Talk:James Barry (surgeon)

Pope Joan?

Perhaps a reference to Pope Joan is in place? // Liftarn

Naaaah, it's not relevant. Besides, historians believe Pope Joan was a myth, but James barry was a real person. Kevyn 13:31, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Move to James Barry (surgeon)

Would anyone object if I moved James Barry (woman) to James Barry (surgeon)?

On the disambig page for James Barry, this person is listed as a surgeon, and according to this article, "Barry was accepted into the Edinburgh University as a 'literary and medical student' in 1809 and qualified with a Medical Doctorate in 1812. " So Barry legitimately was a surgeon - and quite a good one, too, according to the article.

Yes, I know the fact that Barry was physically female may very well be what made Barry notable, but disambiguating Barry by physical gender, instead of profession, makes me a little queasy. It strikes me as a little demeaning.

I do not presume to know Barry's motivations for passing as a man - be it in order to become a surgeon in a time when women could not become one, or if Barry was what we today would call a transgender male - but Barry clearly was not interested in identifying as a woman, and as such, I think we should respect the good doctor's wishes.

In short, I suspect that James Barry would probably rather be remembered as a surgeon than as a woman.

Kevyn 00:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can I suggest here that Barry's fame as a surgeon would have been far greater, but for the fact that Barry was a woman. It appears that information regarding Barry was suppressed by the military, once Barry's gender was known, and a truly great surgeon was allowed to slip into obscurity, to save the face of the establishment. --Amandajm 11:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, seeing as there were no objections, I have moved the page. Kevyn 13:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gender

It is by no means established that Barry was a woman. From the new Dictionary of Canadian Biography bio,

After the physician’s death in 1865 rumours, apparently begun by his charwoman, circulated in London that James Barry was a woman, and the story, reinforced by undoubted physical peculiarities in size and voice, was disseminated widely in the press. It has been believed then and since, but recent research shows room for doubt. More likely seems the suggestion, elaborating one made 80 years ago in the medical journal Lancet, that Barry was a male hermaphrodite who had feminine breast development and external genitalia. Barry’s personal life must have been difficult in any case, though he accomplished much in his medical career." (by User:Fawcett5, unsigned)

• You can include the claims and speculation to the contrary - and their source - to the article. And I'd recommend that you sign your comments - Skysmith 09:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• I've included one such source (external PDF link), though I'm not the one to judge one way or the other.  DavidDouthitt  (Talk) 09:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sex not Gender

I think it is important to stick to the facts that are known and established when writing a biography, as well as sticking to scientific facts regarding biology. Sex is biological and is determined by chromosomes which translates physiologically into male and female reproductive organs and other physiological features. Gender is a social construct that differs from culture to culture and is a set of social rules that dictate what roles males and female can perform within a society. James Barry's sex was determined at death as female, determined at birth as female, and correspondence has provided evidence of how she was to get into medical school as a woman by posing as a man. These are the historical and scientific facts, let's stick to them.Celestialtellurian (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Technically, Barry was actually determined at birth to be female and at death to be male (his death certificate states "male" and this was even signed off by the sole person who later claimed, unverifiably, that he was female). Intersex conditions are commonly not identifiable at birth, and if they were, would have been hushed up. It’s certainly likely Barry was an XX female, but unfortunately on current evidence we cannot state it as fact. Wilderwill (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Plagarism?

I found an identical copy of this article at http://experts.about.com/e/j/ja/James_Barry_(surgeon).htm (at least prior to my editing on it). No attribution to Wikipedia is present - after reading this talk page, it appears that the Wikipedia entry was copied word for word (and picture for picture) without attribution.  DavidDouthitt  (Talk) 09:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a wikipedia mirror. TastyCakes 17:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PoV issue?

I recently read an article which was carried in Edinburgh's main evening paper, Edinburgh Evening News, and also a weekly, the Edinburgh Herald and Post, available here, which takes a pretty radically different view to the one in this Wikipedia article. These articles make (cited) claims that some senior bodies in the Edinburgh medical profession want to recognise the achievements of someone they very definitely class as a woman in disguise. It's a good enough reference to make some substantial comments about whether Barry was in fact simply a woman trying to get on in a man's world, and not a hermaphrodite as is implied by the present WP article. I don't want to make sweeping changes without some discussion here first, but it seems like the article needs a very substantial re-write to better allow for the fact that the details are questionable. – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also the fact that we don't know if Barry considered her/himself to be a man or not. Some female wartime crossdressers, such as Albert Cashier, seem to regard themselves as men, and would no doubt identify as transgender in today's society, but most cross-dressed simply out of neccessity. It simply isn't clear if Barry identified as a man or a woman. There article assumes that Barry identified as a man and refers to him/her as by male pronouns, but we can't know for certain. Asarelah 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Transgendered?

