Talk:Alexis Arquette/Archive 1

Archive 1

Claimed legality is not reality

In regard to this item copied up from below (emphasis added):

No. That pargraph was completely self explanatory. I apologize if you didn't understand it's meaning, but that's your ignorance. It states quite clearly: though Arquette still is a physical male, the United States of America has certain legal rights afforded to people who identify as transgendered, and as such is is both impolite and potentially a civil or criminal act to refer to Arquette as a male if she has made clear that she prefers to be addressed as a female. Not to put too fine a point upon it: in the USA, you could be sued civilly or even possibly arrested, tried and convicted for sexual harassment (based on gender orientation) if you incessantly insist on calling a transgendered person by the pronouns that reflect his or her biological status. There was a link in that paragraph to the American Civil Liberties Union website section on American transgendered rights. The current rewording of the paragraph eliminates the extremely important distinction and link, and I am reverting it to its original state. Pacian 17:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The United States of America does NOT have certain legal rights afforded to people who identify as transgendered. The USA has certain legal rights that apply to EVERYONE, including but not limited to transgender people. Laws that specifically protect rights of people who identify as transgender are individual STATE laws, not federal U.S. laws. Congress almost always runs a mile from any legislation with the words "transgender" or "transsexual" in it.

Whether civil liability may attach to any person who refers to a transman as "she" or a transwoman as "he" depends upon the individual state. In states like Kansas, it's unlikely the law suit would make it up the steps of the courthouse. In California, the suit would be heard, but the plaintiff would still have to show the remarks amounted to sexual discrimination, not discrimination based on gender orientation.

There is, in fact, no such thing as "gender orientation" in the law of any U.S. jurisdiction. (The term gender identity has been used, but not "orientation".) The U.S. Supreme Court has held (e.g., in the Oncale case) that sexual harassment which originates from homophobia and/or the perception that one is a member of a sexual minority is actionable in civil law as an offence against U.S. Const., Amend. XIV; that is, a man who is sexually harassed by other men because they think he is gay or that he "acts that way" can sue for damages - the right is not limited to harassment by a person of the opposite sex. But the Court has rejected similar claims of sexual harassment that were based upon transphobia, because transgender status simply is not protected in U.S. law, but only in the laws of a very small number of individual states.

Neither is sexual harassment a criminal offence in most U.S. jurisdiction. Sexual assault is a criminal offence, including verbal sexual assault; and certain acts of sexual harassment can be found tantamount to sexual assault. But sexual harassment, as such, is an offence against the civil law, not the criminal law, in the vast majority of U.S. jurisdictions.

Punctuation USA cf. UK usage

In American English: "I like dogs," Tom said. In British/Commonwealth English: "I like dogs", Tom said.

Wikipedia is a world-wide project. Most of the people who learn formal English, whether first- or second-language speakers, still learn the British variety, in which punctuation within the quote marks is *not* correct. If there is a preferred standard for the Wikipedia, it would be best to direct editors to the users' guide that provides that information rather than making notes on individual articles.

Punctuaton grammar: Punctuation marks (commas, periods, etc.) should be inside the colse-parenthesis.

For example: Correct: "I like dogs," Tom said. Not correct: "I like dogs", Tom said.

I'd be interested to hear the justification for your statement, "Most of the people who learn formal English... still learn the British variety." I find that very hard to believe! --Kaihoku 11:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronouns and transsexuality

