Talk:Chevalière d'Éon

Cleaned up recent gendered pronouns

Just removed the gendered pronouns that had crept in in recent edits: one reference to the Chevalier as "him" in the revision of 12:05 2 March 2018 by 11614soup; and two references to d'Éon as "she" in the revision of 11:01 9 August 2018 by 37.205.58.146, an IP that has many warnings on its talk page about vandalism-- As such, I've also popped a [citation needed] on their edit about there being "little evidence to support" the story. James Hyett (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverted to use correct pronouns again. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.30.243 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source that shows the person preferred "she/her" pronouns? ... discospinster _talk 22:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There's much discussion and an RfC on this page where the final sentence of the close is "The current article does not use pronouns, and that is good". A new discussion would need to be had to determine if consensus has changed, but the personal attacks and battleground attitude displayed by the IP need to be checked at the door.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The evidence is in her own words. She authored an autobiography, which was unfinished, but which is referenced in the book "Monsieur d'Eon is a Woman" by Dr. Gary Kates. In her autobiography she expressly claimed to be a woman. This was one of the last things she wrong before her death, making her gender self ID clear. Given that, the use of female pronouns is the only way for this article to be in keeping with the MOS:GENDERID. Cavegirlsmash (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry last things she "wrote" before her death. Cavegirlsmash (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, not all women use she/her pronouns, and if we are going to apply 21st-century gender conceptions in this article then that has to be taken into consideration. ... discospinster _talk 19:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

She used she/her pronouns for herself in her own writings. She/her pronouns were used for her by everyone who knew her in life prior to the death and the revelation of her genitals. She/her pronouns are mandated by MOS Gender Identity. Her last known identity, legally, publicly, and personally, was female. By that definition, her pronouns in English are she/her. Cavegirlsmash (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with using she/her pronouns for d'Eon. She used She/her pronouns for herself, and it is just basic respect to use the correct pronouns for someone, even if that someone is long dead. BlueJadeStorm (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't know Eon's thoughts but we do know that a desire to return to France was an overriding consideration, and in order to achieve that, as described in the article, Eon was "made to resume the costume of that sex", a condition to which Eon "submitted". But in protest to that, Eon, despite being dressed in gowns and ruffles, combined the feminine dress with the roughneck attitude and manner of speech of a "grenadier". This is not someone I would call transgender, but then, what I would call Eon has absolutely no relevance here. What is relevant, is what the reliable sources say, and since there isn't a clear majority consensus, the current no-pronoun approach is the best one available to us, even if it fails to satisfy those who prefer masculine pronouns or feminine pronouns. Mathglot (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Author Edna Nixon in her biography of d'Eon on page 178-179 when examining the text of the order, asserts the phrasing of "as was previously made necessary through her service to the late King" as "[laying] the responsibility for her wearing male garments on Louis XV". In this regard the wording of the article is perhaps not matching to the order itself. Relm (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"androgynous physical characteristics"

The lede is ambiguous as to their biological sex, even though the main body specifies that they had '"male organs in every respect perfectly formed", while at the same time displaying feminine characteristics.' This strongly suggests these "androgynous physical characteristics" were mainly male (certainly in the sense that most readers will perceive the issue). If their biological sex-characteristics is relevcant enough to mention in the lede at all, wouldn't it be better to be less ambiguous in the wording? Ornilnas (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Petitioned the English Courts?

RaphaelQS added this text in July:

After returning to England later in life, d'Éon successfully petitioned the English courts to be legally recognized as a woman, which is seen as one of the earliest instances of legal recognition of a gender transition.