I think that the suggestion that James Barry was transgendered is frankly ridiculous. While it has always been possible, and relatively easy to remove the male sexual organs from a male person, making a female more masculine is a more dificult task. How does one suppose that Barry may have been transgendered into a man. Or is the suggestion here that a previously male barry, who chose to live as a male all his life, was actually transgendered to a female, but continued to live as a male. Most unlikely. Can I suggest that the "transgender" line is removed.

I don't have the references to hand, but it would seem that to suggest that Barry was anything other than a perfectly normal female is incorrect.

The evidence to support that Barry was simply a female in male attire are:-

1. Barry was excessively discrete about all bodily functions, while living in a male world, in otherwords, it was observed that Barry didn't have a communal pee with the boys.
2. Barry had only one servant, who remained in his/her employ for many years. This man claimed to have provided Barry with two clean towels every day, which Barry wrapped around her body, under her uniform.
3. A fellow student of Barry, when studying medicine in Edinburgh commented that because Barry was so small he tried to teach "him" self-defence. But when they donned boxing-gloves, Barry repeatedly put his/her arms over his/her chest "like a girl" (presumably because even little boobs hurt like b....y if they get thumped).
4. Barry was extraordinarily solicitous of women in childbirth, saving the life of the Governor's daughter after a very difficult birth. I seem to recall that the baby was named after Barry. Barry developed new procedures for deliveries.
5. During Barry's time in Africa, she/he took sudden unscheduled leave of some months, and returned to England. When questioned as to why she had gone, she said "To get a decent haircut".
6. At Barry's death, a woman came to lay out the body and discovered that Barry was a female, perfectly normal, and had given birth.
7. Although Barry was an outstanding surgeon, developed new techniques for wound management and had tremendous success in treating sepsis and saving limbs which most army surgeons would simply have amputated, Barry received little recognition, was deprived of much of the honour that was her due and was kept offshore for the greater part of her career.
8. Barry's encounter with Florence Nightingale was brief. Barry, although small, from preference always rode a very tall horse. When she met Florence Nightingale, she did not dismount from her horse, and spoke to her briefly and tersely. (Perhaps she felt that Nightingale would recognise her as female and blow her cover.)
9. Her military files disappeared after her death.

Barry appears to have mmade the decision to become a surgeon while still in her teens. There was no opening for a girl to train in such a field. If her ambition led her in that direction, then to disguise herself as a boy was the only option. The crucial matter here is that she was first and foremost a surgeon. Not first and foremost a "cross-dresser", an hermaphrodite or a transgender person. What we undestand for certain about Barry is her lifelong dedication to saving lives and limbs. --Amandajm 10:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree it is unlikely that there was any active trangendering. I would put it to you though that your list of "evidence" is weak, like the way he / she held his / her arms or how solicitous he / she was of women in labour. What I find hardest to believe is that he / she could pass any sort of military physical without the genitals, or lack thereof, being noted. And I am a military urologist! 79.71.250.202 (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think there may be some misunderstanding over terminology here, specifically about the use of the word 'transgender'. I'm sorry I'm not sure about where you are, Amandajm, but in the UK, 'transgender' does not necessarily tell you anything about a person's physical body - transgender, genderqueer or gender variant are umbrella terms used to describe a whole range of people whose gender identity or gender expression differ in some way from the gender assumptions made about them when they were born. 'Transsexual' is a term often used to describe people who consistently self-identify as the opposite gender from the gender with which they were labelled at birth based on their physical body. Since you seem to be arguing that James Barry had been labelled as a girl when he was young based upon his physical body, while it's clear that he consistently identified and lived as a man, and seemingly had no interest in expressing his gender as female, I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with describing him as transgender. Also, it is generally considered respectful to consistently use the gendered pronouns that the person wishes to identify as - so in this case 'he', 'him' - rather than the opposite gendered pronouns.