Anonymous editors and others who would revert this article to male pronouns: Please be considerate of accepted standards in the gender dysphoria community and general politeness overall in understanding that transwomen like Ms. Arquette are to be addressed as, referred to, and if possible thought of as female. If for some reason there is indication that this article needs male pronouns, it is incorrect to also list the subject as transsexual. So, if you want to revert to male pronouns, please provide evidence demonstrating the cisgendered status of the subject. Thanks. ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 03:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I did some digging online and found the now-cited Variety article that is pretty definitive in saying that, even if Arquette does not complete SRS, she is transsexual by virtue of counseling and hormones. As such, she is a woman and any edit made to this page that says or intimates otherwise is vandalism. Sheesh leave the poor girl's article alone. ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is bizarre. I read this article and had no idea if 'she' was a man, or a woman, or a transgendered man or a transgendered woman. Using 'he' would at least have made things clearer - as it stands, it is quite possible to go away with the impression that Alexis used to be a woman, but is now a man (unless you read right to the very end). And please cite the Wikipedia policy which states that we "must be considerate to accepted standards in the gender dysphoria community" - to do so would sound like a serious violation of NPOV to me. I might add that to do so would also constitute the adoption of a very Americo-centric view that people in other parts of the English-speaking world would find very difficult to follow. Just to demonstrate the total confusion that your approach adopts, imagine the final paragraph re-written like so "In 2004 Arquette expressed an interest in fully making a transition from male to female by the use of hormone treatments and, ultimately, a sex reassignment surgery but so far SHE has made the decision not to go ahead with it." Confusing to say the least. 195.194.199.50 12:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with such edits being categorized as vandalism, I would however categorize deliberate misrepresentation of someone's gender identity in pronouns as a personal attack against the individual whom the biography is about, which is just as inappropriate, and still very much revertable. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Triona, sorry I guess I didn't know that there was a difference here on WikiPedia! I agree with you entirely! ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 00:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, the cited Variety article says "He's the brother of thesps David, Rosanna and Patricia Arquette" - not "She's the sister". I have no problem with referring to Wendy Carlos as "she" because Wendy Carlos is a woman - however, Alexis Arquette is manifestly not a woman - and to say he is, is POV. Also, according to the article as it stands she's a woman AND ALSO a drag performer - does this mean that she dresses as a man in the drag act???195.194.199.50 16:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To avoid cluttering the page, I'm going to respond to both this and the above block from 195.194.199.50 here. Basically, I feel that the article needs to be respectful of the gender identity of the subject, and an expressed, published, and citable desire on the part of Alexis Arquette implies to me that Ms. Arquette is identifying as a female. In this light, I agree that the article may need to be reworded to correct potential confusion relating to this, but it is my sincere feeling that, regardless of the status of Ms. Arquette's genitals (which are not the conern of this article in any fashion), she should be referred to as female. I don't know that any of this is official Wikipedia policy, but I could look and ask around if I need to.

That said, I don't think it's unfair to clarify and explicitly state her gender transition status, if it is confusing to the reader, especially given that Ms. Arquette was widely known as a male doing drag before expressing a desire in transition. Perhaps we can work together and make the article more clear without causing it to become defamatory? I guess it's important for me to point out here that gender and pronouns are not tied to genital status in respectable society anymore, but lots of magazines and other publications still use defamatory and derogatory pronouns when referring to transgendered people. Just because the magazine says "he" doesn't mean that she's identifying as male.

Finally, I think women can do drag just as much as men. Drag is characterized by over-the-top, glamorous clothing and a certain style of attitude and presentation. A man putting on a dress isn't necessarily doing drag, but a woman who does huge makeup and puts on a gigantic fake up-do wig and huge extended fingernails, etc. and goes and dances on stage can, I feel, be legitimately described as doing drag. You're welcome to disagree, of course. I'm a member of the "gender activist" culture and I feel that I often find myself splitting categories much more finely than many in the general populace would.

So anyway, just my two cents. I understand that this is a hairy issue and I'd like to find a good way to fix it, so let's please work together instead of edit-warring? ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 06:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Defame- 1. To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel. See Synonyms at malign.

Slander- 1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

Libel- 1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. 1b. The act of presenting such material to the public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

Is it defamatory, or a personal attack, if the information being provided/edited-in is demonstrably, legally true? If the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_language]actron[/url] being described in this article considers themself to be a different gender than what they were born as, but has not taken the steps necessary to legally effect that change, then how accommodating is the general public expected to be towards them? I will admit that it is courteous to use the gender-pronouns that a transgender associates themself with, but is courtesy required on a website devoted to factual information? Is it a character assassination I refer to Alexis Arquette as "he", if that is what is indicated on "his" drivers license?

GeekGirlSarah, if I understand your contributions correctly, gender != sex. If this is true, then Alexis Arquette is truthfully both male and female. Gender-wise, she is female; this is her chosen identity. Genetically, sexually, legally, he is male(I'm assuming; I haven't had a peek at Alexis Arquette's drivers license).

Does Wikipedia have a "courtesy/politeness" policy towards facts or descriptive terms associated with an article subject? Especially when the facts of the subject can be demonstrated to be opposite of their asserted identity/history/truth?