This doesn't seem to be sourced or mentioned in the body of the article. RaphaelQS, do you have a source for this? (I partly ask because, if it's true, it seems evidence that d'Eon did identify as a woman, rather than dressing as a woman purely to satisfy King Louis.) TSP (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This is from the British Museum:

Having been officially designated a woman by both the French and English courts, the sitter returned to France in 1777 and - after considerable protest - d'Eon was resigned to Louis XVI's stipulation that at all times thereafter they dress in female costume. Despite earlier prints showing the Chevalier in female dress, this appears to be the first indisputable record of d'Eon in female clothing. This change led to a shift in attitude from the press and printmakers. D'Eon was now regarded as a heroine, a woman whose patriotic fervour had inspired her to disguise herself in order to fight for her country. D'Eon was compared to Minerva (see 1902,1011.7149 for an example of this iconography in an English print), to an Amazon and to Joan of Arc. Indeed, the autobiography written at the end of d'Eon's life, but not published until 2001, was titled "La Pucelle de Tonnerre" in a direct homage to Joan ('la Pucelle'). For the autobiography, see "The Maiden of Tonnerre", Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

(Emphasis mine). --RaphaelQS (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That's quite a long way off the statement in the article, though? It doesn't specify that this recognition took place after d'Eon's return to England in 1786 (given that d'Eon was also in England 1763-77); or that d'Eon petitioned for this; and it's ambiguous whether this refers to the English courts - i.e. the legal system - or the English court - i.e. royalty. Given that the French recognition was by the French court, logic would actually suggest the latter; and a more likely time for it would be before 1777, when d'Eon was at the English royal court. TSP (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@RaphaelQS: I've removed this statement, I'm afraid. I'd love it to be true, but you can't use a source as vague as the one you provided to source the extremely specific statement in the article. TSP (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Pronouns, again

If someone could please provide a reliable source that D'Eon preferred feminine pronouns, or that D'Eon was referred to using feminine pronouns by contemporaries at the time, it would make things a whole lot easier. Otherwise, avoiding pronouns altogether, as the article currently does, is the better option. ... discospinster _talk 00:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to move away from the current standard, there is no benefit to adding pronoun's where they would barely provide brevity and increase confusion. This was discussed in RfC too. See the header. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of examples of d'Eon's contemporaries using she/her pronouns for her. Including her brother in law: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-30-02-0502 She also used she/her pronouns for herself when writing in third person: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_D-1-268-272 Not to start the pronoun wars again but you did ask. AmphibiousThing (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is a letter from her (d'Eon's) brother-in-law, using female pronouns for her in 1778, in a letter to Benjamin Franklin.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-30-02-0502#BNFN-01-30-02-0502-fn-0003

The time for changing her pronouns to she/her, which she used (in both French and English) from 1777 to her death, is long overdue. 2603:6081:6F00:3A50:0:0:0:81 (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Initially I reverted a change regarding the pronouns used in this article but I sense I've made a mistake here. I do agree and think, considering the use of she/her for her by her contemporaries (as reported in these sources, and the sources saying she lived as a woman, it might be time to use those gendered pronouns for d'Eon. LemurLiterature (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not speak French and can not track down the source, but Edna Nixon's biography quotes a public appeal they made in 1778 on page 208-209. The author states the purpose was as an appeal to women to bolster her case, and in it Chevalier uses third person through much of it stating:

"After having been all my life an honest man, zealous citizen, and brave soldier I now triumph as a woman, one who may be cited among many of her kind as having proved that the qualities and virtues of which men are so proud have not been denied our sex.... I have felt outraged that a certain theatrical boaster has not dared to look the Chevalier D'eon in the face, he a plebian who was occupied in making clocks chime while all Europe resounded with my warlike and political exploits. He tried by an ignoble trick to rob me of the esteem which is the consolation of my existence. I oppose him and make mock of his futile anger. He is Thersites who should be whipped for his insolence in attacking people who are of far greater worth than himself and whom he should respect. I denounce him and delilver him up to the women of my century for having conspired to acquire credit at the expense of a woman, to get rich on her honour, and to avenge his frustrations by crushing one whose dearest wish is to see the triumph of her sisters."

Petit-Montreuil-les-Versailles,

Monday, Day of Purification, 1778.

