Forum:Gender pronouns guideline in the Manual of Style
To cut to the chase right away, I would like to amend the Manual of Style to include a new section about use of gendered pronouns in reference to Sims in the games. I'll paste my proposed amendment directly below, and then I'll give my reasoning below that.
- Gender and gendered pronouns
Gender terms and pronouns used in an article about a Sim, or in an article that refers to a Sim, should match that Sim's gender expression. "Gender expression" here refers to the Sim's physical appearance, choice of dress, speaking voice, or other mannerisms, especially as those factors conform or do not conform to the traditional male/female gender binary. The choice of using one set of pronouns over other sets depends on the reasonable assumption of the Sim's gender. In the vast majority of cases, a Sim's gender can be reasonably assumed.
In cases where a Sim clearly expresses one gender, but that gender does not match their biological sex or does not match the sex that is coded into the game (which is typically accessed via a package editor program), gender terms and pronouns in the article text should match the Sim's expressed gender. The Sim should be categorized into Category:Sims with an ambiguous gender, and the Sim's infobox(es) should reflect the ambiguity. For example, Mrs. CrumpleBottom, from The Sims 2, is depicted in-game as a female, whereas the game code for the character treats Mrs. CrumpleBottom as a male; the article on Mrs. CrumpleBottom uses female pronouns.
In cases where there is reasonable doubt as to a Sim's expressed gender, neutral pronouns (they/their/theirs) should be used instead of male or female gendered pronouns. The Sim should be categorized into Category:Sims with an ambiguous gender, and the gender stated in the Sim's infobox(es) should reflect this ambiguity. A discussion on the article talk page to decide whether there is any doubt as to a Sim's expressed gender will suffice. There does not need to be consensus around what a Sim's gender is; if there is merely a disagreement about the gender, regardless of in what direction the disagreement lies, the default is to use gender neutral terminology.
Note that the use of neutral pronouns in place of more specific pronouns is not meant to assume, in regards to canon, what that Sim's gender actually is.
I'm proposing this in order to correct what I personally see as an error and an oversight. The specific issue that spurs this on is that of Morgyn Ember. For those who are unfamiliar, Morgyn Ember is a Sim that is, broadly speaking, gender non-binary. Things get a bit murky because The Sims 4 has several customizable options as to how a Sim expresses gender and sex, and Morgyn's specific options aren't consistent with one or the other binary genders. Soon after Morgyn's page was created, there began a back-and-forth of several different editors swapping the pronouns used to refer to Morgyn, either flipping them to they/them/theirs or he/him/his. Adjacent to this was a discussion on the talk page wherein the quasi-solution that was eventually drifted towards was to treat Morgyn's gender as male; this in spite of disagreement in the discussion and reasonable doubts as to the conclusion. Compounding this, at some point a comment was included on the article itself, visible only while editing the page, which tells editors not to change the pronouns on the article to they/them/theirs, seemingly implying that consensus had defined Morgyn Ember's gender as male. In spite of this supposed consensus and the comment left on the page, the article has been flipped to they/them/theirs pronouns at least (by my count) five times in the last twelve months.
It's pretty clear that there is no consensus as to what Morgyn's correct pronouns are. It's also clear that this is a particular issue that we've run across with different Sims before. It would make sense for us to communally establish a process by which we can decide what a Sim's proper pronouns are, rather than doing it ad hoc every time we get a Sim that doesn't fit neatly into the binary mold.
People are getting hung up on the idea that changing the Sim's pronouns to neutral terms makes assumptions about the Sim's gender, when in fact it does the exact opposite. To refer to a Sim as a "he" makes an assumption about that Sim's gender. Most of the time, we're perfectly comfortable to make that assumption, and there is no reasonable person who could argue differently. But sometimes, it can be called into question whether a Sim fits neatly within a masculine or feminine box. In those circumstances, it is impossible for us to make a reasonable assumption about their gender, just as we cannot assume that that Sim is genderfluid, genderqueer, transgendered, etc. But I must emphasize that the use of a neutral term like 'they' doesn't assume a non-binary gender in the same way that 'he' assumes masculinity; rather, using a term like 'they' refuses to assume any gender at all. That's why it's "gender neutral". I make the last point because there is, in my opinion, a rather misguided quasi-obsession with whether a given piece of information is canon, and that concept has seeped into the discussion of which pronouns to use. I want to say again, using neutral terminology makes no assumptions, it merely confirms that there is reasonable skepticism and that we don't want to make an erroneous assumption, either in assuming that they are cisgendered, or that they are non-binary.
