Talk:Georgina Beyer

Untitled

this is interesting http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=000EAA4D-51E3-1357-B0D883027AF10017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.252.196 (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Acting

I came here to find out what other acting Georgina had done beside "Jewel's Darl", and I couldn't find even that. She was also in "A Death in the Family" and two episodes of "Inside Straight"--Hugh7 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Amendments by anonymous IP address

The reversions of my amendments are inappropriate because it has made the grammar worse not better, and whoever did it has removed my corrections of fact. Also "mayor" is pronounced by everyone with a "kiwi accent" in New Zealand as "mare", and it is extremely rude to say that it is only uneducated people! If there is no further comment about this I will change it back.

Kiwimw 11:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to comment on each of the changes you made:

• The addition of [2005] doesn't really add anything, as it already says she is a current MP. But feel free to put it there if you really really want.
• 'some', as in your edit, is essentially a weasel word. If you have a list of such commentators, please reference. Otherwise, leaving it as 'the' (although implying that all commentators were surprised, which as I recall, they were, anyway (though this is impossible to reference) is the best option.
• The choice of word ('become' vs 'became') changes the meaning of the sentence. Your change is less grammatically correct than the original, though the original is not perfect, I'll confess. It comes down to a case of "She surprised... to win the... seat... and became" vs "She surprised... to win the... seat... and (thereby) become". It depends on whether the article is trying to imply that the commentators were surprised that she was the first transsexual MP, or whether it is merely stating that she did in fact become the first. I would propose that the sentence is edited to read as follows: "... win the... seat for Labour, thereby becoming the world's first...".
• At vs for - 'At' is more appropriate, though 'for' does imply that she did this as a favour, which she did.
• +'and others' - what others? Reference them. Otherwise, this is just more weasel words.
• +'either was or' - this sentence needs reworking. With the addition of commas for clarity, your edit would be more acceptable.
• 'that' vs 'which' - 'Which' is inappropriately used unless there is a comma after the word preceding it. 'That' is simpler, easier, and doesn't require messing with commas. Adding another comma to this sentence would make it too drawn-out and confusing.
• Mare sounding like Mayor: I don't agree with 'In New Zealand', I'm afraid. As I said with my initial edit, my version is closer to the truth. If you take umbrage with my use of 'uneducated', allow me to explain. Those with an education in language or speaking know that there are fundamental differences in the pronounciation of the two words, even those in New Zealand. Therefore, this is generalisation of the speaking habits of New Zealanders. There are many New Zealanders who don't even speak with a 'Kiwi' accent, as you call it, so I am not sure why this is such an issue. However, I agree that uneducated is not the best term to use, though it is reasonably accurate, and I propose to change the sentence to read 'Amongst some New Zealanders, mare is pronounced the same as mayor.'

Anything else? 130.195.86.36 13:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have reverted for appropriate reasons. Its inappropriate to revert, isn't it, when amending would do? Otherwise you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as they say.

• "2005" is removed to bring it up to date.
• Some or even many but not all - she astonished a number of people, but there were also some in the Wairarapa, and one or two national commentators (including I think Colin James, but I can't find a reference) who said all along she would win, particularly considering the way her opponent campaigned. This just seems to me more accurate.
• Its six of one and half a dozen of the other.
• She wasn't speaking "for" anyone, except herself, and I suppose the Labour Party. "At" is proper.
• Chris Lawrence, former Human Rights Commissioner, Warren Lindberg and Joy Liddicoat, current HR COmmissioners, Bob Hesketh, Director of Human Rights Proceedings, and any number of other commentators, most of whom got no coverage, but wrote in journals or mentioned it in speeches in the last ten years. The only references I can find on the net are these;

http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/introduction/transgenderinquiry/transgenderinquiry.php http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/commissionwelcomestransgenderannouncement.php http://www.hrc.co.nz/home/hrc/newsandissues/hra1993andtransgenderpeople.php But these seem to me to clutter the article. If it needs to be proved though then so be it. The third one is probably the best.

• well, if that is your view, add commas then - removing the words alters the meaning. This wording makes a subtle aspect of the events apparent, and it should remain.
• who cares really! Whatever you prefer.
• I know no one born and raised in New Zealand who does not pronounce those two words in a similar way. (I'm sorry if the following sounds harsh, but I think you have unintentionally made a point that is quite offensive, I repeat, albeit unintentionally). It is frankly snobbish to say "uneducated"; and further its not just "some" New Zealanders, its "most" if not "all". Its included there to help those who are unfamiliar with the Kiwi accent to get the joke. You must concede its needed, from your comments, and your suggestion that somehow its inappropriate pronunciation is getting close to being a put-down of the New Zealand accent!

