Talk:Chevalier d'Éon

Style Issues

This article needs significant work. The language needs tightening, the article is poorly organized, and the facts are bare bones. Hopefully someone will have the time to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.28.255 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 September 2005.

Fixed the pervasive tense issues and cleaned up a couple of the really bad lines, but this article still needs a lot of help--parts of it read like a bad fanfic. Also sorted comments on the talk page into appropriate topics. 161.45.124.191 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronouns

In keeping with Wikipedia's Manual of Style I suggest changing all references to use female pronouns. I will do it later if there isn't compelling reason not to, keeping with Wikipedia's policies. --Nachtrabe 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) would seem to say that the Chevalier should be referred to as "he" before 1777 and "she" after that date. Opera hat (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed gender to reflect how the Chevalier d'Eon identified herself, in line with other transgender articles. (unsigned, undated)

This is ridiculous. The 18th century is not the 21st century. Rules designed for dealing with transgender issues in modern times should not be used for an 18th century cross-dresser. john k (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really not. We're applying the same standard to all and making informed decisions when someone has lived their life as more then one gender identity. If it's clear they though of themselves as female or male then we respect that. Pronoun use does not confer a different standard but the same standard. applying a 21st Centerury standard would be to call them a trans woman without qualifying this is what she would be thought of in modern parlance. -- Banjeboi 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that the Chevalier d'Eon thought of himself as a woman. He lived as a woman for part of his life. He also claimed, falsely, to be a biological woman. It was only on this basis of this false testimony that he was legally recognized as a woman by the government, and as such, that recognition was given under false pretences, and ought to be ignored. By using the female pronouns for Eon you are basically saying "The Chevalier d'Eon was transgendered in the modern sense, and viewed himself [herself?] as a woman, and as such we should respect his [her?] wishes and use female pronouns." But there is absolutely no evidence for this. john k (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My perspective - which I have used as a reason for keeping the pronouns as they were - was that after the court rulings (which were binding, even if mistaken) the Chevalier acted, and was construed, as a woman. By arguing for the Chevalier to be referred to as 'he' throughout, you're basically suggesting that our biological perspective, with the hindsight of the post-mortem examination, is more important than events and perceptions during the Chevalier's own life. It's also worth noting that the modern understanding of transsexualism begins with sexologists about 100 years ago examining the Chevalier's case -hence the term Eonism, as noted. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

100 years ago was not, however, the time of Eon. The modern understanding of transsexualism simply did not exist in the 18th century. Eon was treated as a woman because he was pretending to be a biological woman, not because he claimed that he was a woman trapped in a man's body, or whatever the preferred terminology is. However, I won't go further in this line. What I will suggest is that there is a recent academic book about the case, Kates's book. It seems to me that in a case like this, we ought to follow the usage of the most current reliable sources. I don't have Kates's book, but using Amazon to look at the opening pages, he seems to use male pronouns. "Why did the Chevalier d'Eon live the second half of his life as a woman?" "For over thirty-two years, from age forty-nine until his death at eighty-one, d'Eon succeeded in living every day as a woman among the same public that previously had known him as a male diplomat and military hero." "The Chevalier d'Eon, on the other hand, managed to switch genders when he was a pubic personality, and thus had to confront the many stories about him produced by the vitriolic eighteenth-century press." "While it is impossible for the historian to prove, the most likely conclusion, based on the documentation available, is that d'Eon remained a virgin throughout his life." And so on - Kates refers to d'Eon with male pronouns throughout his introduction. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources. We should follow Kates. john k (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we have this discussion before making sweeping changes to the page, please? I'm interested in the points you raise, but you're not helping by making the changes and then presenting your arguments. I'm unfamiliar with the source you cite, and not sure why it should be taken as definitive, but then you don't have a copy either, and are relying on Amazon. Let's pause for breath and try to take a proper consensus, rather than favouring the usage of a single source. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That said, I've just re-read, and I think there's room for manoeuvre here. For the time being, I've replaced 'his' in the lead, and shifted things around in the 'death' section to be gender-neutral. This seems appropriate for a section which deals directly with the question of ambiguous biological sex. I'd prefer to stick to she/her/hers for the sections about the portions of the Chevalier's life lived as a woman, though, as that still seems historically faithful. But I'll try to find some more source - I have a few at home - and see what I can turn up. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not going to revert again, and will only change if we get agreement. I generally find that a couple of reversions is useful for getting people's attention to a debate. Kates is cited in the article itself - his book is Monsieur D'Eon is a Woman: A Tale of Political Intrigue and Sexual Masquerade, published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2001. Kates is a Professor of History and Vice President for Academic Affairs (i.e. Provost?) at Pomona College. He is also one of the co-editors of The Maiden of Tonnerre, an English edition of D'Eon's memoirs. His book seems like virtually an ideal source on the subject - it is very recent, it is published by a well-respected academic press, it is by an author who is apparently an expert on the subject matter and who has impeccable academic credentials, it is a biography of the person whom we are discussing, and it is written in English. I'm not sure about the question of "ambiguous biological sex" - there was no ambiguity, the Chevalier was biologically male. john k (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough - I didn't connect the author's name with the source, as I was originally editing while at work. You're right; Kates is an important source (and one that I wish I owned!). The ambiguity of biological sex only arises if we can source the speculation about Kallmann's syndrome. I'll continue my investigations. But thank you for drawing my attention to the detail of this question - as I noted before, whilst I have specific views on some elements of the text, other bits (like the lead) are quite fairly rendered the way you suggested. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC on the pronoun issue would be in order, to gage a broader range of opinions? john k (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, he has been referred to as 'he' in sources such as Havelock-Ellis, and while he roughly translates to 'transgender' today, his living as a woman was seen in the context of his being a man. The problem is that if you want to change the gender references, you need to change the title - and that is the only title people would recognise. Knights are men, Dames are women, and Chevalier was a male title (Order of Saint-Louis), the French form of 'Knight' ('Sir'). To make sense of this the article would need to be renamed using d'Eon de Beaumont's female name; also, using formal titles in article titles is contrary to MoS for Biographies. Mish (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