Thanks for actually discussing this instead of just reverting edits and such, anonymous person. I'm happy to discuss this with you... And I think you bring up a good point, which is that we don't actually know Arquette's wishes, nor do we fully understand what is going on in hir life. If you support a move towards gender-neutral language and maybe we can get a third perspective, I'd be happy to support a move to less gender-binary speak.

In fairness, though, I'd like to point out that often driver's licenses are behind on sex/gender issue for transgendered people. I don't think that's a fair test, but I think you have a valid point otherwise. It's certainly not my intention to defame Arquette through this use of this article if sie feels that sie is properly male, but I picked up a thread that was ongoing with this article before I joined WP and made it a bit of a pet cause due to the tremendous number of un-commented pronoun reverts that the article gets. There does seem to be published information that hasn't been actually refuted that supports a transsexual classification for this person, in my opinion. I am not a quorum, nor do I speak for WP or for anyone else... I just tend to revert people when they ignore the talk page and all previous commentary on the issue and blindly plug male pronouns back into the article.

I also would like to add for the record that I think it's a shame that we can't just call Arquette's publicist and ask.

So, please do reply with your commentary, anon. I'd be happy to talk it over with you! ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"She" and "drag" seem to contradict one another

If Alexis Arquette is now considered female, then why are her performances referred to as "drag"? If she is female, then her performances as Eva Destruction would just be lip sync performance, right? Or was she identified as male when she was performing, in which case it would be correct to label them as "drag" performances? -- Andrew Parodi 09:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this depends on how you feel about the definition of "drag"... I have known some female drag queens in real life. I think the "drag queen" form of show is mostly dependent on whether you're going for the super-over-glam look and stuff more than the status of your gender, but that's just my feeling. ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 20:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a general comment: could this editorial dispute please be resolved swiftly, as the article currently makes little sense and reads bizarrely. If no agreement can be reached on gender-specific pronouns, I suggest that non-gender specific pronouns such as "they" be used instead. DWaterson 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"They" is incorrect. The article would read "he or she." This would add confusion and unnecessary verbosity, would it not?Brushfirefairytale 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I support a switch to gender-neutral pronouns, and if someone wants to change it, I wouldn't object. ♥ GeekGirlSarah ♥ 04:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Granted, I am no expert on transgender issues or drag, but had always thought, and I think the public has always perceived, that "drag" is in effect a male dressed up as a female. I don't think most would consider that a woman can do a "drag" show, unless, perhaps, if she is dressed up and performing as a male. In other words, in a "drag" show one is usually expected to be the opposite gender of what one is portraying.

About the gender neutral pronouns, I think that at the very least the article should state that Alex Arquette was born male and is currently identified as female and will at some point undergo sex reassignent surgery. -- Andrew Parodi 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, then again, maybe not. Here is the introductory paragraph from the Drag queen article:

"Drag queens are performers - often gay men or transgendered people - who dress in "drag," clothing associated with the female gender (see drag king for women who perform in male clothing), often exaggerating certain characteristics for comic, dramatic or satirical effect . The term "drag queen" usually refers to people who dress in drag for the purpose of performing, whether singing or lip-syncing, dancing, participating in events such as gay pride parades or pageants, or at venues such as cabarets and discotheques."

I had always thought that drag queens were male-identified and took on the persona of female for the performance. I have to admit, I find this topic terribly confusing. -- Andrew Parodi 06:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

to confuse you even more, it is perfectly possible to have been assigned female at bith, have XY chromosomes, be raised as a girl till adulthood, and whilist growing up - be attracted to women, in due course to have a sex change including phaloplasty (the creation of penis) but in adulthood post surgery recognise that you actually love men but were to ashamed to acknowledge it, and that as part of being a gay man you enjoy draging up in outrageous female clothing and miming to women voices on stage!

Just to explain: sex does not equal gender, nor does it equal sexuality, or gender identity and even of those words gender. Gender identity, sexuality, gender and sex are actually themselves mesh's of complex connections and concepts, talkin about sex as being either male or female is like one is talking about an atom either being helium or hydrogen. When, in reality an atom, actually consists of energy states, protons and neutrons, which themselves consist of various sorts of quarks X-mass (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

An attempt at a blanket explanation

I have given this topic some serious thought and contemplation before coming back to edit it because I want to try and be as clear as possible to any type of person who might be reading. There seems to be a lack of clarification as to what it means to be a drag queen and what it means to be a transexual. Of course some time spent reading these two wikipedia articles might assist you in better understanding the differences.

