Talk:Lynn Conway

Meaningless sentence / typo

There is a sentence in the second paragraph "Harry Benjamin treated her". It makes no sense. Someone who knows what was going on -- please fix. William Ackerman 18:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Offensive use of personal pronouns

When talking about or to transsexual people, it is viewed as extremely insulting to not respect the personal pronouns of the acquired gender. Can someone please fix this? Emilykitten 10:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't it inaccurate to refer to a transgender person by their new gender, when describing events that happened before they had their sex-reassignment surgery? In other words, before Lynn Conway had the surgery, shouldn't he be a "he" and then afterwards a "she"? Lynn Conway wasn't born as a woman, after all.User:Anonymous 10:29, 04 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. It might be offensive, disappointing, or whatever to some, but that doesn't matter. It's the truth. A MtF transgender person was a man at one time, and living outwardly as as a man. So for that time in Conway's life, male pronouns are simply more accurate. There's not really any way to argue with that. BuboTitan 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's the biggest political football in the field at the moment. So some -- very likely including Lynn Conway -- say that she was born with a woman's soul, in a man's body and (in any significant or metaphysical sense) really was a woman from birth (or before), although no one else knew it. Others -- sexologist J. Michael Bailey, for example -- will say that Conway was born a boy in a boy's body, probably grew up (through no fault of Conway's) to become an adolescent male who got an erotic charge out of crossdressing, and eventually became an autogynephilic transsexual woman (which he describes as a man who wants a woman's body, not as a woman trapped in a man's body).

Conway is doubtless utterly furious and insulted by such a description, partly because she wants the right to present her experience in her own way, and partly because Bailey's notion is perceived as being politically dangerous for transsexuals. No matter how accurate the idea is (or isn't), or how supportive Bailey himself is for SRS, the fear is that it will be turned into a justification for denying treatment for TS people. (Like this: "Manolo Blahnik shoes aren't medically necessary for a shoe fetishist, and sex reassignment surgery isn't medically necessary for transsexuals.")

I don't think that we are going to find agreement on the correct pronouns for Conway's earlier life. There are people firmly on both sides of the question. I think the article might benefit most by reducing the use of pronouns altogether, and then resolving not to worry about it too much. WhatamIdoing 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to dive into the Bailey controversy. That's another issue altogether. But the fact is, earlier in Conway's life, Conway was legally a man, was addressed in public as a man, was living as a man (including being married to a woman and having two kids). I might feel that I'm young at heart, or have a black man's soul, but that doesn't change my legal age or race. Someone keeps reverting this claiming it's "inconsistent with Wikipedia style guidelines" without explaining on the discussion page how that could possibly apply here. Pronouns are not earth-shattering things, but I'm very curious to hear their justification. Until then, I'll just keep undoing their reverts. BuboTitan 10:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that you undid more than just pronoun changes? You should do a diff on your latest edit. WhatamIdoing 16:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Some of those were revisions by others that got caught up in undoing changes. Once again, I fixed the pronouns. When someone is legally a man, it is proper to refer to him as "he" (especially when living as a man). If legally a woman, "she". I'll keep reverting this until someone shows me a wiki guideline that says anything different. Also changed "realized he was transexual woman", to "believed he was...". Since Conway is not a psychologist, "realized" seems a little assumptive. BuboTitan 11:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So? Legal rules apply only in legal contexts. Wikipedia is not one of them. We can use whatever seems good to a consensus of editors, not what seems good to some administrative law judge. WhatamIdoing 14:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then what about social contexts? At the time Lynn Conway was legally a man, he was also living as a man, was recognized as a man by his employer, was addressed as "he" by everyone, was married to a woman, had "male" indicated on his birth certificate & driver's license, etc, etc. In short, societal consensus is that Conway was a man at that time, and therefore, it would be strange for wikipedia to argue against this. For example, if I'm writing about the early life of the Pope or a famous general, I'm not going to label them as "his holiness" or "General" during the time of their youth.BuboTitan 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, so we should follow Wikipedia's rules for pronouns, which are the same as the AP Style Guide. It says to use female pronouns in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's strange that wiki's own page on the AP Stylebook doesn't mention that it is the same as wiki's rules (maybe you should change that then). But assuming you are right, since I'm not going to purchase the AP Syle guide for $17.95, please quote us the relevant passage that says we should call men "she" and women "he". BuboTitan 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