I would be remiss without mentioning the broader context of this, as well. The choice of the language we use and the terms we use has a broader impact than a couple articles on the wiki. This is a matter of social justice. Though we might want to cage our discussion about which pronouns to use in terms of what is or isn't official canon or what is or isn't defined by the game itself, readers and editors in the real world may visit these pages and view the contents through a different lens. To them, they might see a passionate effort to enforce a gender binary onto a Sim that doesn't fit within the binary, and then compare that to experiences that they themselves face in daily life. In this way, the use of gendered terms where there is reasonable room for ambiguity can actually be hurtful to some people who read our articles. And though it is not our job to shelter our readers or protect them, at the same time, we can take a measured, reasonable step to prevent unnecessary distress, and the "sacrifice" that we must undertake to do this really isn't a sacrifice at all. Merely adopting a neutral terminology makes no assumptions and leaves the door open to broader interpretation.
And so, with all this said, I am proposing the above-posted amendment to the Manual of Style, to give clearer guidance as to what we should do in cases of gender ambiguity now and in the future. The proposal as I've written it would default to neutral terms in cases where there is reasonable doubt as to a Sim's gender. It would re-purpose Category:Sims with an ambiguous gender to also include these Sims. This change would not assume that these Sims are male or female, but also would not assume that they are non-binary, transgender, etc. The exact determination of all of that would, as always, fall to the editors to figure out based on evidence from the game, from game code, from comments and commentary from SimGurus, etc. It is only correct, from a factual standpoint, that we should start from a place of neutrality if there is reasonable doubt as to a Sim's gender. Adopting this amendment to the MoS establishes this neutrality, and leaves room for further discussion and consensus around these complicated issues; the current assumptions tend not to leave room for this. Presenting these ambiguous cases as ambiguous, in neutral terms, is the best solution. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 05:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, a couple days passed, I'm thinking of things and I'm realizing that maybe I could tidy up my original proposal somewhat. I'd like to take it in a slightly different direction.
- Currently we have a category, Category:Sims with gender customization, which includes Sims like Morgyn Ember and others who have some apparent ambiguity in their gender expression, or a mismatch between their coded sex and the way that they express their genders. I would use the term "ambiguous" to refer to this, as the Sims broadly don't fall into a hard "male" or hard "female" binary in the same way that most other Sims in the series do. So in my proposal, these Sims would be categorized in Category:Sims with an ambiguous gender. But, we currently use that category for Sims whose gender is merely mismatched; their coded sex is one binary, whereas they exhibit gender qualities that are the opposite. There is no ambiguity in those cases as to what their gender is, but we acknowledge that there is a disconnect between their coded sex and their apparent gender. I would say that these Sims do not have a gender ambiguity, and thus are actually mis-categorized. So what I'm proposing, in addition to what is discussed above, is the creation of a new category, something like "Category:Sims with a mismatched gender," to apply to those Sims whose gender expression and coded sex don't match. Everything else, I'd keep the same; using the pronoun associated with their gender rather than the one corresponding to the in-game code. I would then transfer the Sims currently in "Sims with gender customization" to "Sims with an ambiguous gender," and then delete the former category as it would no longer serve a separate purpose. I think referring to these cases as ambiguities rather than customized genders more clearly expresses what we're trying to express.
- While I am here, I would like to expand a bit on my initial points. In my initial write-up, I referred to a "quasi-solution" and "supposed consensus" regarding the selection of pronouns for Morgyn Ember. After a bit of hindsight I do acknowledge that there are degrees of consensus, and that what is the going consensus is largely defined by what state the page is currently in. This is why I am not just boldly editing the article to match what I have proposed here, despite the fact that I think it would be factually correct to do so; it would defy the going consensus and would likely either end up in a revert, or else would not be reverted due to murky, sticky issues regarding the fact that I am an administrator. As I do not want to sway consensus or enforce a change using the "soft power" of administration, I choose instead to broaden the discussion to cover other contingencies.
