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)

The woman that dressed and washed Barry's body after her death said she was a 'perfect woman'. Dismissing this woman as a 'charwoman' is kinda misogynistic TBH. I imagine she should know. The fact that Barry HAD to present as a man in order to qualify as a doctor is huge. Her womanhood is entirely relevant. If we pretend she was actually a man, we erase that enormous effort. 2A00:23C5:4503:A200:5123:C899:783F:964C (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Joolz

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)

Transgender?

I think that the suggestion that James Barry was transgender 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 transgender 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 transgender 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 understand 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)

Absolutely correct, Barry presented himself as male and we should take his word for it. Why on earth would it ever be appropriate to reassign the genders of dead famous people? It's arrogant and offensive. Nothingtoreallygetfastfor (talk)

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.

"Sex" is anatomical. Female bodies, male bodies, and a range of in-between bodies called "intersex." "Gender" is CULTURAL. In my culture, genders are man and woman, each with lots and lots of expectations a person has to live up to to be easily, unthinkingly accepted as a man or a woman. All genders everywhere have expectations attached to them. [But gender varies by culture, some have many different categories. One tribe (can't recall their name) has 4: Young man (masculine), older man who's had lots of sex (feminine), young woman (feminine) and older woman who's had lots of babies (masculine). After a woman has had a certain number of babies, they figure her femininity has been drained away, and she's accepted into masculine society with the still-masculine, anatomically male people.]

So, here's what "was of uncertain gender" meant in this case: James Barry may have pretended to the whole world that he was a man, just to become a doctor, while considering himself a woman the whole time. Or he may have been what is now called a transgender man, who though he was born anatomically female, considered himself a man.

We'll never know and I think it's silly to speculate. He presented himself as a man, and expected male pronouns, and I think we should take his word for it.

And yes, I agree that there's no evidence to say that James Barry's anatomy was anything besides the standard female kind. :) Nothingtoreallygetfastfor (talk)

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)

Hi Vashti, The neutral point of view policy is not being maintained in the majority of this articles edit history, those editing are placing biased view points from an unscientific ideology into a historical article for women's history. There is ongoing issues with transactivists editing the pages of women from history who posed as men, and with subjective bias, editing these historical facts to support a modern issue. This is not neutral and this needs to be addressed. This whole discussion is riddled with the transpolitics in case you had not noticed. Celestialtellurian (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how this is supposed to work but specifically avoiding to use he because you don't believe trans people were real before the last 50 years or whatever is transphobic. There's no reason to keep in genderneutral. If he was only pretending to he a man, he would have used his dead name after he retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.184.61 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@71.209.184.61:, The statement that "If he was only pretending to he a man, he would have used his dead name after he retired." is absurd. Can you imagine the social stigma & persecution if James Barry had revealed a true biologic gender? Peaceray (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Are reliable sources stating that Barry was transgender (i.e. genuinely identified as a woman) and not simply posing as a man to gain access to opportunities (unjustly) denied to women ? I think that's not so clear in the article. MonsieurD (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

James Barry was a trans man.

He identified as a gender that differs from the one he was assigned at birth. That's transgender. It doesn't really matter if he did it for career reasons, during his lifetime he lived the life of a trans man, and never looked back. The reason for being transgender does not factor into the validity of someone's gender identity. The idea that he might have done it purely for career reasons is frankly irrelevant if we are trying to figure out if he was trans or not. You don't have to be trans "for the right reasons". If you want to claim that he was not a trans man, you are going to have to supply sufficient evidence to the contrary. CutieMar (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

CutieMar, Well, not quite. The burden of proof is on you to support this claim. So what you need here is a reliable source that states as much. We as lay people can guess all sorts of things. As a trans person, I can guess that we would consider James Barry to be trans if alive today. But as a historical figure, its trickier than that. And if we just claim someone is something without a source to back it up, that is original research, which we don't allow. So bottom line: we can claim that only if you can find a reliable source that claims as much. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:41, 16 May 2021 (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)

Yes, I agree that "they/them" would at least be READABLE (especially compared to the article as it is now, since someone apparently got so frustrated with the pronoun dispute that they removed every one of Barry's pronouns). But, "they/them" just aren't CORRECT if they're referring to James Barry, and I'll explain why.

We wouldn't call a transgender woman "they" when we knew that she went by "she", would we? We wouldn't insist that even though she clearly considered herself a woman, she was actually a man who was just pretending to be a woman for career purposes, right? The decent thing to do is to take a person's words and self-presentation seriously.

Why would it be different with James Barry?

We KNOW that for most of his life, James Barry WANTED and EXPECTED everyone to refer to him using MALE pronouns.

Isn't it standard practice (and basic courtesy) to refer to a person using their PREFERRED pronouns? Yep! Sure is!

Remember, even though he died in 1865 (way before the term "gender" acquired its current meaning) those who knew him continued using male pronouns for him after his anatomical sex was discovered. Overall, people continued to uphold his declared identity. Even the press. So why is that over a century later, Barry is getting misgendered left and right, in different ways, over and over again, mostly by good-hearted people?

It absolutely baffles me that anyone thinks it is appropriate to reassign genders of dead famous people by back-projecting the gender-related philosophy of our own time. Who am I to determine any person's "true" gender?

Only James Barry himself is able to determine "what" James Barry is, so it IS misgendering if we refer to James Barry as anything other than male. Meaning we all need to use MALE pronouns for him. Unless he comes back to life and tells us otherwise, but I promise you he will not. Nothingtoreallygetfastfor (talk)

To try again to impose either masculine or feminine gendered pronouns will re-open the pronoun forever war; singular they/them would incur the wrath of the grammar purists; pronoun-free is a truce allowing each side to content themselves with at least not "misgendering" Barry. Let's not upset that apple cart. Also, pronoun-free is not incorrect, and the slight strangeness wears off very quickly. Cheers, Awien (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Singular they/them would incur the wrath of the grammar purists? We use singular they all the time though, even to refer to cisgender people. For example, If you find an umbrella somewhere, you could say for example "Someone forgot THEIR umbrella here". This is perfectly grammatically correct. I really do not understand the issue with the use of singular they/them.