Archives des Ministere des Affaires Estrangeres

Provided this can be verified it makes clear that she used female pronouns for herself. Given that Wikipedia does not assign pronouns off of birth sex (though d'Eon successfully petitioned two governments to be recognized as AFAB - remarkable for the time) but rather self ID, the article should reflect the pronouns used by the subject rather than engage in speculative neutrality. Relm (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

This is from Appel à mes Contemporaines.

The issue here is translation. While I don’t speak French I do know some basics. In French son/sa is gendered in a different way how his/her is gendered in English. In this letter the choice to use "her" is a choice made by the translator.

That being said d’Eon does use "elle" for herself in this letter which is equivalent to “she”. She also refers to herself throughout as a “femme” (woman) and signs it in the feminine “La Chevaliere d’Eon”. So the choice to use “her” in translation makes sense as it’s keeping with how d’Eon is gendering herself.

D’Eon also uses she/her pronouns for herself in English. Her brother-in-law Thomas O'Gorman uses she/her pronouns for her in English. In French her cousins call her "chère cousine", O'Gorman calls her "ma chère soeur" and her mother calls her "ma chère fille". There is honestly so much evidence that d’Eon, her friends, family and many others all used feminine language for her in both French and English. AmphibiousThing2 (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The attempt to modernise, while understandable is serves only to editorialise what is a balanced historically written article. The discussion of d'Éon's life here is comprehensive and well sourced.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Major Edit - Pronouns and Gender

In light of the texts brought forward by myself [here] and verified by @AmphibiousThing2 for the French [here] to show that d'Eon self identified as a woman (quite adamantly, frankly). There was also a link to an example of d'Eon using feminine pronouns for themselves in English, but the BritishMuseum link for it has since died. D'Eon's brother likewise used female pronouns in English to refer to her [here].

I think this change is long overdue, but since I expect it to be met with controversy I am front-loading my argument.

One can find the original 2014 RfC [here]

The summary for the RfC is as follows:

NAC: There is no consensus as to whether to support or oppose strict application of the MOS rule on gender identity: "An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases, we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." There is what appears to be consensus that this is an edge case, exceptional in multiple respects. Since there is no consensus to override the MOS, and the MOS does not refer to edge cases, applying the MOS means that we should refer to her as female, her gender identity at the time of her death (regardless of her anatomical gender). The current article does not use pronouns, and that is good.

— Robert McClenon, 9 November 2014.

Emphasis mine. The arguments presented at the time in favor of not applying the MOS rule are as follows:

1. Several users suggested using male pronouns for d'Eon prior to her transition, then use female. This is expressly forbidden as per WP:GENDERID - in particular the section on retroactivity - and MOS:IDENTITY. Additionally, no weight is given to legal recognition for name or gender affirming surgeries. Notably these also mention that given it is clear d'Eon is primarily known by the masculine form of their name, that they qualify for it to still be listed - See WP:GENDERID's 'Common Name' section for more.

2. Several users conflated Sex and Gender. D'Eon is - as best as I understand all of the evidence - still of unclear sex. There are arguments for and against her being biologically male, female, or intersex. Regardless of consensus or lack of consensus for any of these, it does not impact d'Eon's gender identity. Other users likewise suggested that given Chevaliere d'Eon's notability coming from their having lived as both a male and female, that it may confuse the reader to use feminine pronouns throughout. The Retroactivity section of GENDERID states

"For people who are unfamiliar with them, gender and transgender issues can be confusing, but with clear drafting (as suggested by MOS:IDENTITY), articles can clear up such confusion. Where necessary, an article can clarify how the person presented at whatever stage of life the article is discussing.

Some readers would be confused to see the same person referred to by two different pronouns (they might not even realize the same person was being referred to at first), and other readers would be confused and/or offended to see a transgender person being misgendered."

This clearly shows that it is our job as editors to prevent such confusion, but only within the framework of referring to them appropriately by their proper pronouns.

