Talk:Caroline Cossey/Archive 1

European Court of Human Rights

OK The ECHR did not, as the article implies, first decide in favour of Caroline Cossey's right to be considered female and then reverse it's decision. The procedure at that time was that cases went first to the European Commission of Human Rights and that body made a non-binding recommendation to the court. The court would then hold a hearing and the judges would vote. What happened here was that the Commission's report was that there had been breaches of articles 8, 12, and 13 of the convention. The court held that there had not been sufficient breach to warrant an order against the UK, but warned the UK that it would not hold this position for ever and was loosing patience. In effect it lost patience entirely in 2001 in the Goodwin and I cases and returned overwhelming votes against the UK and as a result the UK passed the Gender Recognition Act in 2004. It is widely believed that the Blair Government that was in power then was very relieved as they had made promises to the UK's LGBT community which they could now keep without a political fight, indeed a form of Gay marriage passed the same year. Wilmot1 22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronoun issues

On the issue of pronouns, gender is a scientific term. Scientifically speaking (by DNA analysis) Cossey is and always will be a male--regardless of cosmetic and behavioral changes. Science and nature recognize this and naturally and accurately assigned him all the correct anatomy as identified by his gender. Everything else posted regarding the pronoun issue is opinion rather than fact. If some editors feel that scientific facts are disrespectful, they need to find a way to cope with this reality. As I see it, one of the many benefits of wikipedia is scientific accuracy. Even legal recognition can not change science; it is one of the few things in this universe that remains unchanging, regardless of how we utilized it prior to various experimentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.42.42 (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Additionally (and ironically) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter%27s_syndrome shows that Klinefelter's Syndrome only occurs in males. This article states that Cossey has Klinefelters and is therefore a male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.42.42 (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do not use male pronouns to refer to Caroline Cossey. All uses of male pronouns will be considered vandalism. Refer to this message left on my talk page:

Thanks for your note. The editor you cite is mistaken. Legally, Caroline Cossey is female per the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004. Further, it is generally accepted practice by journalists to use the gender by which someone identifies. See 2006 AP Stylebook for citation. This is not "opinion," but fact based on journalistic and legal precedent. Please feel free to correct that misinformed editor.

Therefore, this standard goes for all trans biographies. Elcda0 02:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cossey is both genetically male and currently lives in the United States, hence the UK Gender Recognition Act is invalid. If you have some kind of gender or sexuality identity crisis of your own, please do the community a favor and stop reverting the article based on personal bias ~ it has no place in Wikipedia and classifies as vandalism much more than what you're accusing me of.

If you want to argue - Cossey is a post-op transsexual, she is not genetically male (as the article states), and she is not legally male. I'm reverting the article based on journalistic and legal precedent, not personal bias. I could very well accuse you editing the article based on personal bias. Take it to a higher power if you think I am in the wrong. Refer to the Manual of Style on Identity (a Wikipedia GUIDELINE), Legal aspects of transsexualism in the US and Legal aspects of transsexualism in the UK before you claim that my edits have no place on Wikipedia. Elcda0 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are the pronouns still male?

If you think that gender reassignment surgery can change a person's genetic gender identification, then you need to go back to Biology 101. Any standard DNA test would read Cossey as a male, not a female. Now please, stop vandalizing this article with your own personal politics.

This isn't a question of genetics. There are clear Wikipedia GUIDELINES on this issue which MUST be adhered to (see link above), regardless of personal opinions. Your arguments here simply aren't valid. PC78 10:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this hypocritical accusational crucade and debate, and quit vandalising Caroline Cossey's article with your own personal politics. Having a sex change does not magically change your genetic structure. Cossey, despite having some COSMETIC alterations made, is a male. End of story.

Good Lord! How many times have you been warned that you're violating Wikipedia guidelines? For the last time: On Wikipedia, trans biographies are editing based on their own self-identification, not based on their chromosomes or even their anatomy. Read the Manual of Style. It's right there, the first bullet under Identity. Since you've continued to revert this article based on your own personal agenda, violating Wikipedia's Manual of Style, I've had to take this issue to a higher power, and have reported it to an administrator. Elcda0 22:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've blocked the offending IP. They can consider themselves permanently banned. I've also removed this unspeakably horrid material from the history. If blocking proves ineffective, next stage by WP:BLP is semiprotection or protection. Morwen - Talk 23:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work guys, what horrible guy(s) it is people like that that make this world a tough place to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.123.94 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous IP is trying to re-decide this issue tonight. I have tried to explain to him. I will let someone take the next revision.--Morenooso (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First transsexual to pose for Playboy?

