Talk:Alexis Arquette

Detransitioned?

The statement Alexis's brother Richmond Arquette posted to Facebook seems to say that Alexis detransitioned at some point prior to death. Richmond repeatedly uses male pronouns. Not sure how we should handle this information.

Our brother Robert, who became our brother Alexis, who became our sister Alexis, who became our brother Alexis, passed this morning September 11, at 12:32 am. He was surrounded by all of his brothers and sisters, one of his nieces and several other loved ones...

https://www.yahoo.com/style/actress-alexis-arquette-died-47-192600561.html Dansan99 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A Facebook post is about as unreliable as you can get. If you want to change something in the article, you're going to have to find something a lot more conclusive, as in a specific statement in a reliable source explicitly stating that she "detransitioned" (or similar wording). This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Sundayclose (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

If a reliable source comes up that says otherwise, I'll gladly allow the masculine pronouns to stand. Until then, the feminine pronouns should be used. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 22:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course, Facebook is not the source. The sources reporting Alexis's brother Richmond posted the statement to Facebook are the sources. There is a difference. I provided a link to a Yahoo News. They apparently got the information from People. Is People reliable? I would say it's marginally reliable. Regardless, I don't think this is going away. It's pretty obvious Alexis's brother posted this, and at some point soon a very reliable source will report on it and we'll have to decide if and how we address it. Dansan99 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

We would need better sourcing saying that her gender identity changed again - that is, better sources for the change itself, not merely better sources reporting on what her brother said on Facebook. But if we get better sources stating that her gender identity changed before she died, I don't see why we wouldn't change it. Per MOS:GENDERID, we go with the "latest expressed gender self-identification". -- Irn (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dansan99: Reliable source is only part of the problem. Every source in the world could provide her brother's quotation and that would confirm nothing. As I said earlier the reliable source must explicitly and unequivocally state that her gender identity changed to male before she died. Sundayclose (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexis Arquette stopped identifying as transgender awhile ago. Per Entertainment Tonight and his brother: David Arquette Says Sister Alexis Does Not Identify as Transgender Anymore Partyclams (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

More confusion: The Arquette family has issued a new press release on Richmond Arquette's Facebook page where there is no mention of Alexis becoming a brother again, and they use female pronouns throughout.

Our sister, Alexis Arquette, passed away this morning, September 11th, 2016....

https://www.facebook.com/richmond.arquette?fref=nf Dansan99 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If there are conflicting reports by other people, we go with the most recent self-identification publicly stated by the subject of the bio. And at this point, that is transgender identifying as female, unless someone can come up with a reliable and more recent source to the contrary. Would everyone here please take a deep breath and read MOS:GENDERID? Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, her is what the policy (MOS:GENDER) says about the matter:

"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."

So, parsing this out, I think that the key phrase in question might actually be "This applies in any phase of that person's life." Does that include after-death? Is Arquette's gender identity now set in stone based on old primary sources despite condradictory evidence? Ditch ∝ 02:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ditch Fisher: missed ping, see below. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC) @Sundayclose, Irn, Dansan99, and Partyclams: Alexis stopped identifying as a transgender woman about the time Caitlyn Jenner publicly announced her gender identity.Story here quotes Alexis as “not transgender anymore” but Arquette used a term "gender suspicious" to describe a more fluid identity than male or female. Pronouns are probably not as important as just correcting her gender identity from transgender woman to gender fluid. I know there are lots of gender fluid pronouns but I haven't found a source that says she used anything other than "she" and "her." Gender fluid is as valid as transgender and that misgendering someone who is genderfluid as transgender woman should be avoided. I think it's incorrect to say she "detransitioned" or that her gender "changed back to male" since it didn't, rather just document her gender identity and expression through her life. I do think we have enough sources to change "transgender woman" and "female" to "genderfluid" and include her personal definition of "gender suspicious." I personally don't like statements like the one in the article that say she "transitioned from male to female" and would change it to when she publicly started identifying as a woman and then also when she publicly started identifying as genderfluid. Also, I would be very reluctant to use her gender fluid identity as being "conflicting reports" for the purpose of MOS:GENDERID. Her brother explained it in enough detail and it matches statements made by the family and Alexis. I think we should continue using "she/her" barring another source or work them out of the article, we should stop referring to her as a transgender woman except as a historical period, and identify her as genderfluid in places where her gender is mentioned. Likewise, she should not be referred to as male or "detransitioned." Since gendered terms are used in the lead, it probably makes sense to add something like "genderfluid actress." I don't know if we have specific categories that distinguish genderqueer identities from binary transgender categories. --DHeyward (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