(As a side note to #2: I would appreciate a discussion about how much weight the article gives the coroners report compared to earlier 'gender confirmations' conducted during d'Eon's time in England, or the private letter between d'Eon and Madame de Courcelle - d'Eon's close life long friend and potential lover who could be understood as explicitly stating that they had seen d'Eon's genitals first hand and rebuked a man for claiming d'Eon was biologically male.)

3. The most comprehensive arguments were made from those suggesting that the majority of sources referred to d'Eon with male pronouns, or as a 'transvestite' and therefore the article should reflect this. The first sentence of the MOS:GENDERID states: "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." and there is no justification I can see to overrule this here when the evidence is clear. There are cases where the evidence is unclear such as Marsha Johnson where a similar MOS exception is used as d'Eon to avoid pronouns entirely (despite most sources referring to Johnson as a transwoman with she/her pronouns) due to there being a lack of clarity on their self identification due to - as I understand the talk page discussion - referring to themselves differently according to different people of different relation to Marsha. D'Eon does not fit this narrow room for argument, as their latest gender identity and pronouns seem clear. D'Eon's distaste for female clothes in favor of her military uniform is not sufficient evidence to overrule gender identity.

4. Most importantly regarding the 2014 RfC... there was no engagement with the source material. The RfC primarily concerned itself with discussing it from a zoomed out lense from the perspective of d'Eon being beyond our modern conception of transgender due to being removed from us by two centuries - but failed to critically examine any source texts from d'Eon or those from her time living as a woman. Since the 2014 RfC, most discussions have centered on this gap of what d'Eon self identified as. Most remarks made since the RfC against female pronouns have said that evidence of self referential pronouns would be sufficient, with a slight majority saying that they believed that even without a clear example of self-referential pronouns in writing from d'Eon that the evidence was clear to employ female pronouns for her.

Finally to conclude I believe it is important to note that at the time of the original RfC, transgender individuals were not widely accepted to the level of today. 'Transvestite' or other words which have fallen out of favor over the past decade were commonly employed to pathologize, diminish, or erase transgender individuals throughout history and the present. Though Wikipedia had already written the original versions of MOS:IDENTITY and GENDERID, they have since become more fleshed out due to arguments elsewhere requiring them to. Wikipedia was only a year removed from the Chelsea Manning controversy which prompted those policies. During the 2014 RfC a much more impactful debate was occurring across Wikipedia, with the gamergate sanctions WP:GS/GG coming down after almost the entirety of the 2014 RfC was conducted but prior to it's closure two weeks later. I bring this up not to browbeat those who may oppose this edit, but rather to further justify why the 2014 RfC is outdated, and the recent conversations are sufficient to change the page. Given all of the above, as well as several discussions which lead to this outcome but have not enacted it yet, I am making this change. Relm (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not so much dated terminology, but what reliable sources say, and what they said at the time. Since there has been addition of these sources, I would support changing the pronouns to "she/her". ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at moving the page and doing the cleanup. I would greatly appreciate if someone took a second look to make sure I did it right since this is my first attempt at moving a page. Relm (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

My issue is a different one. This is a historical figure who identified with different pronouns at different times in their life. Wikipedia guidelines rightfully prefer the last reliable self-ID but in a historical account in which a substantial fraction of the notable coverage is split across pronouns/identities, I am struggling to see the a single pronoun covering it in a way that is encyclopaedic. I think it's great that a more in depth examination of the sources is being used to add to this article but I am concerned to pronoun change makes d'Eon's identity less clear not more. For reference I support the page move, that seems like a straight forwardly positive reorganisation. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue you bring up is accurate. Though the pronouns have been changed in accordance with policy, also mentioned in the MOS is that it is still the duty of editors to not confuse the reader.

