Talk:Billy Tipton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

admitted to previously knowing

I removed the sentence "None of his adopted sons, ex-wives, associates or band members have admitted to previously knowing the gender assigned to him at birth." Firstly, the word "admitted" is inappropriate -- readers could think Wikipedia is saying that some of them probably did know but just haven't told anyone they knew. Secondly, the whole sentence is redundant because one paragraph earlier the article states "Only his parents, brother, and cousins knew he had been born female.". --Mathew5000 11:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Gender pronouns

I'm planning, as I rewrite, to alter the 'he' pronouns to 'she' in referring to Tipton. While I agree that biographies of transsexual people should use the gender pronoun appropriate to the gender the person presents him or herself as, Tipton's biographer makes a strong argument that Tipton was not transgendered, but identified herself as female while making a choice to live as male because it was advantageous to her career.

If you disagree, I'm willing to discuss it- if Tipton really was transgendered and considered herself male, then the pronouns should be changed, but I'm not convinced this was the case. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying out the approach of switching gender within the article depending on whether Tipton, at that time, was presenting herself as male or female. I'm not sure how well it's going to work. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Tipton was a female, always knew was a female and was not transgendered or a lesbian, only a male for public persona. All pronouns should be female. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eedo Bee (talk • contribs) 08:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Well, I think it's reasonable to call her a lesbian at least, since she was married to five women and, as far as I've been able to find in my research, never had a romantic relationship with a man. I've found different opinions about whether or not s/he was transgendered in my research... I have the Middlebrook biography on hold at the library, and I'm hoping to get some better insight into the question when I've had a chance to read it. At any rate, it seems to me to be more than a public persona, since she continued it into her private life and even long after she retired from music- in fact, she seems to have died at least in part because she didn't want anyone to know she was female. I don't think that the situation is quite as obvious as your comment indicates. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please read what the issue is. This is about pronouns; her supposed lesbianism is irrelevant to this section. Andrea Dworkin, masculine as she is, is a prominent lesbian yet she is still referred to as "she". Espouse your politics elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eedo Bee (talk • contribs)

If he presented himself as male in his personal life, and there's no clear evidence that he didn't actually identify as male, then it's original research for anyone to claim that he identified as a woman based on their own personal impression. For that reason, the article should follow the standard of using the correct pronouns for people with transsexuality (in this case, "he"). It would be okay, of course, and probably even a good idea, to create a section (being careful to remain NPOV on the issue!) explaining why there's some question as to whether he identified as a man or only pretended to for various reasons. --Icarus (Hi!) 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I completely Agree with Icarus. While there can be arguments why he didn't accomplish a formal gender reassignment, Tipton was definitely a transgendered man (by the definition of such, e.g. consistently identified and lived full time as a man), and thus should be addressed by male pronouns, as he himself preferred during the lifetime. Comments like the one submitted by Eedo (above) are a classic case of ignorance or transphobia: comparing a transgender person to masculine woman is like saying that a woman "is lesbian only because she didn't meet the right man". Thru the night (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

But how would we know if Tipton was actually transgender sexually? Wouldn't it be just as much unverifiable as the idea that Tipton was heterosexual? Besides the fact that Tipton's ex-wives claim they had intercourse, there is no verifiable evidence that Tipton preffered females or thought of herself as male; the only thing that is verifiable is that Tipton transformed into a man and kept the charade going for an entire lifetime. Although this might be seen as transphobia or POV, couldn't associating Tipton with the LGBT field of study be revisionism to fit current perceptions of sexuality and POV of those wishing to add as many figures as possible to LGBT studies, which is woefully underrepresented in mainstream studies? Much in the same manner that Lewis Carroll was incorrectly thought to be a pedophile because he had relationships with young girls and took nude photos of young girls, Billy Tipton is presumed to be transgender/lesbian because she took on the role of a man and was reported to have sexual intercourse. Mind you, this is just an attempt to regulate Wikipedia's organization and not introduce speculation or POV into the article; I'm just proposing that, since Tipton's true identity is not known, a neutral position be made in the article, showing neither a lesbian/transgender image nor a heterosexual image as "fact". As such, parts of the article referring to Tipton's personal life with females should use he as the article, but in quotations, and the rest of the article should use Tipton and she, in my humble opinion. Thank you, and I apologize for the hasty editing I made without consulting the page consensus, and I appreciate the group's opinions. :) 65.12.233.213 (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of which gender of pronoun we go with, the constant repetition of 'Tipton' in the first couple of sections is unwieldy. Jozis. (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Early life

This section is very confusing, as the article does not make clear anything related to gender.


A notably odd sentence is "After the divorce, he rarely saw her father, G.W. Tipton."

I would suggest that, if Tipton was raised as a girl, the pronouns for "Early life" be female. It would especially make sense considering the next section reads,


— Emiellaiendiay 00:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Your pronoun suggestion is indeed how I had written that paragraph; an IP editor came through today and changed the shes to hes even in Tipton's earliest days, and I missed a section when reverting the changes. I hope the current version is more readable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is consider bad taste to refer to anyone by pronouns other than what they prefer, even when discussing their past. People don't "change gender." They correct their bodies to match their gender. A transsexual has the internal reality of their preferred gender all life long since birth. If someone was wrongly given a female name, that doesn't make them less masculine. Such persons being raised according to sex that does not match their gender is cruel enough. But wanting to abuse such a person by referring to this with female pronouns is even worse. One's body may have once been wrong, but a person's inner sense of gender is nearly always correct. Gender is far more important than a person's sex. Listen, if someone ever refers to me in print with the wrong pronouns, I'll sue them if I'm alive and hope people riot if I'm dead. I've always been a girl inside, and to say my gender (brain wiring) is other than feminine is tantamount to slander. --24.167.191.111 03:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But in this particular case, it's very difficult to say whether or not Billy Tipton saw himself this way. If it could be established that he did, then the pronouns should be changed. But reading the available sources, it seems that Billy saw himself as female, and presented himself as female, until his twenties. It's difficult to say, from what we know about him, whether he presented himself as male because he was transgendered, because he was a lesbian who found it useful, or simply for the sake of furthering his career, and he never spoke or wrote on the matter, so it's difficult to establish what he preferred. If you're aware of better sources than the Middlebrook biography, which doesn't clearly establish Tipton as a transgendered man, then I'd love to read them, both to improve the article and because I really find Tipton fascinating. -FisherQueen (Talk) 06:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


To User 24.167.191.111, please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. --Mathew5000 06:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't interpret that as a legal threat; the anon wasn't threatening to sue Wikipedia over the pronouns in this article, but was emphasizing how important correct pronoun use is to her. At least, I think that's what she intended. -FisherQueen (Talk) 06:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Occam's razor, she started out merely 'faking it' and probably continued to simply fake it. It's safe to assume for now that she never thought of herself as male. Female pronoun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale here is debatable, but more importantly, it's just a personal interpretation. Unless you can back up your claim that his personal identity did not reflect how he presented himself publicly, then it is POV to use it in the article. --Icarus (Hi!) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

On the tag removal

This article certainly seems to fall within the area of interest of WikiProject LGBT studies. Can you explain why you removed the tag indicating such? -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it doesn't fall in LGBT studies. Billy Tipton was not gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. She pretended to be male for the sole reason of pursuing her career. This has no connection with sexuality. It is for this reason that LGBT studies are irrelevant, and the tag ought to be removed. To leave it there might give notion to ambiguity to Tipton's sexuality, which was straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eedo Bee (talk • contribs)

Straight? I don't see how someone whose primary romantic relationships were all with women could be interepreted as straight. Have you read resources I haven't discovered yet? Can you point me toward them? Please, I'm asking you to leave the project tag in place until you've produced some evidence to support your position. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

They were not sexual relationships. Her wives did not know she was a woman, but a man with broken ribs and deformed genetalia. Hardly seems as though she was a lesbian at all. My position is that it is not an LGBT issue. My position is that it's an article on a Jazz Musician who fooled her common law wives. The LGBT issue is plastered around on far to many articles. http://www.rotten.com/library/hoaxes/male-impersonators/billy-tipton/ Uncouth website I know, but have a look. Billy Tipton was not a lesbian, transgender, gay or bi. She was a straight musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eedo Bee (talk • contribs)

There's nothing in there indicating that she didn't have a sexual relationship with her wives. It just says that her wives believed her to be male but with damaged genitals. That's a strong argument that her wives were straight, but not that Tipton herself was. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So then should we say she used deceptive methods of rape? There is nothing to say she DID have sexual relationships with her wives, who were wives only because of common law. There was no actual ceremony. You are forgetting that she was a female, and informer her wives that she was male. What you are saying something that you have no evidence for, and the evidence points to the contrary. Following your logic, we could assume Billy Tipton was a a terrorist because it does not say anywhere that she was not a terrorist. A simple hunch on your part does not warrant encylopeadic content. Eedo Bee 12:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I have found at least one source specifically indicating that she did have a sexual relationship with at least some of the women with whom she was involved. I'm picking up the biography at the library tonight, which I'm hoping to rely on for more in-depth information. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IIRC correctly, some of the wives remembered being penetrated, so he probably used accessories for lovemaking - Skysmith 13:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a simple lack of understanding about the nature of Transgender issues which includes cross dressing and gender identity issues. Billy Tipton lived as a man in his private life as well as his professional life. This content clearly falls under the scope of LGBT studies and is quite appropriate to be tagged. Agne 12:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Billy Tipton knew she was a female, there was no psychological identity crisis. Eedo Bee 12:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to assume a lot about her psychology and her motivation. I really don't think we can get far in that regard. The only thing you can take at face value is a person's action and the actions of Billy Tipton is consistent with Transgender issues. A common misconception is that transgender people are to be typecasted as gay or desiring a sex change. That is not always the case. A person can be a straight woman living as man to further her career and still be transgendered. It is an element of gender identity--even the concept that your gender is a career tool. Agne 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From Middlebrook's biography of Tipton:

"Kitty was only the last woman in Billy's life to be called Mrs. Tipton -- the last of at least five. At least one of these women knew that Billy was a woman; at least two of them made love with Billy for years thinking that Billy was a man." (p. 10)

"we can assume that after she separated from June, being Billy full-time solved the psychological and social difficulties presented by Dorothy's strong masculine gender identification and her sexual desire for women, quite apart from solving the problem of achieving professional status in a man's world. Billy wanted to be happy, and for Billy it was easier to be happy as a man than as a lesbian. Confiding in sexual partners became both unwise and unnecessary." (p. 138)

See also pages 199-201 where the biographer specifically discusses sex with one of Tipton's exes. Anyone can confirm this using Amazon's search within a book feature; it's ISBN 0-395-95789-3. —Celithemis 13:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, how can we be sure that Tipton participated in these activities with "his" wives because "he" was transgender? Is it not possible that, caught up in her career and the behavior of her peers, she pretended to make love because she was trapped in her own deception? It seems arbitrary to assign any sexuality to Tipton because nobody really knows how she herself felt. It's like saying that any tale that involves females that cross dress for extended periods of time involves lesbianism or transsexuality. Even calling her a "transvestite" would be inappropriate reaching on Wikipedia's part; the article itself points out that Jazz, the music form Tipton loved, was a male-dominated industry. If she was so driven in pursuit of success, it isn't hard to believe that she would cast aside her "personal preferences" in exchange for living a life she would not be able to otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.233.213 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image use

