Talk:James Barry (surgeon)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Infobox

This entire article goes to great lengths to be neutral on the topic of whether Barry was transgender, in particular by avoiding use of pronouns. This has been the subject of previous discussions on this page, and is largely based on the fact that pronoun use in sources is varied, and the time period in which the subject lived. I would therefore argue that to definitively list in the infobox that one of the things Barry is known for is "being an early Transgender person", is both against previous consensus, and against the sources. It seems particularly jarring to include something on the list that is never discussed in the article. It would seem reasonable to mention that Barry is known for being born female, and subsequently living as a man, however that is not the same as stating they were transgender. Barry has not been included in the category "Irish Transgender People" and has been included in "Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity" for a very good reason. I have attempted to remove this from the infobox twice, but have been reverted and requested to discuss, as I am now doing. 2A00:23C8:2C9F:3F01:B0A9:5CA2:6C47:5CBD (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

First off, thank you for taking this to the talkpage as I asked; I really appreciate that.

Considering the lengths to which the article goes to remain neutral on the subject of Barry's gender, what if we changed "(known for) being an early trans person" to something like "(known for) gender identity"? I agree that as a major portion of the article, it bears mentioning in the infobox. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Gender identity, as a defined concept in terminology, is relatively modern, and probably wouldn't be considered neutral. We need some way of saying born female, lived as a male, in a concise, clear way.2A00:23C8:2C9F:3F01:D5A4:AE6:8112:8EF7 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

In modern English the clear and concise way of saying that someone is born one gender and lived as another is "gender identity". I don't see why we can't use modern concepts in terminology to accurately (and succinctly, and as inoffensively as possible) describe experiences prior to the term's coining. The Curies died from radiation poisoning before we knew that was a thing and had words for it, Qin Shi Huang probably died from mercury poisoning before we knew that was a thing, etc. Just because there wasn't a word yet doesn't mean it didn't exist. So I support "gender identity" or "gender expression", or possibly "debated gender".

If you consider these non-neutral, what do you suggest instead? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that gender identity is an expression denoting an internal struggle with such. With Barry, the discussion, as shown in previous discussions on this page, often concerns whether that was the case for Barry, or whether they lived as the opposite gender for more practical reasons. I have looked through the other eleven article in the "Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity" category in the hopes of gaining some idea of suitable language. Of these, three have no infobox, and of the remaining eight, only one even has a 'known for' category. There, the term used is 'gender expression'. Of the options presented, this would be my preferred one. Personally, I would be happy to remove the category entirely from the infobox as unnecessary - occupation is listed, as is the name change. However, I do realise others will probably disagree, hence why I would opt for gender expression. 2A00:23C8:2C9F:3F01:EC53:E16C:6F8:269C (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As the first editor to undo the first bold edit, I do not know the best word or concise phrase. My concern is merely that something about the gender be in the infobox, since that topic is a substantial part of the article. Something better than nothing, while anyone interested word-smiths "something" into "something even better". DMacks (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a better solution here would be to get rid of the infobox's "known for" line entirely. I've never seen the point of "known for" to begin with; that's not what infoboxen are for. They're for simple at-a-glance metadata. If people want to know why a person is notable, they should read the article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 Works for me - Best solution ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No objection to removing that field altogether. DMacks (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I boldly changed it to "gender expression" but also have no qualms getting rid of "known for" altogether. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree that mentioning "trans" or "gender identity" is problematic. My first reaction when I saw that was to delete it, and then I noticed this discussion. As an experiment, since I like playing with words and coming up with apt expressions, I thought about it, and asked myself, "If there were to be a consensus to include something, what should it be?" And I came up with, spent over 50 years as a man, which mentions neither problematic term, while still getting the idea across. Just to be clear, I'm not sure I would vote in favor of that if this were an Rfc; I'd have to think about it further. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If others agree, I would certainly be in favour of removing 'known for'.2A00:23C8:2C9F:3F01:C813:1E86:903A:8F71 (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

As it has been over a week since any further comments have been added to this discussion, I have removed the 'known for' field from the infobox, as per the comments here. 2A00:23C8:2C9F:3F01:742A:6457:35E0:C363 (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)