Can someone please verify this? I'm fairly certain that Roberta Close was the first. PC78 00:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Perhaps they're referring to the Playboy shot she did as a promo for For Your Eyes Only, which was in 1980/1981 (?). She hadn't been outed at that point. It's mentioned in her book My Story (which I have a copy of and used as a reference for all the things I contributed to her article). When did Roberta Close do Playboy? Elcda0 03:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I assumed the reference was to her posing nude for Playboy in '91. I know that Roberta Close posed nude for Playboy (Brazil) in 1990, possibly earlier as well but I'd have to look it up. I have a copy of My Story myself, so I'll dig it out and see what it says. PC78 13:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you didn't get this from Cossey's earlier book? I've only had chance to skim over "My Story", but I couldn't find any mention of Playboy? PC78 16:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Forget that. According to the article in the September '91 issue of Playboy she did indeed pose nude promoting the Bond film in the June '81 issue. I also found the reference in the book, although that seems to indicate that she was not nude for these photos. However, neither source appears to make any claim that she was the first to pose for Playboy. I still think it's something that needs to be verified. PC78 20:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

By any reasonable definition Caroline Cossey IS NOT MALE. She carries the stigma of being Inter-sexed: XXXY. That aside, she a very attractive woman, and this makes the morbidly jealous jealous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.104.223 (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is an issue still, but Tula did pose nude for Playboy after she was outed as a transsexual. Czolgolz (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Eileen Davidson

An appearance on Phil Donahue's talk show to speak about her autobiography fanned rumors that Eileen Davidson, an actress who shares many physical traits with Cossey, was actually a transsexual, which Davidson has publicly spoken against.[1]

I've moved this here because (to me at least) it seemed a little misleading. According to the source the rumours about Davidson predate Cossey's appearance on Donahue by about six years, so I'm not sure how relevant this information is. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have this stuff over at the Eileen Davidson article? PC78 16:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexual assault by a girl?

I removed the text about Cossey's supposed sexual assault by a girl. There is no such passage in My Story. While Cossey did have sex with a girl before she transitioned, in no way does Cossey describe the event as forced - she instead describes it as extremely awkward and confusing. She states on page 12 of her autobiography: "It was a brief encounter, and I mimed pleasure, sustaining an erection by role reversal - I imagined that I was her, being made love to by a man. We were both tender and gentle with one another. But, after it all was over, I felt sad, confused, and disappointed. Once again I stood outside conventional experience." Dark clear obsession (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Cossey?

I have seen her referred to as Catherine Cossey, having Googled my own name; I saw her 'I am a woman' book on some Dutch website, and 'Catherine Cossey' is mentioned in a book called Transgender Nation that I saw on Google Books.

I assume this must be a mistake by the websites and that I don't really share my name with a famous transsexual who happens to be from the same county as me? Or does she have two names or something? Ha-ha.

82.22.79.43 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Birth name

User PC78 has been constantly reverting both my edits and that of another user. I removed Ms. Cossey's birth name from the lead, as it is already present in the info-box, should anyone feel the urge to know it, and could well be deleted even from there - it's not been her legal name for a long time, and, unlike to what if she had been named, for example, "Susan", denies her of her identity, and humiliates Ms. Cossey. Even worse, it's "### Cossey was born in...", which is different from saying "Caroline Cossey's birth name was..." The wholesale rvs have also been taking away better constructed sentences with language and terminology which are the norm when dealing with transsexual folks. I'm assuming it's good-faith, and hope this isn't another transphobe who hasn't read, or thinks he knows better than, BLP and MOS, because I'm really not in the mood for that tonigh... 87.196.65.58 (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, firstly you should not address other users in a talk page heading as this is akin to a personal attack. Secondly, an infobox is meant to be a summary of key information within an article, it is not a substitute for article content, so your argument that her birth name is already present there is not valid. Thirdly, there is no "humiliation" with regards to Ms. Cossey; the details of her childhood are public knowledge and covered within her own autobiography. Fourth, implying that I am some sort of "transphobe" is another personal attack and waaay off the mark. I am an established editor who has been here several years, not an anon user with five edits to my name. There are no BLP or MOS issues here, and if you feel otherwise you should be specific and say why. If you feel you can improve on the grammer in this article then by all means do so, but do it without removing salient information from the article. PC78 (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, her birth name should be in the body of the article. It's not humiliating and she has been rather up front about it. Dismas|^(talk) 14:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no particular opposition to her birth name being mentioned in the article text, as she has discussed this in her autobiography. However, as she was never known publicly by this name, I very much object to it being either bolded or put in the lead, both of which were there before - this is a blatant BLP violation, and there's no good reason to do it. I have removed the phrasing that caused BLP problems, and mentioned her birth name in a less problematic manner. Rebecca (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

