If the Oxford dictionary can include an up-to-date definition of “gender” but fails to keep their definitions of “he” and “male” in check, that just means Oxford Uni needs to get their act together and update those definitions. Languages change all the time. New definitions arise while old ones fall out of favour and into obscurity.
And truth be told, relegating someone’s gender identity to the status of a “nickname” isn’t correct. Deliberately misgendering someone isn’t correct. It’s actually insulting and hurtful to disregard someone’s wishes and deny them their identity on the basis of, what, less than thirty or forty bytes on a disk somewhere in the arse end of a government file server? Some neatly-arranged blots of ink on a piece of paper? Whatever bibbity-bobs happen to be between their legs?
And news outlets are even more guilty of inflicting that hurt by misgendering Manning and other transgender individuals to the world. The news outlets are not bound by “legal” names, putting aside the fact that there used to be a time when legal documents didn’t set our names and identities in stone. They are addressing Jo Public on a general basis, not a government employee working on a task that would actually require her old name. If they’re so worried about confusing people, it’s not hard to add “(formerly known as *)” in the next few stories or, as The Guardian currently does, change an article category to say the same.
To (poorly) paraphrase Batman, it’s not what we have underneath, it’s what we do that defines us. Chelsea Manning has asked to referred to by the name Chelsea and by the pronouns she and her. She did that, and that has defined her.
