Talk:James Barry (surgeon)

*::::::::::::::No offense intended, but I don't think it does. At all.

*::::::::::::::No offense intended, but I don't think it does. At all.

*:::::::::::::::{{tq|"The relevant part of GENDERID for the purposes of this discussion is - 'most recent expressed self-identification'. You seem to be hung up on that "expressed" means that we are required to have verbal confirmation from a historical figure, and nothing less than that will do, when that is plainly a ridiculous standard for a person living in the 19th-century."}}

*:::::::::::::::{{tq|"The relevant part of GENDERID for the purposes of this discussion is - 'most recent expressed self-identification'. You seem to be hung up on that "expressed" means that we are required to have verbal confirmation from a historical figure, and nothing less than that will do, when that is plainly a ridiculous standard for a person living in the 19th-century."}}

*::::::::::::::I don't find there to be anything "ridiculous" about that at all. It is nothing less the plainest, most-straight forward reading of the policy language in question. And my being hung up on it results from the fact that I believe this most obvious interpretations reflects the clear community consensus in the discussions that formulated the present version of GENDERID. The primary concern that animated the present wording was that for BLPs the presumptions of neither the sources nor our editors in defining a person's gender should not trump the subject's own <u>express statements</u> about their gender or pronoun preferences, where we have such. It was not meant to encourage us to speculate about what gender a subject "may" prefer, as judged by our editors based on available evidence. In fact, it was specifically meant to obviate and discourage such conjecture. {{pb}}Now, does that suck for representation for historical subjects. Yeah, absolutely. It's one of the tragedies of the historical legacy of queer/genderquuer erasure. And any issue of self-identity that was subversive to the time and culture in which a historical subject lived. But I'm sorry: I just don't think the solution should be "Well, let's supplement the historical record with original research and assumptions from our editors. That just can't work, especially in the uncritical/"of course that's what we'll do" manner in which it is being adopted here. Such a "solution" introduces so, so many issues with editor bias and speaking for the subject.{{pb}} And I'm not even talking about the possibility that the subject was a cis/gender-normative woman (which is possible, but I think unlikely); I find very, very telling that weeks after I first asked the question, no one has yet once, to the slightest degree, address the concern that Barry could have possessed any number of non-normative gender identities that fit the evidence of using he/him pronouns and presenting as male just as well as the hastily embraced presumption that they were a transman. And I think it's because everyone here realizes that there is no easy way to dismiss that concern under the resolution being adopted by the majority here. And that if they attempted to use a shortcut like "Well, the pronouns being what they were, the most obvious reading is that they identified simply as male" that they would committing to the same exact presumptuous and problematic line of thinking that under-girds the kind of gender-normative and -essentialist arguments about "obvious" conclusions which GENDERID was specifically created to set aside.

*::::::::::::::I don't find there to be anything "ridiculous" about that at all. It is nothing more or less than the plainest, most-straight forward reading of the policy language in question. And my being hung up on it results from the fact that I believe this no-frills interpretation reflects the clear community consensus in the discussions that formulated the present version of GENDERID. The primary concern that animated the construction of the present wording of the guideline was the intention that for BLPs, the presumptions of neither the sources nor our editors in defining a person's gender should not trump the subject's own <u>express statements</u> about their gender or pronoun preferences, where we have such. It was not meant to encourage us to speculate about what gender a subject "may" prefer, as judged by our editors based on available evidence. In fact, it was specifically meant to obviate and discourage such conjecture. {{pb}}Now, does that suck for representation for historical subjects? Yeah, absolutely. It's one of the tragedies of the historical legacy of queer/genderquuer erasure. And really for any aspect of self-identitythat was subversive to the time and culture in which a historical subject lived. But I'm sorry: I just don't think the solution should be "Well, let's supplement the historical record with original research and assumptions from our editors. That just can't work, especially in the uncritical/"of course that's what we'll do" manner in which it is being adopted here. Such a "solution" introduces so, so many issues with editor bias and further risks of erasure by assuming the role of a proxy in speaking for the subject.{{pb}} And I'm not even talking about the possibility that the subject was a cis/gender-normative woman (which is possible, but I think unlikely); I find it very, very telling that weeks after I first asked the question, no one has yet once, to the slightest degree, address the concern that Barry could have possessed any number of non-normative gender identities that fit the evidence of using he/him pronouns and presenting as male just as well as the hastily embraced presumption that they were a transman. And I think it's because everyone here realizes that there is no easy way to dismiss that concern under the resolution being adopted by the majority here. And that if they attempted to use a shortcut like "Well, the pronouns being what they were, the most ''obvious'' reading is that they identified simply as male", that they would be committing to the same exact presumptuous and problematic line of thinking that under-girds the kind of gender-normative and -essentialist arguments about "obvious" conclusions which GENDERID was specifically created to set aside.