So, it's easy enough to revise the article to use gender neutral language, replacing he/she with "Arquette" when possible, and brother/sister with "sibling," etc. Still using "she" when a pronoun is required for smooth writing. Is this approach something everyone would be on board with? Ditch ∝ 03:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The article from International Business Times doesn't add any clarity to this murky situation. Family members have used a mixture of pronouns since her death, and it's unclear where IBT got some of it's information. In the absence of a consensus to the contrary, we still apply WP:GENDERID since that guideline does not address any disputes after death. But regardless of all that, I think for the sake of decent writing style, we stay with feminine pronouns. As I stated in the section immediately below, I oppose changing her/she to "Arquette" simply because that is very bad writing. It's fine to give full explanations of events after her death, including "gender fluid" information, but let's leave the pronouns as they are. Sundayclose (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with just about everything you wrote there, and I think we have enough sources now to mention in the Personal life section that at the end of her life, she began to self-identify as "gender suspicious" and describe her as "genderfluid" in the lead. The only category I can find would be "Genderqueer people". -- Irn (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that Richmond's Facebook post has been changed, I'm striking out that we should describe her as genderfluid in the lead. I think we need better sourcing on that. -- Irn (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

http://thepridela.com/2016/09/alexis-arquette-47-gender-fluid-actor-dies-in-los-angeles/ seems like it would be accurate and sensitive to the topic. Finding congruence in pronouns is simply not going to happen with a fluid identity that is context specific. I suspect some of the public posts were changed to avoid the problem of presuming a "detransition" (note the name of this section) rather than genderfluid. I would be inclined to believe Alexis identified as a genderfluid member of the transgender community and their family didn't want it to appear as if she was no longer part of that community. The subtlety is that "transgender woman" would still appear to be misgendering Alexis if she was genderfluid and specifically "gender suspicious." If pridela.com is still insufficient, per WP:BDP and MOS:GENDERID, I'd be inclined to omit both. A non-gender identification where identity is ommitted seems to be preferable to misgendering. --DHeyward (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Rewrite the article to use no pronouns (where it makes sense) or singular they instead of masculine or feminine pronouns. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No. In English there is no such things as a "singular they" that can be used properly in the context of describing one person. It would be terrible grammar to write "Arquette decided they would transition ..." Not only is it bad grammer, it can be very confusing. I know it's used informally but it is not encyclopedic. Even when it has been argued that "singular they" might be used, it has been in the context of avoiding universal use of "he", as in "Every member of humankind has his strengths" changed to "has their strengths" because all humans aren't male. But in the case of Arquette, we are talking about one person, so there is no way to avoid either masculine or feminine pronouns, and unless there is a consensus otherwise we use feminine pronouns per MOS:GENDERID. Sundayclose (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Singular they can work for specific individuals, if that is their preferred pronoun or if you don't know the person's gender. See, for example, CN Lester. The problem I have with this proposal is that we have nothing to indicate that "they" ever was Arquette's preferred pronoun, and our use of it here would seem to imply that. -- Irn (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support I think in this very specific case, avoiding pronouns, even if the result is a somewhat clumsy writing style, is the right thing to do. It only seems "clumsy" because we are not used to biographing these gender fluid individuals. This will surely become more common in time, and we should be progressive, and not old fashioned sticklers for convention. I think gender fluid individuals deserve as much care and sensitivity in their articles as everyone else. We shouldn't mis-identify someone just because it reads better. Ditch ∝ 23:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your reasoning; however, I'm not sure that using "they" is appropriate. -- Irn (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I want to make sure I understand this. We are supposed to change "She also had supporting roles in Threesome and Bride of Chucky, and she played a Boy George impersonator" to "They also had supporting roles in Threesome and Bride of Chucky, and they played a Boy George impersonator." I count 18 instances of she or her in the article. We might change some of those to Arquette, but we are actually thinking about creating about seven or eight sentences like the one I just quoted with atrocious grammar. I mean no offense to anyone, but if this is done, it will be a new low for bad writing on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose As I said above, as far as we know "they" was not Arquette's preferred pronoun, and I fear that referring to Arquette as "they" implies that it was. However, if we can re-write the article to eliminate all pronouns (like with David/Sonia Burgess), I'd support such a move. As it stands, I don't think referring to Arquette as "she" is mis-identifying since that's how those closest to her have referred to her in their statements on her death. -- Irn (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to pick my battles. Although I also oppose eliminating all pronouns because it results in weak writing style, that might be better than the absurd "singular they". But it would have to be done with some exquisite finesse in writing skills. That said, I have raised a point several times on this page that everyone seems to be ignoring (I don't mean that I personally feel ignored; I'm only concerned with the issue): MOS:GENDERID still applies to this article. That could change if there is a consensus to change her status as not transgender, but that has not yet happened. What exactly is the problem with using feminine pronouns with someone whose bio is covered by MOS:GENDERID? If those who want to avoid any use of masculine or feminine pronouns have an issue with the article, the first decision needs to be determining whether the article describes her as transgender female at the time of her death. Sundayclose (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For me, it's about the spirit more than the letter of MOS:GENDERID, simply trying to respect Arquette's gender identity. However, as I stated above, I think referring to Arquette as "she" does respect her identity, though I imagine it was more complex than that.

