Talk:Claude Cahun

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

Multiple pronouns[edit]

The edits using 'he/she' and 'him/her' throughout this article are distracting to the text and contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style -- "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." Accordingly, I have reverted the edit. SteveHopson 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently incomprehensible. Someone is making a point using their own very narrow theory of language and rendering the article a load of rubbish. Shame, because he/she sounds very interesting, that no-one curious as I was will get past the first unreadable paragraph. I'm not prepared to get into an argument with someone with a weird fanatical view of language because it's not that important to me.

Cooke (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the assumption that their pronouns were they/them Kali McSporran (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article itself quotes Cahun as saying "Masculine? Feminine? It depends on the situation. neutral is the only gender that always suits me." Which does imply that they would prefer they/them pronouns. They were openly non-binary but french, with their highly gendered language, did not allow them to use they/them pronouns in their life. - OctoToast — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 25 October 2021‎

Though Cahun wouldn't have used they/them pronouns in their lifetime (because they were French and lived in the 1940s), they were still non-binary; they made their identity clear in their writings, so using she/her pronouns to refer to them now is misgendering and is incorrect. - Lizzzy7 — Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 25 October 2021‎

Ok, citing the restrictiveness of the french language and the existance of illes/elles misses the point entirely. Cahun could've insisted on going by "on" (the closest to a french analog of "they") instead, and many modern French go by a variaty of invented/repurposed pronouns (e.g. "iel") just like english-speakers do). But to assume that she would have wanted to be identified by the grammatically awkward, overloaded "they", is just revisionist wishful thinking. She may, in fact, have hated "they", whether or not she would've gone by a transgender/neuter pronoun personally or been in favor of them in general. All we know is that, though she doubtless identified as non-binary (at least by today's parlance), her chosen, self-identified personal pronoun was elle, and wikipedia should respect that, lest every historical figure thought to have been a secret cross-dresser be thus posthumously stripped of his preferred pronoun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleflar (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't "non-binary" as far as any of us know. That concept itself didn't exist back then. She clearly liked trying on different identities, but there is a difference between gender (specifically "masculine" vs. "feminine," which in the context of the quote in the article are two different modes of behavior and dress) and and sex. Sex is biological, and until the 21st century was also linguistic. It's revisionist to try to guess what pronouns she would have preferred, or even whether she was focused on gender as part of her identity experimentation.66.65.169.174 (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if this comes off as rude, but the concept of the non-binary gender identity is a timeless theory, and I believe that because Cahun explicitly stated themself that they are "neutral" when it comes to gender, it is only respectful of their gender identity to refer to them with non-binary pronouns. It is in no way revisionist to respect somebody's gender identity. We can't assume anything, so why not go with the most clear evidence of their gender identity that we have, which states that they are gender-neutral? I say, at the very least, let's play it safe and use the they/them/their/theirs set of pronouns in reference to Claude Cahun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.213.74 (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t it be safer just to refer to Cahun as Cahun rather than use pronouns? I doubt Cahun would have disagreed with that. I think doing so would be better than trying to put Cahun under a pronoun Cahun is not here to confirm or deny. Flamingoflyer (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further review, I think that the most historically accurate take I have seen is that because Cahun uses “elle” (she/her pronouns in English) this article should do that. I think it would really help to state this fact in the intro to better clarify why the article uses she/her pronouns. Flamingoflyer (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation on the use of "she" seems sensible if there is something we can cite where Cahun self-referred with "elle". If there is not, then perhaps using Cahun as much as possible is best. Lewishhh (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloude Cahun is a victim of the violent and manipulative practice of "transing the dead". she lived and died before pronouns politics and exists. she was a femisint and a lesbian icon and we would never know if she would have used any other pronouns than "she/her". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abed shalabi (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This recent peer-reviewed scholarly article in Art Journal makes an excellent case for using they/them pronouns for Claude Cahun, proving that even what is today understood as gender nonbinary and associated with they/them pronouns was influenced by Cahun. The article points out that the mistake people make in being so firmly attached to using feminine pronouns for Cahun is believing 1. that transgender subjectivity is something new, 2. that trans people do not pre-exist language to describe them, and 3. that gender is historically stable, when in fact all genders are different in different times and places.
If people question Cahun being identified as trans after their death, they should also consider that we have no evidence that Cahun and Moore explicitly identified as lesbians, even though that identity has not received the same kind of scrutiny. It is an error to think that today's notion of "lesbian" can be historically projected into the past, but not "transgender." The article points out that in fact, the reason that people accept a lesbian identity for Cahun and Moore is because when their archive was first rediscovered, it was during a particular historical moment when feminist and lesbian art historians were projecting their own values and identities onto the historical archive to try to recover forgotten feminist and lesbian artists. In other words, the use of "she" pronouns and "lesbian" labels for Cahun and Moore has no firm historical or logical basis. The article shows that simultaneously in the transgender world, Cahun was also discovered and immediately recognized as a trans person--no different than a woman believing she "recognizes" a woman she encounters in the archive.
The article has also been endorsed by Cahun scholar Tirza True Latimer, who has herself begun to talk about Cahun in terms of transgender language: Tirza True Latimer, “‘Le Masque Verbal’: Le Travestisme Textuel de Claude Cahun,” in Claude Cahun, ed. Juan Vicente Aliaga and François Leperlier (Paris: Éditions Hazan, 2011), 81–82. MustardMayo (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it simply is the case, like it or not, that transgender people (and many nontransgender people) recognize and accept Claude Cahun as a transgender historical figure. No amount of gender-policing by those who disagree will change that fact. Just like a dictionary adds new words and meanings to reflect the reality of the ways that people use language--rather than grammar sticklers' wishes for how people should use language--the Wikipedia page must change to reflect how people understand Cahun and new research that confirms that understanding--rather than the wishes of those who have not yet updated their understanding of gender and gendered language. MustardMayo (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One article, however persuasive, is not consensus. There is no doubt that Cahun was a pioneer and an explorer, but Wikipedia is for documentation, not canonization. Perhaps the article itself needs a section to document the evolving state of Cahun scholarship on this subject? NeoAdamite (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check for neutrality[edit]

