there isn't an issue with the label as it is part of Fandom's revised guidelines.

You can ask the community members who are potentially offended by wrong listings and their opinions, and not form it on their behalf since you recognise you're not an appointed spokesperson for said community.

Why would you be offended by something that is factually correct?

If a character was misgendered or a slur was used, then I could fully understood that as being cause for offense. This doesn't seem comparable to that though.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

Just a reminder that Fandom genuinely had very comprehensive talks with representatives for the transgender community to reach their current standards, so not remotely all transgender people seem to find this approach offensive, so please avoid making unwarranted accusations towards other members here, as I stated previously.

The ones here do, though? You go on and on about "community" but you consistently disregard our voices whenever you disagree. The transgender userbase here finds it dumb and offensive, why are you just stretching this out for no good reason?

And before you say it's not your fault or anything, it was done and concluded before YOU unlocked the thread.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I think it's better to go with only what they identify as, as it just seems more respectful by default. I'm not trans myself, but if I was, I'd rather have just what I identified as too.

 

[The_Impress]

I've only seen a handful of trans people comment so far; not enough to judge the opinion of the majority of the community.

Why are you attempting to override the few that have then, Damage?

And I don't think you necessarily need to be a part of the community itself to have an opinion on the topic.

...you cannot judge someone's offenses.

It is a part of the character's gender information.

Biological sex is not equatable to gender. You're enforcing otherwise, this is grounds to cause offense.

It's not being rammed in; it's providing further context.

Unnecessary context, may as well get a trivia section going.

Fandom also interacts with members of that community, and clearly there isn't an issue with the label as it is part of Fandom's revised guidelines.

Then why does FANDOM allow for members of the community to discuss offense if it's so bulletproof Damage? Why is there a disagreement to begin with?

Why would you be offended by something that is factually correct?

It's almost as if trans people tend to experience dysphoria with regards to their past identities and hammering them in on repeat wherever they're mentioned can cause discomfort.

If a character was misgendered or a slur was used, then I could fully understood that as being cause for offense. This doesn't seem comparable to that though.

...unnecessary labelling is grounds for offense.

Like, plain and simple, why are you so damn desperately trying to list that a transfem character has had a dick on her file, Damage? There are trivial benefits and offenses galore.

 

[Antvasima]

The ones here do, though? You go on and on about "community" but you consistently disregard our voices whenever you disagree. The transgender userbase here finds it dumb and offensive, why are you just stretching this out for no good reason?

And before you say it's not your fault or anything, it was done and concluded before YOU unlocked the thread.

Look, I originally became involved in this due to noticing a change in Bridget's page that went against Fandom's guidelines, but since I knew that this is a controversial issue, I searched for a recent thread about it quickly after the fact, asked about it, and was convinced to remove AMAB again. Then Damage got involved and we decided to ask Fandom about it. Then I received a response after the weekend was over, and I quickly started this thread to ask about if we should create a new editing rule for this. There is no grand conspiracy here. Possibly incompetence on my part, but definitely not a conspiracy.

As I have repeatedly stated, I genuinely do not mind if we make this change, especially if it avoids hurt feelings and a bad mood, but I am also currently mainly an adherent to left-libertarianism, so I do believe that Damage and AKM have the right to provide polite arguments for a contrarian view if they so wish, and do not appreciate that the worst possible interpretations are made towards them when I do not think that they mean any harm.

 

[The_Impress]

Like, FANDOM standards are for REGULAR WIKIS, we are NOT regular wikis, we specifically AIM TO LIST ONLY VERSUS DEBATE RELEVANT TOPICS, how the absolute hell is a character's biological sex relevant to HOW THEY FIGHT? Except chance reasons it's not.

We don't have nationality categories, we don't list a character's citizenships, their alliances are labelled too trivial to be given a special field, their relatives aren't given a section, we don't allow subpages for galleries, we disallow various characters who should be otherwise listable on a general wiki. We don't even have a trivia section and we yeet additional costumes from characters' tabbers.

We aren't MEANT to profile EVERY SINGLE RELEVANT DETAIL WE CAN for a character, FANDOM standarda are with respect to that, we're meant to index USUALLY combat relevant information onto their files.

So it's irrelevant and unnecessary labelling, except aesthetic value and combat statistical accuracy we shouldn't attempt to bloat the file.