As for referring to Arquette as a transgender woman at the time of her death: what about including David Arquette's comment that Alexis was "gender suspicious"? Generally, I would argue against that sort of thing, but as WP:BDP is specifically about respecting the family and those close to the deceased, I think it makes sense. -- Irn (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with considering comments by family members, but those comments have been far less than definitive. In the evidence of more clarity, the only way to change Arquette's gender identity in the Wikipedia article is by consensus, which is why I have asked for that to be the first order of business for those dissatisfied with using feminine pronouns. I feel like a broken record for repeating that so many times on this page. I suppose if the move here toward removing pronouns or (worse) using "singular they" gains momentum, I'll have to consider an RfC about the gender identity issue. Sundayclose (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't explicitly state Arquette's gender identity. We use feminine pronouns and identifiers (i.e. actress), which is what we're discussing with this proposal. And we state that she transitioned to female in her late 30s, which is what I addressed with the "gender suspicious" comment (not merely considering it, by the way, but literally including the quotation). Those touch on and are related to her gender identity, but that is not the same as "chang[ing] Arquette's gender identity in the Wikipedia article". What is it, exactly, you want changed/addressed? -- Irn (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

She was born with a gender of male; I don't think anyone doubts that. She transitioned to female. That was a decision she made, which is sourced in the article; does anyone doubt that she transitioned to female or that the transition was her decision? So if she decided to transition, quite clearly she identified as female. That's the latest self-assigned gender that is clearly sourced in the article, so MOS:GENDERID applies, and we use feminine pronouns. So the question is, did she "detransition" before her death? If she detransitioned, then that raises the question of whether feminine pronouns should still be used. The comments by family members are conflicting about whether her gender identity changed. So at this point the only way to determine whether the Wikipedia article should change her description as female by use of feminine pronouns is by consensus. We need a consensus to determine that we will not apply MOS:GENDERID to this article. That is the decision that must be made before we can decide that female pronouns should not be use. It is premature to try to come up with solutions to the pronoun issue until there is a consensus that she should not be described as a transgender female. Sundayclose (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Arquette's birth biology, subsequent biological changes, and/or the "decision" to transition have absolutely NOTHING to do with how to identify gender in the article. As I read it, the policy you keep citing clearly states that we base our writing on how the person identifies most recently, nothing more. Ditch ∝ 23:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