Kiwimw 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording about mayor/mare to what I hope you both can accept as a compromise. I don't think it is acceptable to say only "uneducated" people use that pronunciation. See also Talk:Tim Shadbolt for a similar discussion.-gadfium 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really, though thank for the effort! The Tim Shadbolt comment is wrong too, to me. Where do they pronounce Mayor as two syllables in New Zealand? I have never heard it. I would prefer it said "In a typical New Zealand accent, "mayor" is pronounced "mare"." or something similar. It's hardly worth getting upset about though, except in the case where people want to denigrate because of accent. Kiwimw 07:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked my partner, NZ born from several generations, what position Dick Hubbard occupied, so she would pronounce the word without feeling self-conscious. There were definitely two syllables in her reply. I have also heard native-born New Zealanders pronounce the word with one syllable, but with an elongated "a". I'm not drawing any conclusions about their educational levels on this basis.-gadfium 07:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No denigration intended. I made a mistake by assuming that those with a education would properly pronounce words such as 'mayor'. Of course, those with an education would be more likely to pronounce it correctly, no?

130.195.86.36 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (Grade Eight Speech and Drama - NZSB, BA(Hons) English Literature, Theatre; MA(Scriptwriting) - VUW.

Speaking personally no. Speaking for the educated people I associate with, no. Those with a preoccupation with pronunciation might, but no one else, I suggest. This particular "mispronunciation" is unlikely to be practically inconvenient very often; and most of the people I encounter prefer to concentrate on making a point that is well understood, in terms of meaning, rather than worrying about accent or pronunciation.

I might add I have learned in my travels to speak in my New Zealand accent with some pride. The important thing, more than anything, is meaning! Oh, and the speed of speech - that has a lot to do with it, I have discovered. So what if we pronounce the word mayor "incorrectly"! Try and formulate a rule for how to pronounce "mayor" and then try to explain how to pronounce "Dulwich", or "Barwick" in a so-called correct manner!

Kiwimw 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are failing to see the distinction between an accent and an error in pronunciation. Also, thank you for pointing out my spelling error! 130.195.86.40 04:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, no. I simply don't believe that an accent difference is an error.

Kiwimw 08:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

... Did you read what I said? 130.195.86.40 10:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you've gone and changed the accent bit again. Why? It was fine. 130.195.86.36 12:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Its now better, and it acknowledges your difference of opinion. "Often" isn't "always" and, lets face it, regardless of which of us is "correct", the way the point is made now does make the essence of the pun available to non-Kiwis. The way Georgina Beyer pronounced the word is common in New Zealand, whatever you say.

And I read what you said. I don't believe the difference between the pronunciations of mayor is an error, it's an accent difference, although you disagree. You may think its an error, but as I said I don't think accent differences are errors per se. Kiwimw 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I am getting quite frustrated with you. If the way it is pronounced is common, go ahead and prove it. gadfium's edit was fine. My earlier post had a point to it, you know. I was suggesting that, by your prior comments, you did not acknowledge the difference between an error and an accent. Then, all of a sudden, you completely change your argument. What's going on here? I still disagree with your edit, but I won't change it without reaching some kind of consensus. I think that is the accepted practice in situations such as this, hmmm? 130.195.86.37 01:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My argument hasn't changed. Probably your understanding of it has. I cannot prove that an accent is common. How could I? Gadfium's edit was not fine, with all respect to him/her. I do acknowledge the difference between an error and an accent. In my mind the pronunciation is not an error, its an accent. Is that a change in my argument? Not from my perspective - but I am not an academic on these issues. What is wrong with the current wording on the entry? It takes account of your point that not everyone speaks that way in New Zealand, and also mine, that this is a common issue of pronunciation. Why else would she have made that joke?

Kiwimw 08:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

May I ask on what linguistical authority you base your claim of accent vs. error? 130.195.86.36 11:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

? Read what I wrote. I said "to my mind", it is not an error, it is an accent. Clearly you disagree. Where are your arguments that I am wrong? Can I suggest you try making some, rather than trying to appeal to some authority? You think your comments speak for themselves. Well they don't - I think you need to explain if you want me to understand. Look, for all I know you are absolutely right. But so far I have seen nothing from you but assertion - no arguments and just demands for my authority. My answer is, neither of us have any of the latter, and so far only I have any of the former!

Not that this isn't an enjoyable discussion...  :) Kiwimw 07:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• To every one and all of you, in New Zealand and around the world, if one has a New Zealand accent and hasn't tried to alter it, picked up an American twang or forcibly speaks differently in social groups, etc., the pronounciation of 'mayor' IS ALWAYS as 'mare'. That takes into consideration the southern 'r' where mayor and mare would again be pronounced the same.