Alice (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Alice, I basically agree with you, but I have a problem labelling people as "transgender" who haven't identified themselves as such. We can't find out whether Barry would have identified himself that way, because he's dead and it's a contemporary term anyway. I have less of a problem with "gender-variant" since it's more of a descriptive label and less of an identity-based label. In addition, while I generally agree with your definition of "transgender", there is substantial disagreement amount trans* people about whether "transgender" really is an "umbrella term" -- so I don't think we should take a stand on that debate in the article. SparsityProblem (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This person isn't cisgender; they're transgender or possibly intersex. Asserting that they're cisgender because he didn't have access to modern trans medicine isn't a reasoned assertion. The pronoun use on this article is shameful. HE referred to himself as a HE and erasing his life's gender expression and identity is an untenable position to take. Ehipassiko (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Trying for accuracy without sensationalism

I removed the ridiculous statement that Barry "was of uncertain gender". Because being of "uncertain gender" means that, on examination, it is impossible to tell whether a person is male or female. There is no evidence whatsoever to support a suggestion that Barry's gender, upon examination, appeared ambiguous. It is not the same thing as saying that Barry's gender is not known.

Please stop altering historical facts to support biased transgender politics

Historically it is well documented and understood that due to patriarchal cultural ideas on sex roles that females were excluded from roles deemed only suitable for males; it is also well documented and understood that this caused women throughout history to pretend to be male in order to pursue roles they otherwise would not be allowed to. There is no evidence to support that these women were suffering from gender dysphoria, if we are going to write historical facts about women, we need to keep to the historically understood factors that caused women to disguise themselves as men. Keep subjective and biased transpolitics, especially those that are mere conjecture, out of biographies that are based on facts and the understood and well establish sociological contexts of their time periods.Celestialtellurian (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Can I draw your attention to the neutral point of view policy, in case you aren't already aware of it? This isn't the place for arguments on transgender politics; all that matters is what can be supported from reliable sources. Vashti (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture

Would it perhaps be possible, to put the picture of Barry into the commons? I have translated the article into German and would like to put the picture in, but am afraid, I am not so good to make the transition of the picture myself. Thanks! Anne-theater 01:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gender Grammar

• Is it possible to be a little more consistent with grammar? Although I know there is the problem with actually identifying Barry's gender, but the switching between "female" in the Early Life section and "male" everywhere else just seems to be inconsistent. USS Stingray (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Barry self-identified and lived as a male, he should be referred to as male. I made this article consistent before, but people keep changing it. Asarelah (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The sex-related prounouns should be avoided altogether here, in my modest opinion, and if you refer Barry as either female and male you present only one view, which can be seen as biased and should be avoided, as its opposite to the principles of Wikipedia and breach of POV. This should be factual and not about a subjectivity. --83.131.219.210 (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding gender-specific pronouns is a good idea, but it isn't possible to do entirely... at least not without making the text incredibly awkward. Because Barry was male-identified through most of... his life, and was referred to as "he", male pronouns are most appropriate. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Did Barry self identify as a male? I thought it was more a case of having to pretend to be a man in order to pursue the education and career she wanted at a time when such things were denied to women.

If we're going to try to avoid gender grammar and present an unbiased view, perhaps they/them pronouns would be easiest to read? Dallas (talk)

Intersexed vs Hermaphrodite

I've changed the word "hermaphrodite" to "intersexed" as it is more PC as well as more accurate. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article, "Intersexed", discussing the use and meaning of the two words:

"The terms hermaphrodite and pseudohermaphrodite, introduced in the 19th century, are now considered problematic as hermaphrodism refers to people who are both completely male and completely female, something not possible.[4] The phrase 'ambiguous genitalia' refers specifically to genital appearance, but not all intersex conditions result in atypical genital appearance."

