Jump to content

Talk:Christine Jorgensen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

We Who Are Sexy

It would be cool if someone could add a section about her appearance in Kaming Mga Talyada (English Title: We Who Are Sex), a 1962 film from Sampaguita Pictures in the Philippines. 76.95.173.111 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Danish justice ministry

The Danish transsexual group trans-danmark.dk who put out a flyer on January 29, 2003 in honor of the 50th anniversary of the operation. They note that technically, there first had to be a castration, which is why this was done first. [1] 

Den danske lovgivning om transseksuelle, der ønsker at gennemgå en 
kønsskifteoperation, som Christine Jorgensen fik det for 50 år siden på 
Rigshospitalet, er både håbløst forældet og urimelig over for de transseksuelle. 
Det er Civilretsdirektoratet under Justitsministeriet, der giver tilladelse til 
eller afslag på ansøgning om kønsskifteoperation. 
Rent lovgivningsmæssigt afgøres en ansøgning om kønsskifteoperation efter 
”Lov om sterilisation og kastration”, som den blev formuleret i 1953, idet der 
rent teknisk foretages en kastration i forbindelse med en kønsskifteoperation. 
Der er ingen egentlig lovgivning om kønsskifte.

(Translation: The Danish law about transsexuals who wish to go through with a sex change operation such as Christine Jorgensen obtained 50 years ago at the Federal Hospital, is both hopelessly old and not acceptable for transexuals. It is the civil rights direction underneath the justice ministry that gives or denies permission after an application for a sex change operation. According to the letter of the law which is actually a law about sterilization and castration, as was formulated in 1953, it is first a castration that happens in connection with a sex change operation. There is no particular law about sex change.) --WiseWoman (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vaginoplasty, when?

vaginoplasty now!

66.230.106.42 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC) So when exactly did she have her vaginoplasty? Maikel 09:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There was a song I used to hear, I believe the name or at least one of the lines of the song went "I ain't got no body." and later in the song "...just like Christine Jorgensen." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Consistency

The Sex reassignment surgery section starts out calling Jorgensen "she", even though in the previous section Jorgensen was referred to as "he", not to mention Jorgensen is not even female at this point as this is before any hormones were taken, or before the Castration and Vaginoplasty. I'm Changing it. EvangelionTesttype (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Christine Jorgensen's being female was not contingent on what surgeries she had or hadn't had, but rather her gender identity. Many trans people choose never to have surgery or hormone treatment (sometimes referred to as being non-op), yet still live their lives as their true gender. It is important to always use the pronouns that respect the individual person's identity, rather than the identity you are trying to impose on them. Vervainnovikova (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The article is still inconsistent in the use of pronouns referring to Ms Jorgensen. It states that she "began taking the female hormone ethinyl estradiol on his own" and then begins the very next sentence with "She researched the subject with..." My personal opinion is that anyone deserves the basic courtesy to be addressed as the gender they identify with, regardless of physical sex. So, I agree with Vervainnovikova in that respect, and believe that any pronoun referring to Ms Jorgensen should be of the feminine kind. I have corrected the error. If you disagree with the change I made, feel free to say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliothooper (talk • contribs) 07:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

A Child calling him/herself "Georgia guy" has recently been caught vandalizing the page. Revert any updates from this user immediately, as he/she has nothing to offer. JanetWand (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not the vandal. The vandal is the one who made section 126 at my user talk page. Please read it. Georgia guy (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Please also go to JanetWand's user talk page for additional info. Georgia guy (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

"sic"

I think it's time for discussion on whether the "sic" word is appropriate here. We know that:

  • WP:MOS says that trans women should be referred to as she/her throughout their life.
  • However, the rule that direct quotations cannot be altered takes priority over the above rule.
  • Some direct quotations in the article are referring to Christine Jorgensen with masculine pronouns, because these are direct quotations, we cannot change them to feminine pronouns.

For this reason, it makes sense that these quotations must have "sic" in them, meaning that they are correct the way they are whether they would have been or not if it weren't for the fact that they are direct quotations.