Yes indeed. But Wikipedia's need for consensus in this case means that those of us who only hear one syllable have to agree to the compromise of including the word "often". I have been doing surveys, just for fun, and no one I have quizzed in Wellington or Rotorua says "mayor" as two syllables. But that certainly isn't scientific! Certainly Georgina doesn't say two syllables.... Is it usually THIS much fun here??  :) Kiwimw 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• That really doesn't change anything because mayor as two syllables also means that person would pronounce mare as two syllables.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.36 (talk • contribs)

I've never heard anyone pronounce mare with two syllables. Perhaps you're confusing it with filly?-gadfium 02:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that 130.195.86.36 started out by arguing that only uneducated New Zealanders used a single-syllable pronunciation of "mayor", then argued that all New Zealanders without exception used that pronunciation, then that those who used two syllables also pronounce "mare" the same way. A little consistency would go a long way here.-gadfium 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am the person who was the original anonymous IP - I left the discussion on the advice of another editor. My final comment was on the 25th of October (final words = accent vs. error). Now it seems that another student at VUW has managed to somehow get my IP address and is causing havoc. I would like to distance myself from any changes to this page, and the Georgina Beyer page, since I left the discussion. Hope this clears up any confusion. Cicadaboy 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.-gadfium 21:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can I add my piece? I'm a great admirer of Georgina Beyer and would like to comment on this piece that really seems pointless. I can't say that I have ever heard, nor would I hear, the pronounciation of mayor as two-syllabled in the New Zealand accent. Nor would the New Zealander recognise a different in the pronouncation as they wouldn't with hear and here (and to a slightly lesser degree 'hair'). The line stating that mayor and mare are 'often' pronounced the same implies that they mostly aren't. Unless someone tries to emulate an American speaker, there is no difference. I think that the 'often' should be removed, and I'd even ask people around me to pronounce both words for a consensus and speak to the NZ dictionary centre.
• To the Vic Uni student, I think you'll find that anyone who posts from Victoria University will have the same IP address. There are thousands of students with access to that IP address, unless I'm wrong! Enzedbrit 05:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel justified in changing it now to remove "often". Kiwimw 05:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to contest it further. My main reason for getting involved was to remove the "uneducated" bit.-gadfium 07:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Did a quick ask around in my family of what political position does Sir Barry Curtis hold, everybody answered "mare". Plus to answer the question of "uneducated", everyone in my family is highly educated (done top level university studies). We are also all born in NZ, the first person in my family to arrive in nz arrived in the 1800's. Think I only hear may-or on tv etc... ? Mathmo ^Talk 10:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• coughcough*125.238.231.103 14:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, who even started saying mayor was pronoucned with two syllables? The original editor didn't say that at all. Most editors here seem to be making trouble.125.238.231.103 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Mayor

Not only is a single pronunciation of "mayor" and "mare" standard in New Zealand, it is probably standard throughout the English speaking world excepting the United States (OK, I wouldn't hazard a guess about Canada). The largest high quality dictionary I have at hand, a Collins Robert English-French, French-English, gives exactly the same IPA spelling for the two words. In short, calling for a citation seems excessive. (Witbrock 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC))

I agree and have removed the need for a citation. Enzedbrit 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my 5c, although it appears to be no longer necessary: I recently completed an M.A. in Applied Linguistics (with Distinction) at VUW, during which I spent a considerable amount of time transcribing NZ English into IPA. I can confirm that the pronunciation of "mayor" and "mare" is identical in standard NZ English, regardless of education level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.80.116 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There does however appear to be an exception for "mayoral" - journalists repeatedly pronounce the word "mayorial", particularly with reference to the Auckland street name.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In "Alice Through the Looking-Glass", Lewis Carroll says the Anglo-Saxon Messenger called Haigha, who is the March Hare, "pronounced it so as to rhyme with 'mayor.'" The other Messenger, the Mad Hatter, is called Hatta. Clearly, Carroll means Haigha is pronounced "hare", so his (Oxford) pronunciation of "mayor" was the same as "mare". (In his "Annotated Alice", Martin Gardner clearly did not notice that, so in 1964 I wrote to tell him and he sent me a postcard to tell me he didn't know that and to thank me. Later editions include this information. We may conclude that the standard US pronunciatio is in two syllables.) --Hugh7 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Pronouns

For the sake of avoiding confusion, I have edited the beginning of the article so that personal pronouns are male. They have remained female personal pronouns after it mentions George's/Georgina's surgery. While she no doubt identified as female before the surgery, for grammatical purposes I feel it appropriate to keep male pronouns to avoid confusion in reading.

