Talk:Brandon Teena

News

This info ran on th AP newswire today:

Mr. Teena’s killer, death-row inmate John Lotter, claims that another man convicted in the crime, Marvin T. Nissen, actually murdered Teena, 21, and two witnesses, Lisa Lambert, 24, and Philip DeVine, 22, on New Year's Eve 1993 at a farm house in Richardson County, Nebraska. Lotter's attorney, Jerry Soucie, asked the Nebraska Supreme Court to order DNA testing on gloves that Nissen wore the night of the killings. Richardson County District Judge Daniel Bryan denied a similar request at an earlier trial. Nissen has testified that he stabbed the young transgender man, but he said it was Lotter who shot Brandon Teena. Nissen traded testimony for a life sentence.

-Paige 20:16 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of proper pronoun usage

---

The article refers to Teena Brandon/Brandon Teena consistently as "he". Given that she/he was physically a woman, is this factually accurate? →Raul654 04:57, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Genitals do not determine what pronouns you should use. Morwen 18:27, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Usually they do. - XED.talk 14:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unless you insist on having a look into people's underwear before you decide whether you address them or speak about them as male or female, they do not. Gender identity and/or gender role determine that, not genitals. Brandon lived as a man, identified as a man, therefore the male pronoun is the only appropriate one, and using the female one is nothing but trans-bashing, not better than that of the people who raped and murdered him. -- AlexR 19:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Brandon was biologically female. Mainstream news reports refer to her as her and she. Only GLBT advocacy websites refer to her as him. Wikipedia is not a GLBT advocacy website. I can say I'm a Martian but it doesn't make it so. If you really think calling her she is as bad as raping and murdering someone, then I think you really need to take some medication. If you accuse me of being no better than the people who raped and murdered her, you are not only being extremely offensive, but you are also trivialising her death for propaganda purposes. - XED.talk 10:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is not an issue of propaganda. It is a matter of respecting Brandon for the choices he has made and respecting his self-identification, and it is this respect to our subject matter that is reflected in Wikipedia guidelines and policy (See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), Wikipedia:Style_guide#Identity).

Just because the "mainstream news" may use inaccurate and pronouns found offensive by the trans* community (coincidentally see the above cut from an AP article, which says "he stabbed the young transgender man"), doesn't mean Wikipedia should either. Dysprosia 14:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in 'guidelines' which have been made up on the spot by propagandists. You may think calling a biological woman she is the same as raping and murdering someone - but I don't - XED.talk 16:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I personally didn't say that, so don't try and muddy the waters here. Let us examine your weak argument that biology should determine pronouns instead.

• Say a man has had an accident and has had to have his genitals removed, but he still presents as a man and lives as a man - would you then use female pronouns for him?
• Say a man has had a chromosomal problem and has XX chromosomes instead of XY (this has happened), but still presents and lives as a man - would you then use female pronouns for him?
• Say a woman has had congenital adrenal hyperplasia and has excessive testosterone, but still presents and lives as a woman - would you then use male pronous for him?
• Say a baby is born intersexed. What pronouns would you use, based on that child's genitals?

To say that biology should strictly determine pronouns becomes a very hurtful insult for the first three people. If you present and live as a man, you would be insulted if I were to use female pronous to describe you, or vice versa. To say that biology should strictly determine pronouns becomes an impossible question to resolve for the fourth person.

However, observe the common thread between the first three people here. If we were to use male pronouns for the first two persons and female pronouns for the third, we are respecting their self-identification and we are respecting these people. Trans* people are not less deserving of respect, and thus we should respect their self-identification also. Dysprosia 23:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s guiding principle is the neutral point of view. Offensiveness to special interest groups is one of the most POV grounds to judge articles by. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 08:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I had already outlined why using birth pronouns to describe transgender people is inaccurate in the above argument (which you have not spoken to at all in your response); the issue here is about basic respect of a person. Think about changing all the instances of "black" to "Negro" or "coloured" on an article about a black man, or pronouns for even a nontransgendered man to "she". Is that NPOV? Is that behaviour reflected in Wikipedia policy? Dysprosia 08:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In my view we should use he. Just like we refer to people by the name they themselves prefer (anyone remember Sollog?), so we should for pronouns. If this is going to cause confusion I wouldn't object to a clarifying note about this usage though. --fvw* 02:41, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