Though it is true that typically a drag queen is a male who dresses up as a woman (or in feminine garb) specifically to entertain, it is possible for a transexual person - a person who has made the transision from male to female - to continue performing as a drag queen. In these cases, the person generally acknoweldges their former gender, and part of the appreciation of their performance stems from their successful completion of this process.

What is lacking from this PARTICULAR article is an emphasis on the fact that Alexis Arquette was performing as a drag queen before she became a transexual and began living as a woman. Alexis originally performed drag under the name "Eva Destruction", and was not at that time taking hormones or (to any public knowledge) contemplating gender reassignment surgery.

I am going to make changes to the article that clarify this distinction and make the situation a little bit more comprehensible to the average reader. Pacian 02:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that's the point. This article needs to be directed toward the average reader, and the average reader is confused by these things. Heck, I'm hardly the "average reader" (my sister came out of the closet when I was 10; I grew up among many gay people, etc.), and even I am confused by this. Andrew Parodi 08:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of this paragraph?

What does this paragraph mean?

To this end, though still legally a male by physiology, Arquette has publicly declared that she considers her gender to be female, and should be referred to as such in accordance with the rights and liberties accorded to transgendered persons in America (her country of residence.) To not do so is considered insulting at best, and a form of sexual harassment at worst.

Andrew Parodi 08:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a long-winded way of saying "Please call her she, not he." Angr (talk • contribs) 08:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No. That pargraph was completely self explanatory. I apologize if you didn't understand it's meaning, but that's your ignorance. It states quite clearly: though Arquette still is a physical male, the United States of America has certain legal rights afforded to people who identify as transgendered, and as such is is both impolite and potentially a civil or criminal act to refer to Arquette as a male if she has made clear that she prefers to be addressed as a female. Not to put too fine a point upon it: in the USA, you could be sued civilly or even possibly arrested, tried and convicted for sexual harassment (based on gender orientation) if you incessantly insist on calling a transgendered person by the pronouns that reflect his or her biological status. There was a link in that paragraph to the American Civil Liberties Union website section on American transgendered rights. The current rewording of the paragraph eliminates the extremely important distinction and link, and I am reverting it to its original state. Pacian 17:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Anatomical vs. physiological

I changed "physiological" to "anatomical." Physiology implies biology and chromosomes, and those are not going to change. Anatomy, however, can be changed.

--Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss 04:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Gender vs. gender identity

I changed this to say that she declared her "gender identity" to be female, rather than her gender. A small point, but gender identity refers to the internal sense that one is male or female, whereas gender refers not only to subjective components, but also to objective views of third parties. In California, "gender" means sex, but it also includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. California Penal Code 422.56(c)12, www.transgenderlawcenter.org/pdf/advancements_in_law.pdf

The California statutes do not give any indication of when a person is considered legally of the opposite sex for all purposes. Therefore, I relied on the right of privacy as a broader basis on which to define Ms. Arquette's right to demand usage of the female pronoun.

Okay, a little technical, but I am a professor.

--Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss 04:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A little technical? You're trying to blind us with science, your reasoning is faulty, and your statements are outright incorrect. Maybe this works on freshmen, but Wikipedians are a more educated and cynical bunch. 63.23.2.31 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not asking this question to be rhetorical I would like to know wikipedia’s policy. If a gay person has gender reassignment surgery should they still be referred to as gay after the surgery ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.253.248 (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

-- I do not know if this wikipedia policy but the best advice is whatever the person says there sexuality is. The assumption being made here is that when you change ones apparent sex your object choice i.e. those genders that you find attractive, remain the same. That assumption is wrong. It remarkably common for people to go str8.2.str8, I know a well known author who when young was identified as gay (man) but later became happily married to another woman in a lesbian relationship. I know people who I still have concerns if they are actually transexual since they thought of being gay as not real men, and that because they had beccome increasingly desiring to cross-dress and be submissive to a man that meant they were really a woman since they couldn't be a real man. Which is stupid and has lead people to make bad choices. So to make it clear sexuality has nothing to with gender wand nothing to do with sex, and sex is not fixed but itself is a collection of much more subtle connections. X-mass (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, "gender reassignment"

I didn't change this one, because it's used so often, but I want to note my theoretical objection. If gender is psychological, and sex is anatomical, then hormone treatments and surgery can't change gender; they can only change sex. I favor using the term "sex reassignment."

--Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss 11:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the notion that a human being can change their sex, is absolutely ludicrous. You do make a good point here from a purely grammatical standpoint, however. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A few ideas

1. Alexis Arquette has been male for most of his/her career. Replacing all references to 'he' with 'she' is historical revisionism. It is not disrespectful to his/her sexuality to point out that this person used to be male, and still has that anatomy, genetic makeup, etc.

this presumes that the identification of her as male at birth was the truth. Which is like saying that because someone is born in the United states but grew up and spen their entire life in Britain they are still "really" American. If someone moves one country to another country how long does someone have to live there for before they acen identify themselves as coming from there? X-mass (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

2. The Law & Sexuality journal is an acceptable reference, but the contents are still argument and not undisputed constitutional legal theory. Vogue magazine is by no means a reference suitable for an encyclopedia on legal theory.

3. The article as currently written, plus this talk page, is just plain confusing. As pointed out, one cannot argue that gender is immutable and then state that it was changed through surgery, and a female can't really do 'drag'. Can someone please rewrite this article?

Remember to assume good faith. Nothing on this talk page is anti-LGBT including this entry. - Richardcavell 10:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"A few ideas" raises questions

1. The charge that "replacing all references to 'he' with 'she' is historical revisionism" is based on an erroneous assumption. It ignores the fact that transsexuals generally claim to be born with a gender identity different from the gender assigned at birth. In undergoing sex reassignment surgery, transsexuals seek to bring anatomy in line with the gender identity held since the formation of gender identity at an early age (presumed to be 2-5 years of age). The anatomy itself is of no consequence. However, the previous user incorrectly assumes that sexual anatomy trumps gender identity. The article from the U.S. journal "Law and Sexuality," deleted by the previous user, addresses this issue.

2. The previous user indicates that he deleted the "Law and Sexuality" article because it is not "undisputed." It should be noted that legal interpretation constantly evolves, and there is no such thing as "undisputed" constitutional interpretation. Therefore, it is inappropriate to require an "undisputed" interpretation as a reference. Rather, what is required in a reference is that it backs up the fact alleged in the Wikipedia article, not that it settle the question for all time. If he wants to include the idea that the interpretation is disputed, let him go and find another reference disputing it.

3. The previous user states that "one cannot argue that gender is immutable and then state that it was changed through surgery, and a female can't really do 'drag'." Actually, one can. All one needs to do is explain that "gender identity" is a neuro-psychological aspect of consciouness, that it is not a function of sexual anatomy, and that it can differ from the "gender" assigned at birth. Sex can be changed through "sex reassignment surgery" to be congruent with the individual's gender identity. Next, note that "drag" is generally defined to be a performance art, in which the gender identity of the individual is opposite to that of the performance. Thus, a female who performs a character that is female is not doing "drag" within that definition. (However, note that a female can do drag, as in a female who performs a character that is male.)

4. All this theoretical discussion does not belong in an article on a popular entertainment celebrity, and the previous user makes a mistake when he suggests that all this should be explained there, and goes about deleting the very references that discuss it, and then makes arguments demonstrating no knowledge of the subject or the rules of grammar. Therefore, I am replacing the previous reference. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

--Dr. Jillian Todd Weiss 12:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So is this person a man or a woman?

I understand the issues of gender identity, but when seeing this article, I was astounded that the question of does this person have male anatomical parts of female isn't answered (does the person have a penis?!)

Does it matter? Gender is determined by the mind, not the body. Is it even appropriate to have a discussion of someone's genitalia in an encyclopedia article?