While reading a few sources and books on d'Eon it stood out to me that the article is severely lacking in detail on their life as a woman as well as their time in England prior to returning to France. As noted above I also think there is perhaps too much emphasis on the coroners report (while cleaning up I noticed various other pages which reference Chevalier d'Eon citing that coroners report to mean radically different things) when there was - as I understand it - a heavy implication that an inspection occured prior to d'Eon's return to france, as well as a suggestion by a close friend with potentially intimate (in both senses of the word) knowledge that they had always been female. Obviously if no reliable sources report on such things, it is OR and does not belong.

Overall my thoughts on improving the page to better help on this is found in these three points:

1. A lot of nuanced detail which would help readers understand the specific events (namely their service in Russia, their time in England, the negotiation process to return to France, and her relations to others and their reactions to her return as a woman) surrounding the time they moved from presenting publicly as a man to a woman is missing from the article.

2. There is no definitive section surrounding d'Eon's gender expression and biological sex, and perhaps for d'Eon it is warranted given the nuances of when and how and what they preferred to wear.

3. There is perhaps enough research and articles done which cover d'Eon as a figure in media that the section on their legacy and media depictions could be expanded.

If no one else takes it up I'll probably make it my pet project for the rest of the year. Relm (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Hello! I am pinging in regard to the revision of the page. I noticed you disagreed in a previous discussion on this topic and preferred neutrality. I understand the need to do a controversial move request, but I would like you to voice your dissent to the discussion here. I think the controversial move request in essence serves as that RfC but any feedback to make sure I am going about the process correctly would be appreciated as I am still a rather new editor. Relm (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed the move before I noticed the ping (oddly, should've been the other way round) and will try to respond here in a day or two. Meanwhile, you have done all the right things afaict at the RM below. If you are not getting feedback from a wide enough variety of editors, see WP:APPNOTE for how to increase visibility of the RM. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Chevalier d'Éon → Chevalière d'Éon – I did not know about the controversial move procedure, apologies. The reasoning for the move remains the same as previously laid out without dissent having been voiced since (here)

In short, the RfC from 2014 was inconclusive in establishing any concensus and since then it has been shown that d'Eon used female pronouns in referring to themselves in letters. The discussion on this talk page since has shown most users believe that this is sufficient to make the change. Given MOS:IDENTITY position on the presentation of transwomen lending towards a consistent portrayal in line with their gender identity, it follows that using the masculine form of the title as 'Chevalier' instead of the feminine form used after their openly announcing their female identity is not in line with the article title policy employed for any other transgender individual. Relm (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment – no vote yet until some things are clarified. Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Was I clear enough that I was talking only about my own !vote? Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support Move | Oppose Pronouns: Chevaliére d'Eon was a historical individual who lived as two different genders for a substantial fraction of their historically relevant period, and is chronicled in this Wikipedia article across these different periods. Adding pronouns substantially impacts the clarity of the article. If evidence strongly supports the idea that d'Eon identified as a woman at the end of her life, this should first be expanded on in the ″Life as a Woman″ section. The research being presented here in talk needs to be included into the substance of the article, such that the article can be more balanced and informative about the nature of the evidence that d'Eon lived and identified in explicit terms as a woman. The change of title is a simple matter of order of presentation. Chevaliére d'Eon lived as both ″Chevalier″ and ″Chevaliére". If there is good evidence that her last known identification was as a woman the order of presentation should favour the "Chevaliére", similarly the names can be swapped in order, in the spirit of MOS:GENDERID.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Thanks for opening the RM (requested move). The title of an article should be based on WP:Article title policy. Please be clear about what you are basing the move request upon; the words gender and pronoun do not appear at WP:AT, and a title change must be based on that policy, not on MOS or on whether users believe this or that, and least of all on WP:GENDERID which is an essay that is neither a policy nor a guideline but just the opinion of one or more interested editors. Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I have edited the original post to clarify, thanks. Relm (talk) 02:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything in the rationale or in the linked Talk page discussion that refers to reliable sources (or even unreliable sources) that use the proposed name for the subject? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

As per the note on the page "chevalière is the female equivalent of chevalier, meaning knight".