*:::::::::::::::{{tq|"An expression of self-identification can be in many forms, and is not confined to a verbal declaration.}}

*:::::::::::::::{{tq|"An expression of self-identification can be in many forms, and is not confined to a verbal declaration.}}

*::::::::::::::I'm sorry, but I believe that defies the basic, plain semantic meaning of the phrase as written, as well as the intent of the community when codifying that language. It absolutely is meant to be about what the subject plainly states, not our best-guess efforts about an individual's gender based on available evidence.

*::::::::::::::I'm sorry, but I believe that defies the basic, plain semantic meaning of the phrase as written, as well as the intent of the community when codifying that language. It absolutely is meant to be about what the subject plainly states, not our best-guess efforts about an individual's probable gender based on available evidence.

*:::::::::::::::{{tq|"An expression of self-identification (especially for historical figures), can also be clearly seen in someone's actions, so we have met that standard with Barry, because we know by his actions, that he lived his entire adult life as a man, up until the time of his death, and used he/him pronouns."}}

*:::::::::::::::{{tq|"An expression of self-identification (especially for historical figures), can also be clearly seen in someone's actions, so we have met that standard with Barry, because we know by his actions, that he lived his entire adult life as a man, up until the time of his death, and used he/him pronouns."}}

*::::::::::::::No, that's not what we "know". What we know is that they ''appeared'' to live their life as a man, and had a simple, mono-dimensional gender identity. But you don't 'know' that whatsoever: you are presuming it. And that's the thing we are most meant to be avoiding under both WP:GENDERID and WP:NPOV. If there's anything involvement in the history of gender expression ought to warn us about, it's that "appearances" can be incredibly misleading, and we should hesitate to ever inject our presumptions, even with a healthy record of the subject's perspective on their own identity, let alone in a case like this.

*::::::::::::::No, that's not what we "know". What we know is that they ''appeared'' to live their life as a man, and had a mono-dimensional gender identity. But you don't 'know' that whatsoever: you are presuming it. And those sort of presumption are exactly what we are most meant to be avoiding under both WP:GENDERID and WP:NPOV. If there's anything that the history of gender expression and society's proclivity for forcing others into conceptual boxes to align with external narratives ought to warn us about, it's that "appearances" can be incredibly misleading. And we should hesitate to ever inject our presumptions, even with a healthy record of the subject's perspective on their own identity, let alone in a case like this.

*:::::::::::::::{{tq|"Arguing otherwise, goes against GENDERID.}}

*:::::::::::::::{{tq|"Arguing otherwise, goes against GENDERID.}}

*::::::::::::::I think GENDERID pretty expressly tells us ''not'' to base that call on our interpretation of the evidence, but rather only on an unambiguous statement from the subject. I honestly think it couldn't be more plainly worded in that respect.

*::::::::::::::I think GENDERID pretty expressly tells us ''not'' to base that call on our interpretation of the evidence, but rather only on an unambiguous statement from the subject. I honestly think it couldn't be more plainly worded in that respect.