However, with James Barry, I do agree that we should use he/him, because that's what he preferred during his lifetime. The use of they/them for transgender individuals who do not prefer they/them is still considered misgendering. If you disagree that James Barry was trans, see my post on the on "Transgender?" above. CutieMar (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

I am happy with the current wording of "born anatomically female". --TedColes (talk) 09:32, 26 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)

I tried my best, but your point is valid. --Dallas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Singular they as a pronoun is appropriate when it follows "a person", "a parent", "an editor", "a friend" or another antecedent of indeterminate gender. It does not work in this article and the consequential change of "himself" to "themselves" illustrates the point. Can we a achieve a consensus over this matter?--TedColes (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Barry was a woman. She was identified as such at birth and after her death. She had a baby. She knew herself to be a woman when she wrote "Was I not a girl . . . ". The appropriate pronouns are therefore she, her, hers. Awien (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of argument for a week, I'm going ahead and making the change. Awien (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed response. This is a quiet article, so it's worth waiting a while for feedback. It's considered politically correct, and is also Wikipedia policy, to use the pronouns which the individual themselves would prefer, and Barry's intention to be remembered as a man is well-documented, which is why only male and neutral pronouns have previously been discussed. "When ill he invariably extracted from the officer who attended him a promise that, in the event of his death, strict precautions should be taken to prevent any examination of his person" "He had expressly instructed that if he died he should be buried in his bed sheets without further inspection" , "Although Dr Barry had given strict instructions that his body should be left untouched in the event of his death and wrapped in his clothes, [the charwoman] did not comply" . He also attempted to destroy all evidence of a female past and all personal communication or effects which might be found after death, and was very insistent upon his identity as a gentleman, once declaring that he would commit suicide rather than feel he had compromised it . It's absolutely understandable and laudable to want to highlight Barry's feminist achievements, but this can be done with respect for the fact that Barry chose to live and die a man as well. Certainly for the purposes of this article, we should be following the evidence, and established policy - i.e., the usage employed by Barry's biographers, Barry's own wishes and Wiki policy, for all of which male pronouns are appropriate in the absence of consensus about neutral ones. As you can see, the arrangement had been discussed at length by multiple users and if one individual dissents it should be discussed. I see you've made other edits, so I won't interfere with your work for the moment, but please revert your pronoun changes. Wilderwill (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In transit - more in a day or 2. Awien (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Change of Main Image

Photograph of Joseph Barry

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)

Both of the other images show Barry with a strikingly long nose and small downturned mouth. This person has neither. Before we use this as the lead image, we should be much more sure of its authenticity. Awien (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I've switched the photographs back following a request from Awien, and moved this one further down the article. Further input regarding the photographs is welcome. Wilderwill (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

To avoid any future confusion, I have edited the photo caption here to reflect that this image is on fact of a Jospeh Barry, not James Barry, as discussed below at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Barry_(surgeon)#Infobox_image AutumnKing (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns

Okay, what do we have? We have a woman who had a baby and who probably had another heterosexual affair. For economic reasons she needed a decent career and chose medicine, but given that a career in medicine was closed to women, she was compelled to masquerade as a man in order to qualify. She didn't physically make a very convincing man, so in order to be accepted as one she had to out-macho the guys, hence the duel etc. But given the fundamental fact that she was born and died female and only masqueraded as a man out of expediency, the feminine pronouns should be used throughout. Awien (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC) (adds) And of course hoped to be able to practise openly as a woman in Venezuela after the revolution, except that the revolution failed. Awien (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

_________________________ the refs below don't belong to my comment ____________________ Awien (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Barry is a mystery. He left no record of his personal feelings and very little about him can be proven, including whether he had a child (if he did, it was due to sexual assault) or became a man specifically to be a doctor (the first suggestion of his wanting to be a man regards the military, not medicine). He had a distinctly masculine personality, the degree to which was faked, if it was at all, is also unknown. Du Preez’s suggestion that Barry wanted to practice as a woman in Venezuela is conjecture, as the only evidence for an invitation by Miranda is dated two years after Barry became a man (keep in mind that Du Preez’s biography is semi-fictional, and therefore artistic license is used to fill gaps and create a protagonist from a figure whose motivations are a complete enigma – Holmes’s work on Barry is very different; Du Preez assumes Barry’s masculine personality was fake and Holmes that it was genuine, and it’s fascinating to compare them). It's important to preserve neutrality, and while ideally the English language would have a gender-neutral pronoun which does not sound awkward, I think following the lead of the biographers (female pronouns for Margaret, male ones for Barry, thus clarifying his gender presentation if not his identity) is the best we can do in avoiding continued argument on the subject by people who have their own ideas about Barry's motivations. Wilderwill (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Biologically, Barry was a woman. Her accomplishments should be credited to her as such. Awien (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A New Solution to the Pronouns Issue