However, User:JanetWand thinks the "sic"s, don't belong here. Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw your note at WP:VPM. I think you might want to wikilink sic. There are people who will think it's just a typo for sickness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. Georgia guy (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
As a general point, if you're having problems with people edit warring over pronouns, you might reduce the number of pronouns/targets available to them. It's a fairly effective defensive measure, although I don't think you'll be able to go completely pronoun-free in this article (without sounding really awkward). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Right now I'm only having problems with JanetWand's statement that I'm a vandal in that I reverted her edits of removing the "sic"s. Georgia guy (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, JanetWand still thinks I'm a vandal. I convinced her to read this section of the talk page, but she has made no response. Georgia guy (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Georgia guy, we don't need a "sic" in here, it is not necessary. What you are doing is vandalism as your input has not been appropriate, on your talk page you have said that Christine Jorgensen was a man even after she transitioned. Any more edits on your part will be reported as vandalism. And stop pretending to be innocent, once the light of day hits your edits, a third party will realize what you are doing is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JanetWand (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I haven't. An un-registered Wikipedian said it. You just mis-interpreted it as something I put on my own talk page. Please read very carefully to note who it was who put that very statement on my talk page. I didn't put it on myself. Georgia guy (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Still, the edits you are making are not warranted. It is not proper, never has the term [sic] been inserted in a discussion of a transgender person when referring to their birth-sex. It is improper, please consider just abandoning your crusade because you have no ground to stand on in this respect, even if it is not vandalism. If you do persist, however, I will submit it to an administrator for review because you clearly have nothing to offer the article and only want to cause dissension. JanetWand (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Now, have you read yet the statement that it was User:74.107.154.58, not me, who wrote on my talk page that Christine Jorgensen was a man even after she transitioned?? Do you still believe I wrote that statement myself on my talk page?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It is possible that you did not write it, I will agree. Now, sic would be highly unorthodox, unless you can show its usage in simliar circumstances. I have never seen it used in these situations. It could be confusing to readers unacquainted with the subject. JanetWand (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Just because you haven't seen something in a particular way except in Wikipedia doesn't mean it's wrong. Georgia guy (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Sir, I have never seen that usage ANYWHERE. If it were proper, it would have been used before. Unless you are a noted scholar on the subject, I don't think it is your place to be creating novel usages for the term sic. JanetWand (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
However, I still believe it is vandalism to ad the sic in there given the complete lack of precedence for that usage. We would like to know, what drove you to ad it in? Why did you ad it in after correcting real vandalism? Do you always look for opportunities to ad in "sic", and are there examples of other edits you made that you just added a sic? Are you a "sic" person that just likes the term "sic"? JanetWand (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who actually added it in; User:Picture of a Sunny Day was the one who added it in; I only re-added it after you removed it. Georgia guy (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
It seems everything you did was done by someone else. Why are you so adamant, then about adding in the "sic"? I don't think you've made a good case for the inclusion of that term, so the article stays at it is now, and previous warnings to you about vandalism stand. JanetWand (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Our best bet is to wait until someone other than one of the 2 of us makes their thoughts on whether to include the "sic". Georgia guy (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
So that you can get on one of your other accounts and make the claim? Listen, unless a valid argument is presented for its inclusion, it will not be included. A valid argument will answer the question, directly and not sideways, how does the inclusion of the term "sic" make the article better and more understandable?. In addition, it will address the reason that no one in the past has every used the term in that particular way. The answer to the first question is that it does not benefit the article at all, and only adds confusion, and is perhaps a veiled insult to the transgender community, which will not be tolerated. JanetWand (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
JanetWand, can you tell me exactly how sic—a Latin term used widely in scholarly writing (such as encyclopedias) that basically means "this is exactly what the original source said, complete with this mistake or misspelling"—constitutes an insult? It basically says "Yes, this old-fashioned source said 'his testicles' when talking about a woman, and we're letting you know that the source got it wrong". Where's the possible insult to the transgender community here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"Sic" is the standard term to use to denote that the error in a direct quotation was not made by the person transcribing the quotation, but rather was present in the original work. Since Christine Jorgensen is a woman, the correct pronoun for her is "she." If incorrect pronouns are used in any direct quotation, the word "sic" should be used to alert readers to the fact that the incorrect pronouns were not a transcription error, but rather were present in the original source material. Rebecca (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Referring to her as "she" is a style question, not a factual question in the normal sense. It's contrary to policy, but it isn't wrong in the same way that referring to a blonde as a brunette is wrong. Wikipedia also has a policy which says that pronouns that refer to God shouldn't be capitalized, but that doesn't mean that any quote which capitalizes such a pronoun should have "(sic)" added. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually Ken, referring to a woman with words like "he," "him," or "his" is very much a factual (and not just a stylistic) mistake. . .and I believe it is one that could be easily mistaken for a typographical error. This is why "sic" is needed in my opinion. Although, you bring up an interesting and provocative analogy with your God example. Most readers of religious articles will likely know that many religious people believe it's properly reverent to capitalize "he" when referring to God; therefore, most are not likely to be confused by the nonstandard capitalization. Likewise, most readers of the Jorgensen article will likely know that many people believe that transsexual women are actually men, and therefore, they are likely to understand why nonstandard grammar is being used in direct quotations about Jorgensen. I still think all and all, however, using "sic" here provides for the best readability and is the most consistent with Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY guidelines. Actually, I even think it would be appropriate to add "sic" to religious articles about God that use nonstandard capitalization in direct quotes. I would never bother making those changes because I doubt they would fly with most of the other editors. . .but I don't believe such changes would be inappropriate in principle. Rebecca (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that your statement that "most readers of the Jorgensen article will likely know that many people believe that transsexual women are actually men" is a heinous insult to transsexuals besides being inaccurate.