Identity

"This is perhaps an area where Wikipedians’ flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where we would not want all pages to look exactly alike. Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence. However, here are some nonbinding guidelines that may help: Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is your relevant passage, then it's clear that you either haven't been reading or entirely misunderstand this discussion. I happen to agree with that guideline and am following it to the letter. I am using the terms Lynn Conway is using to refer to herself. She refers to herself as a female now, but in her earlier life, she (and presumably everyone else), referred to her as "he" since at that time she was legally a man and living as a man.BuboTitan 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So Kellyprice wants to consistently apply Conway's pronoun of choice to the entire life. BuboTitan wants to use both the pronoun that Conway used to use as well as the pronoun that Conway is currently using. I don't see enough information in the MoS to declare either of these approaches to be inconsistent with style. What needs to happen right now is that the two of you need to knock off this stupid revert war. Go read WP:3RR before you touch that undo button again, okay? WhatamIdoing 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Her official biography, which she must have proved, is dispositive as far as I'm concerned. It uses the feminine pronouns when describing her entire life. Calling someone by a gender they don't want to be called is an insult to a living person, and would raise some serious BLP concerns. BLP trumps style guidelines anyway, but most style guidelines outside of Wikipedia for serious or professional writing would probably agree. I've seen this usage for another Wikipedia article too. At this point given all of the reverts and discussion above I believe BuboTitan is simply being contentious and should be warned not to keep reverting. Three editors -- four including me now -- have restored the feminine pronouns back to the article that this user wanted to alter. If this continues the article will end up being edit protected and/or the user will end up blocked. I see no compromise efforts or common ground on this particular issue. If BuboTitan really wants to challenge issue I would suggest bringing it up as a broader matter of policy, or using one of the available dispute resolution mechanisms.Wikidemo 10:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, check out User:WhatamIdoing's latest edits. They seem to solve the problem by avoiding pronouns entirely. A kludge to be sure, but it works. Good job! Wikidemo 23:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how Conway's biography would be dispositive. Idi Amin might have called himself the King of Scotland, but that doesn't mean it was true. I agree that BLP need to have some leeway, but this is ridiculous. You are "warning" me and threatening me with being blocked, all for simply telling a factual statement. Good luck with that. In early life, Lynn Conway was a man, in legal terms, societal terms, and medical terms. Even Lynn Conway can't argue against this. So what is the problem with the article reflecting that? First duty here should be to the truth. Granted, a few pronouns are not an Earth shattering point, but you are changing the article to reflect something that simply was not true. I plan to bring this up as a matter of wiki policy, but as it is, there is no policy supporting your position, nor do I expect there to be. It would be pretty difficult to insist on addressing people by the titles or statuses they hold currently, when you are talking about events in their past.BuboTitan 17:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BuboTitan, are there any pronoun usages remaining in the article with which you disagree? Or any other characterizations in this article with which you disagree? -Agyle 06:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the first couple paragraphs. I object to using "she/her" pronouns when describing events that happened before Conway had the surgery. Conway was a man at that time, and used "he/him", as did everyone else. Seems like common sense to me, but I'm afraid certain wiki users are allowing their personal political activism to get in the way of the facts here, and keep reverting the article ad nauseum. This sentence, for example, just doesn't make any sense: "She had made an earlier transition attempt in the late 1950s that failed due to the medical climate at the time". Well, if the transition failed, then Conway wasn't a "she" at that time, right? This is just one example, but the pronoun "he" is more appropriate here.BuboTitan 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

She wasn't a man. She was a woman with a birth defect. She was aware of it, and was able to eventually have it corrected via hrt and surgery. Gender is due to the way the mind is wired, not the physical body. It is disrespectful to refer to her in male terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying "she was a woman with a birth defect" is an opinion, which of course, you are entitled to. But Conway was not aware of it all of his/her life. It's also not entirely accurate to say that the "birth defect" has been corrected, since with current technology, the changes brought by surgery and hrt are largely superficial. Conway will never bear a child as a woman, and would be identified as a man under a hormone or DNA test, for example. But that's another topic. BuboTitan 19:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Being unaware of a birth defect does not mean that it does not exist, however she was aware of her transgender status from childhood. Many women aren't fertile for various reasons; fertility isn't a factor in gender identification. DNA tests are also not definitive. XY doesn't always indicate male or XX female. There are always exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 19:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I found and removed two more unnecessary pronouns. Can we compromise on using female pronouns for the events of the transition, when Conway was identifying internally as a woman, dressing like a woman, taking female hormones, acting like a woman, and so forth? Insisting on the actual hour of genital surgery as the demarcation point seems a little -- intrusive, not to mention gross. WhatamIdoing 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There will be no end to problems associated with picking a demarcation point for a pronoun change when speaking of someone who has had a physiological sex change. Unless we know something about her genetic make-up, unless we have published, accurate, verifiable references from which to make our decision this discusion has no place on this page. KP Botany 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If the discussion has no place on this page, then I'm wondering just where does "KP Botany" think it should go? I think the demarcation line of using he/she should be either: 1)At the point the individual legally had their gender changed, or 2) At the point he/she started outwardly living as a member of the opposite sex. Once again, earlier in life, Conway was living outwardly as a man, and therefore should be addressed as one when speaking about events at that time.BuboTitan 16:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In practice, we have something not very far from a signed statement that Lynn's genetic makeup is either XY or XYY (=non-intersexed male): Conway had perfectly normal fertility pre-transition, and fathered two children (both girls). Unusual genotypes have disastrous consequences on fertility. I am aware of no unusual genotypes that would produce both a male phenotype and normal fertility. Unless you can think of something I've forgotten, then I think we can safely assume that we're talking about a genotypically normal male at birth. But I do not understand how this has even the smallest impact on which pronouns to use for the time in which Conway was publicly living as a man. WhatamIdoing 06:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Split references into one reference, one footnote?