D'Eon used the name/title 'La Chevaliere d'Eon', and the name 'Lia de Beaumont' while living as a woman. As the article is about d'Eon's entire life, and 'Chevalier d'Eon' was the name by which d'Eon was generally known overall, this article most certainly does not need to be renamed. Add redirects if you like, but the article title is a no-brainer. I'm advocating using female pronouns for the portion of the Chevalier's life lived as a woman - not otherwise. The case is different to a modern transgender person, but is arguably sui generis. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the title to the article is a clear instance of when we should ignore all rules. Any other title would be kind of silly, and if other guidelines or what not suggest that this title is wrong, that's a rule to ignore. As far as pronouns, do we have any recent sources which refer to him as "she" for any period of his life? The directive to use the female pronoun for the part of his life when he was living as a woman would make sense if we have different sources referring to him in different ways. But I think verifiability demands that there be some reliable source that uses female pronouns. john k (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

i tend to agree, that using 'she', etc. for the period of his/her life lived as a woman makes sense, but not for the period he/she lived as a man. This was the point about the title. If the pronoun is to be changed for the whole article, this would need to be reflected in the title, by dropping the male title (which contravenes MoS anyway). If the male pronoun stands, then I agree, given this is the most common reference, we should ignore all rules, but I can't see why we would pick-and-choose titles and pronouns to suit our whims - the title only makes sense if the article refers to a man, albeit a man who became a woman, and is referred to with female pronouns for the part of the article that deals with that part of his/her life. Mish (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why we should use the female pronouns at all if we can't find a reliable source that does so. john k (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So, it's been three weeks or so. Any reliable sources that refer to Eon with a female pronoun? If nobody can provide any, I'm going to switch to using male pronouns throughout within the next few days. john k (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? Where is the consensus for this change? Only you seem to be in favour of it. I've been busy, but I haven't forgotten my intention to try and find such sources. But I still don't think it's proper to force this change through simply because you feel strongly about it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I intend to change it not because I feel particularly strongly about it, but because wikipedia has to be based on what reliable sources say. If reliable sources don't refer to the Chevalier d'Eon with female pronouns, we shouldn't either. Consensus or not, claiming that d'Eon was a woman (which is, in effect, what we do when we use female pronouns) is a factual claim which needs to be supported with reference to reliable sources. If none of them use the female pronouns, on what possible basis can this article do so? You can have all the time in the world to find sources that refer to the man by female pronouns, but in the meanwhile, if you can't source it, we should follow what the reliable sources actually say. Another source which refers to him entirely with male pronouns is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - the only exception being when taking up Boswell's point-of-view from when he met Eon while he was pretending to be a woman. So we've got the ODNB, probably the best English language reference that would have an entry on Eon, referring to him with male pronouns. We've got d'Eon's own biographer, Gary Kates, doing the same. On the other side we have, what, some sort of Wikipedia manual of style guidelines? This is absurd. john k (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that this debate is old but I would to make some further changes by putting the pronouns in quotation marks: "her" and "she" with quotes. That way we can raise the point that although d'Eon wanted to be seen as a woman, "she" was in fact a man. Any views?--Marktreut (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what quotation marks mean, though. It's a colloquialism to use quotation marks to imply that a claim is dubious. I also continue to maintain that there is insufficient reason to change the article from its current form. Perhaps an RfC might be appropriate; but I don't feel there is currently a consensus for change. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read books in which quotation marks are used in such a way. The point is that referring to d'Eon as a she without them implies that the subject was a woman, which was far from the truth. Most biographies that I have read of D'Eon stick to he (without quotes) or "she" (with quotes) even in the parts that deal with his later life when he was consistently dressed as a woman. This strikes me as more of a PC issue than anything else.--Marktreut (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Frenchman and quite bemused by the apparent need to change this historical figure's gender. For those of you who can't read French, la version française uses masculine pronouns always. There's no factual basis that can ascertain how he viewed himself & much we think we know is from secondary sources only, often times unreliable. He used this ambiguity in his own epoch to confuse further the issue. All that seems certain is that he was a man for he was autopsied as such. That should be sufficient information to decide on which gender applies in this biography. Bringing 21st century would-be political correctness into this is in my opinion not only ludicrous but disrespectful to the readers who seek information, not bias. (Jirka Staffan Aubert (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