Direct Quote From Obituary

There is no need to have a direct quote from an obituary. It can be kept intact, by changig male pronouns to female pronouns placed in brackets, as common usage dictates. Or, it can be rewritten as a paraphrase. Certainly, no one is going to advocate the strict need to have a direct quote when it does refer to Ms. Jorgensen as he and him so often. The term "sic", as mentioned, does not offer enough explanation to make the paragraph clear as to what the error is and in my view its usage here would be improper. JanetWand (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Well then, if we don't need a direct quote, then alter it in whatever way you can. Georgia guy (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The direct quote does not have a working source (bad link). I intend to delete the entire quote unless a source is found. We cannot have information that is not verifiable. JanetWand (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Permanently functional URLs are not required for sources. Removing it would violate WP:DEADREF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing that the section should not be removed. One important reason it should be kept is that Ms. Jorgensen is primarily notable for being the first widely known American to receive SRS. . .and therefore, information about her procedures is very necessary. I also see your point of view, however, Janet. I was originally the person who added the "sic" to this quote in an attempt to respect who Ms. Jorgensen was and also to adhere to Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY guidelines as they pertain to trans women. But I see what you are saying about how they may, in fact, be less than perfectly clear. If there are no objections, I think we should retain the entire section until we can find another source for it, but change the direct quotes about Ms. Jorgensen's procedures into a paraphrase. (This would be all the more helpful as I just noticed the quote does not have a closing quote mark so it's unclear as to where it ends). Rebecca (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
"Her testicles" is likely to fall under the MOS rule about seemingly nonsensical statements, like "She fathered her first child", so if you re-write it, it would be good to avoid the need for gender-specific pronouns whenever possible (e.g., say something like "removed Jorgensen's testicles" rather than "removed her testicles"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's in a direct quote, and this means we have to keep the original his. But, are you saying that in this case Jorgensen can be thought of as an "intermediate gender"?? (if it weren't for the fact that this is a direct quote)?? The template says that statements like "She fathered her first child" should change in a way that keeps the pronouns but removes the phrases that don't go with them well, in which case it would be "She became a parent". Are you saying that it would be equally okay to change the statement to "Jorgensen fathered one child" (under the assumption that it's in this article)?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well. . .it seems like we are in agreement, at least, that is OK to paraphrase the direct quote from the obituary. I feel like being bold. . .so I'm going to go ahead and do it. I expect the phrasing I choose to not to bother anybody here. . .but if it does. . .feel free to let me know or just re-word it yourself to something you think is better. Rebecca (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

References in media

I updated the media section to correct a typo and resultant broken link in the second paragraph, and added a paragraph for John Varley's Steel Beach mention of Ms. Jorgensen with links for Varley and the novel. I wasn't sure whether to add a reference and footnote. If someone will review the style guide and add a footnote and reference if necessary, I'd appreciate it. 207.177.235.66 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggested revision of the first section.