 

[Damage3245]

@The_Impress; I cannot take it seriously when you Strawman the argument down to "You just want to list that someone had a dick on her file." If I wanted that, I'd use the actual wording in full, not play coy by using codewords.

My aim is not to offend but to just include what I see as being the most neutral, factual information for that section. I can't control whether or not I offend someone with that, some people may be offended and some people may not be offended. There is no hatred or ill will attached to this; we just have different perspectives on what causes offense, that is all.

We don't have nationality categories, we don't list a character's citizenships, their alliances are labelled too trivial to be given a special field, their relatives aren't given a section, we don't allow subpages for galleries, we disallow various characters who should be otherwise listable on a general wiki. We don't even have a trivia section and we yeet additional costumes from characters' tabbers.

Those other sections don't exist on the profiles, but the gender section already does. That's the main difference here.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

Damages "argument" is offensive as hell and irrelevant. Fandom's guidelines apply to shit like the Guilty Gear wiki where her being AMAB is relevant. We don't list complete histories, personalities or anything of the sort, we barely summarize a character in at most three paragraphs of text. Why is somethiing so minute as them being AMAB more relevant to us then stuff that could actually be relevant for indexing purposes that we don't list.

FURTHERMORE all Damage's argument does is further the othering of transgender people we already have t deal with everyday

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I definitely do not think that Damage means any harm or disrespect. He even has a history of arguing extensively in other wikis to use preferred pronouns for transgender characters. Starting to scream at and accuse others is not helping anybody.

However, given that most of the staff members here disagree with him, and some valuable members consider this highly offensive, I think that we should preferably begin to write drafts for a new neutrally worded Editing Rules text.

 

[Damage3245]

I'm fine with drafts being written up for it, though the thread has been up less than 2 hours.

I'll say in acknowledgement that my perspective on this issue is probably shaped by the fact that I have more experience on other wikis, dozens of ordinary anime/manga wikis in fact, where more complete and accurate information is generally a better thing. I'll acknowledge that VS Battles wiki, being a more specialized wiki, does make this a bit different. The wiki being more specialized is a more convincing argument to me from Impress up above than it just being potentially offensive.

 

[The_Impress]

@The_Impress; I cannot take it seriously when you Strawman the argument down to "You just want to list that someone had a dick on her file." If I wanted that, I'd use the actual wording in full, not play coy by using codewords.

I cannot strawman you when your actual retort to it, is "but I'm not tho" and genuinely you can't expand further.

My aim is not to offend but to just include what I see as being the most neutral, factual information for that section. I can't control whether or not I offend someone with that, some people may be offended and some people may not be offended. There is no hatred or ill will attached to this; we just have different perspectives on what causes offense, that is all.

I'm not saying their is hatred or ill-will but you're genuinely being ignorant with this line of reasoning that just voids basic things like dysphoria and the gender/sex distinction. I implore you not to do that, you don't have to be a gender studies genius, but if you're unfamiliar at least don't try to argue it out, man.

Those other sections don't exist on the profiles, but the gender section already does.

And biological sex section doesn't. Her gender's female, not AMAB female, which isn't a gender that exists. End of story.

However, given that most of the staff members here disagree with him, and some valuable members consider this highly offensive, I think that we should preferably begin to write drafts for a new neutrally worded Editing Rules text.

"It is disallowed to attempt to list a character's biological sex within the Gender field, as it is unnecessary for what the field is meant to list"

 

[AKM sama]

What makes you a spokesperson of the entire community so confidently that your claim can now override multiple closely associated members of said community to say no.

Nobody is a spokesperson of any community here. Nobody's claims override anybody's. What's globally accepted cannot be determined by a single person such as you or I. There is no need for a confrontational tone.

...because you're usually required to disclose that, are you forgetting context of these multinational firms' hiring process.

It's not limited to hiring process. These terms can be used within the firms in normal conversations too. The point is to note that these are terms that are generally accepted worldwide.

You can ask the community members who are potentially offended by wrong listings and their opinions, and not form it on their behalf since you recognise you're not an appointed spokesperson for said community.

I did state that whether or not someone finds it offending is up to the person. Some do, some don't. I was obviously not speaking for the community since this is an individual thing.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

"It is disallowed to attempt to list a character's biological sex within the Gender field, as it is unnecessary for what the field is meant to list"

Would it be a good idea to just outright say that the Gender field would be meant for a character's gender identity instead of their biological sex in this context?