Given that so far nothing seems to be mitigating the issue of ongoing pronoun wars, I've looked into the way other articles with similar problems have approached this issue. One particularly useful example is the article about the Chevalier d'Éon, which presents a similar issue to Barry (born one gender, lived most of their life as the other, editor disagreement over appropriate pronouns). The matter has been extensively discussed on the talk page for that article and I recommend interested parties read it, but I think the solution arrived at of disregarding pronouns altogether works well and reads more naturally than the use of neutral "they" which was briefly attempted in this one. I'd like to suggest that this article employ this existing, well-discussed precedent with the same explanatory note at the top of the article, in order to prevent further arguments over Barry's identity in the Talk page and the repeated changing of the article pronouns (otherwise, both are likely to continue indefinitely). ETA: I've edited the introductory section of the article to demonstrate how this works when the right phrasing is used. Wilderwill (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. Fuller reply later. Awien (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Wilderwill: I heartily endorse Wilderwill's suggestion of avoiding the use of pronouns altogether. Despite the significant differences between the d'Éon and Barry cases, I agree that the no-pronouns solution applied in the d'Éon article is probably the best way to go for Barry too. The bottom line on Barry's self-identification is that in the absence of any statement in Barry's own words, we are reduced to interpretation of clues, and the clues can be read either way: Barry didn't want to be exposed as having lived a lie, or felt like a man trapped in a woman's body, and so on. Avoiding pronouns allows us to present the facts and allow them to speak for themselves, without imposing the interpretation that's unavoidable in the choice of one set or the other of gendered pronouns. Pronoun-free text is both grammatically correct and perfectly comprehensible, while the slight oddness is a small price to pay compared with the advantages. We would need an explanatory note at the top of the article to explain the absence of pronouns so that potential editors would know that it was a reasoned choice rather than poor style, but it should work. Cheers, Awien (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, I think it can definitely be argued that in this unusual case use of either male or female pronouns could violate NPOV. I've gone ahead and updated the article (which was an interesting challenge, but I think it reads as smoothly as is possible) and added an explanatory note at the top. In the process I also found a few other things which needed fixing - minor incorrect facts or things which needed clarification or sources adding, so I fixed some other things too. I hope the edits resolve any further issues! Fingers crossed. Wilderwill (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well done Wilderwill, it reads well now.--TedColes (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I came to say what TedColes just said: very well done, Wilderwill. Awien (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm here via Wilderwill's post on another talk page. What do the sources say about Barry? Do they usually say a woman who dressed as a man, a transgender man, neither, both? Our first resource should be the available sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Biologically a woman, lived whole adult life as a man, left no statement so state of mind unknowable, sources differ so choice of either gendered pronoun endorses one point of view or another ... avoiding pronouns to respect neutrality is a brilliant solution. Awien (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Facts 1, 2, and 3 I know, but what I'm trying to find out if there's a predominance of sources favoring one view. If two quality sources say "woman in disguise" and twenty quality sources say "transgender man", we wouldn't avoid pronouns. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Recent publications: Holmes biographies (2003 & 2007), male pronouns, Barry presented as gender variant/probably having male gender identity if one at all. Du Preez research publications (2008), female pronouns for female presentation, male pronouns for male presentation, usually male pronouns in general reference. Du Preez and Dronfield biography (2016), female pronouns for female presentation, male ones for male presentation, Barry characterised with a female gender identity (Du Preez does not address the issue of gender identity in any of his work but apparently favours female as he selects this for the narrative). Other well-researched modern sources don't really exist and internet articles differ depending on their source. There probably never will be a consensus as Barry destroyed all personal communications and is not a particularly well-studied figure. Wilderwill (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look at those + see what sources are available. In the meantime, if there's no scholarly consensus that Barry was definitely not a woman, I think we need to restore the female cross-dressers category in addition to the trans men category. Barry's life is obviously a subject of interest to scholars studying women in the military. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that the current article does an okay job of respecting what certainly appears to have been Barry's gender identity, but like I noted with this edit, I find it odd that the lead states "woman" for the following part: "Barry is considered the first medically qualified British woman, preceding Elizabeth Garrett Anderson by over 50 years." This is only because the rest of the article avoids calling Barry a woman unless it's quoting a person. I know that the text states "is considered," but it doesn't help much. I also don't see that this statement is sourced lower. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The statement is pretty easy to source (eg. [1]) and seems obviously relevant, it's just a matter of language. And, so, yeah, I did not end up looking at the sources - Flyer, you say "certainly appears to have been", does this mean you've had a look through the sources and this is their general consensus? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I simply meant that I've read the article. And, from what I can see, especially regarding the statements that Barry wanted to keep his assigned/birth sex unknown after his death, he definitely identified as a he beyond his career. To me, it is clear that his gender identity was male. But, of course, we go by what the sources state with due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"I simply meant that I've read the article" - I'd be wary of that :P I've had to edit more than one article identifying a historical figure as a trans man when literally all sources identified her as female, but someone decided to overrule them because she'd worn trousers and shacked up with women. One day, someone will check out the sources, I guess. Alas that we can't do this to pay the rent! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Roscelese, yeah, I'm always wary of trusting the Wikipedia text. I stated as much as recently as this discussion at another article. But it would be egregious if all of the material regarding what appears to be Barry's gender identity was fabricated. The "Gender and personal life" section currently states, "Barry would never allow anyone into the room while undressing, and repeated a standing instruction that 'in the event of his death, strict precautions should be adopted to prevent any examination of his person' and that the body should be 'buried in [the] bed sheets without further inspection', indicating a desire to conceal physical sex both in life and in death. We Are Family, an LGBT magazine, argues that this is strong evidence of Barry's purported identity as a transgender man, given that 'his wish was to die and be remembered as a man.'" There are book sources like this 2017 "Trans Voices: Becoming Who You Are" source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers, page 93, that discuss Barry in the context of being a trans man. So I am seeing that Barry has an LGBT legacy, which should be addressed in the article if there are enough sources on that aspect. And with regard to Barry being intersex, I find that very plausible as well. Certainly going on the pictures of Barry alone, he passes as male. And I am including facial structure in that. This is regardless of the fact that many women assigned female at birth can pass as male. This 2006 "The Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women" source, from Edinburgh University Press, page 31, states, "Recent scrutiny of the evidence suggests, however, that James Barry had intersexual characteristics." And we can see that the source uses masculine pronouns for Barry. But the "Intersex controversy" section of the article currently ends with criticism of the suggestion that Barry was intersex. I don't see why the section is titled "Intersex controversy"; it should simply be titled "Intersex debate," or something similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, certainly I would never suggest that the content be completely removed. Even with Albert Cashier I found it well enough attested in sources to note and cite as an alternate theory, even though I thought more sources said she was a woman. I think the question we're trying to answer is "how should we default to describing Barry". If the sources generally view Barry as female, we must lead with "woman" and use "she" throughout but also state that a not insignificant minority believe she was a trans man. If the sources generally view Barry as male, we must lead with "trans man" and use "he" throughout but also state that, as you pointed out, he is "the first qualified female doctor" as well. Does that make sense? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense. After all, I noted above that "we go by what the sources state with due weight." I wasn't implying that you meant we should remove anything. You noted being wary of going solely on what is written in the article because it's best to have read the sources and seen that the sources support the text. I was noting that it would be egregious if all of the material regarding what appears to be Barry's gender identity was fabricated by an editor. Looking at more sources on the matter, it appears to be accurate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