I don't think that should be necessary since the article is extremely clear about Brandon's gender identity and transgender status. Dysprosia 02:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is necessary that Brandon Teena be described as a 'he', for that very reason. Brandon Teena's gender identity was a pre-operative male transsexual, a 'he'. His surgical, genital, therapeutic, or genetic status is irrelevant. Calling Teena by female pronouns will cause far more confusion than it will solve, both about Mr. Teena's gender identity, and the concept of gender identity in general. That would cause a negative effect greater than just a slight to Mr. Teena's memory - it would perpetuate misunderstanding, a primary no-no of the wikipedia. Just my 2¢. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC: I agree that if he self-identified as male and lived as a man, he should be referred to as "he." SlimVirgin 02:56, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

We should refer to him as "he", no question.-gadfium 04:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The manual of style is clear on this: Brandon should be referred to as "he". This policy was hardly "made up on the spot" -- in its current form, it has been unchanged since April 7, 2004. --Carnildo 04:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Walks like a duck, talks like duck....Brandon Teena was male in looks, behavior and psychology. The only ones who say him as female while he was alive were his rapist/killers. The pronouns should stay masculine, unless Raul654, Xed, and Susvolans want to argue that the article should be renamed Teena Renae Brandon. BlankVerse 11:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I saw this on RfC. Given the dispute, wouldn't it be best to just use Brandon and avoid the pronouns?--Pharos 02:09, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Opinions are as varied as people - but the fact is Brandon was a 'he'. It's not necessary to accomodate some people's 'moral' sensitivities re: gender to put them at ease in this article - it's necessary to be factual. And for the reasons above, Brandon Teena was a 'he' when he was brutally murdered. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Call him a he, but use gender-neutral pronouns where necessary to avoid confusion. -Sean Curtin 04:59, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

English doesn't have any gender-neutral pronouns. "He" is masculine/indeterminate, "she" is feminine, and "it" is neuter/inanimate. --Carnildo 07:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You ALWAYS refer to a transgendered person by the pronouns of their gender identity. This is not debatable. Sources that refer to Brandon as a female simply aren't familiar with, or just don't shive a git about, proper etiquette around these matters; some of these sources also refer to him as a lesbian, which is flat out wrong. Brandon identified as male, and therefore is properly referred to as male. Bearcat 08:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to the manual of style, on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity), one should, "Where known, use terminology which subjects use for themselves (self identification). This can mean calling an individual the term they use, or calling a group the term most widely used by that group." Hyacinth 23:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Not debatable": the howl of the fanatic - XED.talk 03:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tough beans. One still has to refer to a transgendered person by the pronouns of their gender identity, whether it's "fanaticism" or not. Bearcat 03:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The consensus arising from the RfC, plus existing Wikipedia policy, support the use of male pronouns. Stop reverting. Dysprosia 04:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen such confusion before. A man is a man; a woman is a woman. Self-identification and/or political theory is irrelevant. -Naif 11:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly! Brandon Teena was a man, and was thus a man. Nothing is at all confused. :) Ambi 12:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How on earth do any of us know anyone's gender? Do we demand to see their genitalia? Of course not. They tell us (either directly or indirectly), and polite, reasonable people do not need any more than that. If Brandon Teena says he is a man, and especially if he is consistant in that, there is nothing more to say about the matter. This is not "political theory" -- it is well-established and conventional practice. 38.2.108.125 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, man is defined as: an individual human; especially : an adult male human, and male is defined as: an individual that produces small usually motile gametes (as spermatozoa or spermatozoids) which fertilize the eggs of a female. Woman is defined: an adult female person, and female as: of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs. She never produced any spermatozoa, and if she never had sexual reassignment surgery, as the article states, she produced eggs, and therefore the Merriam-Webster Dictionary would label her as a woman. I think in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral policy, a dictionary definition must be used whenever possible.