Also, I'd like to add that "mare" is the proper pronounciation for "Mayor" in all English speaking nations. Saying "May-OR" is incorrect pronounciation, much like mischevious is sometimes pronounced "Miss-chevious", and not "Mischev-ous". Aluminium/Aluminum, Nuclear/Nucular, etc...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eedo Bee (talk • contribs)

Your edits are mischievous at worst and ill-advised at best. It is inappropriate to use a transgender person's previous gender to refer to their pre-op life, unless that person choses to do so and she does not - I refer you to her book. I am going to change them back because I think you have done Georgina Beyer a considerable disservice, and unfairly so. Sorry to be so blunt, and I apologise if I offend, but this is a very important point, I believe. It is simply wrong in principle to do so for grammatical reasons, as well. Kiwimw 10:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not appreciate being called mischievous at any rate. If mischief is what was intended, why would I broadcast it on the talk page? Please think before you type, and do not give me platitudes about apologising if you offended when you clearly meant to. As for the issue, I believe it is difficult to understand without one set of pronouns.

Wikipedia's policy on biographies on living persons is that it should be "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone" and "The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view." I find it fair to assume that calling a male "he" and a female "she". And while she may mantain that she was a female all along, it is confusing to most people to assume she was when she wasn't. It is important to see why she came to regard herself as transgender (rape, stripping, etc) in the first place. Using "she" just complicates the issue. A she cannot become a she. It is perfectly reasonable to use it for gramamtical reasons too; he was a male, then she was a female. Eedo Bee

You have taken a non-neutral stance towards Georgina Beyer by requiring a discussion of her as "he" when the whole point of her story is that she is female. Yours is a biased point of view, and its unsympathetic to her personally. You are essentially advocating a point of view, it seems to me, which isn't appropriate. She was always female by her lights and who are you to claim otherwise. The "responsible, conservative, and neutral" tone in accordance with Wikipedia's policy would be one that is not controversial, and, in this case, that is to accept her own view of her gender, which you refuse to do. You misunderstand her life if you think that she was transgender because of the stripping and the rape - even by this Wikipedia entry's own wording, it is clear that those came after she identified as transgender, so it is not a fair point, and you cannot claim you were not aware of the evidence. Also it is a huge political issue, and a very sensitive one, for transgendered people that the date of their operation, which some cannot have for medical reasons, should not be seen as the date that their identified gender changed. All this adds up to putting "she" throughout the article. I will not break revert rules but you have done a very wrong thing.

btw, you will note I said your changes were mischievous "at worst". At best you are talking about something you don't really understand without realising you don't understand it - at worst you are wanting to cause trouble, knowing full well how sensitive this issue is. I make no claim to knowing where you sit on that spectrum. Kiwimw 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, I've restored the original gender, referring to Beyer consistently as she. To do otherwise is confusing and potentially offensive.-gadfium 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will leave it as "She" for now, but I still maintain that it should be "He" but will leave it for the moment until more people have their say.

I do not care for your longwinded platitudes about sensitivity and all that, simply to do with the article. You are taking a flagrantly sympathetic approach to Wikipedia article's subjects. This is NOT Wikipedia Policy! Please end your unhealthy personal attacks, such as claiming my ignorance or that I have some ulterior motive. My motive is making the article easier to understand. Gadfuim has at least countered with He to She is confusing, but I disagree. I believe that people taking offense to an article will always be a result of neutrality. I agree that it is potentially offensive, but so might addressing a biologically male person as "She" be deemed offensive by many. It is a sensitive issue, and I will concede that we should leave all personal pronouns as female. However, I think it should be outlined that she was biologically a male and had the body of a male. To overlook her gender (self identiy issue aside, others saw her as a male) would be unencyclopedic. Eedo Bee

I think your compromise, saying she was born male, is a good one.-gadfium 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

She was born male, so no problem there, but please don't go on about biology or we will have another argument! Your earlier suggestions are politically loaded - my point is that you need to reflect on it. That is the only attack I make - on the fact that you are unaware of the consequences of what you have been suggesting. Get past feeling hurt and have a think about the issues and do some reading. Kiwimw 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

He is biologically a male, and always will be. I do not care about your or her interpretation on Gender, he is a male. However, I recognise that my personal opinion is not shared by many. And so the article should state she is a female for ease of reading. Stop suggesting I "do some reading" or read up on George Beyer, because I am morally opposed to him. It is not a political issue, but a scientific and moral one. The article issue has been resolved.Eedo Bee