DoB

We have a date of birth of 9 November 1795 in the opening line and infobox (unsupported by citations in either location). In the body of the article we have a range of possible years, with citations, 1789, 1792, 1795 and 1799. Should we be quite so definite in lead and IB if there is dispute in the body? If we are, there should probably be an explanatory footnote to explain why this date takes precedence, and the full date should be supported by a citation somewhere in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. In looking through the sources, the date of 1789 is mentioned as coming from the work of du Preez and Donfield. They cite a letter that came from Barry's mother saying that Barry was 15 years old in 1805. This seems to be the earliest source of Barry's age, and I propose we put that one in the infobox. Obviously it should be cited, and should have a footnote explaining that the exact age is still not known. Alternatively, we could put all the possible birth years in the infobox - however that would be a bit cluttered. Thoughts on whether we should choose one date, just list all of them, or put a range like "Sometime between 1789 and 1799"?Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

As of 30 July 2018 the DoB in the Infobox and the lede is given as circa 1795 (ie about 1795) and in the second part of the section 'Early life a detailed discussion on the date of birth is given. I think that this is quite clear and would not lead to any misunderstanding. My feeling is that it's just fine as it is.Wayne Jayes (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I switched to putting 1789 in the lead with a footnote, du Preez's appears the most researched birth date and sources after 2008 seem to mostly use that birth date or state it as 1789/1795 or something like that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Categories

It's certainly not helping anyone for this article to be in neither the female nor the trans categories. Can I get support for including in both? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - It appears that the issue of whether Barry was male, female passing as male, or FTM transgender is unsettled (and clearly controversial). As is, consensus is that the article is using neutral or no pronouns. Unless there is consensus on what Barry was, I believe it should remain un-categorized with regard to sex & gender. It is possible that consensus may never be reached, and that the article will continue to present the various theories, without having to choose one as some sort of "winner". In that event, the page may forever remain un-categorized in that regard, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 21:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that categories mean we are necessarily coming down on one or the other. Rather, recall that the purpose of categories is navigation and think about the perspective of someone who is using the categories to find articles of interest - it would absolutely be useful for such a person to find Barry categorized under female doctors (long recognized as the first female doctor in the UK, if I'm remembering correctly) and under transgender men. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

"Intersex Controversy" citations

Could someone with authority to edit please adjust the format of citations in this section? Right now they're links to [Author][Year] and a page number, which is not standard Wikipedia formatting. Naming the actual publication with a proper citation format would make things more uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:940:C000:4147:B1C5:1A35:76D2:86F5 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the third paragraph of the section, but not the first two, because as it turned out, one of the incorrectly cited sources doesn't even discuss what it's cited as saying. I've removed that source, and left the correctly cited footnote. The first two paragraphs have citations that still need adjusting. SanDWesting (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Levy's book

Regarding [2] and other edits today: IMO, replacing This caused some controversy, as Levy refers to Dr. Barry as "she" and a "heroine" with The novel refers to Dr. Barry as "he," "she" and a "hero", causing controversy among some trans activists who insist that exclusively male pronouns be used to describe Barry is a bad approach, for a number of reasons. First of all, the controversy is, as the first sentence says, over the use of "she" etc, not the existence of other pronouns. Attributing the controversy exclusively to "trans activists" is also inaccurate. A better presentation might be to leave the existing sentence, and then add that Levy has defended the book by saying it also uses "he" and "I", iff that can be better sourced—but Bustle is a low-quality source (there is a general discussion happening about that on the sourcing noticeboard as we speak), even when the URL is not misspelled. And although I would've thought that if Bustle's quotation of Levy was real and important—since another reason we need sourcing is to establish that something is important enough to include—then it would be possible to find in other sources, in point of fact I haven't found it anywhere else. -sche (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. About the bustle article should we just delete the sentence relating to it, or look for more information to back it up Etjanjb (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait I found a few articles. Not sure how to format them properly but here are the full urls https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/18/new-novel-about-dr-james-barry-sparks-row-over-victorians-gender-identity https://www.dailydot.com/irl/cape-doctor-book-james-barry-transgender/ https://bookriot.com/2019/02/19/little-brown-to-publish-transphobic-novel/ I don't think they are all reliable but there are a lot so it definitely happened. I'm new to this but I'm pretty sure four news articles reporting on it means it is probably reliable. Etjanjb (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian piece was already cited by the article, and does not verify the added claim (that the book uses "he"), ditto the Daily Dot piece, so I revised the text so the two of them are back with the statements they actually verify. The BookRiot piece also doesn't seem to support the added claim, and I'm not sure if it's a WP:RS, anyway (unfortunately I don't see any prior discussion of it at the sourcing noticeboard). If the claim that the book uses "he" is only covered by one questionable-reliability source, then both its reliability and its WP:DUE-ness are questionable. @Hedgielamar:, unless you can find stronger sourcing for your edit, and you get consensus for it, it will be undone no matter how insistently you edit-war it in. -sche (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Hedgielamar has been doing something similar on the E. J. Levy page as well. I'm doing my best to assume good faith but this really smacks of a conflict of interest from someone who wants to downplay the controversy (and their author's role in it). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've reported this user at the edit-warring noticeboard, as this is continuing behavior with no attempts to discuss the issue. Link, if you're interested. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(permalink to that interesting discussion - it seems the editor resorted to sock-puppetry) I'll leave the added half-sentence and its weak citation in for now, in the hope that more solid sourcing becomes available (although anyone else could undo it if they want). -sche (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems like a good compromise in theory but using "Barry" instead of "he" is just trying to sweep his identity under the rug. Don't give in to the transphobes ComradeStalin48 (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence that Barry was transgender rather than a cross-dresser by necessity to work as a military doctor, a profession that was only open to men at the time. This is imposing your viewpoint on the situation. Please see the Wikipedia:Presentism essay. Peaceray (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Altercation with Florence Nightingale

§ Career says

From here, Barry temporarily visited the Crimea on leave - as a request to be posted there officially had been denied - where a famous altercation took place between Barry and Florence Nightingale at Scutari Hospital.