And just an quick weigh-in: Using the singular "they" is a terrible idea. I believe the article can be carefully and considerately written to avoid gender specific pronouns. Ditch ∝ 23:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Relax Ditch. :) Read my comments again. I didn't say that gender at birth has anything to do with current gender identification. What I did say is that Arquette made the decision to transition to female, which is sourced, and that is the most recent self identification of gender that is clearly sourced in the article. So unless we have a consensus otherwise, MOS:GENDERID applies and we use feminine pronouns. What we need to be discussing is whether we decide that MOS:GENDERID does not apply to this article because of the very confusing issue of gender self identity at the time of death. Unless that decision is made, we use feminine pronouns. I agree that "singular they" is a very bad idea, although I think we should continue to use pronouns. Beyond the stylistic objections I have, there is also the problem that it will be a constant battle to keep pronouns out of the article. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and the use of pronouns is so ubiquitous that pronouns will quickly come back because people don't typically read talk pages before they edit. It would be an unwieldy mess in addition to weak style. Sundayclose (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I got worked up and I apologize. You have been extremely cordial and thoughtful in all our interactions, and I appreciate that. So, I took the article and sandboxed it and removed or replaced all (I think) of the gender specific pronouns/terminology. It really wasn't as much work (or as terrible a turnout) as I thought. See here: Alexis Arquette article minus gender specifics Ditch ∝ 00:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No apology needed; I was trying to be humorous. I don't mind how you wrote it (you missed a few pronouns BTW). But who is going to keep it pronoun free and well written? In any event, regardless of whether the article currently has pronouns, I still think we need to make a decision about whether the article should be an exception toMOS:GENDERID. That will help determine the future direction of the article. Thanks for your efforts in revising the article. Sundayclose (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would be an exception to MOS:GENDERID. Arquette's latest expressed gender self-identification was "gender suspicious" - sometimes a man and sometimes a woman, depending on how she dressed, according to her brother David, as reported by various sources. Richmond's initial statement reflected that complexity ("became our brother Alexis, who became our sister Alexis, who became our brother Alexis"). From this, it seems pretty clear to me that she no longer identified as transgender. (David literally said that.) So it's not about making an exception to MOS:GENDERID; it's about properly implementing it. However, just because she no longer identified as a transgender woman doesn't mean that it would be wrong to refer to her with feminine pronouns or call her an actress; it could mean that it might be better to avoid that if possible, but we don't have clear guidance on that. (When people come out as genderqueer, they tend to give clear guidance on this, stating their preferred pronouns. Arquette doesn't seem to have cared much either way.) -- Irn (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