I haven't tried to navigate the image use policy before, so I'd welcome advice. I used an album cover and what Tipton's biographer identifies as a publicity photo, which, if I understand the policy correctly, should be fair use? If I've messed it up, though, I'd love some advice on how to include photos of someone who is dead and thus unavailable to go take a picture of. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The top image of Tipton at the piano is fine, and tagged appropriately. You might want to make an info box for him, though. The second image is a violation of fair use, in that it is a record cover, but you don't discuss the record in the area the image illustrates. If you can find any information about that recording (was it particularly notable?), then you can use that image. Otherwise, you'll need to find another image. Jeffpw 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad the top image is okay, because that's the one I really want in the article. I discuss the record a LITTLE bit in the paragraph next to the album cover, but I'll see if I can beef up the information about the album, and if I can't, I'll remove the album cover image.
I hadn't even thought about an infobox. That's a great idea. I've just realized that my referencing doesn't look anything like that in sample Good and Featured articles, so another thing on my to-do list involves figuring out the appropriate referencing system and changing the article to use it. I doubt I'll be able to get it all done before my Jumpaclass deadline, but I'll keep going after that date passes at least to do those things. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
you silly goose! I just compared versions, and you've already JumpedAclass! If you want some help improving it (removing the external jumps in the article so they are actual refs, expanding the refs, ect), feel free to ask. But you have made it a B articls now, and if you continue, I'm afraid we'll have to Peer Review it and nominate it for GA. Jeffpw 10:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's no point in stopping while I still see things I can do to make it better, is there? I'm glad to hear it made the B- that was my goal- but I won't be able to leave it alone until I have those last few chores done. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Some advice on improving

OK, then, since you want to improve it, here's some advice:

  • The external jumps in the body of the text are a no-no. If they are used as references, you can better make them inline cites, and include a reference section. I'll do one to give you the idea of how it works, if you've never done it before. I do it manually, because I hate the cite templates, but the templates are there if you want to use them.
  • The references you already have in the reference section should be moved to the area of the text they support. That will make them a footnote. I see from that you like the cite format. Glad it doesn't drive you batty like it does me.
  • Family life section: there's a paragraph about him moving to a mobile home that isn't clear. Perhaps you could rewrite it.
  • As mentioned above, an infobox would be nice.
  • Two more images, supported by Fair use rationales,would improve the article. When I read it, there are areas where all I see is text on my screen.
  • You've done a fabulous job on it! I am so impressed at the change you made, and am reclassing it as B right now. Jeffpw 10:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the advice. Regarding the references... this is my first time trying to use them (I've never really written a full article before), so just because I did it a way, doesn't mean I prefer that way- I am still figuring out what my choices are. I'll see what I can do about more images- I can think of at least one other that I know will qualify under fair use, and a little digging may well reveal more I can use.
Thanks for your kind words- I'm really pleased with how this article is going, and I've learned a lot while researching,both about Tipton and about Wikipedia. I even have Billy Tipton Trio music on my iPod now. The Eedo Bee thing makes me laugh, because I thought I'd be able to quietly improve the article unmolested, here in this obscure little corner of transgendered jazz. Silly me. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the sample reference so I can see how they work. I like that model much better, and my next bit of work will be switching them all to look like that. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Just remember for news articles to include the author, name of publication (wikilinked, if possible), date of publication and retrieval date. you know that, I think, from looking at what you've done so far. I have the page watchlisted, so if you need a hand, I will be able to give it. Jeffpw 11:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, FisherQueen, you've really done a lot today! It's looking great. Now one more thing you might want to do is set the references into the footnotes. If you didn't use them for researching the article, then you can rename the reference section "Further Reading". I am thoroughly impressed at how much work you've done. Jeffpw 20:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this next bit. Do you mean that I should remove sources from the 'references' section that are used in the footnotes? -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. You don't need to double ref. If you used them for the footnotes, you can delete them from the reference section. Check what I did with the Historylink reference. If you go to footnote #1, you'll see that if you give the ref a name, you won't have to type it all out each time. It will save you lots of time in the future. I'll keep an eye out to seehow youre doing. :-) Jeffpw 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow! That is unquestionably the coolest thing ever. Thanks for showing me how it works. I'm finished for today, but I'll be back to do the rest of them and then remove the redundant references from the reference section. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronoun use

Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends, in cases where the appropriate pronoun is in question, using the pronoun which the subject used to identify him or herself. In this case, Billy Tipton identified as male both in his professional and personal life, and that's why the male pronoun is the appropriate one in this article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Wendy Carlos I would also suggest this. Also, I think changing the pronoun in the middle of the article is quite confusing.--83.145.240.253 10:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Today, I viewed the article for the first time, and I did extensive copyediting. Since no references are cited that Tipton considered herself as a man in a woman's body, I have deleted as unsupported the reference to Tipton as a "transman" and all masculine pronouns. Note that the previous version was inconsistent: certain sections used masculine pronouns, certain other sections awkwardly refused to use any pronouns in favor of "Tipton" and "Tipton's", which makes for unnatural English. Hurmata (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively here on the talk page. Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style and the prior consensus, I have reverted your edit. --Icarus (Hi!) 03:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The intro to this article currently states only: "Billy Lee Tipton (born Dorothy Lucille Tipton,[1] December 29 1914 - January 21, 1989) was an American jazz pianist and saxophonist." However, the most distinctive and notable fact about Tipton -- the fact that Tipton was biologically female but lived as a male -- should probably be included in the intro as well. I would suggest that the second sentence of the article should be something like "Tipton became the subject of public interest posthumously when it was revealed that Tipton, who had lived for decades with a male identity, was biologically female." The exact phrasing can be worked out somehow. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Would it be too simplistic to suggest using s/he throughout the article. This avoids attributing motivation to Tipton and in my mind conveys at least some of the ambiguity around gender identity as well as being clear about who it refers to in any paragraph. Tim O'Leary (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't like s/he, just because it makes for such awkward reading, and because the style guide does suggest using the pronoun he used for himself- in this case, 'he.' I've learned a lot about pronouns since writing this article :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment 1

I went ahead and removed the absurd repetition of "Tipton". I chose to use female pronouns for the "Early life" section and male pronouns for the rest of the article. Please, if you can't reach consensus about this, can't we just follow whatever standard there is for transgender people? All this "she wasn't really transgender" nonsense is kind of childish. Even her sexual partners thought she was male, for god's sake. What do you want her to do, impregnate someone? Please, we need pronouns. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water and dispose of pronouns altogether. (Gender-neutral pronouns, anyone?) —Daniel Brockman (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Her sexual partners thinking she was male is not relevant to whether or not she was female. Female is not an insult. Women throughout history have dressed as men and presented themselves as men. All pronouns should be female in this article. 108.12.217.146 (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia sitewide consensus embodied in MOS:GENDERID does not allow us to discuss Billy Tripton as female in article space. Any pronouns used must reflect his most recent expressed gender identity, as male. If anyone is going to reply to a comment more than 10 years after it is made, they should at least be aware of the relevant community decisions. Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns

I agree that makes no sense to use male pronouns to describe this person through all stages of her life. It sounds like the use 'she' would be detrimental. She was a woman and there is no problem in describing her as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.212.33 (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the pronouns in association with Tipton's early life to female. It truly is not clear to me whether Tipton is better described as a trans man, as a drag king, as a genderqueer person who "crossdressed" professionally, as a woman who did what she had to do to maximize her career, or something totally different. The truth is that the world is not so cut and dried as to suggest that all people who exhibit gender-variant behavior should be immediately categorized as "trans women" and "trans men". This privileges monogendered trans identities that fit neatly into existing roles over multi-gendered, fluid-gendered, different-gendered, and other not-so-easily-categorized identities. The truth is that from the references I see, we don't know how Tipton identified over the course of zan life, and we certainly don't know which pronouns Tipton would prefer. I think there's something really ugly about insisting that "he must have been a man" just because ze dressed like one. I know plenty of people who dress like men who do it for entirely different reasons, biologically female and male alike. Let's avoid engaging in the type of revisionist history that occurs when you look at the world through monogendered lenses. Whatever404 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since we cannot know exactly how Tipton personally identified, the most respectful and accurate thing to do is to use the same pronouns Tipton used at various times. The previous consensus seems to have been to use female pronouns for childhood and male ones for adulthood. To use female pronouns during adulthood would implicitly push the POV that Tipton was "really" a woman. It becomes slightly confusing at the end of the "Before age 18" section when it gets to the point after Tipton started presenting as a man, but using a new section as the point to change pronouns seems like the most natural and readable demarkation. This consensus version appears to be what currently exists, so I voice my support for keeping it that way. --Icarus (Hi!) 03:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In an attempt to address the confusion present in the second paragraph of the section, I tried using gender-neutral pronouns in that paragraph. This seems appropriate for references to the whole of Tipton's life, because the whole of zan life included various gender presentations (and perhaps identities). Whatever404 (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, I disagree with this change and am going to revert it. --Icarus (Hi!) 18:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
To avoid using a gender-specific pronoun when referring to the whole of Tipton's life, I have edited the problematic second paragraph to use the name "Tipton" in place of a pronoun wherever possible, and to use singular they in the three places where repetition of "Tipton" would sound odd. Whatever404 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The "singular they" is almost as jarring as totally made-up pronouns. It works in contexts which discuss a hypothetical person, but not for a specific person as in this article. There is no ideal solution in the English language, so we have to do the best we can with what we have. I personally would switch to "he" as soon as he started presenting himself as male if I was writing something myself, but in the interest of readability I still think it's best to make the switch co-incident with the beginning of a new section. --Icarus (Hi!) 15:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The present situation where the pronouns for Tipton are invariably male does not make sense. The article now reads as though it has been written by an apologist for those who live as persons who have a different gender to their physical one. If WP is to be anything, it should be accurate in the most simple way. If we were to interpret things by intention or representation rather than actual fact, it would be acceptable. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to support or discourage a particular lifestyle over another, but to acknowledge that a different life style exists. It is to present facts as opposed to wishes and intentions. The fact of the matter is that the psychological gender of a person is relevant, but when we are dealing with facts, the fact that is inescapable is that Tipton was born and died genetically female. There is nothing to be gained by changing this for that repeatedly to suit a particular POV. And, although it has been suggested that it might be inaccurate and a POV to represent Tipton as a woman, the actuality is very different. Tipton was genetically female who represented herself as a male by making a conscious choice to wear particular clothing. She never represented herself sexually as a male, but avoided the issue in her own way. I see nothing wrong with a person who represents him or herself as a member of the opposite gender whilst remaining essentially as born. We cannot criticize Tipton for her choices, but we also cannot represent her as something that she was not. She was a woman who chose to live as a man and there is no shame in that. If we use words that support her choice whilst ignoring the fact that she was a woman, we are concealing the truth in a way that cannot be supported. It has led the article to include inconsistencies and, instead of acknowledging the truth, hide it in ways that are open to ridicule. Here are some extracts from the article"

  • Dorothy Tipton grew up in Kansas City, Missouri, where he was raised by an aunt after his parents' divorce, after which he rarely saw his father At this time Tipton was not living as a male. She was a child. Therefore it is wrong to use the male pronoun.
  • He studied piano and saxophone, but his school had a policy forbidding girls from playing in the school band. The pronoun makes no sense when used alongside the statement about girls being forbidden to play in the school band.
  • Tipton adopted his father's nickname, Billy, and more actively concealed his female body by breast binding and packing. "His female body" does not make sense. If a person's body is female, the correct pronoun is "Her".
  • Early in his career, Tipton cross-dressed only professionally, continuing to present as a woman otherwise. He spent those early years living with a woman named Non Earl Harrell, in a relationship which other musicians thought of as lesbian. Tipton cross-dressed professionally as a man. The appropriate pronoun is female.
  • which included the penis "packer" (sic) device and the binds used to conceal his breasts Tipton was biologically female. Hence the need for a "penis packer" device and the breast bindings.