Judging by the comments on this talk page, most people seem to favor the use of male pronouns (although granted, those people would have more reason to leave comments); also, this would not be "forcing through a change" to the article text, as the original text itself was originally changed to use female pronouns instead of male pronouns. Considering the points that people have already made (1) d'Eon was already biologically male, 2) what gender he considered himself is inescapably speculative 3) published sources that discuss d'Eon generally use the male pronoun to refer to him), I shall make this change. JudahH (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Erm, go with male: this article from the Telegraph today about his transvestitism goes with male pronouns, and the British Museum uses them too. Unless other sources use female, it seems obvious that WP here is doing its own OR on the issue.
• Furthermore, the intro says: "Charles [...] was a French diplomat, spy, soldier and Freemason whose first 49 years were spent as a man, and whose last 33 years were spent as a woman." It should be: "whose first 49 years were spent dressed as a man, and whose last 33 years were spent dressed as a woman." No?Malick78 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree, male pronoun is more logical and seems to be used much more often in this case. GreyHood ^Talk 20:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't care if d'Eon is called "he" or "she". But, except for his stay in Russia, he wasn't officially called a woman before 1777. It feels weird to read something like "In 1763, after her successful negotiation..." In 1763 he was clearly identified as a man by everyone including himself. (Jalllllll (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

At the of this writing the article is using female pronouns which I believe is confusing to readers looking for facts about a person who is stated in the article to be anatomically male. The choice of pronouns appears to be based solely on personal bias. I therefore read the talk page to discover why it was decided to use the female pronouns. In doing so, I saw that the majority of the discussion is in favor of using male pronouns, and that the sources use male pronouns when referring to the historical figure. The edit that changed the pronouns to female was made anonymously, had no summary of the changes, and gave no sources that validated the edit. I am reverting the changes made by the anonymous IP 207.243.120.126 (01:55 25 January 2012, 01:59 25 January 2012, 02:01 25 January 2012‎) to reflect this finding. (Kaiomai (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

Thank you, that was wise. In fact, it is proper grammer to refer to something with an unknown gender as "he". To add to the discussion, my grandfather, a Frenchman, always told me that Chevalier was a spy, and that he dressed as a woman in order to sneak into Russia. Afterwards he was caught, and needed to keep up the act. Thus I never considered his transgenderness to be of choice but rather political necessity, and therefore I think the usage of "she" is inappropriate since my ancestor did not intend to make a political statement regarding gender when he dressed as a woman.TopazStar (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed another anonymous editor's additions of "she" and "her" back to "he" and "him" as the consensus above seems to be that he was born male and died male, and therefore the male pronouns are appropriate. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, D'Eon died legally female according to the law of France and of Great Britain, and was only discovered to have been biologically male post mortem. Moreover, TopazStar's claim that 'it is proper grammer to refer to something with an unknown gender as "he"' is simply false in English. It is also highly misleading to suggest that essential feature of transgender identity is 'intent to make a political statement'; most transpeople intend nothing of the sort. I have no idea whether D'Eon did or not, but it's irrelevant. My personal feeling is that the article should reflect the contemporary legal situation, but I'd rather discuss that here than get into an edit war. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Death Mask

As seen in a woodcut made after D'Eon's death, his beard had not grown in as it should have if he had spent several days in a coma before his death. Although it is possible that someone shaved d'Eon's face after his death, most likely this was not so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glammazon (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is normal to clean a body before burial. More importantly, however, there has been speculation that Chevalier d'Eon had a genetic disease where he did not physically mature past adolesence. This would account for how he could pretend to be a woman for so long and confuse just about everybody. A perfect trait for a spy, don't you think?TopazStar (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned & Cited

Found & used citations in English as well as merged information from the French Wiki. Cleaned the references, checked many online & added ISBN numbers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Freemason?

The wikipedia article states that d'Eon was a Freemason, but does not offer any proof. I always thought he was Roman Catholic. Can anyone provide conclusive textual evidence for either position? TopazStar (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The categories 'Roman Catholic' and 'Freemason' are not mutually exclusive, much though the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy these days might wish it. I think D'Eon was both, but I also would like some sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It is exclusive, not the Catholic Church's hierarchy of these days, since the excommunication in 1189 (Rouen concile), a time again in 1326 (Avignon concile), and many other excommunications afterwards. You can be freemason and christian but you can't freemason and catholics, that's a fact, unless you hide it. (source: masonic.ch) About Eon, I found many claim he was freemason on almost eveyry masonic site I visited. This article (French) form a masonic site, suggest the creation of a Chevalier d'Eon lodge and talk about the book "Knight of Eon, freemason and spy"

http://www.hiram.be/Le-chevalier-d-Eon-Franc-Macon-et-espionne_a6382.html