142.151.166.169 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Assigned female"

I don't like saying that Barry was "assigned female". It seems to assume a conscious decision by the parents and/or physician, and we don't know that to be true. Applying the 21st century notion that sex is "assigned" seems inappropriate in describing an 18th century birth, that (in great probability) was simply a matter of a physician accepting the sex presented by the subject's appearance. Furthermore, using this "assigned at birth" phrasing mischaracterizes the question. What's unknown and debated is what sex Barry was throughout life, not merely the subject's sex at birth. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For neutrality, we should acknowledge that some see subconscious sex as innate. When we fail to acknowledge the difference between assigned sex and innate, subconscious sex, we are making a judgment that intrinsic sex (that is, one's personal feeling of being male or female) and extrinsic sex (how one is perceived by others) are synonymous, which violates NPOV. Also, people always make a conscious decision to assign sex, by examining an infant. How else would one assign sex? SparsityProblem (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how rewriting the text to reflect one viewpoint instead of another (as you are arguing that we should do) constitutes "neutrality". Wikipedia's NPOV policy doesn't require that all POVs be treated equally; prevailing consensus is given greater weight. I find the idea that there is a difference between intrinsic and extrinsic sex interesting, and I think it may even be sound... but it's not the prevailing view. Your analysis that an 18th century physician is consciously "assigning" sex upon examining an infant is revisionist; clearly he would not have described it as such, since the very notion that there could be a difference between intrinsic and extrinsic sex is a recent development of western culture. More importantly, changing the text has you have, misrepresents the facts. It is not "widely believed that Barry was assigned female at birth" because it is not widely believed that sex is "assigned" at birth. What is widely believed is that Barry simply was female at birth. I don't object to the article acknowledging that Barry may have internally self-identified as male (as long as there are sources to support this theory), but I don't think we should rewrite the facts of the debate to put your preferred spin on the subject of sexual identity. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Assigned female at birth" is the most neutral way to phrase it AFAICT: clearly, if the hypothesis about Barry is true, then someone examined the infant Barry and said, "It's a girl!", and otherwise, someone examined the infant and said "It's a boy!" That's all that "assigned female at birth" means. I'm really not sure what the point of disagreement here is. SparsityProblem (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is "assigned" gender at birth, you are born one way or another and a physician (in your bizarre scenario) merely observes it. Would it make sense to say "Barry was observed as female at birth"? No, of course it wouldn't, it's just as absurd as saying "assigned". It is confusing and non-standard and does little help the readability of the document.80.0.56.82 (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not neutral; it's newspeak. But if that's all it means, then you won't mind if I get rid of that incredibly awkward phrasing, to restore the use of standard English and the original meaning of the text. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, being neutral is more important than avoiding "awkwardness". If you have another way to rephrase it, feel free to suggest it. But thinking that a phrase is "newspeak" is not a good reason for setting aside NPOV. SparsityProblem (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "setting aside" NPOV, it's enforcing it. I consider your terminology NON-neutral; it is pushing your (non-mainstream) POV. I know you don't agree with me, but please try to be civil enough to acknowledge that opinion. - 13:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And SparsityProblem is back at the POV-pushing language. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Female Assigned at Birth vs. Born Female

(relocated from my talk page)
Hello, I noticed in your edit on James Barry (surgeon) that your changed the wording from "female assigned at birth" to "born female" and stated that FAAB pushes a POV with contrived phrasing. I must take issue with this as the phrasing does not automatically endorse the idea that trans people are born into their self-identified sex, it merely describes what the doctor pronounced the infant to be without bias. Asarelah (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a neutral description; it's a contrived phrase with the goal of changing how people thing about gender. (I'm not opposed to that change, I just don't think it should be done by writing historical articles on Wikipedia to promote it.) An attending physician (or midwife) did not consciously or actively "assign" a gender (except perhaps in cases of genital ambiguity, and there's nothing to suggest that this is one of them), but rather looked between the baby's legs and reported what it looked like. Describing the event as some sort of formalized social sorting ritual is simply historically inaccurate. The birthing assistant just observed, "It's a girl."

Furthermore, "he was female assigned at birth" is shaky grammar and rather awkward to read. Sorry, but bad writing is bad writing, and a clue that there's a problem.

