Talk:HuCow

Image removal/inclusion

@User:SpanskKo, The file that you remove (File:NuniCult_femboy_and_Model_from_the_United_Kingdom_2.jpg) seems to demonstrate the subject of the page. The image is demonstrating a person in a sexual context and this page is about a sexual fetish. I would argue that it is more appropriate then the other image on this page that being the breast pump. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

The photograph title

The following discussion 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.

---

For the caption of the photograph the different titles have been; Trans woman, women, femboy, and individual. To get a quick consensus on the best caption per MOS:GIDINFO.

To note, the file's title was changed over on Commons by Taketa.

Courtesy pings: Knollll, discospinster, ~2026-49491-46, ~2026-44211-01, ~2026-37341-54, ~2026-37341-54 to editor that have changed the file's title. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I belive it to be most appropriate to use woman instead of individual when reffering to the person in the image, as she is a woman, and i see no good reason to refer to her as anything else. ~2026-49719-51 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49719-51 I would suggest trans women as that is a page link. However, per MOS:GIDINFO, "an individual" may be best for the caption. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Really, cause I am reading "Use the name and gendered words (man, woman, person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification" and the woman in the photo NuniCult is a publicly identifying trans woman ~2026-49719-51 (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49719-51, Not all that against that position. However, I would hope for other editors weight in to help build consensus. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi yes hello I am a trans woman and were this a picture of me I would probably just want it to say woman tbh. "Individual" seems just a touch de-personing. PipitSweet16 (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Likewise. I don't think "transgender woman" is wrong here but "woman" is preferable if her being transgender isn't relevant to the point being made.bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 02:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I also agree - drawing attention to something not relevant to the article doesn't improve the article in any way. E.g. if on another article there's a picture of a tall woman (and the article isn't about height in any way, shape or form) it would be kinda weird to draw attention to height like that. Ditto someone's trans status etc. Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. While "trans woman" is factually correct here, it's not relevant to the subject's appearance in this photo or how she presents online. Using anything other than "woman" here would present her being a trans woman as superseding her being a woman, which is... not ideal. 38ravens (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the text on the article is just changed to "woman" pending the outcome of this discussion for the reason I mentioned above. 38ravens (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

"Use the name and gendered words (man, woman, person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources."

From NuniCult page on X and blue sky "She/her". From her own post she describes herself as a "Goth girl"

Describing her as anything other than "Woman" would directly contradict the MOS:GIDINFO and describing her with "Individual" would be actively degendering her and an act of transphobia.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/degender#Verb_2 Voided tine (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Voided tine I think you may be looking for WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA. Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. She is first and foremost a woman, so that needs to be in the caption - degendering her would be hurtful.

I believe her being trans is not relevant to the illustration nor the article, so I do not think it should be included. Khatharsis42 (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Taketa, As stated above, I noticed that you changed the file's name. Any thoughts on changing the other files in Commons:Category:NuniCult? Issac I Navarro (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Changing the filename was requested by an anonymous user, as you can see in the file history on Commons . Renaming in this case was fine, since you do not wish to keep referring to someone in a former gender and the word model covers the image just fine. I was not aware that the same name was used in 3 other images in this category. I think it would be good for all images in the category to have the same name, though having the same name is not a goal on its own. I expect similar name changes in that category to be accepted by renamers on Commons. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

To point out there may be quite a bit of attention on this page due to this post https://x.com/NuniCult/status/2099247533138629007?s=20 . I will say it doesn't seem to cross the line into

WP:CAN. However, I will tag this page. While I did initially add this file to this page, I will be setting up a deletion request over on Commons as these files, as they seem to come from Flicker washing. VRT may be needed over on Commons but that is a topic for that sister project.