The insistence on the use of a male pronoun is not accurate. It seeks to conceal the actual physical gender just as Tipton sought to conceal it. There should be no shame in a woman who lives as a man. But it is more important to acknowledge that, when a woman does live as a man, she remains a woman. Tipton remained a woman, despite her choices. She had no surgery to change her physical gender, and it does not matter that such a thing might not have be open to her, because the encyclopedia should primarily be concerned with things as they were, not as they might have been.

If there is an arbiter, it should be simple. We have one on WP: Sex_change, specifically the sections dealing with sex change in humans, where the factors that determine sex are described. By those standards, Tipton was born female and remained so because she did not undergo any kind of sex change, imposed or natural.

I believe that reversion is in order to amend the pronouns. They should reflect Tipton's actual physical gender, because her physical gender was established at her birth and again at her death. It never changed.

I don't see how female pronouns would be at odds with the fact she lived as a man. There is no disrespect or mockery of Tipton by using them, unless it is imagined.

If WP is to be worthy as an encyclopedia, we should be careful to maintain facts even though some might prefer that they were different.

We have an article that is unashamedly and entirely about a female who chose to live as a male. We do not need to use words such as transgender, cross-dressing, The article should be about her, and not a vehicle for the maintenance of individual points of view.

So let us not construct strange pronouns or use incorrect ones, because they are pronoun bindings or packers to make Tipton seem to be something that she was not. If we do, we not only are incorrect but we also suggest that a person becomes wholly different by masquerading as something she is not. There is no need to construct strange pronouns. Tipton is beyond offense at the time of writing. If others are offended by the facts, it is their concern and it does not change the facts. An established tenet of WP is described at Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Morally_offensive_views:

Those who harbor attitudes of racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views.

If the WP articles for such as Mary_Anne_Talbot and Dorothy Lawrence use female pronouns, then, no matter how people might wish it were otherwise, WP must do the same with Tipton. Because the consistent WP approach is to refer to biological females as females and biological males as males.

  • Was Tipton biologically male?
  • Is it morally wrong to represent her as a woman who lived as a man?
  • Should WP represent her as a man, despite her biological gender?

The answer to all those questions is "certainly not". If Tipton was ashamed of her own choices, that is shame enough for all of us. So let us be unashamedly correct and glad of it.

Thyrd (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your input on the issue seems to derive from a deep ignorance of trans issues. It'd be nice if you refrained from speaking authoritavely on things you don't understand. "Female bodied" men are possible, as many people who are trans who cannot afford or otherwise choose not to transition do identify as their target sex. If a trans man cannot afford to transition even though he otherwise would wish to, does this mean a trans person can only identify as their target sex and have their choices respected if they have enough money? Furthermore, trans men cannot grow male genitalia as a result of surgery, whereas trans women can have genitalia more similar to cis women's. Does this mean trans men can never truly transition, while trans women can?

Also, if you use precedent as a choice, there's plenty of other pronouns around: Wendy Carlos' article only uses the female pronoun, which is the sex she identifies with. You are not being any more pragmatic or respecting the facts than anybody defending Tipton's target sex is. You're not using facts, you're just using your own point of view. (I otherwise respect people who defend the usage of pronouns because Tipton's target sex was not known) Betina (talk)

While I acknowledge your comments of Jan 9th, your argument took a turn down an ad hominem road. This is not an issue about editors but an issue about content, so please don't make it one. Also, as I hinted in my comments above, the article should not be a means to recognize trans issues at the expense of facts, either. Because Tipton lived before the term "transsexual" became part of the language, we cannot use that (WP:Synthesis) It is probably easy to turn this into an emotive issue so, if you feel I have been less than objective in my suggestions, please say objectively how that showed itself. I'll repeat that I have no problems with Tipton and the choices she made. There is no shame or ridicule in doing what she did.
  • I don't believe we can use the Wendy Carlos article as a precedent for Tipton's, because she underwent sex reassignment surgery whereas Tipton did not. The two are unlike.
  • Did Tipton choose to not have surgery because she could not afford it? Nobody knows whether or not cost was a factor, so it's wrong to suggest that it might have been. But we don't even have to go that far, because nobody knows if she even considered or wanted surgery. There aren't any references to it so far, and we must rely upon what we know. We don't know that Tipton considered surgery. We don't know that she wanted surgery and we don't know that she refused it. But if you can provide information and valid sources, fair enough.
  • "Trans men cannot grow male genitalia as a result of surgery" Unless you're being specific about the meaning of the word "grow", the surgical procedures of scrotoplasty and phalloplasty suggest the opposite is true, just as vaginoplasty is true for female genitalia. It does not matter that prosthesis might be involved. (People cannot "grow" genitalia as a result of surgery. That's why surgery is carried out. So I believe that you didn't mean "grow" in a literal sense).
  • As I wrote before, on WP we have to go with what we know. Otherwise, all that is needed for something to become a fact is the intention.
So, I stand by my first comments above. You'll note that I made the comments without changing the article itself. There have been - and continue to be - too many instances of edits and reversions about this issue. They are proof that there is a continual disagreement that will not stop without protecting the article. But it's not appropriate to protect the article without some consensus being reached. The essential thing is to make the article sensible and for it to meet WP standards. At present, for the reasons I mentioned before, it does not. If you believe you cannot agree with my comments no matter what, then there may be no option but to take this article the standard route for dispute resolution. It may provide a useful precedent for other similar articles. Thyrd (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Weasel Word?

In the Death and aftermath section, someone has cited the following sentence as containing a weasel word/phrase, but I just don't see it, and it really appears like the editor is asking who the individuals are that are mentioned in the article:

Two wills were left by Tipton; one handwritten and not notarized which left everything to William Jr. and the second, notarized, leaving everything to Jon Clark[who?]

I saw no discussion or talk here about that. Curious where the weasel word is or if the previous editor just didn't bother to read the cited reference. KyNephi (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed the reference until someone can better explain this. KyNephi (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is Maryann?

Near the end of the Family Life section it states "...and resumed his old relationship with Maryann." There is no previous mention of a "Maryann" in the article. One of the references cites "Vollers, Maryanne (1998-05-18)", which is a different spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.224.181 (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Repeated edits of pronouns and related entries.

I am requesting comments about the pronouns that should be used to describe Billy Tipton in this article.

There's a long history of repeated to & fro edits, changing all or some of the gender pronouns (he, she, her, his...), all or in part. I don't believe they are conducive to the accuracy and stability of the article.

Because it seems that the edits have not been made by two editors, but many editors, I believe that the best first step is to open this as an RFC.

The lack of consensus about the appropriate pronoun(s) to use might frequently stem from individuals' perception of Tipton's reasons and desires to be regarded as a particular gender, and the choices made in edits also might be strongly influenced by a particular POV. As I understand it, WP discourages edits that are made from a particular POV or unsubstantiated interpretation.

I've made my own opinions about this problem clear in my earlier comments on this page and to date I haven't been persuaded that I should change them.

I believe some edits have been made based upon interpretation rather than hard evidence, or from a particular POV. My instinct is to revert them. But I realize that it's not productive to revert or re-edit the article in such a way. We ought to be able to reach a consensus or cooperatively establish a standard for this issue. But edits have continued and comments have been scarce. I hoped things would be different.

I don't believe it's appropriate to suggest that the article be protected at this time. But I believe that it should reach a point where the pronouns used have been established and locked down to prevent any more toing & froing.

Some considerations that occurred to me:

  • Must we use pronouns at all? Is it too clumsy to avoid them and refer to Tipton only as "Tipton", and only when it cannot be avoided? I believe with a little literary thought we could dispense with many pronouns.
  • If we use pronouns, should they be of one gender throughout the article? Or should different gender pronouns be used according to the timing of Tipton's conscious decision to live as a person of a different gender than the birth gender?
  • Does available evidence prove that Tipton made a choice at some point, or points, to live as one gender: For purely gender-related 'lifestyle' reasons? For expediency - employment reasons? If so, should they be treated differently?
  • The article could employ an interpretation in the context of social gender issues that were not contemporarily accessible to Tipton. Would that interpretation based upon hindsight be accurate? Appropriate?

Thyrd (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't really a big deal the manual of style says that in cases of doubt, people are described using the pronoun they use to describe themselves. The people switching the pronouns are just people who aren't familiar with that part of the manual of style, and it's easy enough to correct the pronouns back to 'he' and point it out to them. Trying to write with no pronouns makes an unreadably awful writing style, and there's no way of knowing what Tipton thought about his choices, since he never spoke or wrote about this part of his life, and, as you point out, there wasn't really a word for 'transgendered' for most of his life. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with the statement above but do we know what language was used by Tipton for self reference at different times? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm disappointed that only two have responded so far. But to encourage more comments, I'm wondering about the manual of style being used to qualify the male pronoun as the correct one. The choice must be based upon the concept that it's the one Tipton used, but I'm troubled by the acknowledgement that
"there is no way of knowing what Tipton thought about his choices, since he never spoke or wrote ab out this part of his life"
So, what's an appropriate choice that is not open to doubt, and how do we make it? Thyrd (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. When dealing with the deceased, who aren't available for comment on their own lives, there's no choice that's entirely doubt free. We'll never know for sure what his thoughts on the matter were. However, he lived as a male long after he had to for his career, and in such a complete and complex way, to where even his children and possibly lovers didn't know his birth assigned gender, and that suggests that the most polite thing to do would be to continue the trend he set in life, and to use the pronoun 'he' that he used to describe himself, throughout the article, as suggested by manual of style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.58.253 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The Manual of Style /also/ says: "Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage." As the article now stands the gender references are confusing.
From the biographical information available, it appears that Tipton didn't adopt her father's name until sometime around 1938-40, and wasn't "presenting" -exclusively- as a male in performance until around 1940. It would seem logical, therefore, to refer to Tipton as "she" and "her" up to the point at which she/he made that transition. After that transition, however, Tipton lived exclusively as a male, and from that point onwards (~1940, on) it is appropriate to refer to Tipton as "he" and "him" for the remainder of his life.
The alternative would seem to be to rewrite the entire article in such a way as to minimize gender references other than pronouns as much as possible. I think it's going to be much simpler, and far less confusing to use "she" up to 1940, and "he" from 1940 onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The article is definitely unsatisfactory in its present state, where it uses a male pronoun even in the first paragraph of "Early Life", where presumably ( -- as it is not stated otherwise) Tipton presented as a girl as a minor; and specifically in the next paragraph, where it says Tipton "more actively worked" at presenting as male, without having stated outright that Tipton was "presenting" as male to begin with! Regardless of Tipton's later identification, this is just poorly written. 70.17.166.39 (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Billy and Kitty Tipton Estate

According to the television channel "Biography", which recently aired a program on the Secret Life of Billy Tipton, starring the three living sons of Billy Tipton, the estate was divided equally between Billy's three sons after Kitty's death, who died without a Will. The show is entitled "The Will" on Biography Channel.

According to the three sons of Billy Tipton, the estate was shared equally after Billy's wife Kitty died. According to the Wikipedia article only one son received her money and estate and the other two son's received $1.00 each. Acording to the three sons of Billy and Kitty this is not true. The Judge ruled that even though the three sons were not legally adopted by Kitty and Billy that they were still considered "family" and should share in the estate. After all attorney fees were taken out of the estate, the three sons each reportedily received $35,000.00 of the $300,000.00 estate of Kitty, Billy's wife although "Biography" reports they were never legally married because the marriage certificate was falsified.

Please refer to the television channel ~ Biography's "The Will".

