Talk:Lynn Conway

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KM0019. Peer reviewers: Sumiirmz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Including Male name given at birth.

I'm going to start this on the talk page, because we are going to end up here anyway.

I would like to add "Robert" to the article, preferably by changing "Conway grew up in White Plains, New York." to Conway (born Robert) grew up in White Plains, New York". The references definitely exist, including *primary* sources at http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/Retrospective1.html and secondary at https://womenyoushouldknow.net/lynn-conway-microchip-design/ and http://lorentium.com/synetec/lynn-conway/ .

I'm familiar with WP:DEADNAME and given that in my opinion she was not notable prior to arriving at Xerox PARC, her name given at birth should *not* be in the Lead (This is a Laverne Cox situation in that degree rather than a Caitlyn Jenner or Chelsea Manning.

I have no intention of making this edit until after at least some level of discussion here (or a week without response, which I seriously doubt will occur)Naraht (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not really needed, though. And I don't see Cox's birth name in her Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 RebornThere is no good reference available for Cox's birth name as far as I can tell.Naraht (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unhelpful. Adding a WP:DEADNAME to this WP:BLP gains little but intrudes a lot. It's unnecessarily invasive. Msnicki (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  MsnickiIf it were the situation like Laverne Cox, I might agree, but in this case, the *primary* source at UMich was created by her and she uses Robert to refer to who she was, so in *this* case, I don't believe the Deadname is intrusive. If it had come from someone cross referencing school attendence with property tax records or something else without her consent, it would be different to me.Naraht (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's not clear to me that the name "Robert" she uses was her actual name, as opposed to a placeholder. And I think her last name was not Conway (in spite of what the secondary source says). Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  DicklyonSee the womenyoushouldknow source. Born Robert Conway.Naraht (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's the secondary source I'm referring to. It's not convincing. As far as I know, Lynn has never publicly mentioned her birth name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  At WP:DEADNAME, it says, "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." It doesn't say that means using it somewhere outside the lede is a good idea. At best, it indicates it's a judgement call. I think it's a terrible idea and my judgement call is that arguing that she reported it, therefore we can, too, is irresponsible. You asked for feedback, you got it, I'll never be on board with this. Msnicki (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  I think we agree that WP:DEADNAME doesn't cover this. My question is how is it invasive if she has written about that name herself? What level of comfort for a person with their name prior to transition would be appropriate? (If Lynn had an interview on 60 minutes where she talked about being born and growing up as Robert, would that be enough?) It sounds like you are looking to expand WP:BLPNAME treating a former name at the same level as a child's name.Naraht (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  There's no "if Lynn had an interview on 60 Minutes" to discuss because it never happened. All you have is a couple of mentions that appear to establish what her name used to be. So what? WP:DEADNAME may not offer explicit guidance but it surely doesn't encourage publishing old names. It discourages doing that. I don't see any reason why adding this is a good idea. But apparently you do. Unfortunately, you've kept it secret. Exactly why do you think this is this a good idea? Msnicki (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Fair enough, there is no 60 minutes interview, but the Retrospective written *by* her seems to me to be at the same level of willingness to see it public. I don't see WP:DEADNAME as discouraging the use of old names. There are *lots* of things that don't belong in the Lead Sentence. My reason: This person was called Robert for an appreciable part of her life, the article should include it. The fact that the name change occurred at the same time as the change in the person's publicly expressed gender should make no more difference in whether the name is included in the article than any other reason that the person changed their name.Naraht (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, I've heard you out and you haven't convinced me of anything, so I'm still opposed and that's not changing. That leaves you with zero support for this. So, unless can find some support from someone else, it's not happening. Msnicki (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The lack of alternative names is a significant issue because, with people with a career spanning decades, a lot of literature might be referring to them with their other names. It’s quite critical for research. 2) For the same reason, the reader may not be familiar with the new name and might have trouble associating the page with the actual person they know. Ssg (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ssg that simply isn't the case here. The only records of her notable work pre-transition at IBM were never made public under her deadname, and IBM seems to have long since lost or destroyed any work that was performed under that moniker. 2607:FE28:20EE:7E00:4CDC:B924:2AEB:AFCA (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Old discussion, but I don't see anything wrong with it. WP:DEADNAME only objects where it creates a privacy issue. Based on Nahrat's explanation here, it does not. Dovid (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The one source that purports to give the birth name is not credible, in my opinion. I know that Lynn has done her best to eradicate the old name, and if it was Robert, I still doubt that it was Conway. In any case, I think she would prefer to protect the privacy of her relatives. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes were made at MOS:DEADNAME and it now clearly states not to include the deadname anywhere in the article if the subject was not notable under that name. Rab V (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with stating the name given at birth. It is the same thing as a last name someone had before marriage. Sadly, there are terrorist groups with a narcissistic disorder who are mostly actually unrelated to trans people, and use this as yet another tool to gain power and terrorize people. They have invented the hateful prejudiced narrative, that even mentioning the birth name somehow implies hate and discrimination, so they can spread hate and dicriminate against anyone disagreeing with them. A typical behavior in people with narcissistic disorder when occuring in combination with a pathologically low self-esteem.
The problem is that the vast majority of trans people have no problem with their birth name at all, and the vast majority of people just see it as the birth name and nothing more.
In the end,, it is just a normal fact of reality, and does nothing to anybody. Making a taboo out of even speaking out certain names of generally willfully ignoring parts of reality, is a typical symtom of mental illness though (unrelated to if a person is trans), and if untreated, can lead do more severe schizoid illness, to a point where the person becomes incompatible with much of actual reality and cannot live a healthy life in society anymore. So while incompetent laypeople will mistake that as helpful, it will in fact just worsen and prolong the symptoms of what it meant to have a body of the different sex than your brain and be gaslighted into thinking it’s not the case.
Unfortunately, it seems many people are still so utterly clueless and naive, they are falling for those terrorist groups and let themselves be used as tools to oppress people, while believing they are righteous white knights coming to the help of poor poor helpless minorities. (See: holy wars)
— A trans person and neuro-psychologist who seriously had enough with this condescending bullshit, and doesn’t need any of you terrorists as a savior from anyone! 2A02:3035:612:AF3:2D13:3D20:2112:A797 (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussions of the policy itself are better suited to policy pages like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity, rather than specific articles. You're certainly welcome to propose changes there, although I would strongly recommend not referring to other Wikipedia editors as "you terrorists" if you decide to continue discussing this. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Gender affirmation surgery?