Since you seem intent that Mr. Barry could not simply be female at birth (a view I am somewhat supportive of, just not with your conviction), and since I find your pet phrasing problematic, how about we try a different approach, rather than just putting your "FAAB" neologism in (again)? Talking plainly here: the consensus version of events is that Barry's mother gave birth, the baby looked like a girl, and that's how the child was named and raised (at least up until the name change). Agreed? So how about: "it is widely believed that at birth he was identified as female, named Margaret Ann Bulkley, and raised as a girl"? It avoids the neologism that hardly anyone outside of a college Gender Studies program will be familiar with, it describes the events in terms that would also make sense to the participants, and on top of that, it appears to be true. Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronouncing an infant a boy or a girl IS assigning a gender. Nobody ever claimed it to be a formalized social sorting ritual. Even a trans rights activist would agree that the way gender is assigned at birth is simply by looking between the legs and stating "its a boy" or "its a girl", and that how it is done hasn't changed significantly, at least for non-intersex infants. Furthermore, while I agree that "female assigned at birth" might be somewhat confusing to those unfamiliar with the neologism, I remedied that by adding a link to the "sex assignment" article on Wikipedia. There is also no information on here about Barry's childhood, and there are historical cases of FAAB individuals being raised as boys.Asarelah (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I proposed a rephrasing (now bolded, to help focus on it). What - other than it not using the neologism that you are trying to promote - is wrong with it? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, this source (cited repeatedly in the article) describes Barry as living under a female name into his teens, and referred to using female pronouns. According to our sources (not your "there are historical cases" speculation) he was raised as a girl. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the article to make this clearer. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But how is "identified as female" less WP:ADVOCACY than FAAB? Asarelah (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How is it advocacy? You have yet to give any reason – other than demanding to say it differently – why "he was identified as female" is not acceptable. It is standard English, easily understood without a reference. It doesn't contradict your view of gender; it merely fails to promote it. It is neutral about the issue, which is what we are all striving for here... aren't we? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I am seeking a consensus as to whether "assigned female at birth" is the appropriate phrase to use in this article. My own view is that it is not, for the following reasons.

1. It is very rare for there to be any difficulty in determining the sex of an infant as soon as it is born.
2. On those rare occasions when the external genitalia have an ambiguous appearance, further study is required and there is a delay in assigning sex.
3. To use the phrase "assigned female at birth" implies that there was some ambiguity and hence delay before a pronouncement was made.
4. I know of no evidence that there was any such ambiguity at the birth of Margaret Bulkley.
5. To argue that, because Margaret Bulkley lived most of her life as a man, there must have been ambiguity in the appearances of her genitalia is illogical.
6. The fact that, at her death she showed evidence of having borne a child, indicates that she had normally functioning sexual organs.

I suggest, therefore that the article should simply say that Dr James Barry was born a woman. --TedColes (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

You are arguing a straw man, because the very phrase "at birth" should satisfy and dispel your objections. To me, "at birth" quite plainly indicates the moment of a child's entry into the world, with no indication of any delay. And "assigned" was used to allow that physical presentation and self-identity may not be the same. It does not refer to the process by which the child's physical sex was determined. Thus, "assigned female at birth" means, in plain English, "considered female from the moment of arrival". As to your other points, without the implication of delay, there is no implication of ambiguity.

It appears the phrase has already been edited, but given the rapid pace of revisions on this page, it may come back. I think it's appropriate to the subject. --Threephi (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think “assigned” is the only possible neutral choice - theories that Barry may have been intersex are not simply based on him living as a man (reference article source 4 and the entire final chapter of Holmes' Scanty Particulars, for example). As such, stating that he was born female as if it is a fact violates neutral point of view. "Assigned male/female" is a neutral phrase which somewhat highlights the birth assignment as a point of interest, because it is commonly used when discussing subjects like this one which involve gender variance, but does not necessarily imply any delay or ambiguity. Highlighting the birth assignment is appropriate here because Barry was assigned female at birth and assigned male at death, bringing these assignations into particular relevance for the article. If we do accept Barry being XX female as a fact which should be stated, then the correct alternative is “born female” (not “born a woman”), but I think under the circumstances and article guidelines a theory-neutral phrase is preferable. Wilderwill (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed the word "Intersex"