I agree Cahun is an influential artist, but the praise in sentences like, "[H]er androgynous self-portraits display a revolutionary way of thinking and creating, experimenting with her audience's understanding of photography as a documentation of reality." should be toned down so the article sounds more encyclopedic and less like a critical review of her work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.75.121 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this section was edited by me to have a more neutral tone. Though it was revolutionary for the time it read too much like an advertisement or social commentary on her work. Dsobol0513 (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Year Questionable[edit]

  1. artandfeminism #NowEditingAF I'm looking at the book, Interfaces: Women Autobiography Image Performance, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 2005, edited by Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson. The article "Self-Representation as Symposium: The Case of Claude Cahun," by Georgiana M.M. Colville (p. 263-288) states on page 263 that Claude Cahun was born in 1904. However, this article, and Encyclopedia Brittanica state 1894, and another website says 1892. I'm not seeing a citation on the wikipedia page. Who should we trust? Sjrexplorer27! (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claude Cahun. 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) 00:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Claude Cahun. 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) 01:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claude Cahun. 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) 07:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They / Their[edit]

The use of the pronouns "they" and "their" make this article incomprehensible, especially as much of Cahun's work was produced in collaboration with Moore. In sentences like "Their published writings include..." it is impossible to be sure who the actual author (or authors?) is (or are?). I suggest that all such instances are replaced by either "Cahun" or "Cahun and Moore" as appropriate - better that the article is repetitive than meaningless! JezGrove (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Cahun/Lucy Renee Mathilde Schwob was a woman, but if she refused this identity---and if the article wants to reflect and honour this---I would suggest "s/he" and "her/his" etc. The use of the plural pronoun does not work here, especially because sometimes she and her partner/collaborator Moore are involved. --WernR (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But I’m under the assumption that Claude Cahun’s pronouns were they/them. And I had no trouble reading this article as is. So I think to be respectful of Cahun I’d suggest we don’t do edit with “s/he” and “her/his”. If it needs be clarified that both Cahun and Moore did a piece of work together than it could just say “Cahun and Moore” as priorly suggested. There is no reason to have any they/them erasure within this article. Kali McSporran (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation supporting your assumption? Isn't it policy to follow Cahun's actual choices, not our guesses (however educated) of what Cahun might have chosen if transported to the 21st Century? NeoAdamite (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To support Kali, the article itself quote Cahun as saying "Masculine? Feminine? It depends on the situation. neutral is the only gender that always suits me" Thereby proving that Cahun would prefer to go by they/them, as that is the "neutral" pronoun. OctoToast 25 October 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not proof. Many people who identify as non-binary use traditionally-gendered pronouns, and it's not up to us retrospectively to re-pronoun her. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns[edit]

