Board Thread:Support Requests - Community Management/@comment-25620470-20150907220403/@comment-1375848-20150908024856

I'm the user who reverted Luna's posting, and my point over there was based in what Dessamator said above;

"But here's another perspective, suppose a 12 year old child reads that article with all those "unknown" words referring to the person, do you believe the child would understand the article, what about non-native English speakers?"

I would add that it would be altering history to refer to Amelia as anything but a she in the past tense at least. Not only that, let's be clear on the definition of transgender.

"An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth." (From the GLAAD link)

Now for the most part this applies to people who were born male but identify as female (and vice versa) - with or without gender re-assignment surgery. Amelia is an exception to this because the option is taken for no gender. I don't think GLAAD had that interpretation in mind when publishing the above definition.

The point is that the article concerned is about Amelia. This includes Amelia's history and that has to be referenced as "she" and "her" because that's how Amanda identified at the time. You can't just wipe it out as though it didn't happen (like the appearance on CNN). Now if the article wants to quote Amelia - then by all means use the "sie" and "hir". But outside that, no gender is almost impossible to write legibly and therefore there is no alternative but to go female. Amelia may not like that, but like I said one can't ignore or re-write history.