- At the same time, however, I do stand by my frustration that the reverse has not been true; that when people have disagreed with the going consensus and have done so boldly by editing the page, that they have been reverted and told, more or less, that they're not allowed to do that as it defies consensus. Consensus can change, and consensus is not merely defined by what is discussed, but also by the state of the page and the attempts to change it. Trying to look through the conversation on that talk page with as little bias as possible, while acknowledging that to eliminate my bias altogether is impossible, I still cannot help but say that the consensus in favor of the status quo is not as strong as some of the editors there would like to think that it is. I say this because, again, since the last contribution to that discussion a year ago, the going consensus has been actively ignored, and then actively enforced, on five separate occasions. This is what I mean when I say "it's pretty clear that there is no consensus." What I mean is that, despite the appearance of a definite conclusion on the topic, there remains a contingent that disagrees. Consensus does not require unanimity, and we don't have a hard definition of what constitutes consensus for a given topic, but I think the repeated nature of the defiance of that consensus does raise a question as to how collective the conclusion really was. It is possible that it was not a consensus of the whole group, but rather merely an agreement amongst the most vocal subset of the group. Now, of course, this is how the wiki is in most community decision-making; decisions are made by those who show up. We can't take non-participation as opposition to a given idea, and to a limited degree, silence is construed as consent (to put it in less problematic terms, "consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement").
- But the dissent of those who didn't participate in the discussion can't be ignored simply because they didn't participate in the discussion; they made their dissent known by acting boldly to edit the page, and then were told (through the edit summaries of the reversions and through the comment added to the top of the article) that they were essentially not allowed to do what they did. I would argue that just as an administrator doesn't have grounds to enforce a preferred version of a particular page through administrative action, another user does not have grounds to enforce a preferred version through a mandate included in an embedded comment. Reversion to the going consensus is acceptable so long as the going consensus can still be arguably implied as consensus, but embedding the comment essentially tries to shut down dissent ahead-of-time and tries to preserve a preferred version of the article by dissuading an action that runs contrary to it.
- All of this is a long, roundabout way of saying that I am removing the embedded comment from the page on Morgyn Ember. If the community consensus is that the comment should stay, then my edit, of course, can be reverted. I am not going to swap the pronouns on that article, as that would go against the current consensus and I believe that to act boldly in that case would be disruptive and not serve my purpose of trying to change minds and define a broader standard. Consensus should be allowed to develop organically, and adding the comment to the page kneecaps organic ad hoc consensus-building in exchange for defining what the consensus is in a static way. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 18:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel like this could be solved by asking the game's developers if Morgyn is intended to be non-binary. With how often the article is changed to include gender neutral pronouns, I think that perhaps someone had already asked them and we missed it, somehow. I'm not sure how we'd go about looking up a confirmation, though. - ✨AireDaleDogz✨ (talk | contribs) 18:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ideally you could do that. But, this issue doesn't just occur with Morgyn Ember; other Sims, like Darling Walsh, Paka'a Uha, etc. also fall into this gray area. Even assuming you could get a developer to give an answer to the question as to Morgyn Ember, it'd be impractical to ask about any and every other Sim that comes up that doesn't fit neatly into the binary. Adopting a wiki-wide standard guideline for how to handle those cases is a much more practical solution.
- Personally, I feel like this could be solved by asking the game's developers if Morgyn is intended to be non-binary. With how often the article is changed to include gender neutral pronouns, I think that perhaps someone had already asked them and we missed it, somehow. I'm not sure how we'd go about looking up a confirmation, though. - ✨AireDaleDogz✨ (talk | contribs) 18:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- I should point out, as well, in case it wasn't clear before, what I'm proposing is referring to these Sims' gender as ambiguous and using gender-neutral terminology. I'm not proposing that we refer to them as non-binary, transgender, genderqueer, etc. either in article text, in infoboxes, or in categories. Editors could state on the pages of these Sims that they may be non-binary, if there is evidence to support that theory and if we want to allow that speculation (as we do allow speculation in other gray areas) but it wouldn't be definitive fact. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 04:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Closing thread. The SimGurus have announced that they are planning on adding non-binary gender pronouns to the game, though they didn't state a timeline on when to expect this to be implemented. Because of this, I'm going to withdraw my proposal for the time being. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 16:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)