Yes, in this case it matters because when you remove this question and all of the issues surrounding it, there is simply nothing left of this person to justify a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.253.248 (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of astounded by the hand-wringing over this low-level celebrity. This is just a bio blurb, so really, we ought to keep it simple for the regular folks that read Wikipedia. This isn't a soapbox to promote transgender ideas. Alexis Arquette is like a real life Maxwell Klinger. I suspect he's all show, and that's just fine with me. In reality, he's a man, with a dick and balls and male pattern baldness. I saw him brag about the size of his dick on the Surreal Life. He's a gay transvestite. That's what the evidence I have tells me. Give me an article from a hard science peer-reviewed journal that says that gender is determined completely by one's mind and emotions, and I'll support calling Alexis Arquette a "she." Since I don't think such an article exists or ever will exist, I think he should be called "he" and I strongly object to the current version of the article. Nature doesn't care about Alexis Arquette's feelings as much as it cares about him ejaculating in fertile women's vaginas to propagate the species. Sorry to be crude, but that is why he was born with a dick and balls. Erik the Rude 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you certainly live up to your name, Eric.

Gender is a social contruct, like race is. It doesn't exist anywhere else but in our hearts and minds. Sex, however, is biological. But biology is not destiny, of course.

Doctors really don't know what makes a person Transgendered. Sion (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a guy with a dick that has a woman idenity. So what! Call HIM just that. A guy that's a girl! wheew that was easy.

I fixed the article

I was sick of seeing bewildered folks coming in wondering whether AA was a man or woman and having the PC police answer with the unhelpful comment "does it matter?" Hell yes, it matters! Otherwise there wouldn't be all this hair splitting over gender politics. The guy's got a twig and berries, folks. It's not hard to figure out. I think I did a decent job of sticking to the facts while respecting Arquette's lifestyle choices. I'd be very upset if I were reverted, and I'd be likely to revert again and go to an RfC. This has gone on long enough, and I'm putting my size 13 foot down. Erik the Rude 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert by anon

I noticed an anon reverted the pronouns. Sigh. This is getting tedious. The problem with a person who is obviously a cross-dressing man claiming he his a woman is that there is no current empirical, scientific way of determining whether he was indeed born a woman in his mind, soul, or spirit if such a strange thing is indeed possible. I've read that people who consider themselves transsexuals will study the relevant psychometric tests and give the appropriate answers to give them the gender they want. So, those tests don't prove a thing. (BTW, I scored well into the female range on the MMPI test, and I also scored very high in a test of emotional intelligence and scored as very empathetic in yet another test. I am, however, most definitely a man, with manly desires, habits, and attitudes.) Besides, I agree with the esteemed Dr. Hannibal Lecter that psychology isn't a science anyway. Therefore, we'll have to rely on current science and use genetics and anatomy. Erik the Rude 13:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert to earlier version

I reverted the article to a previous version to undo the vandalism done by Erik the Rude

Well, I just reverted it back. HE has a PENIS! Not SHE has a PENIS! She's don't have penises, you silly goose.

Right, Mr. Slave?

Oh, Jesus Christ!

Revert to earlier version

I reverted it back to the previous version. This is in keeping with the AP Style book --

The Associated Press Style Book (2000 Edition) says:

"Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics (by hormone therapy, body modification, or surgery) of the opposite sex and present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly."

Until "Robert" became "Alexis"

is it not fair to refer to "him"?

I accept readily that today, Alexis is a "she", not a "he"... but during the Tubes video, wasn't Robert a "he"?

I'm confused, I'll let you guys work it out.

InsultComicDog 07:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)InsultComicDog

this article has obviously been vandalized. fix it.

Failed verification

The article states, "Under U.S. law, transgender individuals are generally permitted to determine their own gender identity, regardless of their birth sex."

The citation given for this sentence is a 64-page PDF document. Near the top of page 46 of this document is the statement, "And indeed, of those states which do permit gender reclassification, some do so only if there has been sex reassignment surgery, thus excluding preoperative transsexual people from gender reclassification." This assertion is repeated on page 55, "Some states require sex reassignment surgery prior to making any changes to government documents, whereas others do not."

This suggests (1) that gender identity is covered by state law, not "U.S. law", and (2) that Arquette's legal ability to determine her gender may be affected by her state of residence.