But where is the "blatant BLP violation" in either bolding her birth name or including it in the lead? Per MOS:BIO it should be perfectly acceptable to open the article with: Caroline "Tula" Cossey (born Barry Kenneth Cossey, 31 August 1954). I'm just not seeing the perceived problem here. PC78 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's asserting prominence to a name that she's never publicly used, and it highlights it in a manner which is offensive. As the anon said, it denies her identity, and there's just no good reason for it to be there - what possible gigantic need is there for it to be highlighted in such a way that overrides the BLP concerns?

I'll quote from the BLP policy. "Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Rebecca (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, yes, please confine comments to the article content, and let's not be referring to anyone as any kind of "phobe". Review WP:BLP on how to do this name inclusion thing. There's nothing wrong with including the original birth name, but remember, anything that can be considered contentious, or may be debated, should also be referenced by a WP:RS reliable resource. The bold issue I understand to refer to the opening of the article. I don't see a need to bold "Barry Kenneth Cossey" addition, it just seems too Pointy. I'd suggest something along the lines of

• Caroline "Tula" Cossey (born 31 August 1954 as Barry Kenneth Cossey) is a trans-gender English model.^[1]
  • 1: your reference to a reliable resource here

That's just my suggestion, I'll let you folks work out the details. ;) — Ched :  ?  15:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, there is no justifiable reason why that information should be so prominently mentioned in the article, considering that's not a name she has ever gone by as a public figure. And I do hope you were kidding about the "is a trans-gender English model" bit. Rebecca (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't a matter of kidding, more not knowing the proper terms. I guess maybe transsexual maybe? .. I don't know, that's why I didn't even try to edit the article. This isn't an area I'm at all familiar with - If the term offended anyone, my apologies, you're free to re-factor that part of my post to make it non-offensive. The bottom line is: you put in the lead a clear concise summary of the topic. — Ched :  ?  17:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Which is why I'm confused at the insistence on including tangential information in it... Rebecca (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, honest, I'm not insisting on anything here. The matter was brought up elsewhere, and I'm simply trying to help find a middle ground. I most definitely agree that ALL proper respect should be shown at all times in regards to any BLP issue. I don't see that Cossey has denied either the birth name, or the change in sex - so I'm not sure what the issue is here. People with stage names have their real names listed in the lead of the article - at least the ones that get up to GA or FA. I realize that you've been here for a while, and I don't doubt your ability to write quality material - I'm just trying to suggest an acceptable solution. If an article is showing up on an admin board, it's not unusual for page protections and such to follow. Move the birth name to the second paragraph, I simply don't care about any individual article enough to edit war or argue over. If it was material that was an invasion of privacy, was defamatory in any way then YES! ... remove it! But my understanding from a brief look over a google search is that the name and gender and the change in gender simply are not in dispute. — Ched :  ?  17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The point I and before that, the anon, are trying to make is that highlighting her prior name in this way, considering that Cossey is a transsexual woman who has never gone by her prior name in her time as a public figure, is disrespecful - and severely disrespectful at that. Beyond the disrespectful element, there's no justifiable reason why it should be given such prominence - it's pure titilation.

I've said a couple of times now that I have no problem with it being mentioned in an appropriate position in the article, with appropriate weighting. Unless you can come up with a reasonable justification for overriding the BLP concerns, please stop pushing the point. Rebecca (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel it's a matter of WP:UNDUE - then point an editor there. I wasn't trying to push anything here but policy and guidelines. I'm not sure what BLP concern you think I'm trying to override - but whatever. Have a great day, and happy editing. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I obviously agree with Rebecca: it's indeed sensationalistic and disrespectful to place her birth name smack in the lead, and in bold and all. It's not a name she's ever been publicly know by, denies of, or at least questions, her identity, and it's mentioned proeminently in the info-box already. If the user wants to have that info, then s/he will not miss it - in fact, as it stands, even if s/he doesn't, will very likely not miss it. I don't see why PC78 is insisting on this, and doing that can be the result of transphobia - but which I assumed it wasn't. Again, I don't think it would be catastrophic at all even if the birth name was nowhere to be found, and this has been done (birth name deleted from the article, where it already was present) with the article about Calpernia Addams, precisely out of BLP reasons.