If any non regular editors happen to see this, feel free to give me a ping if you have any questions. Cheers. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor here, but I do have an informed opinion as a trans woman myself, and I have to concur with the other editors that the editorially proper way to refer to her is simply as a woman. To run through the process of elimination: To call her an "individual" seems to violate wikipedia's style guide rules for referring to people according to how they self describe ("man," "woman," "person," etc). On the flip side, her transgender status is not relevant to the article, so to leave this out is not to omit crucial context, and at a glance this same style guide rule does not seem to call for the disclosure of a subject's transgender status. To insist then that she be labeled specifically as a trans woman reads as an editorial position that a trans woman is some fundamentally different sort of thing from women, which is transphobia. She is a woman, and her womanhood is relevant to the article, ergo it is most appropriate to refer to her as a woman.

Finally, the style guide rules that have been linked here do not seem to make reference to degendering or regendering, but in the spirit of those rules I believe it's still worth understanding these specific forms of misgendering and considering them alongside those rules as other editors have done, to better understand how transphobia can creep into editorial decisions in the guise of objectivity. ~2026-50137-19 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I will also say on the subject of calling her a "femboy" that this is something of a discourse minefield, but at the very least, editors should be mindful that transfeminine sex workers like the subject of the photo often use labels like "femboy" that appeal to audiences with fetishes for such things for the purpose of SEO and branding that are not actually sincere descriptions of their gender identity.

In seeking to use a subject's most recently expressed gender identity, I believe the spirit of the rule requires minding this fact and separating branding labels from sincere, non content-driven expressions. ~2026-50137-19 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-50137-19 Femboy was initially used, as the File was categorized on Wikimedia Commons, with that label. Furthermore, the title of the file was previously uploaded with "femboy" and this has since been changed. Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I requested that the files on Commons have “femboy” removed from their titles. The titles have since been changed accordingly. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Am also a trans woman and it's... concerning that the regular editor who removed the image has also been misgendering her on the talk page, including referring to her as "it". From the outside it certainly looks like transphobia under the guise of objectivity. And I don't know the wikipedia policies on this but it seems like this editor should not be making editing decisions on queer topics. ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure where "femboy" came from. Individual isn't terrible but too vague. Her transness isn't necessarily relevant. I'd just say "woman" Magdalenaautumn (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Magdalenaautumn The title when the photograph was uploaded had the word femboy, that has seen been changed. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-51005-05, any use of "it" was in reference to the post, as a social media post has no gender. As mentioned above/below, we have strict guidelines regarding LGBTQIA+ topics; per WP:ACCEPTANCE.

Furthermore, the purpose of the caption change discussion was to establish a consensus on what would be the most appropriate title, as the caption was being edited to several different titles. Some of the confusion appears to stem from the matter that the file was originally uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under the title "femboy".

The copyright issue has been addressed on Commons.(non-admin closure) Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If the photograph were to remain, the copyright concerns would need to be addressed by the woman depicted in the photograph. Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

From the outside it looks queerphobic and thus looks like a violation of a "no queerphobia" policy—both the general course of action and, yes, the statements here of the editor who removed the image. (I don't really want to get into a protracted argument on this but I can recognise dogwhistles. 'Who is "she"?' when we're talking about a trans woman whose pronouns are known? Calling it "nutty" when people argue for gendering her correctly? In isolation "it is an individual or person" could just be clumsy, but there is a pattern here.)

As a caption "woman" seems to be clearly the best choice, "trans woman" is not ideal, "individual" is degendering her... but going from "we aren't sure what word to use here" to "well we found another reason to get rid of her image so we don't have to worry about it" is particularly bad. Pointing to copyright feels like a legalistic technicality. She's said she's fine with it so there does not appear to be a question about whether or not we have permission to use the image—we do. What's left as a justification for deletion, then, is that she did not give her permission in the right way. Which is perhaps the technically correct action under wikipedia rules but within the rest of the context here does not look good.