I have removed the words "Possibly Intersex" from this article, because I have studied this person in depth and have never encountered any suggestion anywhere but in this Wikipedia article that he may have been intersex. Indeed, the primary sources in this very article describe his sex as "perfectly female" and imply that he may have been pregnant. With people who are intersex, infertility is often a problem. I would request that intersex not be added to this article again without some form of evidence being provided, as the claim is quite extraordinary, and will thus require proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.162.249 (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Try looking at source #4 listed on this page, "Kubba, A. K (2001). "The Life, Work and Gender of Dr James Barry MD". Proceedings of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh 31 (4): 352–356. PMID 11833588." It's very clear that the author's conclusion is that Barry was intersex (which, now more so than in 2001, is the widely used term instead of 'hermaphrodite'). The end of the paper says this, on page 355: "We therefore conclude the Dr James Barry was a hermaphrodite of either 46XX or 46XY dysgenesis variety but proof of our theory can only be obtained if a decision were to be made to exhume the body and conduct DNA analysis." Because evidence is quite clear, I'm adding these words back in to the article. 75.108.149.127 (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

there is a Category for Category:Female_wartime_cross-dressers which is a sub category of Category:Female-to-male_cross-dressers. Might James Barry be categorized in some new Category "Female-to-male impersonators" to sit between the two? Bogger (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

New source of evidence

The new book: du Preez, Michael; Dronfield, Jeremy (2016), Dr James Barry: A Woman Ahead of Her Time, London: Oneworld Publications, ISBN 978-1780748313 is a most carefully researched piece of work that cites very many sound sources. It provides just the sort of reliable source that is appropriate to Wikipedia articles. The existing article uses a source by du Preez that is behind a paywall and so is a less suitable source. As regards the sex, it is a matter of biology and du Preez's evidence is that there was no ambiguity at birth, nor until the deception was started in late teen years.--TedColes (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting the transgender issue

There has obviously already been some discussion of this, but can I ask what the evidence that Barry was transgender, and not merely a woman living as a man as e.g. Joan of Arc did, is? It seems to be missing from the article. Vashti (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The other thing is that despite the evident attention of a number of editors, this article is a complete mess from top to bottom, with anons edit warring over the pronouns. Maybe semiprotection would be a good idea? Vashti (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe semiprotection would be a good idea, but a helpful positive discussion here during the transition of the article from its present state to a better one would be better than negative comments. For those unfamiliar with transgender issues, helpful education would similarly be welcome.--TedColes (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and I do apologise for coming in and being harsh. The article's content looks good. What I mean is that the pronouns are currently confused, with such sentences as "her sex only being discovered by the public and her colleagues after his death" as currently appears in the lede. I nearly went through and fixed them for neatness' sake, but figured I'd a. be reverted, and b. there doesn't appear to be a consensus currently on which pronouns should be used? Have I misunderstood that? Vashti (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've put in a request for semi-protection for now. Vashti (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm rather disappointed that nobody has dealt with this overnight. Why is it being assumed that a historical figure who had to identify as a man actually considered themself to be a man? Where are the sources? Vashti (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

While the issue of identity is complicated, it is generally understood that Barry wished to be known as a man because he took active and repeated measures to try to ensure no one would find out the truth of his biology after his death. As the modern approach to gender identity is to respect the way a person wishes to be acknowledged (and in this case, remembered), that is the basis for the common use of male pronouns/referring to him as a man, etc. Wilderwill (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that there is stronger evidence for Barry identifying as a man than there is in favor of the argument that he identified as a woman. His first proclamation that he would prefer to live as a man came at age 19, not out of a desire to save lives through medicine, but to end lives as a soldier . He spent between 74% and 85% of his entire life presenting himself to the world as a man at all times. He kept his birth sex hidden even from people within his personal circle, as they were surprised to learn of it after his death . He physically assaulted a man who accused him of looking like a woman . Those arguing in favor of identifying him as a woman (rather than merely anatomically female), the burden of proof falls upon you: Where are documented personal communications, recollections by people who knew him, really any evidence at all to support claims that he would have wanted to live as a woman if it meant he could still practice medicine? I have seen nothing to that effect, and until it has been provided - since there seems to be an issue among fellow contributors with my use of the singular they (even though it has been a documented element in the English language since the 14th century and was recently named "word of the year" by a group of roughly 200 linguists) - I will take the liberty of changing all pronouns in the article to the masculine form. Since the matter of his contribution to women in medicine seems to be a main source of contention, however, I will leave in the note about his work predating that of Elizabeth Garrett Anderson. Also, out of respect to the reasonable argument that he could not have identified himself as "transgender" explicitly given that the word hadn't yet been created, I will refrain from calling him that without caveat.SALLY 9000 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but it seems like you're assuming a very 21st-century interpretation of the facts here? The concept of "identifying as" a man or a woman is incredibly recent, and if we're entering into the area of original research, and what we *think* is likely, what I've read of Barry's behaviour appears consistent with that of someone concealing a scandalous secret on which their chosen life and their freedom depends. I would say there is a stark difference between a woman masquerading as a man and a transgender man, and that the second - especially in the 1800s, given the oppression of women and the relative rarity of transgender men in history - is far less likely than the first. Hoofprints should be assumed to indicate horses, not zebras.