Sans454 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Sans454

Yes this would be a classic case of "equitable adoption". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.116.215 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns again

MOS:IDENTITY says "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." Tipton has never indicated a preference otherwise. So why describe him with Female pronouns when referring to his childhood? --71.59.58.63 (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Because in the given context the statement "he lived his adult life as a man" becomes an absurd stating of the apparently obvious. Of course "he" would live "his" life as a "man" -- why bother stating it?
The statement should read, " She is also notable for the postmortem discovery that although she lived her adult life as a man, she was born female." That statement conveys information that the reader mignt be unaware of, and puts it in a context that explains the need for the statement.
As it stands, the statement is akin to saying, "Malcolm X lived his life as a black man". Most people, knowing that Malcolm X was, in fact, black, will be wondering "why do they bother to explicitly point out the obvious?" Were it, in fact, true that Malcolm X was a white man, then the statement would be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


THere's no reason to IAR here. There's no compelling reason given to change or arguments that this article is different than similar ones. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This whole thing is silly. When Tipton was young, she was always "presenting" naturally (i.e., as a young female). Then, when prevented from being so accepted as a musician because of gender, began to "present" as a male - only during periods when working. That evolved into her "presenting" as a male outside of work.
The argument is based upon the notion that a person must be either one thing or another, and detracts from the ability of a person to evolve into something that was not originally true. I came here via the WP article on cross-dressing, where Tipton was mentioned in Talk. There is nothing ambiguous or negative about her. There is no question about Tipton's gender, unless it be in the minds of those who feel her case is a manifestation of what they feel themselves, or who have an issue about transgenderism and feel that she must have always been something that she ended up being proven as not being.
She was born female, she never was anything but biologically female, she had a relationship with a female, then she began to live as a man and actively encouraged her partner - and family - to believe it was her birth gender.
Clearly some who feel strongly about gender issues are struggling to find a toehold on this hurdle. But it's a very particular kind of hurdle. It's the same as the hurdle, the stigma, that was put before homosexuality in the 1950's in that it's manufactured by people whose thought patterns are atrophied.
There's a lot of subjective point of view opinion that denies the truth, and I find it laughable that this argument's been around for a long time already and still prevents this article from being accurate. WP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:2422:4CA9:8C22:503B:C05E:151F (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronouns yet again

I really don't want to get this started again, but Tipton self-identified as male. Per the arguments stated above, Tipton should be treated similarly to other female-to-male transsexuals. Admittedly, most articles on F-to-M transsexuals avoid pronouns, but policy states that they should be referred to as male. ONR (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is he not? __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Tipton was not transsexual. In the language of her own time, she was transvestite, or in more modern parlance, transgendered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is nonesense, it is not up to debate what Tipton was, If Tipton presented as male and went by male pronouns for most of his life, then lets just go by he/him. We cannot accurately say whether or not he would of considered himself transgender, but thats irrelevant, the point of this article is not to determine whether or not he was a man or not, its to educate. Also Tipton went by he/him and as male for most of his life, calling him a she because he went by those pronouns as a kid, which in the grand scheme of his life is incredibly minor fraction. Billy Tipton lived as a man, in both public and private life, and didn’t even tell his close romantic partners about his female gender. We should not the one determining what Billy Tipton was, we should go by whatever he went by and respect that. The History Nerd5 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • female sex The History Nerd5 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Just so that everyone is clear: MOS:GENDERID applies to all gendered pronouns; only male pronouns may be used in this article, according to the available sourcing here and site-wide consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Billy Tipton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Billy Tipton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

EddieHugh, regarding this, this and this, it's not uncommon to see a whole paragraph supported by one source at the end of the paragraph. To use the same citation after each sentence in a whole paragraph can be seen as WP:Citation overkill. I do source a paragraph in that way at times, though, because I know that some editors will assume that only one part of the paragraph is sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It's personal preference in part (WP:UNDERKILL): when I see a whole paragraph with one source at its end, I question if each sentence is from that source. With this article, the answer was sometimes "no", and the sourcing was generally poor, so adding (having checked) the source or a cn tag for each sentence seemed prudent. And that's the non-personal preference part: if the sourcing is bad, the reader is being misled about what has been sourced. Even though this isn't a BLP, some of the content is a sensitive topic for many readers, so they need to be shown clearly where each bit of information comes from (and where it's been added unsourced). EddieHugh (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
EddieHugh, it's personal preference, but citation overkill (except for the paragraph instance I brought up) often is not tolerated, including in WP:GAs and WP:FAs. Editors are significantly more willing to tolerate citing each sentence in a paragraph with the same source than they are twelve citations for one sentence, for example. WP:UNDERKILL, a recent creation, is not as supported by the community as WP:OVERKILL is, as has been made clear at the talk pages of these two essays. In any case, like I stated above, I understand why you added the WP:REFNAME the way that you did for this article. I just wanted to note to you that it's not uncommon to see a whole paragraph supported by one source at the end of the paragraph. A paragraph can look under-sourced, but not be under-sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I know that if I see one citation at the end of a para in a FA, then it's likely to be fine. If I see it in a typical article, such as this one, then I have doubts. These doubts, if investigated, often turn out to be substantiated. Readers who are not also editors and don't know about GA and FA (ie almost all readers) are left to themselves to judge. There's no ideal solution, but I believe that on a (currently) badly sourced article such as this one it's preferable to spell out for the average reader what's supported and what's not. And, of course, for editors, none of whom has leapt in with sources for the cn bits yet. If the article approaches GA or FA, we could discuss the matter again... EddieHugh (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Just found out ...

... about this jazz musician who was really a woman. I found out through quora. I am seeing controversy about pronoun usage in discussion on this talk page and am choosing not to participate. Carlm0404 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

He was not “really a woman”, he was always a man, he just was unfortunately born in the wrong body. The History Nerd5 (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Deadnaming

The deadname should be removed from the article, as it is not an example of a deadname that people would recognize. Deadnaming is frowned upon where this is not the case, and being a dead person doesn't entail that the deadname should be present. It appears to me that including the deadname here flies in the face of all consensuses related to how deadnames should be employed. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