I'm changing the pronouns to be he/him/his. Cahun presented as a man and was obviously transmasculine. If we aren't going to use they/their/them pronouns, then the default should be to he/him/his. Asarelah (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mistake, Asarelah. On Wikipedia, Cahun is categorized as a female artist. If Wikipedia can't agree on she/her, then we should go back to they/their. She was masculine but also a female. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the use of they/their/them pronouns. The objection to them was that the use of these pronouns made the article hard to follow as it did not differentiate between referring to Cahun themself, and referring to Cahun and their partner. I propose we reword the article so that "they", refer to Cahun and their partner, is reworded, and then change Cahuns pronouns to the singular they.Asarelah (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason for the use of they pronouns other than Cahun's wearing of masculine clothing? I haven't read Aveux non Avenus cover to cover, but afaict it uses feminine language for Cahun, so absent some strong indication to the contrary, we should go with the language used by reliable sources including Cahun's own work. "Someone couldn't possibly live like this and be a woman" is not policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question: the line quoted in the lede continues "If it existed in our language one wouldn't see the vacillations in my thought." So I can see a justification for using neuter pronouns, although scholarly work that quotes this line still does use "she". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should stick to they/them pronouns, and if the article needs to speak of Cahun and Moore, then it can say “Cahun and Moore.” Kali McSporran (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the New York Times, ArtNet, and the Tate Modern. All use she/her for Cahun. Could someone who reads Cahun in the original come up with an example of Cahun's own usage? NeoAdamite (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an edit war going on over her preferred pronoun. Someone even asserted, "they/them, as that seems to be the consensus." Obviously they didn't check the Talk page, which shows no such consensus.
It is wrong to apply controversial 21st-century revisionism to a historical figure. During her lifetime, "they" was strictly considered a plural pronoun, meaning "more than one person, place or thing." At best, she likely would have found it very odd to be referred to as "they." 2601:281:D47F:B960:CDA5:FBA4:1E48:F621 (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Singular "they" emerged in the 14th century, a century after plural "they" and has been used every since. Cahun didn't speak English, and therefore didn't use any of these pronouns. Since we're writing about them in English, we can only do our best. They did, however, write about a desire for gender neutral language to describe themself. --Karandora (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but we are not discussing the type of usage that emerged in the 14th century. We are discussing "use of singular they with known individuals who do not identify as male or female" – and the Singular they article says that usage emerged "in the early 21st century." Definitely not during Cahun's lifetime. 2601:281:D47F:B960:F036:5A2E:64E2:D9E3 (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is wrong to apply controversial 21st-century revisionism to a historical figure – It is standard practice to use modern, 21st century English when writing Wikipedia articles. For instance, on the article William Shakespeare we use many words that would have been unfamiliar to Shakespeare, and drop many that have fallen out of common usage since his time. Using singular "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun isn't "revisionism", but part of modern English. — Bilorv (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad analogy. We still refer to Shakespeare as "he," because we have no reliable source stating the he would have preferred "they." Same situation with this article. Except, there are a lot of people who fancy that Cahun would have preferred "they"; therefore, aww, can't we please just slip that into the article in violation of one of Wikipedia's most fundamental tenets – that you need a reliable source? 2601:281:D47F:B960:5128:CE33:9BD8:2B82 (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NeoAdamite: In the intro’s 3rd paragraph, there’s this quote written by Cahun: "Masculine? Feminine? It depends on the situation. Neuter is the only gender that always suits me." To me, that indicates that Cahun would’ve preferred gender-neutral pronouns. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You, personally, get an indication that she would have preferred "they" – despite the fact that during her lifetime, "they" was never used to refer to a single human being – but we do not have a reliable source that states she would have preferred "they." 2601:281:D47F:B960:D48D:D4A8:39D1:668A (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category non-binary artists?[edit]