If this altercation was famous, or if it's even worth mentioning at all, it should certainly have a citation. I have tagged it accordingly.
--Thnidu (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Agreed; removed. No way it should have lasted this long. P.S., can you use <br /> or {{br}} for breaks, but not <br>? It screws up syntax highlighting on the rest of the page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

I have removed the photo of Barry used in the infobox, as there is strong evidence that the image used is in fact of a Joseph Barry, a South African businessman. The image is used multiple times on the website of Mr Barry's former business, which now appears to be run by his descendants - see [3]. In the interests of accuracy, I felt it best to remove the image. I have replaced with another image from the body of the article. Whilst there is a photograph which has been accurately recorded as Barry in the article, I am not sure if it would need to be trimmed for an infobox, and it would seem a pity to lose the context that the whole image provides. I will leave others to decide which of the two works best. AutumnKing (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Good spot. You should probably update the description / rename the original file on Commons Barry.jpg otherwise someone will likely try and add it again. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Not all that well versed in wiki commons procedures, so have left message on discussion page and filed request to move file to new title, which hopefully does the job. Cheers! AutumnKing (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Gendered pronouns

Replacing gendered pronouns with "Barry" is trans erasure. He was a man and the Wikipedia article should reflect that. People saying he only presented himself as male for career purposes are missing the fact that he identified as a man in his personal life as well ComradeStalin48 (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

ComradeStalin48, We've had this discussion here many times, and the compromise that we've stumbled is we just don't use pronouns in the article. There is too much disagreement on what Barry's pronouns were, with people being quite vociferous on both sides of the issue. Thus not mentioning them has kept the article neutral as possible. Unless some better scholarly literature is found or published that resoundingly establishes Barry's pronouns, we're keeping them out. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@ComradeStalin48: Please see the Wikipedia:Presentism essay.

We simply do not know Barry's wishes in the matter. It may be that Barry truly identified as male or that the primary motivation was to be a military doctor, a profession only open to men. Barry's stated wishes at death may have simply been a desire to avoid embarrassing those who knew Barry's biological sex but gave Barry their support in the matter.

So, it is possible to approach Barry either as a true transsexual truly transgender or as a feminist who had to resort to becoming a transvestite cross-dressing to follow a true calling. When someone has found & provided a statement from Barry that truly & definitely settles the matter, then we can solve the pronoun dilemma. Until then, using Barry instead of pronouns is the compromise & best solution.Peaceray (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Peaceray, just an FYI, the appropriate terms are "transgender person" and "cross dresser". The terms "transsexual" and "transvestite" are seen as outdated and derogatory, as is using "transgender" as a noun rather than an adjective. Hope this helps. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert Point taken. I have crossed out the outdated terminology & used the terms you suggest. I used the strikeout so that your comments will continue to make sense. My youth occurred when people like Christine Jorgensen & The Cockettes were proud to wear those earlier labels, but going forward I will use contemporary terminology. Peaceray (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Peaceray, no worries! Terms are changing all the time, and it's hard to keep up. I only learned about not using the term "transvestite" recently. Thanks for your response and take care! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

As made clear in the Transgender and Transsexual articles, the term transsexual has been used to identify a subset of transgender people and some transgender people do identify as transsexual to this day. Buck Angel, for example, explicitly identifies as transsexual. But, yes, many or most of the newer generation(s) in the transgender community consider "transsexual" offensive and/or outdated. And transvestite is especially considered offensive and/or outdated; the Transvestism article addresses that. No need to ping me if you reply since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, thanks for the additional information! My most important consideration is always to call any individual by the term they prefer for themselves, especially if they are still alive. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Pronoun notice

Due to continued, mostly good-faith edits to refactor the article with one type of gendered pronouns or another, I've added an edit notice to the article, which will be visible in Preview mode, until 8 January 2022. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Bulkley vs. Buckley

There have been good faith attempts to alter Barry's family name at birth to "Buckley", a spelling which has some support in sources, especially web-based sources. There are unimpeachable sources that support "Bulkley", including the BBC, and du Preez-2016, and others. If there are reliable sources on *both* sides supporting opposite views, then this calls for the {{disputed}} tag to be added, or with less certainty, the {{dubious}} tag. I don't believe the state of sourcing supports either of these tags, so I have not added one, but I just wanted to raise the issue here, to show awareness of this. Another tag we might add, if there is a lot of tampering with the spelling in the future, is the {{not a typo}} tag, in which case we could code something like this:

• Barry was born in [[Cork (city)|]] in 1789, a birth date based on Mrs {{not a typo|Bulkley's}} description of her child...

This template doesn't render anything other than the name itself, but signals editors not to change it without further examination:

• Barry was born in Cork in 1789, a birth date based on Mrs Bulkley's description of her child...

The template has an optional |reason= param, and the alias {{as written}} is also available. Mathglot (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Birth name

I removed his birth name because it isn't a notable information about him. Same is done in articles about many trans people or people who otherwise changed their names. But my edit was reverted and I was directed into the talk page to discuss about this. I think his birth name should be removed because it isn't a notable information. --Betseg (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

CC @NekoKatsun: who reverted my edit. --Betseg (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping! I reverted your edit as this has been a hugely contentious article regarding Barry's gender identity and presentation (and how we as Wikipedians present it). I'm sure you can see that from a quick skim of the talkpage, and I really appreciate your starting the conversation here.