What I'm saying is, this is bad optics for wikipedia if the goal is to have the site appear to follow a "no queerphobia" policy. I do not know the internal technicalities of wikipedia well enough to comment on that aspect of it. ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-51005-05 As mentioned, before, I fully support the photo being used. However, it would need to be verified that it is released by the creator under a Creative Commons license. Personally I think Wikipedia:Images from social media, or elsewhere would be the easiest for this situation. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

OK I'll say it more directly: Fyunck(click) appears to be a transphobe who is good at wikipedia style bureaucratic argumentation, and what's happening on this and the image deletion page looks like straightup transphobia. So, IDK how to fix the copyright technicality. Maybe this is just a "do you prioritise the copyright technicalities even though we have documented permission to use the image, or do you prioritise having wikipedia not look like it's openly transphobic?" question, which is not something I can answer for y'all. ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 03:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

If the copyright issue can't be resolved because she hasn't said the magic words but wikipedia still wishes to appear to have an actual "no queerphobia" policy, figuring out how to ban Fyunck(click) from edits on queer topics would be a reasonable place to start. (Whereas, for instance, replying to me pointing at the queerphobia by saying "but look here we have a 'no queerphobia' policy" kind of gives the opposite impression TBH. Like, no, having the policy doesn't mean it isn't happening. You still have to notice it happening and choose to do something about it.) ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Please no WP:No personal attacks and also WP:Assume good faith. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

It's impossible to act on "no queerphobia" without pointing out "oh look, queerphobia". Like, yes, I get it. I'm being rude and I'm prioritising the "no queerphobia" policy over the "play nice kids" policies. And I'm doing that because I'm watching the "play nice kids" policies mean no one's addressing the queerphobia in the talk page. ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Something something "not a suicide pact". ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I decided to be direct because you were brushing off indirect. ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I think we are ultimately concerned about the same thing. I was not trying to dismiss the concern about queerphobia by pointing to the existence of the policy. This matter was taken to the Talk page as there were a number of conflicts to change the title. My objection is to apply and enforce Wikipedia's policies to get what would be best for a consensus. Furthermore, my point was that, regardless of the concerns for the title. It may be a bit moot, as the image still has a separate copyright issue that needs to be resolved if it is going to remain on Wikipedia. That will be addressed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Category:NuniCult.

Feel free to message me more if you happen to have any further questions. That being said please try to WP:Assume good faith with other users. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and anyway, I'm gone, see you later, thanks for all the fish, etc. I didn't really have a point here beyond "hey maybe whether or not this looks transphobic is relevant and it would be helpful for a trans person to, like, clearly state that yes, it does absolutely look transphobic" because it kind of looked like half the talk page was people delicately refraining from addressing the elephant in the room because that would rock the boat too much for wikipedia's legalistic politeness culture. ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

RfC on wording of photograph caption

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.

After a thorough reading of this RfC, there appears to be substantial consensus that the current gender descriptor used in the image caption should be maintained. Editors generally agreed that using the term "woman" to refer to the depicted person is most appropriate, per MOS:GIDINFO, as her transgender identity is not pertinent to the image or article at large. Gender-neutral language like "person" was proposed, however this was not preferred, as the depicted person's gender identity is already known, and "degendering" her would not be appropriate. The term "femboy" was largely rejected as inaccurate to the depicted person's gender identity.

Separate concerns regarding the copyright status of the image in question was brought up; this is outside the scope of this RfC, and the consensus established by this RfC still applies as long as the image is retained. Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele ^{(redt mit mir!)} 17:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

---

In the photograph's caption, what term/page link should be used to refer to the person depicted: "woman", "trans woman", "individual", or "femboy"? This question is whether the wording should be selected according to MOS:GIDINFO. I am setting up this RfC as the page has recently been a topic of interest (as explained above) and I don't wish to violate WP:3RR. Furthermore, I don't wish WP:WAR and WP:BITE as the attention seems to be from a WP:GF perspective. I am hopeing to get a second opinion from other more experienced editors. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discrimination and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

To note, this may not even be an issue if the photograph is delated; as I have set up Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Category:NuniCult. Issac I Navarro (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The copyright issue has already been addressed on Commons.(non-admin closure) Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment:, the file has been removed for the time being. If NuniCult would like to donate the file, there are a number of ways to do so.