Intersexed?

An intersexed friend tells me Brandon claimed to have genitals of both sexes, ie was intersexed. (In that case he was not so much "re-assigning" his gender as "assigning" it.) I don't have a more reliable report. Does anyone know?

I've never heard of it, so I'd like to see a reliable source before it went in the article. Ambi 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Brandon did indeed call himself a "hermaphrodite" on certain occasions. Or at least this is according to not only the movie (Boys Don't Cry) but also the documentary (The Brandon Teena Story) and the book All She Wanted by Aphrodite Jones. -- WiccaIrish 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but many trans people call themselves hermaphrodites when they are not intersexed. The male identity of Brandon is even questionable in many communities.

Grammar check

The grammar of the last 'rewrite' was pretty atrocious. Fixed. Discuss! -- RyanFreisling @ 23:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Inaccuracies v. redundancies

The point is already made regarding the surgical status of Brandon Teena. Moreover, it is inaccurate to say "transgender, rather than transsexual". The definitions of transgender and transsexual are significantly vague enough to make the distinction in this context not only unimportant, but unwarranted. He may have been transgender, transsexual or both, but his surgical status was not the determinant. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:46, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph not following MoS?

The opening paragraph does not follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Specifically, it doesn't list dates of birth and death immediately after the name. I was going to fix it, but then from this article's history, I see others have attempted to do the same thing, and the change has always been reverted without comment. May I ask why? I can't see anything in this discussion that leads to a special exception from the biography style for this article. --TreyHarris 21:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Without browsing through the complete history, a lot of reverts were made because the pronouns were changed - from "he" to "she" is something that occasionally happens here. Same with - let's put it politely - less than respectfull comments. Those too get reverted on sight. Might be that the dates got reverted with them. So if it is just the dates you want to add, feel free. -- AlexR 23:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I went and did this earlier today. Part of it was edited based on the bolding of Brandon's birth name. I can understand why that would be upsetting, as a transwoman myself I fully understand that it would suck to see my former name there and in bold. So, I definitely don't have an objection to Dysprosia's edit. I'm just wondering if it not being bolded in anyway violates a Wikipedia standard. Which was of course why the opening paragraph was changed initially. Taking for example the Gwen Araujo article, linked directly from this one, which bolds her male name. I guess I just need to figure out which way is more proper and standards directed? Or is there even a standard on this? -- Zoe 04:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't contradict standards, only synonyms of the article title should be in bold. Gwen's case is a little different, her mother apparently uses her birth name occasionally if I remember correctly, so there is less leeway to debold that; even so there is less use of Gwen's birth name these days, so given time it may be then more appropriate to debold. Dysprosia 05:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe Gwen's mother actually filed for a post-mortem name change to prevent people from calling her by her birth name. Falsetto

---

I'm putting an NPOV tag on this because the pronouns being used are reflective of a certain POV regarding transgendered people. Although the author obviously believes that self-identification of gender should be reflected in an objective identification of gender, this is not necessarily the case. Biologically, Brandon Teena was female. Whether gender should be considered wholly independent of sex, and whether gender is entirely a matter of social convention or self-idenfication (or conversely a matter of objective classification) are issues on which reasonable people could debate. However this article seems to assume that self-identification of gender should translate into objective terminology.

I think that the article should be corrected by using alternate pronouns ("he/she", "s/he", "him/her", etc.). I would have done so myself, but I thought the point should be discussed before taking unilateral action.

Sincerely,

Nicky Scarfo

The Wikipedia manual of style indicates the use of self-identification to be proper, so that's what should be here. (See: Wikipedia:Style_guide#Identity) - ZoeF 23:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

New talk goes to the bottom of the page, not the top. Dysprosia 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okey-doke, I was unaware of all that, but I must say that I disagree with the rule. It presumes self-identification automatically grants objective nomenclature. So if I became a famous writer (famous enough to have a Wikipedia article written about me), and I suddenly declare that I am Napoleon Bonaparte and have done everything Napoleon did, then the author has to refer to me as if I'm Napoleon for the rest of the article? Or if George Bush suddenly exclaims he is a black man, would the author have to write "In an effort to get in touch with his African-American roots, Bush watched 'Barbershop'"? This rule makes no sense-- it is dictated by the conventions of whoever wrote the rule but prematurely stamps out any debate on objective classification which may be in question. Effectively, it resolves a clearly unresolved issue regarding objective biological classification of gender vs. self-identification of gender. To say nothing of the idea of general idea gender as a social construct, which could be used to argue for either objective or self-idenitifcation. In short, this rule is complete bullshit and only reflects the bias of the person who wrote it.