There are conflicting comments by her family members, so we can't rely on only one of them. We do not have clear evidence that she identified herself as "gender suspicious" before her death. MOS:GENDERID currently applies, but an exception can be made here by consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that contradicts this. What are you referring to? -- Irn (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Family members have used conflicting pronouns (masculine and feminine) and have changed public posts. My point is not that Arquette objectively was not "gender suspicious" or not "gender fluid" or was transgender at the time of her death, but that the situation if very murky and we cannot rely exclusively on one comment by one family member. The latest self-identification that we have directly from Arquette (by the fact of her decision to transition to female) is transgender female, regardless of whether that changed before her death. In the absence of clear evidence otherwise, MOS:GENDERID still applies, although this is a very unique situation because of the confusion and because MOS:GENDERID doesn't explain what to do in such a situation. As always on Wikipedia, when there is uncertainty, we decide the content of the article by consensus, which is all I am saying. I'm not arguing that we ultimately should or should not use feminine or masculine or any other references (e.g., no mention of gender at all), but that we need to settle matters one step at a time. The first order of business is to decide whether the article will make an exception to MOS:GENDERID (and again, I'm not arguing either side of that at this point) because that will determine whether we have an issue with pronouns that needs to be resolved. Sundayclose (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The different pronouns used by family members doesn't contradict the "gender suspicious" identification described by David; if anything, it reaffirms it. I think a fairly in-depth description of her gender identity from a loved one on television, in the absence of any reason to believe the contrary (and, indeed, supported by a further statement from a different loved one), is pretty solid. -- Irn (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we are at a point of difference in opinion (which is fine and quite common on Wikipedia, of course). My opinion is that there is enough contradiction to raise questions about gender identity at the time of death. If I understand your position, you do not think it is questionable. So again, we resolve this by consensus. I don't think this is very complicated at this point. If enough editors feel that MOS:GENDERID does not apply, that resolves the issue, and then we can move on to deciding what to do about pronouns and other feminine references. I suggest a straw poll (in a separate section) about whether MOS:GENDERID applies to this article, which is not a decisive vote but hopefully will make consensus clearer. In the process we also might get some ideas about how to resolve gender references in the article. Sundayclose (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but just to be clear, our disagreement isn't over whether or not GENDERID applies; it's about what counts as her last self-identification. -- Irn (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I agree it's about last self-identification, but MOS:GENDERID explains what terminology should be used ("use the term that the person or group uses"). So if last self-identification is transgender female, MOS:GENDERID says we use female. Do you agree with that? If latest self-identification is not transgender female, it then is unclear to me what terms should be used. But I'll address that issue if we find ourselves in that place. If there is no consensus about last self-identification, I have no idea what we do, but I suppose we then seek consensus for what to do about pronouns and other gender references. Sundayclose (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that if we decide that her last identification was as a transgender woman, we'd go with feminine pronouns. For what it's worth, if the consensus is that her last identification was "gender suspicious", I'd probably support the use of feminine pronouns, since that's how her family referred to her. -- Irn (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose my fear is that we are misidentifying Alexis by default, based on an inapplicable policy. The whole idea behind GENDERID is to avoid generalities, misconceptions, and stereotypes in regard to gender classification. I think this article is an exception to that policy. We need to report what the sources say, regardless if the information is conflicting. Ditch ∝ 00:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Aren't we better writers than this?

It seems to me that we are digressing in our efforts to construct this article based on how/when/why certain pronouns are preferred. If the pronoun is ambiguous or uncertain, then let's just write around it. Change he/she to "Arquette" and brother/sister to "sibling." etc, and be done with it. Ditch ∝ 01:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, some of us are better writers, and that's why we don't write around it. In some cases that might work, but pronouns have a purpose in writing. They are used to make writing smoother so that the nouns they represent don't have to be endlessly repeated. "Writing around it" can result in very bad writing. Changing every he/she to Arquette would be poor writing. MOS:GENDERID is clear on this issue: use pronouns that "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification". In this case the latest expressed gender identity is female (unless or until a reliable source is provided to the contrary). So we use she, her, woman, etc. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So gender has to be assigned in all biographies in order to make the writing smoother? Ditch ∝ 02:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pronouns make writing smoother. If we want biographies (or any article) to be written better, we use pronouns. To select the pronoun, we use the gender that the person identifies with (e.g., he for males, she for females). Wikipedia does not "assign" gender; gender is self-assigned. Most biographies on Wikipedia are not about transgender people, but if the subject is transgender, Wikipedia says we use their latest expressed gender identify. It's really not complicated. Sundayclose (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should to be slave to pronouns and smooth writing to sacrifice neutrality, one of the 5 pillars of the project. Ditch ∝ 02:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find nothing in your last comment that makes sense. People use pronouns quite effectively on Wikipedia thousands (if not millions) of times every day. There is nothing non-neutral about using pronouns and following what Wikipedia says about pronoun use with transgender people. Again, this is not at all complicated. If you disagree with what Wikipedia says regarding transgenders, the appropriate place to challenge that is at WT:MOS, not the talk page of one article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I am challenging the way pronouns are used in this specific article, under these specific circumstances, surrounding the notability of this specific person, which is why I am posting here. I have no desire to challenge, nor do I disagree with, Wikipedia's policy of pronoun usage as it applies to transgenders. (Please do not jump to conclusions regarding my motives.) My position is that, in this specific case, the preferred form of address is in question, and, until that is resolved, using "he" and/or "she" at this time is inaccurate, potentially inappropriate, and could be best resolved- albeit, temporarily- by avoiding gender specific terminology until the matter is resolved. Ditch ∝ 23:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The preferred form of address is very clear according to MOS:GENDERID: the latest gender identity expressed by Arquette in a reliable source is female, so we use she, her, woman, etc. That supersedes anything her family might state because MOS:GENDERID states that we "give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources" (italics added). The latest self-designation is female, regardless of what siblings say or how some Wikipedia editors interpret what siblings say, unless or until someone produces a more recent reliable source to the contrary. Let me try to understand your point. Are you challenging MOS:GENDERID for this article and only this article? Or do you have a recent reliable source in which Arquette stated that she did not identify as female? There are no other options that I can think of. Sundayclose (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)y.