It is present in the primary sources as the main title she went by after returning to France as a woman. Most of the older sources have traditionally opted to use her male name, masculine pronouns, and the male version of the title either throughout the whole work, or until their narrative shifts to using d'Eon's female name, female pronouns, and female title in the 1770's either during their time in England or after they have formally returned to France as a woman. The latter is more common in current sources, with a paucity still using either pronoun for the entirety of the work. For an example of a primary source see Chevalier d'Éon#/media/File:Bodleian Libraries, European Magazine.jpg the print used on the page which contains the title which was produced in 1794 during d'Eon's lifetime and uses the title.

From briefly scanning the sources in use:

[1] the source switches to female pronouns and uses the title multiple times.

[2] though the book uses masculine pronouns throughout, the chapters focused on d'Eon's return to france frequently show the title as the main title for d'Eon in correspondence at that time, and it is used frequently in those portions of the book.

[3] uses it once in the context of d'Eon self identifying with the female form of the title: He consented; and thenceforward not only wore women’s clothes but called himself “La Chevalière d’Eon.”

[4] Uses it at the end when quoting d'Eon again using it for themselves towards the end of her life.

This is a majority of the sources used by the page for information not related to media appearances when one subtracts the two primary source letter collections. There are two sources I could not access (references #4 and #10 - due to their being books). The atlasobscura article which features the female form of the title is the most recent source on the page (2021) to be used for encyclopedic information.

I hope this context is helpful. Relm (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't ask about pronouns. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Many contemporary sources used the feminine form of her title [link] [link] and that's what d'Eon herself used [link] [link]. She even engraved it on a sword. AmphibiousThing2 (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There are many primary and secondary sources that use the feminine form of her title. For primary sources see: [link] [link] [link]. For secondary sources see The Transgendered World of the Chevalier/Chevalière d'Eon by Gary Kates, Maiden of Tonnerre: The Vicissitudes of the Chevalier and the Chevalière d'Eon edited by Roland A. Champagne et al. The Chevalière d'Eon, Transgender Autobiography and Identity by Marilyn Morris and Mémoires sur la Chevalière d'Eon by Frédéric Gaillardet.

Other titles have also been used for d'Eon such as mademoiselle and madame. Some sources use a combination of titles. Considering that there has been a variety of titles used for d'Eon and there has never really been a clear consensus I don't think it's unreasonable under this circumstance to take MOS:GENDERID into consideration. It also should be noted that WP:NCP links to MOS:GENDERID. Chevalière seems to have been d'Eon's preference. She used it on a visiting card, on an invitation, when signing letters and even on a sword she gifted to George Keate.

There are other article titles that follow MOS:GENDERID even though the subject is well known under their birth name. For example Elliot Page is arguably better known under his birth name but the article title uses his current name. His birth name is then mentioned in the first sentence "Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987)".

If the body of the article is to follow MOS:GENDERID then it makes sense for the title to match so that the article feels cohesive. AmphibiousThing2 (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

AmphibiousThing2: and there are many that do not. I get your point, but how would you make the call for example in that case, especially if, say, half again as many use the masculine form? Would you change to the feminine anyway, and on what basis? (I'm thinking of WP:DUE, here.) As far as Elliot Page, WP:OTHERSTUFF (only an essay) may apply (the point there being, I think, that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and whatever editors decide to do in some other article might be inaccurate, fail to adhere to policy, etc., so we can't really use other Wikipedia articles as definitive; but if you are pointing it out as one possibility of how to proceed, then sure, it should be considered. I think it's fine, in certain cases, to have the title be one thing, and the fist sentence highlight another name; see for example Bill Clinton, The Wachowskis, Prince (musician), Jan Morris and many others.