First, I recommend reviewing C:Commons:Deletion requests/Category:NuniCult to understand why the files may be deleted. You may also find these pages helpful:

• Wikipedia:Images from social media, or elsewhere
• Wikipedia:A picture of you
• C:Commons:Volunteer Response Team
• C:Template:Email templates/Consent
• C:Commons:Permission requests

You may also want to review C:COM:WKL and meta:Free knowledge based on Creative Commons licenses.

If anyone who is not a regular editor has any questions, I am happy to do my best to answer them. Feel free to ping me. Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I should note, I don't wish to WP:CANVASS, however, I did leave a post/message at: . As it seems that the subject of the photograph seems to be open in having her, image on Wikipedia. But also state "Oh I fw it don't worry!
I will admit that me not knowing beforehand does set a bad precedent and that is something Wikipedia should improve upon, but I'm very happy about the hucow thing lmao." Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the general consensus from the previous discussion post that she should just be called a woman in the caption and not specifically a transgender woman for a lot of the reasons already stated. WP:GIDINFO states that the details of a person's gender presentation shouldn't be discussed unless pertinent, and her being trans really isn't pertinent to this article. When photos of cisgender women are included on Wikipedia pages, we don't refer to them as cisgender women in the captions, just women, and the same should apply to trans women. Sillypilled (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• I would go with individual or person. It's very accurate and the least controversial. But I am surprised the rights haven't been maintained for the photo. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I was surprised as well. I should of checked better when adding from Commons to en.Old revision of HuCow Issac I Navarro (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would argue woman is least controversial, and is in line with usual practice.

  There is no need to focus on the specifics of her gender unecessarily. Wyrdhounds (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Gross. “Controversial” is not an appropriate description for trans women at all. TheTopOfCode (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the general consensus of the previous talk thread that her being transgender is not directly relevant to the article at hand, while her being a woman is. Thus I go with the opinion of simply "Woman".

EnzoTC (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You might "go with" something, but it should be neutrally worded. In fact because of the dubious legal representation on Wikipedia I removed the pic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree Issac I Navarro (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

"Woman" is the most neutrally worded in this context given that gender is a significant factor within hucow.

EnzoTC (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Well we disagree there big time. Gays can also be hucows from what I just looked up, so gender is also irrelevant. It is an individual or person. The picture could be designated as almost any variety of human depending on what they call themselves that second. And that pic is very unlikely to survive scrutiny regardless. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologize, if I was a bit quick for this RfC, I know it seems like a non issue, and given the topic I can see how many editors may not wish to engage. I just didn't want to WP:BITE and keep reverting edits. Issac I Navarro (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Better to ask here rather than get into an edit war and get blocked. This discussion popped up on my talk page and I instantly thought it was going to be a rather touchy subject. But that didn't shy me away from giving my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

For the topic of gays being hucows, I do not understand why you would specify 'gay' (sexuality) instead of 'man' (gender). Furthermore gender is relevant as it can be a deciding factor as to whether a participant is "HuCow" or "HuBull" (see citations 4 and 2). Thus specifying to the reader the gender of the photo subject is relevant.

I am unsure why you brought up the topic of "what they call themselves at that second", various links within this talk page shows that she refers to herself as a "woman" and thus Wikipedia should mirror that usage. If there comes a point where that changes then we will simply update (see MOS:IDINFO).

As for the legality of the image, that is a discussion for the Commons page (which can be found here), not for the Wikipedia page.

EnzoTC (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Who is "she?" I assume this is a pic of an unknown person of unknown copyright. The photo description says nothing of gender or man (sex). The licensing says "person." We don't know how this individual identifies themself or if they truly want this on Wikipedia. What we would call ourselves in this pose means zero. And the term hucow from what I read is male or female just as the term gay is. I'm not getting into some silly semantic argument that half the population can't decide upon. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

https://x.com/NuniCult/status/2099247533138629007?s=20 EnzoTC (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@EnzoTC Agree, since that is what she identifies as per our guidelines woman would be best. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

https://x.com/NuniCult/status/2099599801176273068

https://x.com/NuniCult/status/2099247533138629007?s=20

As has been described multiple times, and as is described in the image name, it is a person by the name of "NuniCult" who is a woman and who has agreeded to have her photo on this site. Please also see MOS:IDINFO for the Wikipedia standard of gendering individuals.