For discussion here , I believe that the applicable guidelines are MOS:DEADNAME & MOS:GENDERID, & that the applicable policies are WP:Notability, WP:NOTCENSORED, & WP:EDITCONSENSUS.
As stated in in the hatnote for the policies & guidelines, It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The WP:Policies and guidelines page states that Policies have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards all users should normally follow. It also states that Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I think that most would agree that should follow for policies is more forceful than should attempt to follow for guidelines.
The very notability for Tipton is that he was transgender & was successful at concealing his biological gender traits until he died. Remove that, & we might as get rid of the article. He did not appear to be particularly notable as a jazz musician. All of the references in the article date from nearly a decade after his death or later. There is no contemporary reference, so nothing notable occurred until his death & the discovery of his transgenderness.
That begs the question for the reader, "Well, who was he before he became a man." The birth name / dead name is part of the story, & to suppress it would go against common sense & in essence would be censorship.
The MOS:DEADNAME guideline states that the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. This is not in question since the dead name was not included there. This section goes on to state If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article,[a] even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. Privacy is simply moot here because Tipton's birth name & status has been well reported. The question becomes whether a discreet exception to usually should not be included would be common sense in this situation.
What I would propose is to remove the dead name from the infobox & to leave it as is in the Early life section. Removing it from the Infobox would eliminate its bluntness, whereas keeping it in the Early life section discreetly places it in a common sense way. Peaceray (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Tipton wouldn't be notable (in a Wikipedia sense) without the post-mortem revelations. Removing all mentions of the 'birth name' would be a disservice to the reader, especially as there is no privacy concern (and yes, it's the reader we're here for, not the subject of any article). I'd prefer it to be in the infobox, too, as it relates directly to why this article exists (it wouldn't exist based solely on Tipton as a musician), but I'm flexible on that. From a policy/guideline perspective, it's total removal from the article isn't supported: MOS:DEADNAME explicitly refers to living people and mentions in the lead. EddieHugh (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, is your argument that deadnaming Tipton is a requirement to represent that they concealed their birth name? Because I'm entirely confused by the logic that the reader is done a disservice by not knowing what their deadname was. They do not need to know his deadname in order to know that he concealed it, that's just trivia. The notable aspect of Tipton was the concealment, and never his name. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Adding onto this conversation, Tipton wouldn't be notable without him being transgender??? That's just objectively untrue. We have obscure jazz musicians on here, he has a quartet that still exists named after him, and also if the only thing notable about him was his transgender status, the article would be mostly talking about that, not about all the many things he did during his life, which it is. Your argument is just frankly untrue. And for the rest of it, I agree with Bryn and confer to their points. - Lizstar64 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@Lizstar64: Regarding the comment that We have obscure jazz musicians on here, please see the WP:Other stuff exists essay. It is not a policy or guideline, but it is relevant to your statement.
Regarding my arguments being untrue or not, please prove me wrong. If Tipton is truly notable as a jazz artist, then there should be reliable sources about him before his death & revelation of his biological gender. If they exist, then we should certainly include them in the article. I would be pleased to see this article become more robust. However, my argument is based on the current state of the article & its citations.
Furthermore, I will note that the most notable thing about Tipton was his successful concealment of his biological gender. In this respect, this article is similar to James Barry (surgeon), Albert Cashier, & Amelio Robles Ávila articles, each of which mention the birth name more prominently. Peaceray (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think that his notability as a jazz musician is getting off-point, because even if his notability was exclusively his concealment of his gender, including the deadname neither enhances nor detracts that aspect of him. It's just trivia. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
How would we express the fact that he didn't use one name, without stating what that name was? It's possible, but surely readers would be left wondering why they weren't being told that name too. (Why do we tell readers which hospital Bob Dylan (a Featured Article) was born in? It's arguably trivia, but we tell readers because people very interested in Dylan probably want that sort of detail.) My main area of editing on here is jazz. The relevant criteria for notability are WP:MUSICBIO. It's very unlikely that pre-revelation Tipton would meet any of them. The two albums released were on a very small label; maybe there was press coverage at the time (1950s), but who would have looked for it without the post-mortem coverage? "objectively untrue": so which notability criteria would he have met? EddieHugh (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
But you're not giving an example of what would be lost by not including the birth name. "Tipton was given a different name at birth." The difference between a hospital and a deadname is obvious, as including only one of those is known to cause distress in trans people. Witnessing examples of transphobia can be a trigger for people. And before you argue that Wikipedia is not censored, we already don't deadname certain living trans actors, so you need to be able to explain what is lost by saying "Tipton was given a different name at birth." If people were interested in a prolific person's SSN, we wouldn't satisfy that curiosity. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Why do we mention Tipton's arthritis? Why do we give the names of the non-notable women Tipton had relationships with? Why do we name the non-notable adopted children? I refer you to the Dylan example. Readers are interested (and sources readily provide the information). If we're forcing readers to open a new tab and search somewhere else for that information, we're not doing as much as we can (obviously there are exceptions such as privacy for WP:BLP). I see no reason for interest in an SSN (or a ready source). Tipton's long-dead, so can't get distressed; others might be, so we have to balance things such as what information is included and what prominence is given to it. The name is not in the lead and doesn't appear in bold anywhere. Peaceray has suggested removing it from the infobox and I've said that I'm flexible on that. EddieHugh (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "People might find it interesting or want to know about it" is not an acceptable reason on its own to include a piece of information. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." As we see here, just saying "someone might want to know this." Your other points are easily parried because you're not bringing up examples of information known to cause distress. As far as "they'll find the deadname anyway" goes, this is an argument that would also be true for living trans people, as well as people who wish to remain anonymous, such as an anonymous figure who gets doxxed. Your positions don't stand on any good policy or guidelines grounds, and the claim that readers would be done a disservice by not mentioning the deadname is an opinion that you have, one that is not even close to reflected by any consensus. So if you do not have any evidence to back up any of what you say, this discussion is moot, and I would ask that you acquiesce to the positions that actually are rooted in consensus, policy, and guidelines. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Peaceray provided a list of relevant policies and guidelines above to support inclusion of the name. I saw no need to list them again. WP:INDISCRIMINATE has "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources"; that describes this situation: the name is used in context and the existence of that name is explained using independent sources. INDISCRIMINATE is about judgement and needs to be considered and balanced with other policies/guidelines. Compare WP:CENSOR: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content", but that's the only argument for its removal that's been presented. I see no policy-based reason to remove it, and no consensus either (WP:NOCON... sorry for the splurge of policies... that's what happens when I'm criticized for not referring to policies!). EddieHugh (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
You haven't once made an actual argument for why he was notable under his deadname, you made a synthetic argument that because he concealed his birth name, that his birth name is important. If you have something to demonstrate this to be the case, then please, be my guest. Before you establish that, however, you're just stating opinions on what should be done. And in this case, because this dead trans person wasn't known by that name, the name is trivia at best. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
SYNTH is about sourcing, so isn't relevant here. Referring to multiple policies and guidelines, as two editors here have done, isn't a "synthetic argument", and I haven't made the argument that you claim I have. EddieHugh (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The policies and guidelines cited have nothing to do with the value of deadnaming deceased people. The argument involves claiming that deadnaming being bad only applies to living people who were not known under that deadname. What guideline or policy suggests that the article is lacking for the absence of a deadname? Please point to the exact portion of whatever guideline or policy you cite. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Where no policy or guideline exists for an exact set of circumstances, we refer to other policies and guidelines and use them. That's standard practice. See the above linked policies and guidelines and quotations from them, as well as those presented by others below. EddieHugh (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
As far as synthetic arguments go, yes, technically it's not sourcing, because there aren't any sources being used. It's just you conflating "he is known for concealing his birth name" with your opinion that this makes the birth name itself an important thing to include. That is not founded in policy or evidence, so again, just focus on what the policies say. The closest thing we have to a policy argument on this is that we err on the side of caution with deadnaming. And for a subject whose deadname is being included for an incredibly weak reason, the deadname should be removed. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
You again claim that I've made an argument that I haven't made. See comments from others below on your other points. EddieHugh (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
So, the way MOS:DEADNAME is written, it appears to only apply to BLPs. How Wikipedia should treat the birth names of other subjects is less clear. As a point of comparison, Albert Cashier is another article about a subject about a person who became notable for having concealed a female sex assignment; that article includes the birth name in the infobox, the "Early life" section, and the lead sentence. --Equivamp - talk 01:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
How other articles handle it is not really relevant here, as all parties in favor of removal here most certainly oppose its inclusion there. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Likely so, but it may be useful for other editors who (like me) are not convinced on how MOS:DEADNAME should apply outside of BLPs. Plus, it's useful to bear in mind that editors on this talk page cannot create a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that overrides/contradicts the (status quo) consensus without convincing the wider community. --Equivamp - talk 12:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I would venture to say that the purpose of WP:DEADNAME is to create a safe space for the living subjects of articles. In essence, this is like an extension of the Wikimedia Foundation's meta:Friendly space policies to this project. I am wholly onboard & supportive of this as a WP:BLP policy. I am acquainted with some who are part of meta:Wikimedia_LGBT+. One prominent member shared with me that closeted editors from other countries had contacted that editor to appreciate the work that this editor does, as their lives would be in mortal danger should their LGBT status become known. Pre-pandemic, I had trans people in my circles. It has not been easy for them.
But to what purpose does it server to exclude the birth name of a historical transgendered person when they are beyond being recently deceased? We include the birth name of any other historical individual. There is no capability to create a safe space for a dead person. The best we can do is to tell their tale as reasonably complete as possible, in a neutral & verifiable manner.
To do otherwise would be to hide truth by omission. This would be censorship. For Wikipedia to censor itself would be no better than kowtowing to the Right to be forgotten when the subject is notable. The WMF has indicated that it will fight the latter type of censorship,[2] & if you drill down from meta:Category:Wikimedia Foundation Transparency Report, you will arrive at individual Right To Be Forgotten Requests, such as meta:Wikimedia Foundation Transparency Report/June 2016/Right To Be Forgotten Requests.
WP:DEADNAME is WP:BLP; otherwise Wikipedia is not censored. Therefore, I strongly object to the complete removal of the birth name / DEADNAME from this article. I am open to compromise as to how it is presented Peaceray (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Pretending like the birth name of a trans person is no different than the birth name of a cis person is a terribly disingenuous argument, not the least of which being due to the fact that we don't apply that logic to living trans people. By itself, that is a nothingburger of an argument. The reason why deadnaming is bad is because it is disrespectful to trans people to do so, not just unsafe. So no, a show of disrespect towards a trans person is not an acceptable compromise, just because they died.
And I ask again: if a trans person dies, does it become okay to deadname them? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I have explained my reasoning. I take a hard line against censoring Wikipedia, & towards transparency in general. So in answer to your question, after a time, say a year after the death, yes, I would say that then it would be a proper. We do not give anyone else the choice to approve what goes into an article. Why should any trans person get defferential treatment after death when safety is no longer an issue. If we start making such a deference, where does it stop? Do we eliminate birth names for people who have changed their names for religious reasons, for those who have changed & despise their birth surname due to parental abuse, or for those who entered a witness protection program & decide from habit or shame that they never want to use their birth name again? To suppress truth in deference to some when it is no longer a safety issue is like the quote from Animal Farm: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
WP:DEADNAME is a MOS guideline. WP:BLP, WP:COMMON, & WP:NOTCENSORED are policies & take precedence. From my knowledge, we have seldom removed birth names from historical transgender people as a matter of policy. I offer as examples, Amelio Robles Ávila, James Barry (surgeon), Albert Cashier, Alan L. Hart, & Patricia Morgan (transgender woman), all of which are on my watch list. Let's not try to carve out a new de facto policy or guideline without sufficient discussion & consensus. Peaceray (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Do we really harm Billy Tipton more by giving his specific birth name, than by stating that he was biologically female? I'm guessing his main concern was the latter, not the former. And basically the whole article is about the latter. --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Earlier Bryn asks, "if a trans person dies, does it become okay to deadname them?" I think it does, yes, and the principle I'm using is WP:BLPNAME. That's the part where it says we don't name non-notable "family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". Now consider, oh Vincent Van Gogh, a Wikipedia:Featured article. Right from the start, in the "Early life" section we name his parents, his siblings, his uncles, an aunt, several cousins, a flatmate, several unsuccessful romances ... lots and lots of people who are not notable in and of themselves. And that doesn't violate WP:BLPNAME. Why? Because they're dead. All of them. They don't have feelings to be hurt, or privacy to be violated, we can't disrespect them in any way that matters to them. Can we write Vincent Van Gogh by just saying "became infatuated with his landlady's daughter" instead of "became infatuated with his landlady's daughter, Eugénie Loyer"? Sure, it wouldn't be a great loss. But it would be a loss, and it doesn't hurt Eugénie Loyer any ... because she's dead. If she were alive, we absolutely couldn't - after all, writing that some semi-sane artist became infatuated with her, that would be scandalous for a proper lady of the time, I'm sure it would hurt her personally, would hurt her reputation, be a grievous show of disrespect. But she's dead. So we give her name. Can we write Billy Tipton without giving his birth name? Sure. Would giving his birth name hurt him if he were alive, would it disrespect him, would it this that and the other thing? Probably. But he's dead. He's beyond the slings and arrows of this world. So we can do what's best for the article. --GRuban (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ultimately the argument has been to say "couldn't hurt," which to me, is a pretty poor reason on its own to include it. Further, deadnaming can cause distress to more than just the victim of the deadnaming, but also friends and family of that person. I feel like people don't super get the impact deadnaming has on the subjects and those who witness it, as well as the alienation of many people who fall outside of majority demos on the project. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
And how is that different from the friends and family of Eugénie Loyer? The reason isn't that it couldn't hurt, there are plenty of things that couldn't hurt that we aren't arguing to include. The reason is that it's important. Someone's birth name is generally considered rather important in writing their biography. I guarantee you that if we make our inclusion standards "only include information that doesn't alienate anyone" we will find an endless number of sensitive people that will ask that we delete almost all information in the Wikipedia because it hurts them. --GRuban (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, the position that Someone's birth name is generally considered rather important in writing their biography, and that therefore non-notable deadnames should be disclosed on WP, has already been rejected by the community when it comes to BLP subjects. Absolutist arguments based on "necessary elements of a biography", or NOTCENSORED for that matter, have thus already been rejected by site-wide consensus in at least certain cases, so invoking these principles in an absolute form is unhelpful in etablishing what the relevant boundaries ought to be. Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, that's the entire point, Billy Tipton is long dead, so BLP doesn't apply, and we get to write the best article.--GRuban (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Either the wrong number of : were entered, or you replied to my comment without reading it. I can't tell which, NGL. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. My point is specifically about this article, Billy Tipton. My position that we should include his birth name in this article. I'm not arguing that we should include other people's names in some other article, or everywhere. Bryn's position is that we shouldn't include it in this article because it causes distress to the subject, friends, and family. The subject is dead, so it causes them no distress. Broadening the exclusionary standard beyond living persons, which is what seems to being asked for here - possibly not by you, as I'm not sure what you're asking for now, but definitely by Bryn - is a slippery slope, and I'm not just saying that; a few years ago there was an editor arguing up and down that we should apply BLP standards to "living" corporations, because, of course, they're composed of living people, so we shouldn't embarrass them either. The position that non-notable deadnames should be disclosed for living people has been rejected, correct. That doesn't apply here. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
But I was responding to Someone's birth name is generally considered rather important in writing their biography, from which you made the slippery slope jump to we will find an endless number of sensitive people that will ask that we delete almost all information in the Wikipedia because it hurts them. Neither of those absolute-sounding positions seems to recognize that WP policies and guidelines embody a much more nuanced consideration of the factors involved in DUE inclusion in articles. Newimpartial (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. You're against absolute-sounding positions. What is your position on the specific issue being discussed here? --GRuban (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I have put forward a straw dog in the MOS decision linked below. Otherwise my participation in the discussions on this topic has been entirely to shoot down absolute-sounding and straw man arguments. I am not at the point of !voting. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's customary when starting a related discussion elsewhere to notify interested parties. Abryn hasn't done that here, so this is a note to point out that a discussion on the wider implications of what's being discussed here has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Deadnaming. EddieHugh (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It is totally unnecessary to deadname Billy Tipton. His deadname is not the name under which he became notable, and while he is, in part, a notable figure because he was trans, the fact that he changed his name could be stated without indicating what the deadname was. It is disrespectful and harmful to trans people to use a person's deadname when they quite obviously and purposefully distanced themself from said name. Deadnaming in a Wikipedia article perpetuates transphobia, and is simply not necessary. As Bryn has put it: "'People might find it interesting or want to know about it' is not an acceptable reason on its own to include a piece of information. 'To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.'" Billy Tipton's deadname is a good example of a fact that is not necessary or suitable for inclusion here. leontine86 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME is the policy that applies here. It currently applies to someone who is living: In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, .... There are discussions about it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Implementing deadname RFCs. Please also read through this existing thread on this page. Peaceray (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ A "deadname" from a pre-notability period of the subject's life should not appear in that person's bio, in other articles (including lists and disambiguation pages), category names, templates, etc.

References

  1. ^ Smith, Dinitia (June 2, 1998). "Billy Tipton Is Remembered With Love, Even by Those Who Were Deceived". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-02-01.
  2. ^ Hern, Alex (2014-08-06). "Wikipedia swears to fight 'censorship' of 'right to be forgotten' ruling". the Guardian. Retrieved 2021-01-29.

Jumping into this discussion. It is not "censorship" to exclude the name a person was assigned at birth if they were transgender, whether living or dead. Nor is doing so neutral information. In this case, Billy Tipton lived as male for almost his entire adult life and did not tell even the people closest to him his former name. This would seem to indicate that he very strongly did not wish to have that name revealed, and it would be respectful to his privacy at the very list to consider those wishes.