I am a little uncertain about this artist being categorised as a non-binary artist when they lived at a time before the term non-binary existed. I think it is just worth discussing if the term ought to be applied to a person who lived at a different time, who isn't documented as applying the term to themselves. Many famous people throughout history may well have opted to identify as non-binary if they had been given the choice, but I am not sure about applying the term to them in retrospect - it can be speculative, and may disregard the fact that different mores and worldviews have existed at different times throughout history. Look at, for an obvious example, sexual mores in Ancient Greece. Totorotroll (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claude explicitly rejected being exclusively termed as either male or female. "Masculine? Feminine? It depends on the situation. Neuter is the only gender that always suits me.", so classifying them as a female artist is clearly incorrect. They describe as being 'neuter', which is not a binary gender, hence non-binary. Non-binary literally means not male or female, which is precisely how they identified themselves. Ezraviah (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the nature of original minds to think and do things before terms (such as non-binary, Surrealist, Impressionist) exists to name their unprecedented behavior. There would be no need for the term if the reality had not previously come into existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.245.63 (talk) 09:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gender pronouns[edit]

There seems to be a dispute about whether to use feminine or gender-neutral pronouns. To me, it seems like the quote "Masculine? Feminine? It depends on the situation. Neuter is the only gender that always suits me." indicates that Cahun would’ve preferred gender-neutral pronouns. What do other people think? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A very interesting issue! I would think that, absent any sources indicating Cahun's pronoun preference while they were alive, it might be considered original research to take the step above, but I agree it would be good to hear from other editors as well. I think I'm going to take a look about the policy and guideline pages for pronouns and gender identification to see if this particular kind of issue has been argued about discussed before. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the desire to respect Cahun's gender, but we have to be careful not to make assumptions. Many nonbinary people today don't take they/them pronouns, or (like me) take them but not exclusively. For someone who died half a century before the singular they started to be used to mean something other than "an unknown person" or "a person whose gender has not been established", and who primarily spoke a language with a gender system that does not neatly map onto English's, it would be disrespectful for us to second-guess. The relevant guideline here is MOS:GENDERID, and despite occasional representations to the contrary by some, it does apply to people who died before the modern concepts of transgender and nonbinary emerged. If in her final works Cahun avoids gendering herself or otherwise indicates a discomfort with she (or elle), then there might be a case to avoid pronouns entirely. But otherwise, GENDERID says we should use she/her. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 12:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it would be disrespectful for us to second-guess" - precisely. Superseding anything we might think or assume about a person is how that person refers to himself, herself, or themselves. Since Cahun worked in a language that has genders, and since she used the feminine in her works (see citations above) we need to respect her choice.128.230.232.119 (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but Cahun HAD to work in a very gendered language, and therefore it wasn't really their choice to use she/her. Because we can't assume anything, it's better to use the NEUTRAL option, which is they/them. She/her ISN'T neutral. OctoToast 25 October 2021
    They/them may be reasonable as a neutral option for a biographical subject whose gender identity we literally do not know. (In the past it's been used at Thomas(ine) Hall, and I think that's reasonable, although someone changed it to surname-only at some point.) But in this case we have someone with a body of published work in a gendered language. It is not our place 70 years after her death to speculate as to why she (as best I can tell) referred to herself with feminine grammatical gender. Maybe it was because French lacks a true neuter option. Maybe it was because she saw a difference between grammatical gender and social gender and was fine using she/her. Maybe she saw it as imperfect but still would object, if she were alive today, to they/them. She was a writer. French in the '40s and '50s definitely had the words to say "I wish I could refer to myself as something other than écrivain or écrivaine, français or française". But she didn't say that (again, as best I can tell). So the neutral thing to do, per MOS:GENDERID, is to defer to the subject's expressed preferences, or, if someone can supply evidence that she disliked being referred to by a feminine grammatical gender, not use pronouns at all. They/them for a subject whose gender identity is documented is no more neutral than any set of gendered pronouns. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the choice is, it should be consistent. Currently, the lead uses "she" and the rest of the article, except for a quote, uses "they/them". clpo13(talk) 17:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-binary friend of mine asked me to change the feminine pronouns in the lede, so I'm glad I checked here first. Not being familiar with Cahun before today, I would've assumed they/them throughout would make the most sense here. Is there a case for alternating she and they? I'm surprised MOS:GENDERID seems to neither permit nor forbid that. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDD: I would not be opposed to that in the case of someone who's expressed equal preference to she/her and they/them pronouns, but I'd oppose it here. But here's a question that perhaps someone can answer: Per the line that everyone's quoting, "masculine ... sometimes suit[ed]" Cahun. Is there any evidence that she ever went by a masculine grammatical gender in French or English? Because it seems to me that one of the key questions here is, at times when she did not feel feminine, did she care that her grammatical gender accord with her gender identity? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 20:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tamzin; pronouns should be she/her or none at all. Also of interest: the article for Jennie June, a transgender writer from who lived in early 20th century. June might use she/her today, but since he wrote about himself with he/him pronouns, that is what is used in the article. Julia ☺ 00:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how many people are clamoring to change "she" to "they," in violation of Wikipedia policy that we would need a reliable source that says Cahun preferred "they." There is almost a palpable desperation on the part of those who want to foist "they" upon Cahun – even though at best, she would have found it very odd, because "use of singular they with known individuals who do not identify as male or female" did not emerge until "the early 21st century," according to the Singular they article.
All reliable sources refer to Cahun as "she." 2601:281:D47F:B960:F036:5A2E:64E2:D9E3 (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note that I agree with Tamzin and others that she/her is correct for this article. Crossroads -talk- 05:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Cahun's passage discussing their gender pronouns is almost NEVER quoted in full. This is partially because Disavowals has been out of print since 2014 - but it is luckily available online again! Here it is in its entirety:
"Shuffle the cards.
Masculine? Feminine? It depends on the situation. Neuter is the only gender that always suits me. If it existed in our language no one would be able to see my thought’s vacillations. I’d be a worker bee for good."
[emphasis added. Cahun, Disavowals. Translated Susan Demuth]
If it existed in our language... Cahun would be closer to a drone bee (a sexless animal) than to a woman.
Referring to 'reliable sources' that refer to Cahun as she is a fallacy, because until now most sources have been traditional art historical texts that have no basis in gender studies. Let's change the conversation. How does everyone feel now about this now that some more context has been provided? Vagrantbaker (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am adding that in Disavowals (which is broadly considered their memoir) Cahun appears to refer to themselves in the masculine and feminine genders regularly, as alter-egos or as memories of the past. Again, the 'authorities' that use she/her are considering Cahun based on their biological sex, which we can certainly agree is not the strongest foundation for a gender case. Vagrantbaker (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This recent peer-reviewed scholarly article in Art Journal makes an excellent case for using they/them pronouns for Claude Cahun, proving that even what is today understood as gender nonbinary that led to they/them pronouns was influenced by Cahun. The article also points out that the mistake people make in being so firmly attached to using feminine pronouns for Cahun is believing 1. that transgender subjectivity is something new, 2. that trans people do not pre-exist language to describe them, and 3. that gender is historically stable, when in fact all genders are different in different times and places. Similarly, we have no evidence that Cahun and Moore identified as lesbians, even though this is not generally questioned. It is an error to think that today's notion of "lesbian" can be historically projected into the past, but not "transgender." The article points out that in fact, the reason that people accept this is because when Cahun and Moore's archive was first rediscovered, it was during a particular historical moment when feminist and lesbian art historians were projecting their own values and identities into the historical archive. In other words, the use of "she" pronouns and "lesbian" labels for Cahun and Moore has no firm historical or logical basis. [1]https://artjournal.collegeart.org/?p=17309. The article has also been endorsed by Cahun scholar Tirza True Latimer, who has herself begun to talk about Cahun in terms of transgender language: Tirza True Latimer, “‘Le Masque Verbal’: Le Travestisme Textuel de Claude Cahun,” in Claude Cahun, ed. Juan Vicente Aliaga and François Leperlier (Paris: Éditions Hazan, 2011), 81–82. MustardMayo (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice[edit]