Again, I am unsure what your argument is in the statement "silly semantic argument that half the population can't decide upon.", but please do not remove the image without valid argument. EnzoTC (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) , also Agree as this topic could be stressful for some, I think this RfC was the best route. However, it may be moot as the file needs to be removed from Commons due to Flicker washing. As I provide above it does however seem that NuniCult is open to haveing her image. It would just need to licensed properly. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's just be blunt here: "what they call themselves at that second" is a queerphobic dogwhistle implying that queer identities are arbitrary or frivolous. ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Please no WP:No personal attacks and also WP:Assume good faith. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You were on the right track with my comment above but not on this one, sorry. Plainly stating that this violates Wikipedia:No queerphobia is not a personal attack and "assume good faith" doesn't mean "don't point out violations of WP policies". Like, we can argue that the queerphobic dogwhistle was an accidental good faith mistake, but it's still a queerphobic dogwhistle and still a policy violation. ~2026-51005-05 (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to help and contribute to Wikipedia. To note, WP:PA is a policy, and WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA is an WP:ESSAY. I would also ask for you to again, assume good faith and be WP:POLITE regarding other editors and avoid speculating about their motives. See WP:COOL and WP:5P4.

You may also find MOS:MISGENDER and MOS:GIDINFO helpful in this matter for the appropriate way to handle terminology concerning transgender subjects, alongside WP:NOQUEERPHOBIA. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

(Notified from WP:LGBTQ) I would suggest snowclosing this RfC. Since the image in question was not properly licensed, the discussion is moot.

That being said, as others have argued clearly above, woman is most appropriate in this context. individual is needlessly degendering and trans woman places undue emphasis on trans status in a context where it is irrelevant. In the context of a transfem model's Twitter bio, femboy is an aesthetic label (see Wikt:femboy#Usage notes), not a GENDERID. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 03:54, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

But you don't have a clue how this person identifies themselves. The twitter bio didn't say... only she. And it's why Wikipedia says not to use the term. "The gender identity of femboys is generally (cis or trans) male or nonbinary. Femboys are generally considered gender-nonconforming." So we don't know. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): The model in question uses she/her pronouns, according to her social media bio; based on that it is perfectly reasonable to infer that her gender identity is female for the purposes of MOS:GENDERID. Your insistent use of they and person here is misgendering; please alter your language. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:18, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Since I have no idea I can certainly say "she", but that's as far as I can go. This conversation is getting a bit nutty for me so I'll leave it to those who care about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders Thank you, for the helpful feedback. I am glad I notified those WikiProjects. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Woman would be the appropriate term here. She is a woman and the fact that she is trans is irrelevant in the context.

Images are typically captioned using the person gender. I.e. see under "types of animal roleplay" in the "animal play" article. Wyrdhounds (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wyrdhounds This article; Animal roleplay? Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes sorry, thats the one. All images in the article are captioned with reference to the peoples gender, i.e. "A pony-boy pulling his mistress", and "A woman in a kitten outfit". The only place gender ungendered language is used is when the face of the person cannot be seen due to a mask (under pony play). Wyrdhounds (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wyrdhounds, you may find WP:GENDERID and WP:ACCEPTANCE to be useful. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

That is useful information, thank you. It seems to agree with general consensus that woman would be most appropriate in the caption. As stated in the MOS: "Use the name and gendered words (man, woman, person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification". To do otherwise is degendering (a common form of misgendering and transphobia often experienced by trans women) which would go against the pages you shared as well as against the MOS:GENDERID. Wyrdhounds (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

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.

Page locked

I see a RFC regarding the dispute. That's good. I also see edit-warring. That's bad. I also see edit-warring during the RfC by participants in the RfC. That's very bad. Page fully protected for two days. If edit-warring resumes once the protection expires, individual sanctions can be expected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

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.