I agree with that policy, and I agree that sources in the article support your position. Do you dispute that Arquette's preference for gender identity is now in question? Ditch ∝ 02:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Now in question" by whom? By some Wikipedia editors, obviously, but Wikipedia editors are very good at creating much ado about nothing, so that's no indication of dispute in the real world. I doubt there will be a reliable source in which Arquette stated that she no longer identifies as female, so the only way it will change in her Wikipedia article is if some folks want to battle it out in a consensus discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Remember that this is no longer a BLP. A statement has been made publicly by a primary source, and reported on by numerous secondary sources, that indicate Arquette's preference had changed prior to death. How do we handle that in the article? Ditch ∝ 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP is beside the point (although I will point out that BLP still applies to some who has recently died). MOS:GENDERID still applies. The only way to change the pronouns and other feminine references is with a reliable source that Arquette changed her gender identity (very unlikely) or by consensus. Also note that even the comments by family members contradict each other on that matter. Consensus is the only way to change it. That's the usual way to settle differences of opinion. I think our discussion has gone beyond pronouns per se. The issue of gender identity in general is discussed elsewhere on this page. Probably best to make further comments there. Sundayclose (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is a better place on this page for this specific discussion, I don't see it. However, I take your point that our discourse has become a bit of a back and forth, and consensus will not be reached between two editors. So I will post a new thread at the bottom of the page (with a clear-er title) in the hopes that perhaps an RFC, or some such consensus building mechanism, will resolve this. Thanks for your candor and well thought-out replies. Sorry if I seemed "testy" at any point. It was not intentional, if so. Ditch ∝ 01:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. But before you create a new discussion, look immediately above at the section "Detransitioned?", which raised the question of whether her gender identity should be changed. More discussion is great, but I'd like to avoid the same topic scattered in different places on this talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Brother David Arquette said that they were "gender suspicious", and" Is this meant to mean that both David and Alexis Arquette are/were gender suspicious? Or, is this an attempt to use a plural pronoun (and verb) to substitute for a gender-neutral singular pronoun? Why not "Brother David Arquette said that Alexis was "gender suspicious, and..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.14.77.222 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This family statement needs someone more aware than I to parse it.

"Our brother Robert, who became our brother Alexis, who became our sister Alexis, who became our brother Alexis, passed this morning September 11, at 12:32 am," surrounded by loved ones, Richmond Arquette shared in a Facebook post. "We were playing music for him, and he passed during David Bowie's Starman. As per his wishes, we cheered at the moment that he transitioned to another dimension." [1]. Are we gendering this person properly per MOS? It appears from the statement that Alexis identified as male at the end but I'm not sure how to convey a life of such a complex identity. The family sttement is binary. Do we have any sources that are not binary in nature or that support feminine pronouns? Arquette's family used masculine pronouns and identity in their statement. --DHeyward (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not discuss the same topic in several places. Look above at Talk:Alexis Arquette#Detransitioned?. Sundayclose (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Known for her transition and support of other trans people?