I've placed an editnotice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Claude Cahun. {{Pronoun editnotice}} has an optional source parameter, but it's not immediately clear to me whether there's one obvious source to point to, so much as editors' overall assessment of how she referred to herself, so I've added a discussion parameter to the template. If anyone has any questions, comments, or concerns about the editnotice, please let me know. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 06:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe should we have a statement at the beginning of the article that confronts this pronoun issue? That way the readers understand why the article refers to Cahoun the way it does. Flamingoflyer (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021[edit]

I suggest that the editors change all of the "she/her" pronouns on the page to "they/them", as Claude did not identify with "she/her" pronouns. Pokem307 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokem307: The discussion above already discussed this issue and came to the consensus that changing them wouldn't be necessary. If you have any further evidence or sources proving that they would have used they/them pronouns, further action could be taken. ― Levi_OPTalk 15:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 (2)[edit]

Change neutral to neuter in the quote "Masculine? Feminine? It depends on the situation. Neutral is the only gender that suits me."

It was changed to neutral because someone thought neuter was a mistake, but given Claude's fluency in German, which has a neuter gender, and the fact that all the other websites featuring the quote also use neuter rather than neutral, even without access to the source book, it seems obvious to me that neuter is correct. 74.110.113.205 (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done after verifying the translation used in the book. (Although really neutre could be translated either way; but we should defer to published translations when possible.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 (3)[edit]

Change "anti-Semitism" to "antisemitism". 2600:1700:5120:1A80:C43A:CFFD:BF97:2100 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 (4)[edit]

In the third and fifth sentences, change Claude Cahun's pronouns from "she" to "they". AGATSUMA (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now. Please see discussion above. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 (5)[edit]

They are best known as a writer and self-portraitist, who assumed a variety of performative personae.

Cahun's work is both political and personal. In Disavowals, they writes: "Masculine? Feminine? It depends on the situation. Neuter is the only gender that always suits me."[4] Telichty (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please be clearer about your requested change. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021 (6)[edit]

"Schwob adopted the pseudonym Claude Cahun in 1914.[3] She is best known as a writer and self-portraitist, who assumed a variety of performative personae"

In the second sentence, Shwob is referred to as "she" where throughout the rest of the article they are referred to using they/them pronouns. I believe the use of she in this sentence is most likely incorrect and should be changed to "They are best known as a writer and self-portraitist..." 132.205.229.60 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now. This article is currently frozen at what we call The Wrong Version, but changing it in either direction would just further the edit war, so let's leave it for now. You're welcome to join the discussion a few sections up. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Past or present tense[edit]

Tenses are all over the place, needs to be standardized and fixed Kaylahawk (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2021[edit]

Claude claimed gender fluidity and should therefore not be referred to as she and you shouldn't change it based on your opinion. Kalebrown87 (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finding of many of Claude Cahun's works[edit]

I remember back in the late 1980s or early 1990s, a chap called John Wakeham, who had once done some removals for us, told us about a house clearance for which he had been responsible. In the house, he had come across a stash of items that he recognised as important surrealist artworks, and took to be valued. If it had not been for this man's good eye, many of Claude Cahun's works would have ended up at the dump. 185.48.61.221 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claude_Cahun&oldid=1206507375"