If relying mostly on MOS:GENDERID, the thing to look at would be the difficulty of looking at questions of gender identity two hundred years before the expression was invented and projecting our sensibilities onto cultures remote in time (or place). Which isn't to say you can't think about how it may apply to cultures in other times, but it does require an extra degree of care. Mathglot (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary using the language that d'Eon used in her lifetime preserves a historical example of gender expression. How d'Eon used language to express gender in her lifetime is of historical interest. We could use "Chevalier/Chevalière d'Eon" as Kates does in his article and then explain that d'Eon used "Chevalier" until 1777 and then "Chevalière" until her death. However I think it would be neater to use the title "Chevalière d'Eon" and then explain "Chevalière d'Eon (formerly Chevalier d'Eon)" or some such. It seems illogical to do the reverse and use the title "Chevalier d'Eon" and then say "Chevalier d'Eon (later Chevalière d'Eon)". Or I suppose we could conform to WP:NCROY and not use her title at all in the article title and just title it "d'Eon" or perhaps "d'Eon de Beaumont".

Regardless I think it should be cohesive. If we use feminine language in the article as per MOS:GENDERID the title should match. If we don't use gendered pronouns then perhaps we should use the title "Chevalier/Chevalière d'Eon" or as per WP:NCROY not use her title in the article title at all and then explain the various names/titles she used throughout her lifetime in the article itself. AmphibiousThing2 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If by cohesive you mean use the same pronouns throughout, I disagree. Note that d'Eon was very well known for their first 49 years, presenting as a man. This is not a Laverne Cox case, but more like a Jan Morris or Caitlyn Jenner case, who were well-known before and after transition, just like d'Eon. Both of those articles use female pronouns in the introduction, but mostly try to avoid gendered pronouns, as this one does, and I think that is the right approach for all three. In some ways, it is even more like the James Barry (surgeon) article, which hardly uses pronouns at all, and thus avoids the most difficult part of the question. I think that approach works well here.

Remember that gender identity is an attribute of a person, but gendered pronouns are merely an artifact of the language a person is raised in. In Hungarian or Farsi Wikipedia, we would not be having this discussion because there are no "he" and "she", there is only one, genderless pronoun. So let's just be clear that we are talking about how to best write this article in English, getting around certain issues of English grammar that might gender d'Eon in an unwelcome way, and that one perfectly good solution for that is not to use gendered pronouns, like a number of articles at Wikipedia do, and that we are not looking deeply into the cornoner's report to try to find d'Eon's true pronouns hiding just behind their appendix. (Which, by the way, can be removed without damaging the organism; hint, hint.) Putting it another way: d'Eon's gender identity is a question for all Wikipedias and is independent of language; what pronouns to use in the article is a language question, which exists for English but not for some other languages, and is not a d'Eon question. Mathglot (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

By cohesive I mean that the title of the article should reflect the language used within the article itself. It would seem odd and potentiality confusing to use masculine language in the title and then exclusively use feminine language in the body of the article. If a decision is made to apply MOS:GENDERID and use feminine language the title should follow. If a decision is made to not apply MOS:GENDERID and the article continues to use gender neutral language I think it would make sense for the title to reflect that in some way.

All your examples use the name the subject was last known to use as the title and then mention birth name in the first sentience. Which was essentially my original suggestion. I'm happy to follow these examples and use "Chevalière d'Eon" as the title and then include something along the lines of "formerly Chevalier d'Eon" in the first sentence as per your examples.

I'm not sure what relevance Hungarian or Farsi has here as d'Eon spent most of her life in France and England and both French and English use gendered language. I've only ever suggested that this article use the language d'Eon used in her lifetime.