I didn't go to your talk page as I don't have a static IP and this pertains to this particular article, not just you. I've done some editing on wikipedia but my access to the internet right now is restricted, and I cannot sign up for an account. Even so, I think that anyone's arguments' validity (or lack thereof) hinge more on the argument that having an account of not.

I also think the wording "and raised a boy" is problematic: it can be interpreted as if she had an unremarkable education/youth as a boy. Saying she was assigned as a boy at birth is more neutral language, and the one you will find in papers and articles about transsexuality. 87.196.65.58 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond the the wider issue elsewhere because things have moved on a bit, but since you address me directly I will reply to you here. There was little or no AGF in your initial comment. When you say words to the effect of "I'm assuming good faith here, but..." you're actually doing nothing of the sort, you're making an implicit personal attack (and you've done likewise above). I was never "insisting" on anything. I reverted you because I saw no good reason to conceal relevant information that was presented in a manner consistent with guidelines (MOS:BIO). In addition, your arguments were conradictory; if there was a legitimate BLP issue with her birth name (and I don't agree that there was) then it shouldn't be in the article at all, you shouldn't be making concessions for the infobox. PC78 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not convinced there's a BLP violation, here, and I'd strongly prefer it if we stopped tossing around baseless accusations of hate; listing alternative or birth names in this precise manner is standard practice across the encyclopedia, as I understand it, and editors should not be called names merely for being used to community norms. As this does seem to be a novel question, to me, I've linked to this thread from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Birth name in case of transsexuality. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We expect editors to be sensitive to BLP issues, especially when they're being specifically pointed out on talk pages. It does feel, to me, like there's a fair bit of ignorance going on here. There's a real issue here that there isn't with listing say, someone's maiden name, and it's frustrating to be continually countered with "but WP:ILIKEIT!" As Cossey has confirmed the name in reliable sources, I have no objection to it being in the article, but there is no excuse for it being given the weight and prominence it is here. Rebecca (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've read Caroline Cossey's biography (back in the late 1980's, early 1990's-ish), I have tremendous respect for her, and I'm pretty known as a member of the LGBT project. I don't see the issue here with mentioning the birth name. We do it for Jayne County. We do it for Wendy Carlos. Why is Tula different? Absent a compelling reason, the LGBT project seems to have no issue with it, either, given that we are the ones who mostly work on these articles and this format has developed. Absent a compelling reason for Tula to be an exception to the rule, I don't see why we should remove the birthname, particularly because it is public knowledge that Tula wrote about herself. -->David Shankbone 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Angela Morley's birth name is also given. It might be objected that all those examples are of people who were famous and well-known under their birth names before they underwent gender reassignment. Personally I think the birth name should be in the first paragraph of the text rather than in the lede, and unbolded. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As I have said a number of times, the point with Cossey is that she was not notable under this prior name. I have no objection to putting it, unbolded, in the first paragraph of the text, and I would like to see one single argument for otherwise but WP:ILIKEIT. Rebecca (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is not the past, but the present. Has Caroline expressed any issue with that name? Unless I'm missing something, we are making a premise that this is somehow bad, because 30 years ago The New of the World 'outed' Caroline, who then went on to write two (graphic) biographies of her transition. Pictures of the surgery, if I can recall correctly. Now, for some reason, we are deciding that it is "insensitive" to set it up the way we have other prominent transsexuals. I don't understand why, except that someone, somewhere, decided to raise a fake controversy about it, perhaps reflecting their own sensitivities. I don't see any evidence Caroline is bothered by her birth name. -->David Shankbone 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As Sam Blacketer has already pointed out, the examples that you cited are inapplicable to Cossey, since unlike both of those, she was never publicly known by that name. I would say the same about any other transsexual person in similar circumstances; it's really inappropriate, and there's just no reason to give such focus to the prior name. I find it disappointing that, instead of responding to these concerns, or offering any justification for this focus, you choose to attack me personally. I have repeatedly asked for any reason why her prior name is such an important piece of information that it needs to be highlighted so prominently in spite of any sensitivities, and been repeatedly met with "coz!" This is not very helpful. Rebecca (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another example would be travel writer Jan Morris, who was modestly famous as a journalist before gender reassignment, where the birth name is not in the lede but is mentioned in the text. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Rebecca, nobody has attacked you personally, and I don't know a thing about you. You have yet to provide one reason why we shouldn't do on this article what we do on every other famous transsexual article, and you're answer is only "coz!" Frankly, I think Caroline would find this offensive. Not only has Caroline gone to great lengths to discuss her journey from Barry to Caroline, but she has become one of the most famous famous for transsexual rights in Europe, fighting discrimination because she was born, biologically, a man. You are somehow saying it is disrespectful to admit something Caroline has admitted in two biographies, along with surgical pictures, of her transition, and you aren't even supplying one source. Your argument seems to be "It's traumatic for Caroline that she was born a man, so why are we throwing it in her face?" You're supplying nothing that backs you up. Caroline is very, very open about her life, who she was, and she is. Why are you taking that away from her, "just coz!" -->David Shankbone 12:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely irrelevant. I am not arguing that we should not mention her being transsexual, or even her old name. What I am pointing out is that assigning her old name the same weight and prominence as the name she has used for her entire adult life is disrespectful, unnecessary, and a violation of the BLP policy. I fail to understand why you are so passionate about insisting her old name be highlighted in lights; short of any other apparent reason, one must start to make conclusions about your biases here. Rebecca (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to speculate about me all you wish, but not here. You are making this a very personal discussion. Are you proposing a new policy for transsexuals? Then the better place to take this is the LGBT Project, and not to individual articles. We strive for stylistic consistency - you are making these arguments only for Caroline Cossey, who has shown no shame or issue with her former name. I'm trying to understand why 1) you think it should be changed in this one instance; and 2) why you aren't raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies if you think it's a broader concern. I happen to know a good deal about Caroline Cossey - have you read her work? Are you familiar with her activism? If you were, you would know that the stylistic standard of including former and AKA names would not bother Cossey in the least on her article. -->David Shankbone 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The assumption that there is some existing guideline that should override BLP policy as to how these articles should be handled is simply not true. Most articles on prominent figures who were not publicly known by their prior names treat the issue in the same BLP-appropriate manner I am insisting be applied here - Jan Morris, Georgina Beyer, Lynn Conway, Robert Eads, Sylvia Rivera, Theresa Sparks and Angie Zapata are a bunch of really obvious ones right off the bat. Any other articles in this group that take the BLP-violating route need to be dealt with as well. Rebecca (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)That's exactly it. Above you take this wording from the BLP policy:

"Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

As to apply in this circumstance. Cossey has written about her life as Barry (two memoirs) and even provided photos of the surgical procedures to become Caroline. Caroline has fought for marriage rights as a trans, the fulcrum of the issues she fights against is because she was born Barry, and that limits marriage rights, etc. And you're raising a very inapplicable privacy argument here. I've asked several times why you think that applies in this case, or for all trans, and it seems that it comes down to your own POV, and has little to do with how these individuals feel about their life journeys, and their former names. I could supply a litany of people (Ralph Lauren, Augusten Burroughs, etc.) whose birth names are included. You seem to say trans is different, but many of these people for whose "privacy" you are supposedly fighting for would disagree with you virulently. -->David Shankbone 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you a hint straight off the bat - if you're trying to claim that you're in any position to know how to respectfully handle the biography of a transsexual woman, don't refer to her as "a trans" and expect to be taken seriously.

For a second time, none of what you've said applies to what I'm suggesting for the article. I am not arguing that her transsexualism not be mentioned, or that her old name not be mentioned. I am arguing that it be addressed with appropriate weight and minimum disrespect. Placing her old name up in lights and assigning it the same prominence as her actual name, despite the fact she has never publicly gone by her prior name, nor used it in her entire adult life, is disrespectful. This is why most of the articles on trans people who were not known by their prior names address the issue in exactly the same way this article now does after my edits.