Nicky Scarfo

Sorry, but declaring oneself to be Napoleon and declaring oneself to be of the male gender are not the same. Your argument, and not the rule, is bullshit. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What Ryan said. The policy also allows us to respect the subject matter that we discuss, which is important for neutrality. This has been discussed countless times before and the policy still stands. Dysprosia 06:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, declaring oneself to be Napoleon and declaring oneself to be of the male gender are NOT the same, you are correct, however, the rule, as currently written would make no distinction between them-- "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself/herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the name and pronoun they use to identify themselves." It is a blanket rule, which I suspect was written to cover this specific subject, and then extrapolated therefrom.

Furthermore, no one here has yet addressed the fact that the issue of whether self-identification of gender automatically translates into objective classification of gender is far from a settled manner. This rule settles the issue decidedly on one side of the debate, and therefore, is itself a violation of the neutrality principle. I know people here probably think I'm advocating AGAINST self-identification as the sole objective criteria of classification and identification of gender. This is not the case. Formally, I have no opinion on the matter. Furthermore, I believe society should be wholly inclusive of people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identification. That does not prevent me from thinking that the issue of whether the objective classification and nomenclature of gender is based solely on self-identification or not is a subject upon which rational people can disagree. I take no position on the matter other than to say I think a rule which presupposes an objective conclusion of an as-yet inconclusive matter is bullshit. I think the rule was not created in the interest of objective and neutral writing, but to satisfy the presuppositions and opinions of the rule's author(s).

--Nicky Scarfo

On the other hand, calling Brandon "she," or even using s/he throughout, as was suggested above, would also be promoting a particular point of view, arguably ones that are more biased. Exploding Boy 07:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Very true, Exploding Boy. However, I believe use of s/he throughout would be the least of the three evils, as it promotes an ambivalent, rather than determinate, point of view on a subject which is indeterminate.

On another point, I just wanted to say that I recently read the excellent Wikipedia articles regarding transgender and transexuality. The articles are good because they treat the issue with the complexity, depth and neutral POV that these subjects deserve. Which makes this simplistic and biased rule that equates self-identity with objective classification all the more frustrating.

--Nicky Scarfo

"S/he" is used to describe unknowns. Brandon Teena is not an unknown, and to use "s/he" to refer to a person whose gender identity is clearly known is no better in my opinion than referring to him as an "it," which is blatantly offensive. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way to avoid bias in anything we write. To call him a "he" is biased toward transgender advocacy groups, whereas "she," "it," and "s/he" are biased toward people who deny a transsexual's right to self-identify. Falsetto

The fact that we have a self-identification policy implies a sense of objectivity, since Wikipedia does not itself take a point of view in choosing pronouns for its subjects, but instead chooses pronouns that reflects the pronouns that the subjects choose for themselves. Dysprosia 11:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It is also culturally appropriate to refer to someone by the gender they lived by since English speakers use the pronoun that the person appears to warrant, not from the gender they actually are. If I see someone who looks like a man, I refer to that person as him. If they then tell me, "No, I'm female," I feel embarassed and I use she. If they never say anything about it, I go one using he because there's really no reason not to. On another note, we refer to Brandon as Brandon, rather than Teena, because that's the name he used. It is similar to how Mark Twain's article and talk page makes mention of his birth name but does not make a point of calling him by it throughout the article. - Kuzain 19:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Rv.