I've added a failed verification template to the article. -- Heath 24.127.52.67 07:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is something that needs to be repeated, as it makes a great point. The gender of pronouns needs to be switched back to "he". RegBarc 01:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Excepting, of course, that she's had the surgery, and is now legally female. It was the culminating part of the movie Alexis Arquette: She's My Brother, which is premiering next week at the Tribeca Film Festival (Apr 30). So she's definitely 'determined her gender'. The 'great point' there actually supports the female pronoun being used (California, where Arquette lives, defines her as female). Since a person needs to live as the gender they're shifting to for a year before reassignment surgery, and the quote notes that they are allowed to determine their own gender identity, the proper thing to do in this case is refer to her *as* her, because both lifestyle and law support that now. -Thespian 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I second Thespian. --David Shankbone 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag and question about the term "gender"

I added a "citation" tag just to make it clear for first-time visitors to the page and anyone who wants to go digging for references. I also have a question about the term "gender". According to the talk page for the wiki article "sex", gender is an unsuitable term and I was wondering, in order to try and keep articles in line with each other (yes- I live in a dream world), maybe we can consider using the term sex instead of gender? Just a thought, I'd like to hear other opinions (preferably after you've read the appropriate section of the talk page for sex) Naysie 14:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tag and question about the term "gender"

No, sex and gender are separate concepts. "Sex" is used in reference to physical anatomy, and "gender" to one's mental traits. See the entry for transgender.

Default sort

Why is it that this article is being sorted under letter "L" instead of "A" for Arquette? I have tried fixing this SEVERAL times, to no avail... Can someone take a look at this? --YeLLeY511 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He

Even if the subject is considered to now be a woman, all instances of 'she' in reference to events prior to the beginning of the gender reassignment should be changed to he. It cannot be claimed that this person was female then. F W Nietzsche (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See above for the justification for using female pronouns. It is correct to use female pronouns for Alexis for the past as well as the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the pronouns to Male ones, once again, HIS ADN says HE is a MAN, then HE is a HE not a SHE, damn, this aint no goddamn political or legal site, this is an encyclopedia (maybe, LOL) If Robert Arquette AKA Alexis Arquette was born with a Dick and Male DNA, he is and gonna be a man till HE dies. Make sure to holla back, argue with me, i love to leave people with out anything to say as soon as they realize how stupid their ideas are. have a nice day

By the way, i really think an administrator should lock this nigga up (the article) there are a lot of discussions about the pronouns, save problems and restrict the editing of this biatch. --200.95.128.171 (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out his page at encyclopediadramatica.com. It tells it like it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.68.87.204 (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS says Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (for example: She fathered her first child).Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Referring to a 12-year-old boy as a 'she' because of an event which occurs decades later is obviously absurd, and introduces needless confusion.

Your text, by the way, appears at MOS:IDENTITY.

Varlaam (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Identity has nothing to do with legality

U.S. law generally says nothing about "gender identity" at all, because one's self-identification as male, female, black, white, Jew, Gentile, etc., is generally a matter of self-expression that is protected by the free speech provisions of U.S. Const., Amend. I. But the fact you may identify as something does NOT mean the government will recognise the validity of your self-identification.

On the question of gender or characteristic sex identity, no U.S. state accepts sexual or gender identity as a basis for legal classification of gender or characterstic sex. Three general macro-rules are applicable:

Prior to 1976, almost all U.S. states held that gender/sex was an immutable status fixed at birth as male or female according to phenotypical factors. This is the historic rule at common law and in the Code of Justinian. It is also the ecclesiastical rule in most Christian faiths, and the rabbinical rule in Orthodox Judaism (under which a male to female transsexual remains male for puposes of tabulating the minyan - that is, the minimum number of 10 men needed to hold a service).

A few states, Kansas among them, and New York City have adopted the same rule that applies in Scotland, under which gender/sex is an immutable status fixed at birth as male or female according to *biological* factors. The classic case is Mrs. Brown, who is legally a woman in England but legally a man in Scotland.

Mrs. Brown was supposed to be born male but she failed to produce sufficient testosterone at the critical period of gestation, with the result that she was born phenotypically female -- but with no womb and with testes and vas deferens where she should have had ovaries. English law determines gender/sex according to phenotype, so she is legally female in England, where she is legally a heterosexual woman, legally married to Mr. Brown - a heterosexual man - with whom she legally adopted two children.

But back home in her native Scotland, notwithstanding the genetic defect was not discovered until she was a teenager, the fact she is biologically male makes her *legally* male in that jurisdiction. Thus, in Scotland, Mrs. Brown is not Mrs. Brown at all, but she is legally a gay man, illegally married to another gay man, with whom she illegally adopted two children.