Breast implants are gender affirming surgery, right?* While I'd guess the term "affirmation" is preferred by the trans community for the removal of biologically normal male genitalia, I think the term is 1. judgemental + value-laden and 2. misleading and non-specific. I also don't believe any type of medical procedure should be characterized as "affirming" since if I were to have that surgery (being a biological male), it sure as heck wouldn't be affirming. That is, the "affirmation" depends on the context and therefore it is that context that determines whether or not the physical facts are "affirming" or mutilations or even crippling. (*I note that breast implants are also a common procedure on male (identifying) patients - not sure if they want to appear more muscular or if the more common objective is to have female-typical boobs, Id guess the former...).98.21.247.38 (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

For some reason the term being used in the article was "genital affirmation surgery", which is an unusual term. I have adjusted it to the much more standard "gender affirmation surgery". Regardless of your opinions on the subject, it is a commonly used term and is appropriate to use here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

First marriage

Is there a reason why the infobox spouse slot mentions

Charles Rogers

​

(m. 2002)​

and not the first marriage "married to a woman and had two children"?

If privacy is an issue, at least a mention of a previous marriage? By including the Rogers marriage and not the first, it gives the false impression that the first did not exist. Are there any other marriages that should not be included? If there is a reason, an HTML comment should state it in the spouse slot. --Error (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that provides the name of her first spouse? It may be because it's difficult to represent a spouse whose name is not known in the infobox field. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The legacy section

At the time of writing this section seems exceptionally poorly written. There are massive randomly selected quotes mixed in with one single actual piece of recognition all in a hard to parse jumble. I'm planning on trimming most of the section, or possibly just deleting it and moving the magazine mention to another section. Before I do that I'd like to hear if any editors think it should be taken in a different direction. XeCyranium (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

BLP policy

Just a reminder that:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources for news of death

Why are personal websites and blogs being used to assert that the subject has died? If there are no high quality sources available, we shouldn't be editing a WP:BLP and asserting that. If it is true, then we will have reliable sources shortly. Hist9600 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Andrea James is reporting it on her own personal blog. She would be a reliable source: Lynn Conway, 1938–2024 74.135.59.47 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

A personal blog is not a reliable source for news about someone's death. Hist9600 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The University of Michigan where she worked is reporting it on their web site - https://cse.engin.umich.edu/stories/the-legacy-of-lynn-conway-chip-design-pioneer-and-transgender-rights-advocate . 198.98.120.83 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That source may be adequate, since it's a former workplace, and it's a reputable university. It looks like the article was reprinted and the original is this URL: https://news.engin.umich.edu/2024/06/the-legacy-of-lynn-conway-chip-design-pioneer-and-transgender-rights-advocate/ Hist9600 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The LA Times has an opinion column by Michael Hiltzik, though of course WP:RSOPINION applies: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-06-11/lynn-conway-leading-computer-scientist-and-transgender-pioneer-dies-at-85 LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like someone re-added the info and it's referencing the LA Times article. Much better than what was there before. Hist9600 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Using an outdated term because it wasn't outdated back then?

Memories of, why do you think it's "historically correct" to use transsexual in 2024? Even if it was the term used back then, it's not what is in use now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liliana,

Given that Wikipedia still has a page for the term transsexual, stating that it is very much still in use, I don't see why using it 'in 2024' is odd. That aside, the term is accurate to the time. Transsexual was the term used to describe those who experienced gender dysphoria, and denying it exists in favor of the term transgender is historical revisionism. Transgender is a vague umbrella term that does not make sense in this context. I agree that it's an antiquated term, I'd much rather use 'transsex', but I don't control language. Memories of (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)