I'm probably not going to respond to this any further as this conversation does not seem to be productive at all. If anyone wants more information in regards to what gendered language was used by d'Eon and her contemporaries feel free to @ me. AmphibiousThing2 (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I've responded to non-article content issues at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The part about Hungarian and Farsi was to point out that pronouns are a characteristic of language, not of people. People have sex, gender, gender identity, and so on, but language has pronouns, which are not of the person, they are applied to the person (either by themself or others). That this is the case can be seen from those languages that do not have gendered pronouns. Nobody misses not being called he or she in those languages, and people do not feel they are being dissed because they are being addressed as it (or however you want to translate the genderless pronoun in those languages). It is an analysis to attempt to show where the locus of the issue lies, so we can talk about it more cogently—i.e., it lies in language, and not in the person. I hope that is clearer. (But if not, have a nice day! ). Mathglot (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controversial move and edits undone

(edit conflict) The recent, barely-discussed changes to both the article title as well as the use of gender pronouns in the article have been undone. For the title change, please follow the instructions for controversial moves at WP:RM#CM. For the major change to the use of pronouns in this article, please see WP:RFC, including in particular, WP:RFCBEFORE. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We edit-conflicted. Thanks for opening this RM above. Mathglot (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I also posted a fail-ping (here) to try and get your opinion on the viewpoint I expressed above.

I do not feel confident opening an RFC, but is there any reason the controversial move differs from it in any meaningful way that would necessitate running both discussions simultaneously? Relm (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I can help you with that if you like, or you could seek advice at WT:Rfc. You do not have to run both simultaneously, although you could if you wanted to, and you might get some synergy from people responding at both. I haven't seen it done, but per WP:NOTBURO you could perhaps combine both ideas in one WP:RFC which could serve as both the pronoun change, as well as the title change. The downside there is that a closer would have to disentangle the responses, to figure out if responders are talking about the title change, the pronoun change, or both. Maybe that wouldn't be a problem, or maybe it would; I'm honestly not sure which would be better. I guess the important distinction to understand is that policy trumps guideline, and WP:Article titles is policy, and MOS:GENDERID is a guideline. Mathglot (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate the help. I will look into it tomorrow.

As for the point about policy trumping guidelines, I acknowledge my error. I believed the logic followed that if GENDERID was followed to show that d'Eon's self ID was female, with feminine pronouns and the specific use of the feminine form of their title - that the title of the page would be on the same basis that several people who are more famous under their deadname are not titled after it. I can see why this is more complicated due to the policy/guideline distinction for a title that contains grammatical gender as opposed to a name - and that there is nothing in the policy on article titles which seems to be germane to this issue. Relm (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a certain logic to your point about a link between what pronouns we use in an article and what the title is (or should be), and frankly I am not sure how to resolve that due to the diferfing policies and guidelines that apply. One thing to think about, is that to an extent, MOS:GENDERID is an exception to WP:RS and especially to WP:DUE WEIGHT, where for pretty much everything else, is governed by what the majority of reliable sources have to say about someone to the extent that it trumps their own self-definition (otherwise everybody would end up smelling like a rose at Wikipedia). But there is no such exception for article titles. It will be interesting to see how, or even if, this seeming disconnect will be addressed here. In a way, we should really be addressing this in a broader venue, because you wouldn't want it being addressed one way in this article, and then the opposite way in some other, similar article. I'll be interested to see how it goes here.

As far as the help, with pleasure, but I'm thinking maybe not here, so as not to bloat this discussion unduly. Feel free to contact me at my Talk page, your talk page, at Wikipedia:Help desk, Wikipedia talk:Rfc, or whatever seems like the right venue to you. You can leave a link here to it, for anyone who wants to follow that conversation. Mathglot (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I feel that the meaning of policy is getting lost here. The needs of the article and the needs of the title and lede are different. The article is in reference to a person who lived as and was referred to by contemporary sources as two different genders during their life. The preference in MOS:GENDERID for respecting the most recent known identification of an individual is fulfilled in the ledes and titles of articles by placing their preferred/most recent name first, and applying former names afterwards, and only if they are appropriately notable. Thus delineating them as former names, in some ways MOS:GENDERID is just an application of other MOS handlings of former names with a notability requirement for reporting the former. On the other hand the pronouns used in this article benefit from the consistency of neutrality and the elegance of simply using d'Eon's name, drawing emphasis to the fact that d'Eon's gender identity must be considered explicitly when looking at a given period of their life for any form of historical account.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)