It seems to me that the LA Times article serves as a reference for almost the entire article, with the exception of the 2004 Wilson reference cited for a single sentence, and some unsourced information from the last few years. However, they're both listed in a reference section, and the Times article is linked as a footnote, seemingly arbitrarily, to one particular sentence regarding Conway's children. I would suggest creating a Notes section for the reflist template, to contain the 2004 Wilson reference, and changing the Times article from an inline-referenced footnote on a particular sentence to a standard reference in the references section. (My terminology may be off, but hopefully it's understandable.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs) 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change, as I noticed the LA Times article link was to a reprint on Conway's personal website, not to the LA Times. The format I used is a very non-standard style, for flexibility in linking and explaining the links. I think technically Conway's reprint should not be linked at all, even though it seems like a reputable reprint, but I'll let others decide how to handle it. -Agyle 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced material

Some recent information doesn't include citations. I casually searched news archives using Google (e.g. like this) and can turn up reliable sources saying she's an activist, and a vocal critic of Bailey's, but not that she was a "prominent spokesperson for the rights of transsexual people" or that she was "a leader of a 2003 campaign against" Bailey. I added the Fact tag to the current sentences to allow time for references to be supplied. If they can't be supplied, the wording could be scaled (e.g. change "prominent spokeperson" to "activist") and any number of reliable sources are available.

I also tagged the recent personal information such as her 2006 marriage as unsourced. I didn't check the external link to her personal website, as it's not listed as a reference. I'm not disputing that she did get married, just indicating that a reliable source is needed to corroborate the fact. -Agyle 03:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP and controversy

Re revert of MarionTheLibrarian's edits, Lynn Conway's page on the controversy makes it clear that Dreger and the journal and editor that published her work are principals in the controversy. According to WP:BLP, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement," and "Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources." If you want to add something from the sources who are involved in a dispute with Conway, it needs to be done carefully, encyclopedically, with attribution to who has express what, not via weasel words with a footnote. The obvious strong POV that colors all of MarionTheLibrarian's edits here and in other articles should really disqaulify this editor from adding such interpretations of controversial material to this BLP. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Plan for after protection expires

Template:RFCbio Since the page has been protected after our little edit war, we should discuss how to process after the protection expires. At present, the page Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy is not even linked here, and that's where the main discussion of the contentious issues is. Would it be helpful to use a main link or something to there, rather than trying to represent that contentious topic here in the bio (BLP would still apply there, of course). Other suggestions for how to avoid problems we've seen in recent days here? Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, our impass appears to be whether, to what extent, and how Dreger's recent analysis of the controvery(ies) should be included on Conway's page. From the point of view of providing readers with a complete encyclopedic entry, the question is, 'Should readers be made aware of the existence of her history' or (alternatively phrased), 'If a person reads a page about Conway that does not mention Dreger and discovers the Dreger history through google (for example), will the person believe that the Conway page is incomplete?'

It is my belief that a Conway page that does not mention Dreger's history would be incomplete (likely leading future readers to add Dreger's history to it). When the Dreger article was scheduled to appear in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the editor (Zucker) called for an open commentary, so that anyone who wanted could have their comments published along with Dreger's in the very same issue of the journal. Many people, both those agreeing and those disagreeing with Dreger, submitted comments, and all were printed. Because your previous edits didn't mention the commentaries and because commentaries came online only a few days ago, I assume you haven't read them yet. (If you do not have access to a university or medical library, I would be happy to email the commentaries to you.)