You've just made clear that you have no clue whatsoever on the issue of respectfully addressing trans issues. If you're going to continue this conversation, please try and educate yourself some before insisting upon violating BLP policy with regard to this set of subjects. Rebecca (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to tone it down a notch, and stop commenting on editors, because you're only hurting your own flimsy arguments. This is a POV that you hold that it is "disrespectful" and you offer nothing to back that up outside of your own opinions and circumstantial evidence. Ralph Lauren has never gone by Ralph Lifshitz in his public life. Is it disrespectful to include his birth name, as well? The larger point is that if you are looking for a standard style change for trans, you are fighting this on one article, when it's deserves the input of a broader community instead of getting very upset in a discussion on one article about it. -->David Shankbone 14:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The point I have repeatedly made here is that assigning such importance and prominence to her prior name, when she has never publicly gone by that name, is that it carries connotations that referring to Ralph Lauren by his does not. This is why it is disrespectful, and a recurring issue to be dealt with when writing about transsexual people in any medium. I'm trying to be as polite as I can here, but it seems apparent that this is just not something you know a whole lot about - in your last post, you inadvertently used a transphobic slur to refer to Cossey while trying to claim you were knowledgeable about the subject. You're dealing with a biography of a living person here, so I wish you'd take this into account and tread a bit more delicately.

More broadly, despite your repeated attempts to claim otherwise, there is no policy which would somehow mandate highlighting Cossey's prior name so prominently, and which would somehow override a policy so fundamental as WP:BLP. The current version of this article as authored by myself is consistent with most biographies of transsexual people not publicly known by their prior name, and there has not yet been a single argument put forward as to why the increased emphasis is necessary given the option of mentioning it in the way the article currently does. Rebecca (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What transphobic slur did I use? "Trans"? The same one used by popular LGBT blog Queerty.com[2]? By LGBT newspaper Washington Blade[3]? The San Francisco Bay Guardian[4]? You use it yourself, several times ("This is why most of the articles on trans people"). Rebecca, instead of sticking to the issue and the discussion, you don't address anything and resort to calling people raising valid arguments as ignorant, transphobic, "without a clue" etc. Not only does this make you look bad, it also distracts from the issue under discussion. If you want to address me, who I am, my prejudices and what I believe, take it to my talk page and stick to the issues under discussion here. David Shankbone is not one of them. -->David Shankbone 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly explained why the material you have sought to the article is inappropriate on an article of a living person. The sole remaining argument you appear to be pushing is that it doesn't violate BLP because you say so, and it is impossible to discuss this with you further when you're convinced that you're supremely knowledgeable about how to respectfully deal with trans issues.

Referring to someone as "a trans" (noun) is completely inappropriate - my jaw literally dropped when I read it, especially in light of your prior claims to be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject. That you then attempt to argue the point by pointing to the two most notoriously trans-unfriendly gay and lesbian publications in the United States as if this were somehow an excuse, makes me think I'm just wasting my time here.

I'm attempting to ensure this biography doesn't treat its subject with outright disrespect. This is basic stuff for anyone who professes to be interested in trans issues. If you want to engage in good-faith and you're actually willing to listen, I'd be happy to explain if you're still confused - or if you don't want to do that, I wish you'd go out and start teaching yourself about the subject. However, short of that happening, I'm not sure there's much point continuing this discussion. Rest assured, however, that any attempt to reinstate the BLP-violating version of this article will be promptly reverted. Rebecca (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What I found amusing about your post above is that everything you charge others with doing, are things you are doing yourself (or, WP:KETTLE). Most amusing was how your jaw dropped when using "trans" as a noun, something you yourself did ("This is why most of the articles on trans people who were") unless you don't see "trans people" is a noun. -->David Shankbone 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not arguing with you for kicks. "Trans people" is the proper terminology. Referring to someone as "a trans" is generally really rude. Rebecca (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Trans people refer to themselves as "trans" all the time.[5][6][7] This is your own POV that you are ascribing to the larger world, as if what Rebecca thinks is what is right. When you come across disagreement (with diffs!) you resort to attacks. This attitude is nothing new on Wikipedia. Being LGBT myself, and knowing many people who fall in that spectrum, being very active in the LGBT community, I can say that "trans people" and others call themselves "trans" all the time, and I just gave diffs. Adding the "people" doesn't do anything as a qualifier. I've raised the issue on the LGBT board. -->David Shankbone 16:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) PS - you also keep saying I said "a trans" but the only place the phrase "a trans" is found is in your comments, not in any of mine. -->David Shankbone 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Caroline has fought for marriage rights as a trans, the fulcrum of the issues..." Beyond that, I give up on trying to reason with you. I've pointed out on numerous occasions why what you're arguing for is problematic under Wikipedia policy, and I've tried to politely address why your perspective on the issue seems to be not as thorough as you think it is. This is basic stuff, and yet you seem to be convinced that the only reason anyone would take issue with your awareness of trans issues is to doing it to be mean or some such - if anything I say is going in one ear and out the other, it's pretty clear that I'm wasting my time reasoning with you. Rebecca (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the product of fast typing, but that still doesn't show any disrespect. You haven't been able to provide links to anything to support your POV on this, and I've supplied many. Acting hysterical, the inability to support your arguments and launching attacks have only served to hurt your own reputation, not make you right. I'll leave it at that. -->David Shankbone 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth name break