MOS:GENDERID mentions that "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography § Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person only if they were notable under that name. In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." MOS:DEADNAME as written applies only to living trans and NB people, which is a pity, so that leaves us with a great big shrug as far as the MOS is concerned as to whether Barry's birth name should be included or not. In this case, I lean ever so slightly towards its inclusion, as the specifics of Barry's early life and how (and when) Barry began to go by Barry are pertinent, well-researched, and of interest. I also feel that as written, the article treats Barry's birth name respectfully and without emphasis.

Would you mind going into further detail about why you believe Barry's birth name is non-notable? I'd also be interested to hear any rewrite suggestions for the Early Life section, as well. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 00:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Because Barry wasn't known under that name, did not do anything particularly notable under that name, and if his wishes about his body were fulfilled we wouldn't even be having this conversation. --Betseg (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@NekoKatsun: hi? --Betseg (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi? Yes? A discussion of two does not consensus make; I was hoping other editors would chime in.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that Barry was a trans man, but Wikipedia is about sourcing and verifiability. There are enough dissenting notable sources that the 'he's a trans man so obviously his birth name shouldn't be in here' argument isn't enough (unfortunately). NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying "Barry was a trans man," I'm saying "Barry was not known under Barry's birth name for most of Barry's life, and in the period of Barry's life where Barry was known for Barry's birth name, Barry wasn't a notable Wikipedia entry. Barry became notable when Barry adopted the name 'James.'." I think that should be enough reason to not include Barry's name in the article. --Betseg (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting the pronoun question, with an eye to MOS

I'm rather perplexed by the past discussions regarding pronouns on this article, because they all seem to get bogged down in the question of whether Barry was what we would now call transgender, while ignoring what the Manual of Style actually says about pronouns:

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

(Emphases added.) GENDERID is not limited to trans people. The article very clearly establishes that at the time of Barry's death, he was living as a man. George Graham is quoted as using he/him pronouns to refer to Barry in the very inquiry into his sex. No one referred to Barry as a woman until he was posthumously discovered to have a vagina. To me this seems like a very clear-cut application of GENDERID: At death, he was living as a man, therefore this article should refer to him with he/him pronouns. It's really as simple as that. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 22:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Checking in two weeks later. Would appreciate hearing others' thoughts. I'm hesitant to BEBOLD given that the status quo is the result of discussion, but at the same time there's never been a particularly strong consensus for it, and I'm also hesitant to start an RfC over a suggestion that is currently unopposed. So, thoughts, anyone? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 03:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is a guideline, whereas WP:CONSENSUS is a policy. Policies take precedence over guideliines. Therefore you would need to change the consensus. By avoiding pronouns, the people who arrived at the consensus avoided the problems addressed by the current iteration of the MOS guideline well before it was incorporated into the guideline. Thus the editing on this article also represents WP:EDITCONSENSUS that subsequently supported the original consensus. Again, this is policy, MOS is a guideline. Peaceray (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I said that there's a consensus, although, as I said, reading § A New Solution to the Pronouns Issue it doesn't seem like a particularly strong one. If there weren't some level of consensus I would have just made this change boldly. Which is why I'm asking for input as to whether this consensus should change. You're right that the wording of GENDERID has changed a bit in the past four years, although I'd say what's changed more significantly in this time is the way that it is applied, with much more deference now given to self-identification. Absent an argument for why GENDERID shouldn't be controlling in this case, in my view there's a presumption in favor of MOS. But it sounds like you and I are in agreement that this should be discussed, so: What do you think about my proposal? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Regardless of where anyone falls on the gender identification debate, all sources agree that Barry went by a male name and male pronouns and, for all intents and purposes, was a man (until undressed after death against his wishes, kickstarting this whole mess). He/him pronouns are most appropriate. I welcome revisiting the consensus to establish this, though I do think it'll take a RfC at minimum and, more likely, a BOLD change reverted in (hopefully) good faith to actually get the conversation going. But there's my two cents on it. Barry identified as male, let's reestablish consensus with MOS:GENGERID in mind. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be supportive of this change. It appears to be a straightforward application of MOS:GENDERID. GreenComputer (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on both this Talk page, and others where there are similar issues. There is very much a danger of presentism here. Editors have hit upon a workable compromise, that reflects both the different interpretations of the sources and of the editors. There is very little straightforward about asserting one particular set of pronouns should be used over another. Barry's historical significance is precisely because of the ambiguity over their identity. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to make definitive assertions, but to present the facts based on sources. Compromising through the use of 'Barry' over pronouns is the logical approach for this article. AutumnKing (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

With respect, the facts based on all sources agree that Barry went by a male identity at the end of his life. I fail to see how source interpretation about the rest of his life is applicable, and editor interpretation should have nothing to do with it at all. His latest gender self-expression was male, thus he/him pronouns are appropriate. Do you have sources stating that Barry wasn't exclusively presenting as male? I believe that's the only thing that would run counter to this proposal. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

NekoKatsun, I would refer you to the third paragraph of the Gender and personal life section, where it indicates that Barry became a close friend of the Governor, Lord Charles Somerset, and his family. It has been suggested that Lord Charles discovered Dr Barry's secret and that the relationship was more than friendship. The section goes on to note that there was a ourt trial and investigation of the allegations. There is also information that Barry may have been a mother in the first paragraph of the death section.

This leads to a lot of questions about What would Barry do? in present day circumstances. I can easily imagine that Barry's true purpose in presenting as a man was to practice medicine in the military, both of which were prohibited in Britain at the time, & that Barry continued attempt to present as a man even beyond death was to protect the loyal men with whom Barry served who may have known about Barry's biological expression. Barry might have been very comfortable with presenting as a woman if these conditions did not exist. If that would be the case, then the British Military would have done Barry a disservice in the 19th-century, & we might do Barry the opposite disservice in the 21st-century.

We also tend to assume, rightly or wrongly, that nearly all people who undergo women-to-men transitions are not typically attracted to men.

