104
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 25:
Line 25: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→My recent edits and justification: Conservapedia may not accept transsexualism, but the US legal system does. Considering that we're subject to that law, we should likely follow it.
::We need an article on [[LGBT advocacy]] or the [[unisex movement]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)
::We need an article on [[LGBT advocacy]] or the [[unisex movement]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:::I agree that Conservapedia has not yet accepted the validity of transsexualism, and much so may never accept it. However, should Conservapedia reject eternally the validity of transsexualism, the US legal system ''has'' accepted transsexualism. Thus, it is a legal liability to Conservapedia, and editors to refer to a person, who is legally of one gender, with the gender pronouns of the opposite gender, even if that was their assigned gender at birth.
:::Libel is the act of making harmful statements, presented as if fact, in a fixed medium (the internet is qualified as a fixed medium). Refering to a person with pronouns against their gender identity is considered very offensive, and harmful, and is therefore almost certainly to be ruled as defamatory ''per se''. Although, it is true that ''truth is always an absolute defense against defamation'', it would be impossible to legally prove such a position, considering that for ''all'' legal purposes they are female/male.
:::This is a legal compulsion when presenting information as fact. Although talk pages can be easily argued to be opinion by nature and thus exempt to the risk of libel; mainspace articles are by nature presented as fact. If you it is your preference to refer to a transsexual MTF with he/him/his/himself on the talk page, you are entirely within your rights to do so. But if you present that information as fact on the mainspace article, when you know it is not a fact, it becomes libel. This is the exact same reason why Fox News is compelled to use gender of identity pronouns regardless of their personal opinions, or opinions as an organisation.
:::Borrowing a quote from [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] "What '''not''' to include in politician's pages: Your opinion of the politician; Unsourced, possibly contentious facts. Remember, politicans are usually lawyers... no one wants to get sued here." This would seem to effect a self-preserving interest in not putting anything on a page that could give rise to a lawsuit. It is safe to assume that just because the person is not a lawyer that it does not make them any less likely to sue. No less by presenting such statements with pronoun use inconsistent from that of its reference is: without question a "contentious fact", as a misrepresentation of that reference that makes it "opinion", and by not providing any references to justify such pronoun use that makes it "unsourced".
:::Most of all, the Conservapedia Commandment 1 says: "'''Everything''' you post '''must be true and verifiable'''." (emphasis added) The pronoun use suggested is by its very nature legally false, because it contradicts legal fact. It is also unverifiable, as all documents and records, which would be accepted by Conservapedia, will indicate that the individual is the gender of their identity, in this case, female.
:::This is why I presented the solution to simply use the individual's last name for reference rather than get into legal muck with pronoun use. This method produces no legal liability, while at the same time does not make an endorsement that Conservapedia accepts the validity of transsexualism --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:27, 7 December 2007 (EST)