Mrs. Brown, of course, is intersexual, not transsexual. It's only because she was born phenotypically female that English law recognised her as female. In the United States, in 1976, New Jersey became the first state to recognise that a person who voluntarily changed his or her characteristic sex also legally changed his or her sex.

Many states - including New York (except New York City), Michigan, Colorado, California, Virginia, and Florida - have adopted the same principle used in New Jersey. However, many other states - including Kansas, Tennessee, and at least the Fourth Appellate District in Texas -- have either held tightly to the old English common law principle of immutability (Tennessee) and/or they have strengthened the immutability question by re-orienting their law to the biological basis of sex/gender determination found in Scots common law (Kansas).

In those states where legal change of sex/gender is permitted, the statutes almost never address the temporal stage at which the legal change occurs. That is, the law ignores the fact that sex reassignment surgery does not happen all at once but is a multi-stage process. In practical application, some states require all surgeries to have been completed before the subject can petition for legal change of sex. Other states require only that the transition have reached a point at which the process has become irreversible.

In California, famed for its libertarian attitudes, the law is generally applied very liberally. Depending on the particular circumstances of the case, it is not generally necessary for sex reassignment surgery to have reached an irreversible phase, but it is sufficient that at least the first surgical phase has been completed for the subject to be legally reclassified from female to male, or from male to female.

North of the border, in the Canadian Province of Quebec, is not necessary for any surgery to have been undertaken, but the person need only present proof that s/he has begun the transition phase to be legally reclassified as a member of the opposite sex for all purposes.

In the United States, some states - including California - do legal change of gender/sex for all purposes. Other states recognise legal change of gender/sex as it pertains to personal status (e.g., change of name on driving licence from Glen to Glenda or vice-versa) but not as it pertains to interpersonal status (e.g., J'Noel Gardiner not recognised as female by the Kansas Supreme Court for purposes of marriage, which is an interpersonal status; but the validity of the "female" designation on her Wisconsin birth certificate, as a designation of personal status, was not doubted by the Court).

---

Self-identity has nothing to do with legality. Public identity has everything to do with legality. You are what the Powers That Be say you are. That's why identity theft is such a problem. That's why passport loss or theft is a problem overseas. That's why MTF transsexuals go to male prisons and end up in 23-hour lockdown in protective custody, if they're lucky. Officers of the Courts don't care about sexual politics. They just enforce the law. Legislatures make the laws, so if transsexuals are to advance their causes, they should seek help there. Unfortunately for them, half the American electorate identifies as Republican and watches Fox News and considers transsexualism a perversion, a lifestyle choice, and a scourge, to put it politely. So, the outlook is bleak. It's understandable, then, that Wikipedia articles about transsexuals or even anyone who claims transsexuality would be artfully worded, that policies would be put in place at the insistence of what is, essentially, a PAC (Public Action Committee) within Wikipedia, and anyone who questions these actions should be accused of bigotry, incivility, and vandalism. It's a well-played game, and it's been going on for years with the help of transsexual or sympathetic administrators. Propagandists could learn a thing or two from them. There's one thing you've forgotten though, the "elephant in the room," so to speak. Average people, even in the sexually liberal areas of North America and Europe, may say they support transsexuals with their tongues, but in their hearts, they want nothing to do with them, and would be scandalized if a relative were to come out as transsexual. I've looked into this for a while now, and I'm not talking out of my elbow. It would be great for transsexuals if it were all happiness and rainbows and an Island of Tolerance with Big Gay Al, or for different tastes, a fascist state that enforced tolerance on pain of imprisonment, but it's not so, and such people will inevitably face a life of adversity whether they change their physical form with surgery and drugs or not. WMFEssaywriter (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a borrowing from Encyclopedia Dramatica, which, BTW, has a better article on Alexis Arquette. That one may suit your ADD better. 207.68.87.82 (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant & off topic tangent. This whole section should be deleted. It really adds nothing. 64.183.42.61 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC) RuPaul

Can we stop specifying her previous identities in the subject line?

If someone is adopted do we make a point of identifying who their origonal parents were. Do we make certain that a matter of historical record is one of the first thing know about the individual. I am not saying that the information should be censored but its an an aspect of her life, perhpas if there was a paragraph about her history it could mention that at birth she was name male name, to father male name and mother female name. Its like someone being in a nazi death camp being the key aspect about who they are - no matter what else they have done in their life. X-mass (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)