I would caution against a One size fits all all approach in this matter. This is the danger outlined in WP:PRESENTISM & presentism (literary and historical analysis). Will there be pressure to change it again if the pendulum swings to the singular they, s/he, ze or per/ve/xe? Wikipedia is hardly the sole arbiter on this.

I think that the current consensus serves this article well, & there is no reason at this time to change it. Peaceray (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I can agree that we need to be aware of the dangers of presentism, but the point I was attempting to make is that whether or not Barry was in a relationship with someone, or had a child, isn't relevant to the question at hand. The question at hand, per MOS:GENDERID, is simply "What was Barry's latest expressed gender self-identification?" The final paragraph of the Gender and personal life section states that Barry repeated a standing instruction that "in the event of his death, strict precautions should be adopted to prevent any examination of his person" and that the body should be "buried in [the] bed sheets without further inspection". (emphasis mine) Barry's latest expressed gender self-identification was male. As such I argue that male pronouns are more appropriate than no pronouns at all.

My understanding - and please correct me if I'm wrong - is that it shouldn't matter why he chose to present as male, and that theorizing that it was simply to practice medicine is as much an application of presentism as assuming a trans identity is. The sources disagree, and we can't know. What we do know is that he did present as male, and my interpretation of GENDERID is that we should respect that. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Request for comment: Pronouns

​​​​For years there has been dispute as to which pronouns this biography should use to refer to its subject. In 2017 Wilderwill edited the article to only refer to Barry by his surname (see § A New Solution to the Pronouns Issue), a compromise that saw no opposition (although also not much support). In the years since, that compromise has become the status quo.

Notably, over the years, there has been no discussion of the applicability of MOS:GENDERID, the guideline that governs biographical subjects' pronouns, which advises (emphases added):

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

Much discussion in the past has focused on whether Barry was transgender, but GENDERID is not exclusive to transgender people. It is not the goal of this RfC to determine whether Barry was transgender, or what his "true" gender identity was (or for that matter what his sex was). This RfC instead asks two questions:

1. For the purposes of GENDERID, is it accurate to say that Barry's "latest expressed gender self-identification" was as a man?
2. Should we follow GENDERID in this case?

("Yes" to both would mean switching to he/him pronouns. For any other answer, please state your preferred outcome.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• As initiator, Yes to both questions. To date, the pronouns question has largely been discussed in the context of whether Barry was transgender. However, as I argue in the section above, that doesn't matter. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that Barry privately identified as a woman but lived as a man because it was the only way to be a doctor. Even if that were the case, his expressed gender self-identification at the time of his death was as a man. The guideline doesn't inquire as to whether someone was transgender, or what they felt in their heart of hearts. It inquires as to the identity they expressed, and Barry very clearly presented himself as—outwardly identified as—a man. The day he died, every single person who knew him thought of him as a "he". That is where the pronoun inquiry begins, and where it ought to end. If he was a woman, he was a woman who was referred to with he/him pronouns.
  Furthermore, I agree that presentism is an issue here. It would be presentism to use the pronouns used in (some) 20th- and 21st-century scholarship over the ones used in 19th-century reality. Just because some sources have referred to him in an ahistorical manner doesn't mean that we have to. We must not be biased against the past, must not hold ourselves to a lower standard than we would in the case of someone who died today. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 18:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Opposed as per my remarks in #Revisiting the pronoun question, with an eye to MOS. — Peaceray (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Your comment there is mostly speculation as to his motives for living as a man. And my point here is, it doesn't matter why he lived as a man. He did live as a man, for one reason or another. Also, could you explain the relevance of him possibly having borne a child, and of him possibly having been attracted to men? Even in a discussion of private gender identity (which again this is not), I don't see how either of those would be relevant. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Actually those comments are quite pertinent to this discussion, which is far more complex that you are framing it. In your own comment you use the expression his expressed gender self-identification using language and concepts that would be unrecognisable in Barry's lifetime. We should not apply present day thinking to the lives of historical figures. To ascribe pronouns to Barry would be to apply modern day standards. The compromise to avoid them allows for neutrality. AutumnKing (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm just quoting MOS there. I'm aware those concepts didn't exist in Barry's day. The concept of gendered pronouns, however, did exist. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  We have a difference of opinion as to the relevance. The fact is that British women were oppressed and prevented from going into medical and military service, & this was central for the need to the presentation as a man. Yes, it is speculation to suggest that it would have happened otherwise were it not for these circumstances, but one for which I think most would agree is highly probabile. I think there is a clear need for a holistic approach to the article, & shoehorning pronouns into it conflicts with this.