I think the first section of the article would be clearer like this:

Jorgensen was born George William Jorgensen, Jr., the second child of George William Jorgensen Sr., a carpenter and contractor, and his wife, the former Florence Davis Hansen. Jorgensen grew up in the Bronx area and described herself as having been a "frail, blond, introverted little boy who ran from fistfights and rough-and-tumble games".[1]
  1. ^ from Christine Jorgensen: A Personal Biography, her 1967 autobiography, quoted by Michelle Ingrassia in Newsday, "In 1952, He Was a Scandal: When Jorgensen decided to change his name — and his body — the nation wasn’t quite ready." May 5, 1989
Jorgensen graduated from Christopher Columbus High School in 1945 and shortly after was drafted into the Army.
After being discharged from the Army, Jorgensen attended Mohawk College in Utica, New York,[1] the Progressive School of Photography in New Haven, Connecticut, and the Manhattan Medical and Dental Assistant School in New York City, New York. Jorgensen also briefly worked for Pathé News.
  1. ^ "Education: Students Wanted". Time. September 2, 1946. Retrieved April 30, 2010.

If Christine jorgensen can describe herself as having been a frail, blond, introverted little boy, why not say so directly? Also I think it's better to avoid personal pronouns when describing Jorgensen's life before the sex reassignment surgery. Michael Glass (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Just as if she were a "third gender"?? WP:MOS says use she/her throughout her life. Georgia guy (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything in the above that says anything about a "third gender" whatever that might be? Michael Glass (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You're saying that Jorgensen should be referred to with no personal pronouns; as if she were a third gender. She is a woman, and must be referred to with she/her. Georgia guy (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that follows. Please look at the wording: "described herself as having been a "frail, blond, introverted little boy who ran from fistfights and rough-and-tumble games". The personal pronoun there is appropriate because it is Christine Jorgensen looking back at her childhood and describing what she was at the time. If Christine Jorgensen can describe herself in this way, what in the world is wrong with us quoting her words? Michael Glass (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You made a few edits recently removing the personal pronouns from the article. Georgia guy (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite true. Please check over my edits and if you have any concerns about them, please let me know. I have no trouble with using the female personal pronouns for Christine Jorgensen when appropriate. However, if you write "Her testicles and penis were removed," it does sound rather odd. Better to word it as "Jorgensen's testicles and penis were removed," I think. Michael Glass (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Her gonads were altered with surgery"?? Please explain. Georgia guy (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It's obfuscating, that's what's wrong. Let's call it as it is. Michael Glass (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

How is it wrong?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Gonads are ovaries and testicles. In the case of Christine Jorgensen, her gonads were not altered, they were removed. Furthermore the name of the gonads that she had was testicles. Saying that Jorgensen's testicles were removed is just telling it as it is. Michael Glass (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we even say "Her gonads were removed"?? The template at the top of the talk page says it's important to use wordings like "She became a parent for the first time" rather than "She fathered her first children." Georgia guy (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines say that it would be distracting to say something like her testicles were removed. In this case, we would have to avoid using the personal pronoun and say Jorgansen's testicles were removed. The case of parenthood raises really tricky questions of wording, I agree! Michael Glass (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC) PS Look at the article, Peter Wherrett for an example of how using the surname can be used to cope with the death of a transsexual from prostate cancer without the distracting use of a personal pronoun. Michael Glass (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to be removing personal pronouns throughout this article like you have been doing. Christine Jorgensen was a woman; this article should be written like she was any other woman, not like she was a "special" case where personal pronouns need to be avoided. I am reinserting personal pronouns into this article. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Except that Christine Jorgensen was not like any other woman. I do not believe that that statement is in accordance with reality. She was born a male, with testicles and a penis and transitioned to a female by the use of hormones and surgery. Christine described herself as having been a "frail, blond, introverted little boy who ran from fistfights and rough-and-tumble games". Christine had no problem accepting this reality so I don't see why anyone else would not accept it. Furthermore, I did not remove all the personal pronouns, but I did reduce their occurrence because I felt that they were distracting, especially in the time of life before she began the surgery. Michael Glass (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