Please, don`t revert our version. It is a new category and the old will be delete. Thanks. --Barnaul 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Hate Crimes" category or the "American Children" one? If the latter, Brandon doesn't qualify. -- Susan Davis 23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Criminal History

I'm going to add mention that she/he had an extensive criminal record, since the article is not labled "The Brandon Teena Murder". I just need to find proper sources. I'm quite sick of this person being made to be some kind of martyr, when she/he had quite a questionable background.Nanaharas 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So if somebody has a criminal past, that somehow negates or lessens the impact of being killed for reasons which had nothing to do with criminality? I'd advise you to be careful in how you phrase any additions relating to his criminal record. Not because I'm trying to whitewash him or anything; if the material is verifiable and NPOV then that won't be a problem. But if you try to portray it as though his criminal record somehow mitigates the circumstances of his death, then the material will have to be reviewed or excluded on neutrality grounds. Bearcat 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Bearcat, sorry I was a tad hostile in my initial statement. If I post anything it will state that she had criminal record and what her record was. I think we all know from various sources the things she did, I'd just like to take a little more time and hopefully actually get a source to her actual criminal record. I believe I've read that she forged a check/checks in the group of people she was hanging around that included her murderers. She was also known to be manipulative. That is as relevant to her murder as much as the 'hate crime' aspect. She pushed the wrong buttons in other words. I'm open to suggestions on how I can state that, IF it proves true after research, in a NPOV way. I'm pretty sure the facts show that she was not a 'babe in the woods', and at the very least her manipulative nature was a factor in the tragic events that followed. To exclude this information makes an article about Brandon Teena incomplete.

I'll post whatever I'd like to add here before I change the article. I'm new to joining the editing process at WIKI, so any tips on how to include links and things like that would be helpful.

PS: I call Brandon she in discussion because I feel that's the proper way to refer to her. Any criminal records/convictions will also list her actual gender. I will however respect the format of the article and use male pronoun if I contribute to the article. Nanaharas 17:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you plan to source "She was also known to be manipulative"? It seems like something too subjective to be encyclopedic. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said I was going to use those words. However, passing oneself off as a guy without informing others, especially a desired girlfriend, is in itself manipulative by definition. So if I do say that, do I need to cite the dictionary?

No matter...I am taking some time on this one to make sure whatever I add is correct. I am looking around Wiki to see what people cite as sources. That's no help because it varies from page to page what is allowed and what isn't.Nanaharas 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

See the various discussions on BT's gender status, and the article Transgender for some more information on why "passing oneself off as a guy" might not be an accurate preception of Brandon Teena's intentions. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am quite aware of the argument. However, the fact that she identified as a male and did not tell others she was a biological female identifying as a male is manipulative in context to the fact that she was forging relationships with these people.

I'm finding out quite a lot. This was NOT a hate crime even tho it is thought of as one for instance. I AM going to change this article when I feel I have enough sources. If folks wanna wage war over truth, so be it, I'm game. Or you can just let the truth be what it is. Nanaharas 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It's manipulative like not coming out as gay to every single person you meet, regardless of the potential consequences, is manipulative. *eyeroll* Bearcat 23:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Roll your eyes all you want Bearcat, your bias towards Brandon is now clear. This is not a matter of coming out to "every single person you meet". The deception and manipulation became factors,again by definition, when Brandon entered intimate relationships and did not reveal the entire truth. As I pointed out, that ultimately was the catalyst that ended in the death of three people. Even if she hadn't been so unfortunate as to meet up with scum like her rapist and killers, that deception would still most likely have led to someone being hurt emotionally. I suppose in your rolling eyes Brandon's disrespect to others is 'OK', but how dare anyone call her a she, eh?