I am unindenting this, as the discussion seems to have developed way beyond the point I was responding to in the time it took to put together my reply to Rebecca. The name features in her biography, and it is pretty standard practice here to place the birth name when known in the lede (dead or alive): Cheryl Chase, Michael Dillon, Del LaGrace Volcano, April Ashley, Kate Bornstein, Roberta Cowell, Lili Elbe, Virginia Prince, Renée Richards, Joan Roughgarden, Dawn Langley Simmons, Brandon Teena, although not all follow the guidelines by placing the name immediately following the preferred name alongside the birth date. Where there are exceptions it is presumably where the former name is not public knowledge (I don't know these people's birth names, unlike the others, for whom this information is in the public domain): Stephen Whittle, Jamison Green, Lynn Conway, Andrea James although there are a few others where the former name is known but rather than follow normal Wikipedia practice: Sandy Stone, Christine Jorgensen,Sylvia Rivera, Jan Morris, it is mentioned in the text rather than in the lede (Morris accompanied Hillary as James when he climbed Everest as James and reported this to the world as part of the Coronation, so it is hardly a secret). These I've looked up either because I know a couple of them or am familiar with their stories. I think it is important to follow the guidelines in all cases, where the information is known, and not make exceptions, and where the details are in the autobiography then as the individual chose to release the information there is no issue with it. If exceptions have to be drawn for trans people, then rather than disputing following guidelines in individual cases, it would be better to refer the guideline for comment and clarification so that all trans biographies can be harmonized to follow one standard - at the moment there are three practices, one of which seems dominant and in like with WP guidelines, one where the name is not known, and one where people have deviated by putting the name in the text so as not to draw attention to it. Personally I'm not bothered either way, who needs to know this information, but if the information is in the public domain and can be reliably sourced back to the individual, then I don't see why it sould be a problem either. What I am more concerned is that there is the possibility for this sort of disagreement, and so it is something we need to ensure has clear guidelines we can follow - if they exist already, then we either follow them or challenge them - if they don't exist then we need to establish them. Mish (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• That is exactly my sentiment, which is why I think this discussion is better held at the WikiProject LGBT Studies than on individual articles. A standard guideline has formed, and it seems it is being chipped away at on an article-by-article basis. Whether a new standard needs to be determined is the central issue. What is being argued here has implications for other articles. -->David Shankbone 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It has never been the case that a style guideline can override BLP concerns on an article, and for good reason. The article in its former state was offensive, which is why the initial complaint was made, and I subsequently took up the matter. The small changes I have suggested here might well be the difference in a number of cases between someone being more-or-less okay with their article, and wanting it pulled off the project.

This is why it is wrong to state - as Mich does - that it's somehow of a matter of "articles which conform to WP guidelines" and "articles that don't conform to WP guidelines". One set of these articles conforms with the style guideline, but not the BLP policy. The other set of these articles conforms with the BLP policy, but not the style guideline. There is no public interest here in placing the information front-and-centre, and where there is a clash between the two, BLP concerns should not suddenly become negotiable. Rebecca (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Has this been pointed out (this particular discussion) at the LGBT project? I know that Luna introduced a possible guideline improvement over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Birth name in case of transsexuality. As David mentions, it looks like this is a discussion better brought up before a larger audience. I will freely admit that I am clueless in these matters, and I agree that all due respect must be shown with regards to BLP issues. If there are more global places to improve the issues, I'm all for it. Perhaps even a RFC and notice on WP:CENT would be called for at some point. Apologies for not being able to add more beyond the standard BLP policies and MOS guidelines, but I will try to keep up on any changes that could come of it. — Ched :  ?  17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the discussion should be moved to a larger forum. -->David Shankbone 17:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  I agree, do you have a link? — Ched :  ?  17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  The MOS link you provided above, or the LGBT studies project link I provided above are both more suitable than here. LGBT Studies seems more active with their discussion. -->David Shankbone 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

