New York Times On Chelsea Manning
The New York Times is being rather public about its quandary on properly gendering Chelsea Manning, noting that while they want to handle the situation respectfully, there's no precedent for talking about a person of such "extraordinary prominence."
Toward that end, she [deputy editor Susan Wessling] said, “We’ll probably use more words than less.” In other words, The Times will explain the change in stories. “We can’t just spring a new name and a new pronoun” on readers with no explanation, she said. She noted the importance in the stylebook entry of the words “unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent,” which certainly applies here. An article on The Times’s Web site on Thursday morning on the gender issue continued to use the masculine pronoun and courtesy title. That, said the associate managing editor Philip B. Corbett, will evolve over time. It’s tricky, no doubt. But given Ms. Manning’s preference, it may be best to quickly change to the feminine and to explain that — rather than the other way around.The Times links its own style guide:
transgender (adj.) is an overall term for people whose current identity differs from their sex at birth, whether or not they have changed their biological characteristics. Cite a person’s transgender status only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader. Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent, use the name and pronouns (he, his, she, her, hers) preferred by the transgender person. If no preference is known, use the pronouns consistent with the way the subject lives publicly.
Labels: Bradley Manning, Chelsea Manning, journalism, language, New York Times, transgender issues