BTW, I have evidence of her manipulative past.I'm not going to write the article in a mean spirited way as I must seem here, but she seems at this stage of my investigation to have been pretty nonchalant in her many social transgressions.Nanaharas 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Gender vs. Sex

Granted, I haven't thoroughly read every single comment on this page regarding the pronoun usage, but I did notice one glaring problem: the confusion of gender and sex. Sex is the biological traits of a person, including primary (present at birth, ie, genitals) and secondary (those developed later, such as facial/body hair, breasts) sex characteristics. Gender is the socially created expectations based upon these characteristics. This is the standard difference between the two, taught regardless of GLBTQIA feelings. I learned this in a biology class (high school) and a sociology class (college), so that shows it is more than one field's view. In the instance of transgender people, and in this case, Mr. Teena specifically, one may be a female in sex, but male in gender (or vice versa, obviously). Gender is about how an individual perceives him/herself and how s/he wishes others to perceive him/her. Mr. Teena identified as a man, and while he may not have been male at the time of his death, his gender was decidedly open and he should therefore be referred to using masculine pronouns. Pronouns are a socially-defined concept, and since gender is a social and not a biological concept, one's gender defines (or at least should, when used properly) which pronouns are used. As history and cultural differences have shown, the outward signs of male or female drastically change, and are indications that outward appearance is not a reliable indicator of gender or sex. Ecurran 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree, but not everyone else does. Beyond the specific point of referring to the article subject 1) as Brandon Teena rather than Teena Brandon and 2) using male and not female pronouns, some editors don't accept that the sex and gender of one person can be different from each other. Using that approach, BT's physical sex would determine the use of the female pronoun. Name use is less contentious, I suppose, because I haven't seen anyone arguing to move Muhammad Ali to Cassius Clay. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Brandon was decidedly NOT open about her "identification". For those who haven't paid attention, that fact was the catalyst to the entire chain of events that led to her downfall. That can be verified by court records alone. Teena was dishonest about her "identity", that is NOT being "open". I'm beginning to think any rational rewrite of this article is going to meet with failure no matter what I source. People seem to want to remain blind to many truths regarding this person.Nanaharas 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Identity" and "identification" are determined by what's between one's ears, not by what's between their thighs. Bearcat 23:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may have been unclear; I meant that Mr. Teena was open as a male, as in, he portrayed himself as a male. I did not mean to imply anything about allegedly deceiving people in regards to the status of his genitals. That, I don't blame him for not being "open" about. I don't inform people about the status of mine, but I portray myself as female, and therefore am "open" about it. Ecurran 08:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, your point was clear. Nanaharas was disagreeing with it, and I in turn was disagreeing with Nanaharas. Bearcat 16:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Using the male pronoun might imply a bias in favor of the transgender movement/identification, but using the female pronoun certainly implies a bias against it -- a unilateral ruling that Brandon Teena's self-identification as a man trapped in a female body is immaterial.

As a side-note, I'm inclined to take your comments about BT being the "catalyst" to his own "downfall" as victim-blaming. You can rant all you like about BT's femininity being "fact" as you're, of course, entitled to your own opinion, and you can choose to refer to BT by the female pronoun, or by the birth name, or as "Ms. Brandon" or whatever you please. You can also go argue against the policy of self-identification terminology (wherever it is; I've lost the link). But you can't edit this article against policy. It will be reverted.

For the record, I'm responding to Nanaharas here because I think this discussion belongs better under the "Gender vs. Sex" header. As far as I'm concerned, until the self-identification policy changes this debate is over. I'm not in the business of arguing against transphobia; it's bad for my health. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

LEAHAZEL: You can "be inclined" to take a fact as whatever you like. However it IS a fact that initial crime was a direct result of Brandon's deception. It's in the court record, and witnesses verify it. Verifiable truth. It does NOT imply blame unless you're closeminded. It simply is what it is. It is not "victim blaming", because I will not say that the crime itself was excusable in any way. Brandon had no way of predicting reaction. She lied to the wrong people unfortunately.

I already indicated that I will not refer to Brandon as a she in the article(see my initial post 'Criminal History'). As long as the facts are verifiable, there will be no cause to revert. I do intend to point out the fact that she did not tell many people she was intimate with of her biological nature, because it is relevant to her history of deception. I will save everything and revert back if someone who can't handle truth reverts it just because of what they "percieve". When I edit the article it will comply with all rules. For the record, I'm not suffering from transphobia. I'm not a bigot. I'm rewriting this to tell a more complete versio of Brandon Teena's story. I can't help it if someone has 'truth-phobia'.