Further, this article includes pervasive language to refer to transgender people which is outdated and offensive. The focus on revelation is relevant, since he gained notoriety after death through this unfortunate outing. But we should recognize that as a sad and sensitive subject, and make an effort to handle it delicately. The language in this entry, which I attempted to change and which was reverted, does not do so. The current language of the article takes a salacious tone which implies throughout that Tipton was lying. This is not a neutral tone, nor is it sensitive to the subject.

Finally - the presentation of past LGBTQ+ is relevant to creating safe space for living LGBTQ+ people. There are ways to present this information sensitively that do not engage in censorship. None of the edits I tried to make, which were reverted, change the *information* of the article, but rather the *tone* to be more sensitive both to Tipton's clear wishes for privacy and to currently living LGBTQ+ people who are probably the primary readers of this article. Catman6423 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Dead name and other changes to terminology

There is no need to deadname this person. He did not go by his deadname for the vast majority of his adult life.

Every change I made regarding his deadname and other outdated ways of referring to him was reverted. Why? Catman6423 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I see now that my "good faith" edits were reverted. I do not consider the reversion to be "in good faith." Catman6423 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

crossposting here, since the other thread has not been active in several months:

Jumping into this discussion. It is not "censorship" to exclude the name a person was assigned at birth if they were transgender, whether living or dead. Nor is doing so neutral information. In this case, Billy Tipton lived as male for almost his entire adult life and did not tell even the people closest to him his former name. This would seem to indicate that he very strongly did not wish to have that name revealed, and it would be respectful to his privacy at the very list to consider those wishes.

Further, this article includes pervasive language to refer to transgender people which is outdated and offensive. The focus on revelation is relevant, since he gained notoriety after death through this unfortunate outing. But we should recognize that as a sad and sensitive subject, and make an effort to handle it delicately. The language in this entry, which I attempted to change and which was reverted, does not do so. The current language of the article takes a salacious tone which implies throughout that Tipton was lying. This is not a neutral tone, nor is it sensitive to the subject.

Finally - the presentation of past LGBTQ+ is relevant to creating safe space for living LGBTQ+ people. There are ways to present this information sensitively that do not engage in censorship. None of the edits I tried to make, which were reverted, change the *information* of the article, but rather the *tone* to be more sensitive both to Tipton's clear wishes for privacy and to currently living LGBTQ+ people who are probably the primary readers of this article. Catman6423 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. I vehemently disagree with the addition of the deadname, given that the "best" argument that has ever been provided on that front has been "people might want to know it." However, I can at least understand the argumentative throughline with respect to reverting edits that remove his deadname. However, it is unequivocally a bad-faith action in my eyes to revert your edits that modify language to be more neutral and be more respectful towards Tipton's gender. There is no censorship in neutral language, there is no reader interest, it actively comes across as a specifically transphobic action to see Peaceray making these reversions. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Wiktionary defines to censor as To review for, and if necessary to remove or suppress, content from books, films, correspondence, and other media which is regarded as objectionable (for example, obscene, likely to incite violence, or sensitive). The removal of Tipton's birth name fits that definition.
If I believe an editor has made changes against edit consensus, then as the explanatory supplement BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, suggests, I will revert an edit & direct that editor to the talk page to gain consensus.
Byrn alleges my actions to be transphobic. Wiktionary defines transphobia as Fear or hatred of transsexuality or transgenderism, or of trans individuals. I neither fear nor hate trans people, & believe that my trans acquaintences in my extended community would attest to this. I respect identities, including pronouns, & follow the guidelines set forth in https://relationshipanarchy.com/seattle-ra-resources/new-member-info/. I consider "transphobic" to be an ad hominem attack. Let's stick to the merits & stay civil by avoiding name-calling.
MOS:DEADNAME is a MOS guideline covering BLP articles. There are many historical biographies here on Wikipedia in which the sole notability is due to a person living undetected as the gender opposite to which they were born. Billy Tipton is one of them. I say this because I have done enough research to determine that Tipton's LPs are held in three libraries, at least according to Worldcat. Furthermore, all the citations in the article are about the transgender aspect of Tipton's life, & none are independently about being a jazz musician. If it were not for the works inspired by Tipton, there would be no notability outside of being transgender.
Some argue that we respect Billy Tipton by ommitting sensitive facts. I believe that we most respectfully tell his story by crafting the most complete & verified article possible. Peaceray (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Catman: it might be worth your knowing that the Wikipedia community currently makes a major distinction (and therefore differing treatment) between living and recently deceased trans people - to whom MOS:DEADNAME fully applies- and trans people who have been dead for much longer, whom the MOS treats with much more flexibility. Personally, I would like to see the latter situation change, but the community has spoken reasonably clearly on this though a number of Talk page discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
There really hasn't been much of a consensus at all, from where I sit, on how to approach the deadnaming of dead people. The text only talks about what to do with living transgender people, an error that has lead people to rush to deadname trans people when they die before the body's even cold. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
If by "error" you mean "clearly expressed preference of a large number of editors" (who happen to disagree with me), then you are right. Also, BLP policies do continue to apply for a period after death, so the people who rush to deadname are in violation of policy (and I for one revert those edits when I see them). Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am calling that an error. Consensus can be erroneous and even harmful, and not everything should be left to consensus. This is not a vote, after all. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
You are right that this isn't a vote, but only because you are wrong about consensus. Site-wide consensus literally is the "highest court of appeal" for the project. Right now, that site-wide consensus places strict bounds on deadnaming living (and recently deceased) people, but is much more lax about long-dead people. If you want that practice to change, you actually have to engage with the community so that site-wide consensus shifts. There is no shortcut. Newimpartial (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Can you link me to what Wikipedia has to say about the deadnaming of dead people specifically? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
There isn't policy on this, and that is because the idea of extending MOS:DEADNAME to deceased trans people has been proposed (by me, among others) and rejected. See, for example, the last batch of RfCs that extended and elaborated MOS:DEADNAME, which you can find on that guideline's Talk page. That discussion doesn't include a formal proposal to extend the guideline to the long-deceased, but you will see the issue discussed there and also catch the feeling of the community - which hinges its opposition to deadnaming largely on WP:BLP concerns. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

that should be "at the very least" in the first paragraph Catman6423 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll say - I agree that there is historical difference for how to discuss currently living or recently deceased trans persons versus trans people who have been dead for longer. Times are changing and we now use language that people themselves may not have used, and we should be ahistorical in how we present them.

I would argue that we should base our language of long dead trans people on two things: 1) how the person described themselves during their life, especially if this is clearly documented over a long period of time and 2) current norms around what is a neutral frame through which to discuss trans people.

Applying these criteria to this article, we can see that under criteria 1, Billy Tipton referred to himself as male throughout his adult life. He did not choose to disclose to even the people closest to him what his deadname was or his sex assigned at birth. This would seem to overwhelmingly indicate his desires on the topic. We do not know the the specific material and social circumstances in his life that made him make these decision, but the decisions themselves are very clear. This is one piece of important information.

On criteria 2 that I named, the accepted language around how to talk about trans people is changing rapidly. Terms like "biological sex" and "birth sex" have become politicized (recently acknowledged by a federal judge in the TN court case around bathrooms, see https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/bongo-productions-llc-et-al-v-lawrence-et-al-order-granting-preliminary-injunction). It is therefore important that we try to take a frame that is balanced and neutral, and where possible sensitive. We cannot pretend that the discussion of dead trans people is only relevant to the person themselves; the framing of this discussion is very important to currently living trans people. Catman6423 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

sorry, we **should not be ahistorical Catman6423 (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with essentially all of what you say here, Catman, but would like to point out two additional facts: (1) there is no site-wide consensus that the (reliably-sourced) deadnames of long-dead trans people should be excluded from articles: in fact there is probably a consensus to include them; and (2) while I agree that the language is rapidly changing, the general, policy-grounded practice on WP is to base the language used in articles on the reliable sourcing for the subject of that article. If you would like to see updated language for trans subjects in general, regardless of the sourcing for the individual (deceased) subject where the sourcing might lag, that is something that could be proposed e.g. on the LGBT project page or at the Village pump (policy). It is certainly not something that could be successfully done BOLDly Newimpartial (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
What is the purpose of removing language geared to be more respectful for the subject of the article? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't know whom you are addressing or what you are referring to here, so I cannot reply effectively. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, brand new so haven't figured out how to properly thread my responses :/
Re: your point about following the language around sourcing, surely we can acknowledge that most media sources in the US were roundly transphobic in the 1980s and early 1990s and should not set the standard for current reporting. Catman6423 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
(Certainly, looking at the sources on this article, the language and framing that most of the journalists are using is extremely anti-trans.) Catman6423 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:TPG, just add one level of indentation (in the same style) to whatever you are responding to.
What I am saying is that the community sees the editorial considerations for long-dead subjects differently from living and recently deceased ones. I don't believe - and I have argued this strenuously elsewhere - that WP articles should imitate bigoted language from 20+ years ago, but what I am saying is that if we wanted articles about 19th and 20th-century trans people to follow a more consistent and up-to-date style, that would require at least a (LGBT?)-project based consensus to give that move any traction. Otherwise "respectful treatment" would just look like a single editor's POV, and could easily be reverted to a long-standing version. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I am also inclined to say that this article is adhering far too much to deeply transphobic rhetoric, such as referring to the adoption of Tipton's kids as illegal. I do not think it at all appropriate to adhere to such problematic language. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I note here that the adoption of Tipton's kids was not legal as per the citation: Oakes and Tipton “brought into their home three boys. The natural mothers apparently relinquished custody, yet none are legally adopted. None of these boys were Kitty’s biological child. Each testified they knew they had a biological mom who wasn’t Kitty. But the Tiptons were a family… Billy was dad; Kitty, mom,” St. Louis said.[1]
There was nothing transphobic about it. Oakes & Tipton simply did not go through a legal procedure to adopt their sons. Peaceray (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Karen Dorn Steele (2021-12-10). "Judge: Billy Tipton's "Sons" can inherit their "Mother's" Estate". The Seattle Times.
I agree that some of the language inserted into this article has been quite bigoted, but please see the policy considerations I mentioned above. It has also been true that when editors combine justifiable language improvements with non-policy-compliant deadname removal, that makes it easier for other editors to revert the baby with the bathwater (even though that is also discouraged by policy). Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I mean, to throw the baby out with the bathwater is an unequivocally bad thing, so I dunno, maybe people shouldn't abuse rollback lol. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not justifying it; I am offering counsels of prudence, to encourage people to achieve their own goals by improving the accuracy of their interventions. :p. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
re: adoption, the point is that in the 1950s-1970s it would have been very difficult for a trans man to legally adopt children. I'm not saying it shouldn't be stated; the edit I made is that "illegally adopted" doesn't have to be added as a modifier every time his sons are referenced in the article, and to do so is unnecessary and transphobic. Catman6423 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
re: Dead name, I'm trying to understand the policy a bit better here. I understand that the policy is that for a currently living or recently deceased trans person, a deadname should not be listed unless there's a notable reason to do so. And I understand that there is contention and a lack of consensus about whether this applied to long dead people. But - in the absence of consensus, is the policy that the article should automatically revert to deadnaming? Surely not? It would seem that in a lack of consensus the default could fall either way on a case by case basis, and should arguably fall toward what we could ascertain the subject would have wanted and what would be least harmful overall. Catman6423 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think that a number of the issues with tone in this article fall under the Principle of least astonishment guidelines. This states that information should not be presented unnecessarily provacatively, which some of this article is (largely due to the underlying source articles taking that tone). Catman6423 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It's really not helpful to label editors and edits as "transphobic". On the matter of the adoptions – they weren't legal. Maybe we can find another way of saying it than "illegal", but we should be writing plainly for an international readership, not to offend the fewest people possible. It's currently mentioned twice in the article: once the first time the children are mentioned and once the last time they are mentioned. That's a reasonable level to serve the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Do any of the article's sources use "illegal", EddieHugh or was that some editor's POV insertion? Newimpartial (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes. See the one linked to by Peaceray in 'References' a little up this page: "the three illegally adopted sons of Kitty Oakes and Billy Tipton". EddieHugh (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Please see my comment that follows. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: Please see my note above with The Seattle Times citation. No, there was no POV insertion, unless one takes issue with none were legally adopted equating to "illegally adopted". Peaceray (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I am precisely taking issue with illegally adopted as a POV paraphrase for none were legally adopted. Has nobody else in this discussion become aware about the issues around illegal vs. not legal? Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Maybe "non-filiated child"? Peaceray (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The legality of the adoptions is entirely irrelevant. A legal adoption would come up in the exact same way, yet we do not specify that it was a legal action on the person's part. It is concerning to see such behavior justified with the desire to fulfill readers' desire to know of trivial aspects of trans people's lives. Literally nothing is lost by not specifying the legality of the adoptions, and frankly, I've seen you engage in far too many edits that preserve transphobic language used in this article to be able to assume good faith in your actions. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
It's widely covered in RS. As I said, maybe we can find another way of stating it. If we state just "adopted children", how is the reader to know what the RS state (the adoptions were not legal)? Surely it's not trivial, in the same way that pointing out that the wives were not legally wives is. EddieHugh (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
It's already mentioned in an above section. Unless you intend to say illegally adopted every single time, this argument makes no sense. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Please seek consensus before repeating changes that have been objected to – this is what the talk page is for. Two editors have restored long-standing wording (i.e. the current consensus), but you've reverted. We can find a way through discussion, but reverting and accusations aren't part of that. EddieHugh (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
The most good-faith assumption of the combative actions against fixing the language to be more mindful of trans people — actions committed by non-trans people — is that you're forcing a discussion to happen for no other reason than bureaucracy. To trans editors, a bunch of cis editors deciding on offensive language is not compelling consensus, because lacking trans voices in an assumed consensus when the subject of discussion is trans makes any such assumed consensus lacking in merit. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Bryn, are you making assumptions about who is and who is not a trans editor? Because I would advise you not to do that. Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is inherently going to be a sizable majority of cis editors by default, and even further by the fact that Wikipedia tends to have lower numbers of women, trans people, non-white people, etc., due in part to the inhospitality exhibited in a lot of areas of editing for those groups. I will say that in my years of editing this project, I would be lying if I said I saw anything quite like how people police articles about trans people, and how difficult it can be to make noncontroversial edits, even with stability of edits. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