Thanks for the confirmation. Kiwimw 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This argument reveals a common ignorance/arrogance on the part of heterosexual people with regards to the LGBT community. Anyone who tries to claim that Georgina Beyer should be referred to as 'he' is indeed being less than civil, and mischievious is a far softer term than could be used. Enzedbrit 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am studying towards a Masters degree in Linguistics, and I must say I agree with the person above who states that GB was male, then female. This means that early parts of the article should refer to GB as "he" and later parts of the article (after surgery, etc) as "she". This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for people to advocate changes to the English language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia policy is to be "conservative" and "factual", shouldn't Beyers be referred to by the male pronoun? Factually he has not changed into a female, though he may regard himself as such.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

See MOS:GENDERID.-gadfium 04:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is just incredible. How can people be this blatantly ignorant of Wikipedia's own policies while at the same time claiming to be "defending" them? I think I have an idea why - because people don't personally agree with the subject matter at hand. This is completely unprofessional and there's no reason people like this should be editing wikipedia in the first place. MOS:GENDERID MOS:IDENTITY MOS:S/HE 108.218.48.233 (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Erotic dancer category

An editor deleted Category:New Zealand erotic dancers and stated in the edit summary that there was no information in the article to suggest the application of such a category. The article states, "Adopting the name Georgina, she became a stripper and prostitute working in nightclubs and on the street." The erotic dancers category is the category for "strippers". The "polite" term to use for "strippers" is "erotic dancers", which is why it is used for categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry.-gadfium 19:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I thought there may have just been a confusion with the terminology of "stripper" vs. "erotic dancer". It's not always 100% transparent that that's the classification system. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

World's first openly transsexual mayor

Hi,

This section seems inconsistent with Jenny Bailey's article. She was in office May 2002 – May 2008, and predates Georgina Beyer. Is this section based on some very technical reading of 'Mayor', or should it be updated?

7daysahead (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Beyer was elected mayor of Carterton in 1995, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"7yearsbehind" comes to mind. Schwede66 21:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Framed image of Georgina Beyer, Mayor of Carterton District, Wairarapa, New Zealand.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Identity labels: question of transsexual not transgender

Kia ora. I raise this as a gentle comment, in an attempt to seek consensus before making the edit. Beyer regularly identified herself as transsexual, as opposed to identifying as transgender. Whilst it is widely accepted that the identity of transsexual fits under the broader identity umbrella of transgender, her biography as it currently stands omits this aspect of her identity. I think it would be appropriate to change the terminology within the article from transgender to transsexual, with an explanatory footnote explaining why.

In particular, I note that both in her maiden speech and in a 2019 documentary she refers to herself as the first transsexual MP.

In a 2018 interview Beyer rejected the transgender label, and instead opted for identifying as transsexual.

I understand that this might generate some discussion, especially judging by the history of some of these comments. It would be great if we could have a civil conversation about how best reflect Beyer's identity in a more truthful way through through a robust discussion about wikipedia policy (rather than culture wars). Nā, Nauseous Man (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that interview can necessarily be interpreted in the way you have. --Pokelova (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Like @Pokelova , I'm not sure I agree that the 2018 interview can be described as Beyer rejecting the transgender label, as such. She refers to Oxford Union wanting to "cover [her] experiences in the political arena as a transgender person", although she does go on to say that the "transgender" term didn't exist in her youth.

That said, given she has referred to herself as transsexual on a number of occasions, that might be enough to sway it; MOS:IDENTITY and MOS:GENDERID are the relevant policies and they prioritise the importance of self-identification when it comes to gender. But on the other (other) hand maybe this is outweighed by the preponderance of reliable recent sources that use the term transgender (unless we can find a source that does show she expressly rejected the term transgender).

Will be interested to hear people's thoughts on this; I'm not sure I have a view yet, either way. Thanks for raising the point, @Nauseous Man. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

kia ora kōrua, @Pokelova @Chocmilk03 I think the important part of the quote is "We are transsexual or transgender, and I’m a transsexual woman. I’m not a biological female. I was born a biological male. That changed. That’s the biology of the thing, and that changed for me as I realised that that didn’t fit right. But I’m a transsexual woman." Whilst she does open by saying why the Oxford Union invited her to speak as a transgender person, the immediate following quote is her saying that she identifies as transsexual. I think in the eulogising of her, there has been a misinterpretation of her identity, which doesn't necessarily help with relying on secondary sources. Perhaps, a useful compromise might be a small paragraph discussing her identity within the article itself. Anyway, this has just been something that's been playing on my mind a lot recently and wanted to put pen to (metaphorical) paper. Nauseous Man (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)