 

[The_Impress]

Nobody is a spokesperson of any community here. Nobody's claims override anybody's. What's globally accepted cannot be determined by a single person such as you or I.

Yet my method still has the least offense since it isn't requiring to list irrelevant information on a page someone has offense for.

There is no need for a confrontational tone.

There isn't one, colored language isn't the basis to act like I'm being confrontational.

It's not limited to hiring process. These terms can be used within the firms in normal conversations too. The point is to note that these are terms that are generally accepted worldwide.

Demonstrate, because I can find and even produce a variety of trans people who would disagree to acknowledging their birth gender unless it is absolutely pertinent information a discussion cannot further with, usually medical context or romantic ones.

If not the trans people you hang out with must be having a ritzy lifestyle their dysphoria doesn't trigger due to it, not everyone's like that.

I did state that whether or not someone finds it offending is up to the person. Some do, some don't. I was obviously not speaking for the community since this is an individual thing.

Then it's a trivial factor to the argument.

Would it be a good idea to just outright say that the Gender field would be meant for a character's gender identity instead of their biological sex in this context?

Ye sure, how'd the wording go there

 

[Antvasima]

"It is disallowed to attempt to list a character's biological sex within the Gender field, as it is unnecessary for what the field is meant to list"

Hmm. That seems to not be easy enough to understand for our members. How about something like this instead?

"Always consistently use the preferred pronouns of transgender characters in their character profile pages, and only list the gender that they identify as in this section of the pages in question, not anything further."

 

[Damage3245]

@Antvasima; that sounds fine to me.

For characters like Orochimaru, we have this:

Gender: Male (He has switched bodies between male and female throughout his life)

Obviously we don't have a separate section for sexual characteristics, but this information is still noteworthy. The gender section has just been the most convient placement for this information to date.

 

[The_Impress]

Hmm. That seems to not be easy enough to understand for our members. How about something like this instead?

"Always consistently use the preferred pronouns of transgender characters in their character profile pages, and only list the gender that they identify as in this section of the pages in question, not anything further."

Yeah sure :V

 

[AKM sama]

Yet my method still has the least offense since it isn't requiring to list irrelevant information on a page someone has offense for.

What's your method? I don't think biological sex is irrelevant information since it can be a factor in a match. And in our case, we mostly use gender and sex as one and the same thing. Sex in most profiles is implied to be the same as gender since mentioning it twice would be redundant.

If you have a method that doesn't list it under gender, but also does not omit the detail, I'm all ears. Perhaps we can just mention it in the summary section. Wikipedia pages generally note this under trivia but we don't have that.

 

[Antvasima]

For characters like Orochimaru, we have this:

Obviously we don't have a separate section for sexual characteristics, but this information is still noteworthy. The gender section has just been the most convient placement for this information to date.

Yes, how should we handle body-switchers in an inoffensive manner?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I am self aware I am not a staff member, but I like to point out Fandom also has a guideline for the LGBTQIA+ community as well. https://community.fandom.com/wiki/LGBTQIA+_Resources

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima; that sounds fine to me.

Yeah sure :V

Thank you for the replies. Is my draft text considered fine to apply by the rest of you as well?

 

[Antvasima]

I am self aware I am not a staff member, but I like to point out Fandom also has a guideline for the LGBTQIA+ community as well. https://community.fandom.com/wiki/LGBTQIA+_Resources

Should we link to that page in our site rules?

There will also be a guidelines page regarding autistic Fandom members soon.

 

[Jackythejack]

AS someone who doesn't identify with their assigned gender-

Just label them as their preferred gender. Nothing more nothing less. I really don't see why this is such a big discussion.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Hmm. That seems to not be easy enough to understand for our members. How about something like this instead?

"Always consistently use the preferred pronouns of transgender characters in their character profile pages, and only list the gender that they identify as in this section of the pages in question, not anything further."

Can we take it a step further with the new guidelines for vs debating?

"Always consistently use the preferred pronouns of transgender characters in their character profile pages, and only list the gender that they identify as in this section of the pages in question, not anything further.

Note: For vs debating, vsbattles.fandom views genders specific Hax (Fictional powers wielded by individuals or concepts) to only effect the gender those that identify themselves as such.”

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Should we link to that page in our site rules?

There will also be a guidelines page regarding autistic Fandom members soon.

We should since VS Battle Wiki is literally a indexing wiki and been subject to Fandom’s guidelines. I do not want us to provoke Fandom staff if they deem it necessary to intervene.