  There is also the matter of policy, WP:CONSENSUS & WP:EDITCONSENSUS prevails over the MOS:GENDERID guideline, which itself is a recent change. I fail to see why we need to force pronouns into the article when IMHO, editors have already arrived at a workable solution. Peaceray (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  "most would agree is highly probable"? I wouldn't agree. Many people wouldn't agree. I really feel like you're showing your own bias there. But it doesn't matter. Like I said, if he was a woman, he was a woman who expected people to refer to him as "he". Also, GENDERID has said something similar to this since before the 2017 discussion. Consensus can change, and clearly I'm not the only person who finds the status quo suboptimal. It's not using pronouns that comes off as "shorehorned." Usually that is only done in rare cases where the subject prefers not to be referred to using them. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Again, we have a disagreement, specifically as to whether the 19th-century British prohibition on women in medical & military service would require a woman to masquerade as a man in order to serve in that capacity. I strongly feel most would be in agreement with that statement. Peaceray (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that a woman in the 19th century would have has to masquerade as a man to become a doctor, yes. One can plausibly ascribe any number of gender identities to Barry. If your point is that the article should not take a position on his gender identity, I agree with that. I just disagree that we should avoid the pronouns used by his contemporaries. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Peaceray's general reasoning. Speculation on Barry's gender identity could go multiples way, and there is no definitive answer for it. This is a contentious issue, and I don't see the benefit in changing to use one particular set of pronouns. I think this RfC is unnecessary, as it seems pretty clear based on all the prior talk page discussions that there will not be a consensus for one set of pronouns over another, which is why the article is written the way it is. At a certain point, rehashing these same discussions becomes a waste of time if there are no changes in the information we have about Barry. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Clear-cut Support. Barry identified as male, regardless of the reasoning behind that, and I see no reason to not follow GENDERID. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my previous remarks. This is an unnecessary change, where a reasonable compromise has already been reached. AutumnKing (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There is too much uncertainty about what has occurred post-mortem. It could be that Barry was born a female and chose to identify as a male in order to practice medicine and surgery during a time of great gender discrimination when such positions were not available to women. It could be that Barry was born intersex. It could be that Barry was actually born male and the entire controversy about Barry having been born a female was the word of an individual who examined the body after Barry's death and tried to engage in blackmail for monetary gain. Who actually knows what happened here. The compromise that was reached seems the most equitable, especially when the truth is obscured and Barry is long deceased. Let's not dig up old skeletons and apply modern ideologies to things that happened so long ago. TrueQuantum (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  What modern ideologies are being applied here? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The modern ideology that we must classify Barry according to Barry's latest gender self-identification when in fact Barry died more than a hundred years ago and Barry's gender preference and identity is actually unknown. I support the rights of transgender individuals. I support the rights of transgender individuals to join the sports teams that they identify with, to use the bathroom they feel is most appropriate to them, and more. But I don't need to virtue signal so hard that I go back hundreds of years to assign the proper gendered pronoun to a long dead surgeon who may or may not have been born female and lived as a male. I don't even know if Barry did this to counteract the severe gender discrimination of the time the way that Mulan pretended to be a man to fight in the army. The past is the past and we don't need to remake it in our image to social justice historical mysteries. TrueQuantum (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Support —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Barry died more than a hundred years ago. The context for the pronouns is completely different. ---CranberryMuffin (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  What makes you say that? What exactly was different? ¡Ayvind! (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support It seems clear that Barry identified as Male, so we should use he/him. However, one alternative would be to use gender neutral they/them, explaining the reasoning in a footnote ¡Ayvind! (talk)
• Oppose – this has been discussed at length, not only here, but at other articles like Albert Cashier. The word transgender was unknown until a century after Barry died. Barry may have been what we now call transgender, but we can't ask someone who is no longer alive, and attempting to project our 21st century notions about sex and gender onto a nineteenth century world is doomed to failure. Professional opportunities for women in the time of Queen Victoria were rare, to say the least; we don't know for sure whether Barry presented as male for reasons of identity, for professional advancement, perhaps to have liaisons with women, or for other reasons, and there's no way to find out. Solutions such as singular they are without support here, and in my mind, the question of Barry's gender identity is undiscoverable. The best outcome, is to avoid forcing Wikipedia to come down on either side of this unknowable question. The best solution, is to avoid speculation, and avoid gendered pronouns. Note that we could certainly echo what is done in the last sentence of the lead at Albert Cashier, and allude to any reliable sources that have speculated that Barry was transgender, as long as it's sourceable, and probably with in-text attribution. That would be fine; however, there is simply no policy-based reason to use male pronouns with confidence in this article. Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - using he/him pronouns, he chose to live his life as a man, and obviously used male pronouns to identify for 50+ years of his life. It was also his wish to be remembered and buried as a man upon his death. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the most compelling argument I've seen for "Support." It is true that Barry chose to live life as a man and practice as a surgeon, an occupation unfortunately only available to men of that era. Would this, however, erase the historical mystery surrounding Barry's gender? Would it erase the struggles Barry endured as a woman portraying herself as a man so successfully that Barry was able to outperform men and become a legend in the field of surgery? What if Barry really wanted to live as a woman and compromised with that to masquerade as a man just to do the career that she loved? Since this all happened so long ago, it is impossible to tell what is the actual truth. Right now I am torn and can be swayed either way. TrueQuantum (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say that is the point. There are an awful lot of 'what if's' in this situation, and it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to resolve them. The compromise of using no pronouns, and just 'Barry', allows the reader to consider those what if's, without being directed to a conclusion. AutumnKing (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see using pronouns as an attempt to resolve the 'what ifs'. I often say follow the sources, but in this case, it's a bag of mixed results, some sources exclusively use male pronouns, while others use female, but most use both male and female pronouns, and as usual, Wikipedia editors waaay overthink the issue, not realizing we can walk and chew gum at the same time, by reporting on the 'what ifs', while also using pronouns, and let readers come to their own conclusions. My reasoning for male pronouns is because of his 50+ years identifying as a man, and his desire to be remembered as a man. But I like to chew gum while I walk, so I could live with using both male and female pronouns, but insisting on no pronouns seems a little anal to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how those 'what if's' are relevant to the discussion at hand, which consists of two questions - did Barry use male pronouns, and per the MOS should we do the same? There's a lot of ambiguity about his life, but those two questions are straightforward enough to me. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess for me it all boils down to whether the gender identification was done out of choice or out of coercion. If Dr. Barry really wanted to be a surgeon and the only way Barry could do it was to portray herself as a man, then it doesn't seem to me that this gender identity was one of choice but more of coercion. After all, the only way to be a surgeon in that time was to be male. If Dr. Barry came out and told everyone that she was actually female, she would have been fired and her life ruined. It is in some ways akin to the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy of the 1990s where LGBT people in the army couldn't really express their true sexual orientation for fear of being dishonorably discharged from the military. They would portray themselves as straight out of coercion and not by choice. Now we are applying the context where transgender individuals, by their own wonderful choice, are declaring their pronouns and gender identity. In this context, of course we must respect their decision and their identity. But to apply this to more than a hundred years in the past to what Dr. Barry had to struggle and endure feels like historical revisionism. How do we know if Dr. Barry really wanted to tell the world that she was a proud woman and the best damn surgeon in her field? We don't know. We can never know. And for that reason, I think referring to Dr. Barry as Barry rather than using pronouns makes the most sense in this context. TrueQuantum (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary change. Honolulucb (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)