As an openly nonbinary editor myself, though, I would caution you against making assumptions about what editors occupy what identities. For my part, I work hard to avoid making such assumptions. Newimpartial (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with what Bryn says. I don't think any of the edits I or Bryn made should be controversial at all. They are not changing the substance of the article, but rephrasing to make the language less offensive. Please explain why these edits are going against consensus, and what would need to be done to reach consensus. And again, I will assert that in the absence of consensus, the most neutral and least harmful language should be the default. Catman6423 (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Catman6423, as someone who has been editing for a week & few dozen edits, you _are_new. When you state that you that there is an absence of consensus, you disregard part of English Wikipedia's consensus policy, specifically WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Please get familiar with the policies & guidelines. Doing so will buttress your reasoning on talk pages & will probably lead to less reversions of your edits. That is not to say that you erred in being bold. It is how we act collaboratively to resolve disagreements that counts. Peaceray (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Peaceray, I stated there was an absence of consensus (so far) because you and others told me so. I am trying very hard to get up to speed here, but you so far have not engaged substantively with any of the arguments I've made. Reading the BOLD guidelines, it says to revert only when necessary, which I don't see you doing. But I am trying to discuss my reasons for the edits I made - specifically, I think there are less offensive ways to present some of the information on this page that still conveys the primary information necessary. Is there anything specific about the edits we've made that you disagree with? Catman6423 (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:EDITCONSENSUS states Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. WP:BRD goes on to explain: Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Note that BRD is an explanatory supplement & not policy.
If your edit has been challenged, that means it probably needs a consensus to put it in. Often consensus is reached through discussing & altering the change until it is acceptable.
Just to let you know, I feel pretty strongly about keeping the birth name & subsequent nickname in the article. I already compromised a while back but acceding to its removal from the infobox. Peaceray (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
But you literally haven't explained, even one time, what the problem was with the actual changes, just that changes were made in the first place. Stating that the article was stable before the edit doesn't mean anything if you are not also explaining what about the edit makes the article unstable. As it is, you're disrupting Wikipedia editing for no other reason than bureaucracy, if this is the only thing you have to say about the changes made. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Catman absolutely makes a good point here. "It was stable like this" means nothing, because stable versions of articles are constantly changed and edited without any controversy. It seems to me like the reversions were done for the sake of reverting, not because there needs to be a consensus for every single change to a stable article. Entire articles can be boldly redirected without controversy, and if you have an actual issue with the changes made by Catman, state them, because all you've done is espouse the need for consensus. If this is how Wikipedia worked, nothing would ever get done. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Bryn writes a half-truth here when stating "It was stable like this" means nothing. WP:EDITCONSENSUS states Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.
More than one editor have revered edits concerning the removal of the birth name & phrasing. These editors gave reasons in the edit summary & asked for discussion on the talk page. Thus, Bryn's statement that "It was stable like this" means nothing, because stable versions of articles are constantly changed and edited without any controversy fails to apply here precisely because there is controversy. As WP:BRD suggests, it is time to determine a way to achieve a change that is acceptable through consensus.
Consensus is the ultimate test of assume good faith. It is difficult for me to AGF if editors pooh-pooh attempts to discuss & gain consensus.
As noted early, I stongly object to removing the birth name & nick name, as I already have acceded to its removal from the infobox. I am open to other changes in phrasing.
What changes do you propose? Peaceray (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
If you could, copy and paste me the edit summary wherein you explained your objection to the changes, outside of edit summaries that exclaim that the previous version was a stable one. What is the controversy of changing the wording? Because I've been in this discussion for hours, and no one will exclaim their objections to the changes, merely that the changes happened. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 00:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
As requested, here is the edit summary for my sole edit to the article in the last four months: Reverting edit(s) by Catman6423 (talk) to rev. 1029765918 by Abryn: Reverting good faith edits: there have been ongoing discussions about the very types of changes that you have made. In particular, there is no consensus about censoring the birth name. In the spirit of WP:BRD, please get consensus on the talk page before attempting these edits again. Peaceray (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

For the record - and the Talk archives will bear this out for anyone who looks - there has been a series of disputes over the content of this article. During the time those disputes have taken place, the norms of the project as a whole have shifted somewhat. While my view is that the site-wide consensus still makes a distinction between living and long-deceased Trans people when it comes to deadnames, it is also true that some of the early versions of this article, which did not reflect or accept Tipton's gender identity, would now fall afoul of those provisions of MOS:GENDERID that do apply to all people, no matter how long dead: namely that we respect their last reliably-sourced gender identity and pronoun preference.

Consensus is continuously in movement, and while I am not confident that the tide has yet moved far enough, on a site-wide basis, to remove all non-notable deadnames of dead trans people, I also feel that the community may decide that names that were unknown to anyone during the subject's adult life might not be treated the same as deadnames of dead trans people who were actually discussed by sources under those names during their period of Notability. In reality, time and further discussion will tell. Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Peaceray, regardless of what your "trans friends" say, you have repeatedly used language even in this discussion that is offensive. First referring to trans people as "transgendereds" and saying that by asking to have their names respected they are asking for a special type of status. Second now by referring to a person's chosen name as their "nickname." In the case here, there are photos of Billy Tipton's drivers license showing his name as Billy. You also objected to Bryn and I stating the article currently uses transphobic language; neither of us said that *you* or anyone else were transphobic, but you took it as a personal attack. You also called me out for being new, which doesn't feel very hospitable and, combined with your immediate reversion of the article without good explanation for why it needed to be reverted then or now, feels like you may have issues with ownership of this page [1]. All of this leads me to feel like you are not particularly engaging in good faith or attempting to reach consensus on this topic. Catman6423 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah - my major apologies for the first part of this. I'm confusing you with someone on the other talk page about policy, and that is my bad. Going to take a step back and sit on it for a bit, still hoping that consensus may be possible later. Catman6423 (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peaceray: The edit summary only speaks to the deadname, not the changes made to the type of language used. If your only issue was the removal of the deadname, then don't rollback every single edit. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of the guidance around reversion. I thought that to refer to the lengthy discussions on talk pages was sufficient. There was too much detail to be captured in a single edit summary, although since I used 352 of the 500 available characters, I supposed I could have squeezed in one or two more details. I thought it clear that the editor had not read the discussions & needed to directed to them. There were also other problems, such as obliviating the discussion about the legality of the adoptions.
Another editor also had reverted back to a stable version. I am not alone in calling that a consensus on the changes.
Finally, the edits that I strongly felt needed to be challenged & discussed were sprinkled in among other questionable edits. I do a lot of page patrolling. I thought the whole lot should be discussed. I am not going to revert one edit at a time just so I can explain each & every revert. That's not how Twinkle or RedWarn operate. Peaceray (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I am certain that neither of those should be used in that way, and are more meant for unambiguously problematic reversions. Further, you've still not discussed any specific objections. None of what you have said has explained your issues with the changes aside from the deadname. All you've done is provide metacommentary about the merits of having the discussion, but you've done nothing to explain your actual position in this discussion. If there are no actual objections to the merits of the change, then the reversion makes absolutely no sense. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
It has been rare when another editor challenges me on my multi-edit reversions. I will try to be more sensitive going forward when there are multiple reasons for reversion.
Your suggestion that I detail specific objections is excellent. I will do that, but probably not tonight as I am exhausted with all the back & forth on this situation & another editor's case involving BLP violations. Tomorrow I work, so probably Monday evening at the earliest. Peaceray (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The stable version of this page contains – or some of us believe(d) it contains – wording that is a reasonable compromise across multiple variables, one of which is limited offensiveness. I've pointed in edit summaries to a US group that, in Wikipedia's words "was founded as a protest against defamatory coverage of LGBT people". Its website uses "birth sex" in a descriptive, non-negative way, but this is one of the terms that some editors here have objected to. So, before agreeing that a substitute term for this and others is preferable (considering all of the variables), it would be very helpful if those supporting such changes could post here something like: 'wording ____ is preferred to ____ because ____. This is backed up by Wikipedia page ____ and/or external authorities ____, ____, ____'. That would help everyone else to understand and accept that the proposed changes are not personal preferences against the existing consensus, but are established norms within relevant groups in society, even if they're not yet widely adopted by the majority of RS. EddieHugh (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
But I have no concept as to what the issue you have with the changes being made. Furthermore, the language dispute doesn't even make sense. The change was to remove the use of birth sex to use an also accepted term. Breast binding was also changed, which makes sense because I do not see people refer to it as breast binding in all of my experiences. Changing "physically female" to transgender is also more than acceptable, and again, extremely strange thing for someone to dispute from a neutral POV. To me, it appears as though certain editors are attempting to subtly add POVs to the article, such as randomly reiterating the illegality of the adoption where the relevance of its legality is nonexistent, and declaring that William discovered his father to be "biologically" female instead of transgender. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia transgender article states in its opening paragraph (with sources): "Transgender, often shortened as trans, is also an umbrella term; in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may also include people who are non-binary or genderqueer. Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or else conceptualize transgender people as a third gender. The term transgender may be defined very broadly to include cross-dressers." Using 'transgender' in this article is therefore being less clear than we could be. There's similar confusion if we don't state that the adoptions were not legal, as has already been pointed out. 'Birth sex' is clear to readers of English; 'assigned female at birth' requires a wikilink to help (some) people understand it (an unfortunate reality, maybe, but lots of people won't understand 'assigned female at birth'). The opening of the WP:MOS states that "editors should avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording". (Peaceray addresses 'breast binding' as a term below.) EddieHugh (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have been asked to explain the reversion of multiple edits by Catman6423, which I had reverted with the edit summary Reverting good faith edits: there have been ongoing discussions about the very types of changes that you have made. In particular, there is no consensus about censoring the birth name. In the spirit of WP:BRD, please get consensus on the talk page before attempting these edits again.