I suggest that, instead of referencing only the Dreger article itself (which is what I had been doing), we reference the entire issue of the Archives >including< all the commentaries. That way, readers are alerted to Dreger's summary >and< the criticisms of the history. I am thinking of something along the lines of:

A history of the controversy was published by Alice Dreger, an historian an intersex activist, in which she concluded that Conway coordinated a smear campaign against Bailey. That history, along with commentaries both agreeing and disagreeing with that allegation, appears in a special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

That makes the entry complete without the entry declaring that Dreger's conclusion is correct, leaving the final opinion to the interested reader.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that Conway's involvement in this controversy be mentioned and all sides made accessible. The easiest way to do this is with a brief summary and link to the full article. As for using the "archives" as source for more info, that's problematic, since, at least as Conway describes the controversy, the archives is at the center of the cabal, with its editor Zucker being deep in the argument (he has been a Blanchard co-author, so that seems plausible); and Dreger represented one side of the controversy on an NPR radio program, so doesn't seem like she can be considered a neutral analyst/historian as she and the archives want to portray her; using the achives to refer to Dreger as "scholars" is where your POV shows too much; it's OK to have a POV, but not OK for it to show up so much in articles you edit. You are correct that I was not aware of and have not read the commentaries; I've read very little on this topic, and have no expertise or insight to offer; but I can see POV pushing clearly enough without that. Dicklyon (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate that I would seem to have an agenda—after all, on this and on related issues everyone does appear to have one. I can only reiterate that my interest is in completeness; any bias I seem to have for one side is because there is a dearth of information about only one side. If you can think of a way for me to demonstrate to you that any opinion I have is based on and only on the available information, I will happily volunteer for the test. Otherwise, we will have to agree to disagree.

Although I am indeed new to wiki, you can see over the past few days that I am able and willing to provide well-sourced information on a range of topics in sexuality. I have substantial...er, library resources, to contribute whereas most editors rely on information already available on the web.

As for the neutrality of Dreger/Archives/Conway, that's an odd situation. Any perusal of Conway's or Andrea James' sites will show that they have made accusations of everyone who has ever said a negative thing about their side or a positive thing about Bailey's. They have long written that they believe there exists a conspiracy of well-placed transphobic academics. Over time, they have added to that list anyone (including other openly transsexual folk) who does not agree with them. The difficulty now is that there exists no one remaining to be called neutral at the standard you seem to be asking for. People Conway agrees with are called "recognized experts" on her site, and people she disagrees with are called "discredited" (despite any evidence in either direction). When Dreger began her history (in which she included her initial opinions), she was as neutral as a person can be shown to be; it was only because of her conclusions that Conway/James and others started going after her, forcing Dreger to mount a defence, making it >seem< like she could not have been neutral to begin with. In her history, Dreger does indeed find fault with some of Bailey's behaviors, and on her website, Dreger finds fault with Zucker. If that doesn't denote someone capable of seeing the grey where everyone else is casting characters in black or white, I don't know what would.

That said, I think we have what the only realistic solution is. Yes?—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an unusual situation to find people completely polarized over an issue. I am not suggesting that Conway is being neutral or objective, either. But some of your edits are very misleading with things like "scholars say" supported by a Dreger article in the archives. I find it amazing that you are claiming to not have an agenda in this yourself, based on the tone of your edits, but maybe... Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I did a lot of work on the career section, refs, etc., which was large undone by Andrea Parton's edit, probably due to an improperly handle edit conflict. I've tried to repair it, incorporating what she added about activism, and the new section heads, but I may have missed something, so take a look. This also involved taking out MarionTheLibrarian's latest, which I consider as bogus anyway, since Marion and the author she likes to quote are both obviously very biased participants in the controversy they describe; I've withdrawn from editing the BBL controversy page because it is hopelessly partisan, but there's no reason to let that overflow into this bio. Dicklyon (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What you believe to be biased is irrelevant. The information in my edits fit all WP policies on verifiability, reliable sources, and bio's of living person. You also (at least tacitly) agreed to those changes in our prior discussion, in which I participated in good faith.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say about a tacit agreement. My suggestion was to keep the controversial statements by principals in the controversy on the controversy page, rather than have Conway's enemies adding such stuff to her bio. It is remarkable to me that you are unable to admit that you too are a participant in, or a spokesperson for, this attack on Conway by the "archives" side of the dispute. I am not taking sides like you are, justing trying to keep the principles in the dispute from dumping on the bio pages, which should be more about the actual person, their accomplishments, and what they're known for, as represented by neutral third-party sources, not by participants like Dreger and you. I see you have a new account now, as BarbaraSue, doing more of the same. Please just stop. Dicklyon (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Dicklyon does not want Dreger's piece on here. I understand why an advocate for Conway would feel this way. The assertion that Dreger is "biased" is unfounded. Dreger makes it very clear in her paper that going into it she expected to find that Bailey was not blameless. She was an acquaintance of Conway's, and they had not been unfriendly before Dreger asked for Conway's cooperation. Furthermore, the solution that Dicklyon and Marion apparently agreed to (but which Dicklyon is not adhering to) refers any interested person to both Dreger's piece and to the commentaries, many of which were negative.BarbaraSue (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)