In this edit, Partyclams removed the line “She was well known for her transition from male to female, and for supporting other people making similar transitions.” with the edit summary “Trivial info removal and redundancy cleanup”. In the same edit, Partyclams also removed the line “Arquette was a vocal supporter of other transgender people, including Chaz Bono, who transitioned from female to male between 2008 and 2010.” As far as I can tell, her transition was quite possibly the most notable aspect of her life, more than her relatively minor acting roles, and I think it belongs in the lead. I don't know how well known she was for her trans activism, so maybe that part shouldn't be in the lead, but I certainly don't think her support for Chaz Bono is “trivial”, and I don't think it should be removed from the article. -- Irn (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I would change "other transgender" to just "transgender" and add that her latest gender expression was genderfluid. "Transgender" seems like it can be perceived as either broad category that includes genderqueer or narrower binary categories like "transgender woman." She ceased identifying as a transgender woman when she started expressing herself as genderfluid. --DHeyward (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Family's presence at her death

I can see why the fact that she was surrounded by family at her time of death and them singing “Starman” might seem trivial, but I think it's more important than it might appear. This sort of detail actually gives a lot of information regarding the circumstances of her death. We don't know how she died or what she died from, but knowing that she was serenaded by her family at the moment she died gives us a lot of useful context. For example, it shows that her death was anticipated by her family who had clearly accepted it before it happened, so it wasn't a surprise or a sudden tragedy. -- Irn (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Aids related death?

Is there a better source than People magazine for this? The one listed cites People magazine and that it will update when further info is available (which may have happened?), but I'd think People magazine is not a RS. Hollth (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that People article is not very reliable - it gives one anonymous source and that's it. However, I just found this article. I'm not familiar with Radar, but it looks like a gossip rag. That said, the article does name its source, and if a close friend is confirming that Arquette had AIDS, I think that's pretty solid. I would ideally like better sourcing on this, but I think it might suffice for the AIDS claim, at least. -- Irn (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• I removed the claim for now, per WP:BDP. This is an unconfirmed report which has only run in tabloids and semi-reliable online news outlets, and it contains a claim about a topic which remains culturally sensitive, and which, if wrong, could conceivably cause harm to Arquette's family. Nothing bad will happen if we wait for a confirmation, or at the very least for the unconfirmed report to be discussed by more prominent news outlets. On the other hand, if we keep the claim in and it turns out to be wrong, we will have violated our obligation of sensitivity for living (and recently deceased) people. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Good call, PinkAmpers&. You did the right thing. 63.92.255.201 (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Darwin

I added the cause of death as being from cardiac arrest after heart infection, and long-term diagnosis of HIV. @Irn: removed it and said "see talk" but there is nothing on the talk page about this. I don't think HIV should be treated as something shameful or controversial in this day and age, especially in someone who is deceased. The same source is already used in the infobox to indicate cause of death was cardiac arrest, and other sources are reporting the same info from the coroner. I don't think it's right to remove it from the death info while we have the happy little Starman detail. This is not an obituary but an encyclopedia. Cause of death is cause of death and should be included when available. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Cardiac arrest" seems fine to me. -- Irn (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest is insufficient considering ALL deaths are essentially caused by cardiac arrest (which is why "deaths by cardiac arrest" is no longer a category on here). Why would we leave out what caused the cardiac arrest? It's puzzling to me. Someone her age doesn't just die of cardiac arrest, surrounded by family of friends, without an underlying cause. The underlying cause of the cardiac arrest was the heart infection caused by HIV. Again, this is not a feel-good obituary paid for by the family. —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

My biggest concern with this is sourcing. I hadn't looked into the article from The Independent, but doing so now, it looks good to me, so I'll put that part back in. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Having HIV is not shameful. I think we were just waiting for a more reliable source. Initials reports sounded like gossip. Since TMZ dug up the death certificate, that's pretty solid. 63.92.248.121 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Darwin