Below is what I could not fit in a 500-character limit:

Collectivelly, this host of issues needed to be discussed. I stand by my comment there were ongoing discussions about the very types of AGF edits that Catman6423 was making that required engagement here. Peaceray (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "gender, sexuality, and trans-related terminology compiled by author and trans activist Julia Serano". julia serano. 2014-07-28. Retrieved 2021-07-20.
  • Thanks, Peaceray. This detailed summary is helpful, and pretty much exemplifies why rollback edits, like the one you made originally, are not encouraged by policy. The rationales you provide against different changes you reverted differ massively in terms of the underlying reasoning, the presence or absence of prior Talk page discussion, and the quality or knee-jerk character of your argumentation. Putting all the reverts together in one edit with the key summary there have been ongoing discussions about the very types of changes that you have made does not fit the spirit or the letter of policy, and I would advise you not to do so in future.
    • To take your specific bullets in turn:
      • The most appropriate treatment of deadnames of deadpeople is currently under discussion at WT:MOSBIO; personally I would leave the status quo here until some guidance (probably a new RfC) comes out of that discussion. However, Peaceray, you cannot cite WP:LOCALCONSENSUS against whatever policy emerges from that discussion, and your evocation of NOTCENSORED as if that would trump the MOS:GENDERID-based concerns that have already been raised in the MOSBIO discussion shows, at the very least, a degree of tone-deafness on this topic, on your part.
      • Whatever one may think about "transness", Peaceray, you could at least promote the assumption of good faith by trying to transcribe and spell correctly the terms you don't understand (q.v., transess). While that isn't the term I would use in the passage in question - I am inclined towards "sex assignment" here - reverting to the even more jargony and less meaningful "biological sex" was not in any way justified.
      • There are many ways to state that a de facto adoption did not involve a legal process; the use of "illegal" here, when it was not used in the sources cited, is very clearly POV-based editorializing and would be an indisputable BLP vio if stated in relation to a living person. I don't know whether any of Tipton's children are currently alive, but the use of "illegal" here is so clearly against basic NPOV norms that reverting to re-introduce it is really unjustifiable.
      • Without getting into the weeds about the minority usage "birth sex", the principle of least astonishment would demand the use of "assigned sex" here: I agree with your recommendation. That does not justify your revert to re-insert "birth sex", however.
      • I have nothing to say at the moment for or against "accomplished", except that the issues at stake here have nothing to do with those mentioned in the omnibus revert summary or under the other bullets.
    • So how about we all try to improve the article and arrive at accurate and NPOV language, rather than the hostility towards the subject and his life currently embodied in terms like "illegal" and "birth sex". Newimpartial (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Thank your for your response, Newimpartial.
          • The priorities are pillars, then policies, then guidelines. Consensus is a policy, & the Manual of Style is a guideline, although guidelines do heavily influence discussions on consensus.
          • My apology for the typo; I had more than one in my late night response. I did indeed mean transness. I know exactly what it means, as one who clicked through to the citation I referenced would have discovered, as it linked directly to one of the definitions that I encountered. I do not care for the awkward "biological sex" either, but at least that was neither colloquial or jargon. I, too, would prefer somthing that most readers would understand.
          • As I noted, perhaps there is a better way of phrasing it instead of using the word illegal. Please do not accuse me of defending a word that I did not defend. I am totally fine with Brin's change to at the time, the adoptions were not sanctioned by the law. The problems that the sons' had with the inheritances, although not covered in the article but clear from the citations, were due to this.
          • I do think that the change from "birth sex" to "transgender identity" was unnecessary obfuscation. I think reverting something that has gone from bad to worse is justified. I believed that we would arrive at better terminology in discussion, here.
          • I apologize to not explaining the omnibus edit. I do occasionally make omnibus reversions, but most of the time it is for a single egregious policy or guideline violation, a bad multi-edit format (essentially a failed test edit), or multiple edits that were clearly against talk page consensus. How I failed here is that I had multiple reasons and Catman6423 had made bold AGF edits. My fault was not in boldly reverting multiple edits, but in failing to clearly explain on the talk page & then point to that explanation in the edit summary. I have learned from this discussion & will explain on the talk page when making non-obvious omnibus reverts going forward. Peaceray (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
              • Your first bullet statement, while true, seems misleading to me in the context of this discussion: The priorities are pillars, then policies, then guidelines. Consensus is a policy, & the Manual of Style is a guideline, although guidelines do heavily influence discussions on consensus. This is all true. However, per WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL - which is also a policy - the community consensus embodied in well-participated guideline RfCs operates at a higher level than Article Talk page level consensus. Nobody gets to say, "I know that this community-wide consensus exists and is embodied in X guideline, but editors of this page disagree and our consensus takes priority per WP:CONSENSUS so thpthpthpt!" That just isn't the way anything works: site-wide consensus always takes priority over local consensus, according to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
This is where we're in real need of what I requested above: 'wording ____ is preferred to ____ because ____. This is backed up by Wikipedia page ____ and/or external authorities ____, ____, ____'. For example, why is "assigned sex" preferred to "birth sex", and by whom? And the source uses "illegally adopted", and there is nothing in it to support "at the time, the adoptions were against the law", which somehow we have in the article, for now. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
IMO, the reason you haven't had a response to this is that the insistence on external authorities places all the emotional labour of convincing you that the (offensive) status quo is not neutral on your interlocutors, expecting them to do all of the work (the best source I could rapidly find on this process is this one, so I offer it as reading material even though it comes from a completely different context).
But to give you one answer: Wikipedia has an article for Sex assignment that comes complete with a Talk page where editors go question why this is, in fact, the preferred term. Wikipedia does not have an article on Birth sex, and the American Psychological Association (in its Style guide) explains why that term is not typically used: The terms “birth sex,” “natal sex,” “tranny,” and “transvestite” are considered disparaging by scholars in TGNC psychological research; by many individuals identifying as transgender, gender-nonconforming, or nonbinary; and by people exhibiting gender diversity.
I could go through an even longer journey to explain while "illegal" is a bad choice and "without a state-sanctioned legal process" is a good choice, by way of WP:CRIME, essays on how "no-one is illegal", and scholarship on the family, gender identity and the state. But I am not prepared to do that emotional labour right now, and I believe I have already shown that inserting "illegal" in our article, when the term is not in any of the sources, is entirely indefensible. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
(On emotional labour: I appreciate that some groups are required to do more and that that can accentuate existing feelings. But on Wikipedia it's standard to ask editors who want to make changes to consensus-based material to justify their proposed changes. This applies even more where that material or wording is controversial. I've seen plenty of editors say 'I'm [off-Wikipedia experience or characteristic], therefore trust me on this', but I've almost never seen it work – it appears to many not to match the ethos of the project. This drives a lot of people away, but probably also attracts a lot.)
Thank you for the APA link; it's just the sort of thing I was hoping for. It supports some variation of "assigned sex", so I'm fine with that.
On the law: unfortunately, the source doesn't make clear why it refers to the children as "illegally adopted" and there are several possibilities. Including "at the time" leads the reader towards one possibility and that isn't supported by the source, so that phrase has to be removed. "not sanctioned by the law" is an odd phrasing to me, but it's adequately clear and accurate. EddieHugh (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
EddieHugh: just briefly: the source doesn't use the term "illegally" anywhere, does it? I certainly didn't see it there. Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it does!! It's been linked to and quoted from, so I'm not sure what more can be done. Are you sure you're looking at the correct source? It's this and here's the entire first paragraph (ignoring the summary): "Establishing a legal precedent, a Spokane County judge has ruled that the three illegally adopted sons of Kitty Oakes and Billy Tipton can inherit equal shares of Oakes' $300,000 estate." (emphasis added) EddieHugh (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Just so that we are clear, when I asked earlier what the source was for "illegal" and I suggested that it was a POV insertion, I was told (by Peaceray), No, there was no POV insertion, unless one takes issue with none were legally adopted equating to "illegally adopted". From that exchange, I did not understand that the POV in question was inserted by the Seattle Times in its summary (based on the lawyer's comments, which it also quoted). So I only went as far as verifying the quote - my bad - and not looking for the Seattle Times paraphrase. That said, the use of "illegally" is still unjustified, and the sloppy choices of the source do not need to be followed here, particularly when we know what the source the Seattle Times used actually said. But mea culpa for not looking further into this, earlier. Newimpartial (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
EddieHugh, maybe you missed this - here's another source that I had shared earlier that explains in some detail why "assigned at birth" is a preferred term: [ https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-identity/]. This specifically discusses why "biological sex" is often considered offensive: "Instead of saying “biological sex,” some people use the phrase “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.” This acknowledges that someone (often a doctor) is making a decision for someone else. The assignment of a biological sex may or may not align with what’s going on with a person’s body, how they feel, or how they identify."
I struggled in making these edits with how to convey necessary information while avoiding offensive language; the goal was not obfuscation. I did try to strike this balance in a way that avoided confusing language. Perhaps "transgender man" would be more descriptive than simply "transgender" in some of these instances?
I do think there's overall a tone problem with the article that is difficult to remedy. It focuses very heavily on Tipton's outing and the highly negative reactions of press and his family. This is certainly a notable piece of his story, but we should take care not to frame it salaciously. This is difficult, as the source material itself is very salacious in tone, which is reflective of the time period. This is, I think, related to the discussion in the Manual of Style, which says, "Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis." The MOS also links there to the Principle of Least Astonishment, which says in part, "The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read. Do not use provocative language. Instead, offer information gently." The issue of trans people's stories being framed in relation to outing and shock is critiqued at length in the documentary Disclosure, which was released on Netflix in 2020 and provides a very good education on this issue. I don't think it's an easily remedied problem in the context of this article, but I wanted to highlight it again here in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catman6423 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The plannedparenthood content is wishy-washy: "some people use the phrase...". It's close to how I see it: some people do use certain wording (that differs from what's been used for a long time) and have reasons for doing so, but that in itself isn't enough to make everyone (including Wikipedia) do the same thing. Changing the words that people use is always a slow process. During the process of change to (probably) getting the newer terminology accepted, understood and used, sites such as Wikipedia have to keep presenting information for its audience, which won't fully have accepted, understood or started to use the newer terminology. That means finding a balance, and a balance is likely to be disagreeable both to those who know only the older wording and those who want only the newer wording to be used.
Tipton's article is particularly unusual because he probably wouldn't have been notable (in the Wikipedia sense – see WP:N) based on his career(s). If his being transgender had never been known by the wider world, there'd be no article. That some people close to him didn't know either added to the sensationalist aspects that you highlight. So, 'least astonishment' here can't mean concealing this reality from readers. Its first sentence is "When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, information is understood by the reader without struggle." Maybe if a similar life to Tipton's were lived starting now, then in 50 years, upon its ending, it would get no media attention. But we are where we are, and it's not easy, as you said. EddieHugh (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
But this is an argument in favor of talking about Tipton's gender, it is not an argument in favor of talking about his gender in a specific fashion. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billy_Tipton/Archive_1&oldid=1179891908"