I see the du Preez book refers to Barry as "he" when he is acting as James Barry and as "she" when she is acting as Margaret - this is supported by sources and so I would support it. I do think editors should be wary of assuming anything like a modern transgender identity on Barry's part. Vashti (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hm, that's fair. The downside there is that people start getting fussy about pronoun inconsistency, and then we're back to singular "they," which someone invariably dislikes, and then someone has to make a decision about whether to use masculine or feminine pronouns, and then someone vandalizes the page, and so on and so forth; a vicious cycle!

Also, regarding your first point---there is a tendency among women who disguise themselves as men to do so on a temporary basis to fulfill entry requirements for events which have a foreseeable end: Wars, tournaments, short-term jobs, and so on. It is far less common in historical figures to see women who fully commit to living out their entire lives as men. Pretending to be a man to accomplish some end or another may just be hoofprints, but I think what we see in Dr. Barry is a prominent case of the stripes. SALLY 9000 (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines say, in WP:TECHNICAL that "Wikipedia articles should have a straightforward, just-the-facts style. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely understandable manner possible." Achieving this here presents difficulties. As far as I know, there is no information available as to whether or not Barry was truly transgender, and speculation is dangerously close to violating WP:NPOV. The current lead raises the transgender issue quite nicely and I would argue that what is written there is sufficient. I certainly do not think that the phrase "socially transitioned" meets the above guideline.

As regards pronoun use, I favour the style adopted by du Preez and Dronfield as mentioned above by User:Vashti, as it avoids the worst clashes such as "he was educated with the prospect of becoming a governess".--TedColes (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Barry's life while living as Margaret should be described using the female name and "she", and his life as James (and references to his life as a whole, such in as the article introduction) should be described using "he". This is the general standard used by recent biographers (eg Holmes, du Preez) which I think needs to be the point of reference here to avoid disagreement, and should also alleviate random pronoun switching. Wilderwill (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'll buy that. Changes made. SALLY 9000 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The changes of pronoun by User:DisappointMyParents with the use of singular "they" seems grammmatically wrong to me. Let us try to achieve a consensus here, and not have an edit war.--TedColes (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Random drive-by opinion: I agree with the above reasoning to use "she" for the episodes in life Dr. Barry presented female, and "he" for those when he presented male. "They" as a definite singular pronoun is a very recent development and IMO inappropriate for the subject of this article, as it is a likely bet Dr. Barry would have neither desired nor accepted its use. Using they/them/their would also require carefully editing the entire text to eliminate ambiguity as to which party or parties the term refers to in each instance; since that was not done, the article is something of an unreadable hash at the moment. --Threephi (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Change of Main Image

Photograph of Dr James Barry, military surgeon

Would it be acceptable to change the article’s main photograph to this one? It is the only other known photograph of Dr Barry, but having been taken prior to his illness, is rather more flattering to the good doctor (the quality is still low, but better than the existing one). It is scanned from Rachel Holmes’ Scanty Particulars, and is without copyright restriction. Unfortunately its date is unknown, but probably late 1840s? Perhaps the existing photo could be used further down in the article? Wilderwill (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I support this, but the existing photo should migrate to a chronologically appropriate place in the article.--TedColes (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated it and moved the original down to the "Death" section. Comments of course still welcome. Wilderwill (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The image does not look like the other two and is not included in du Preez and Dronfield's book. How sure can we be that it is of Barry? If there is any serious doubt, we should return to the status quo ante.--TedColes (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's not printed in the other book, but Holmes states in hers that the photograph is inscribed in Barry's own handwriting, and all of the depictions of him are very different to one another - the other photo is from just before his death when he was severely old and ill (and while I hesitate to point this out, he was famous for having tiny hands, an identifying feature interestingly obvious in this photo). I can change it back if there is concern, but I don't think there's reason not to consider Holmes's work a reliable source. Wilderwill (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)