The brother's statement

The brother's statement reads: "Our brother Robert, who became our brother Alexis, who became our sister Alexis, who became our brother Alexis, passed this morning September 11, at 12:32 am. Is this accurate or is this a typo? The clause that reads who became our brother Alexis is listed (repeated) twice. I am not sure if that was some intentional repetitive message or a typo. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Accurate. Alexis stopped identifying as a transgender woman and started identifying as genderfluid. Discussed above. Alexis was not identifying as distinctly male or female at the time of her death. --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. So, what exactly does this quote mean? Why did they repeat the same phrase twice? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think they are just recognizing that Alexis' gender was no longer exclusively female. It's part of a larger context that Alexis was both brother and sister at the time of her death. There's not a lot of detail given but the gist seems to be that "transgender woman" was much too binary a definition for the gender Alexis expressed to her family. Alexis repudiated "transgender" for genderfluid and it seems her brother is trying to reflect Alexis is both brother and sister at the time of her death though at other times she identified as one or the other. To me it reads as if Alexis needed to be his sister to realize that she was also a brother and not simply transgender. Whatever he meant, he described it previously that Alexis was both brother and sister and how she felt was expressed by how she dressed. It's probably a bit to convoluted to parse the language beyond "genderfluid" and I don't pretend to understand it beyond what they have said. MOS says to use the latest expressed gender and that appears to be genderfluid and not male, transgender female or anything that would imply a "detransition." More of an evolution of understanding rather than contradiction, repetition or repudiation. --DHeyward (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot find any source of the quote, including the insistence of using he/him/his pronouns, in the cited Facebook page. All instances of the quote on the internet belong to secondary sources(slate.com, People magazine, etc.) Should the quote be updated to reflect the current wording in the Facebook post? WenCOB (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I liked the way Richmond's statement allowed the article to communicate so much about her gender fluidity and the circumstances of her death without having to make any claim explicitly, but keeping it as is strikes me as a violation of WP:BDP. -- Irn (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

xHamster

I have just made this edit to the xHamster page about their purchase and destruction of a sex tape alleged to show Alexis Arquette. xHamster's reasoning was to avoid Arquette being smeared. Not sure if this is worth adding to her bio, but I mention it for others to consider. Note that this Huffington Post piece also describes her death as from HIV/AIDS complications. EdChem (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

There's nothing other than the trans stuff. There's no mention of her sexual orientation, relationships, friendships etc. Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you can find any of these details reported in reliable sources, add them. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

There's also no mention of Arquette's "born as" name, either. Before Arquette transitioned or felt a member of the opposite gender "she" was a "he." Such as childhood. Not very true to the person's entire history.97.85.91.212 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2016

Alexis Arquette began identifying again as a man before her death. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/final-days-alexis-arquette-a-928507

This should be noted in Arquette's personal info and journey with transgender life. i.e. From the article above, "Living in low-income housing and resistant to treating a rapidly progressing HIV, the transgender trailblazer, who died Sunday at age 47, spent her last days living as a man and struggling to make ends meet. Says one of her closest friends: "She was rightfully angry that she should have had the success and notoriety that comes with being such a talented actor and being born into a family that presents the opportunity."

173.71.97.28 (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Exactly what text do you want changed? Additionally, the article only says she was living as a man, not that she was identifying as a man. Additionally, I see numerous discussions above concerning this topic, and consensus seems to be against this statement. -- ferret (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency in cause of death

I just noticed that the infobox says "aortic dissection" while the prose doesn't mention that at all. Can someone more acquainted with this subject reconcile this? Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Patricia Arquette Calls Alexis' Oscars 'In Memoriam' Snub 'a Real Slight to the Trans Community

Source: MSN

Patricia Arquette was disappointed to find that her sister, Alexis, was not recognized in the In Memoriam portion of the 89th Academy Awards.

The Oscar-winning actress spoke with ET's Carly Steel at Vanity Fair's Oscars after-party on Sunday night about Alexis -- who died on Sept. 11 at 47-- being snubbed at the awards show. "Alexis was a great actor, and had 70 credits, and was really brave to live her truth as a trans woman, and they didn't include her in the memorial," Patricia said of her sibling. "I think that was a real slight to the trans community, especially at this time, when trans kids can't even go to the bathroom in the United States of America at school. It says a lot about the lack of inclusion." "Trans kids can really never look at anyone and see their heroes, and I think that was a big mistake," the 48-year-old actress continued.

Read more: http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/oscars/exclusive-patricia-arquette-calls-alexis-oscars-in-memoriam-snub-a-real-slight-to-the-trans-community/ar-AAnzQNL?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.51.116 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)