But Rebecca, how does BLP not apply here? Cossey has made this information public in her autobiography. The only way I could accept this is if it were shown that she did so under duress, or has made it clear she does not want her former name to feature. Going from the autobiography, I don't see how this is possible. I think this discussion needs to be held about how we manage trans biographies generally - not this one specifically. Because there is so much inconsistency. Jan Morris was notable as James Morris, yet we don't include her former name in the lede, Roughgarden was notable before transition, and we do include the former name, Ashley was not notable before transition, but we include her former name in the lede, while Jorgensen was not and we don't include her former name in the lede. Regardless of whether this is about MoD guidelines or policy - we have five different approaches to trans biographies, and two sets of these are being applied inconsistently. The issue is not about this biography - it is about all the biographies, which in this case happens to be a BLP. If we take this logic further, we would end up with different approaches for dead and living trans biographies. The rules should that apply need to be consistent, and agreed at policy and guideline level - not on an article-by-article basis. It would be useful for other biographies as well (such as the Gene Robinson, where the problem was that his birth name has been used to bully him, and was one he is clear he does not want used, it was not possible to accurately ascertain the precise form that name took). I have taken this point up on the LGBT discussion page - because I do think it important that we do establish very clear guidelines if these do not exist already for this specific situation (trans birth names). Mish (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This was also an issue at Jan Morris. So, guidelines in this area are unclear and need to be sorted. -->David Shankbone 17:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be heading down the road of creating a new general guideline, so we may as well shift any further discussion to the WikiProject page. Rebecca (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

duran duran rio videoclip

what about her role as rema in the rio track of duran duran album of the same title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.86.30 (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

XXXY Karyotype

My name is Graeme, I was diagnosed XXY in 1976 at Wellington Hospital, New Zealand. My Endocrinologist's name is Dr John W Delahunt and the first doctor I saw who thought I had Klinefelter's syndrome name is Doctor Jack McGreanor, who worked that the Ford Motor Company, Petone. My extensive reading of Klinefelter's syndrome is that it is not an intersex condition, it is the symptoms of a disease called 'seminiferous tubule dysgenesis' and was first described in literature by Dr Harry F Klinefelter in 1942. This is the sort of information I expect to read when people are claiming to have Klinefelter's syndrome, and since I read nothing of this nature regarding Caroline Cossey, I am certain she is not XXXY and was never diagnosed with Klinefelter's syndrome. These days it seems rather common for Transsexuals to claim they're XXY or variation as they like the symptoms of disease we XXY strive to eliminate. Also XXXY's are usually mentally subnormal, not necessarily retarded, but certainly not as articulate as Caroline Cossey is in her YouTube interviews. I find it very interesting that Caroline never mentions XXXY or Klinefelter's syndrome in any of her YouTube interviews that I have seen, and I think I've seen all of them. Personally I find it insulting that Transsexuals borrow from other peoples diseases to justify their reason to transition. In reality their condition is psychiatric not medical. This is a video I made recently regarding my karyotype and diagnosis - XXY Karyotype Proven And in this video you will all see why claims of being XXY or XXXY or any other karyotype that may lead to Klinefelter's syndrome have nothing at all to do with Transsexualism. The Error of Folklore Genetics. In effect Caroline Cossey, if she is XXXY has no more X chromosomes active in her cells than I do, or an XX woman or an XY man, we all have just 1 active X chromosome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme XXY (talk • contribs) 11:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read Overzier 1961. 89.204.155.98 (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom Petty

Is she the actress in "You Don't Know How It Feels"? Thmazing (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No she was not; the actress was Raven Snow (who also appeared in the "Delta of Venus" movie). Even the most cursory comparison shows that the actress in the video is unalike Ms Cossey. But if you want one thing that's easily verifiable, look at the two women's earlobes (or lack of them). Ms Cossey's ears are relatively lobe-free.2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:14F:3056:E390:5FF4 (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Caroline Cossey. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.genderweb.org/abstract/artcles1.phtml

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Bigamy??

In the personal life section, it says she got married in 1989, then goes on to say she got married again in 1992. What happened to the first marriage? --70.66.133.23 (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)