All women are different; the fact that Christine was born with testicles and a penis does not mean she was less of a woman. Nor does it mean that the appropriate female pronouns should be avoided for certain portions of her life when they are not avoided for certain portions of other women's lives. Regardless of how Christine may have described her childhood, Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY guidelines are clear that pronouns of the correct gender are used for the entire lifetime for all individuals (the correct gender being determined by the individual's most recent recorded self-identification). Having a penis or not having a penis, whether at birth or at any other time in one's life, is simply not relevant as far as the MOS:IDENTITY guidelines are concerned. Furthermore, use of feminine pronouns for trans women before "the surgery" is common to all Wikipedia articles, as well to most reputable English-language journalistic sources. The fact that you personally feel this is distracting merely indicates you need to better familiarize yourself with transgender issues and how they are typically presented on Wikipedia, it does not indicate that your "reduction" of use of personal pronouns in this article was appropriate. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your point of view. I find it curious that Christine Jorgensen can accept that she was a "little boy" and you do not. If you won't even accept the testimony of Christine Jorgensen, then further discussion here serves no useful purpose. Michael Glass (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Little boy" here is from a direct quotation. Georgia guy (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Give me a break, Michael Glass. If Jorgensen believes she was a little boy, then fine: she was a little boy. Nothing I've said contradicts that. I am talking about the correct way to write a Wikipedia article according to our MOS:IDENTITY guidelines and basic good writing techniques. I'm not talking about whether Christine Jorgensen was ever a little boy or not. And the correct way to write a Wikipedia article is to use the same pronouns throughout an article. It's certainly not to awkwardly and verbosely avoid using pronouns for the first half of an article because one thinks that actually using pronouns would be "confusing." The pronouns to use, according to MOS:IDENTITY, are those congruent with whatever a person thought they were, in the present, at their most recent moment. Christine Jorgensen thought she was a woman as an adult. Therefore, this gets applied retroactively. This is the way it is done with every person on Wikipedia. This is the way it is done with every transsexual person on Wikipedia. I see no reason to do things different with Christine Jorgensen. Basically, this is pretty cut and dried; you are making it way too complicated. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that you do accept that Christine Jorgensen was a little boy. Fine. But if you describe this little boy as she it could cause confusion. This is the problem with applying MOS:IDENTITY in a ham-fisted way. There is a discussion about what the wording of the policy should be. Perhaps it would be better to discuss this question there. Michael Glass (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

sex reassignment surgery away from her assigned sex

I'm glad that phrase was removed; it was a very clumsy, tautological phrase. -sche (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, now try to think of a clear phrase that can substitute it, without implying that she actually was a man (as opposed to a woman in the wrong body) before the operation. Georgia guy (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I noticed it was done already, but I corrected the spelling of trans woman. It must always be written as 2 words. Georgia guy (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that it HAS to be two words. The word trans is not actually a word by itself. But, it looks like you are trying for more contention here so I will not dispute your change unless others come forward and disagree. It is definitely not a must, The New York Times uses transwoman. I am just happy to be working with someone who knows more than the editors of the Times. JanetWand (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Read a section of the Trans woman article. It reveals what it means to write trans woman with a space in it. Georgia guy (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Georgiaguy, I had always thought that wikipedia articles were not sources, they can be flawed. But I guess I was wrong. What if someone used this article before you came along and "fixed" it as a source, then they would be able to justify offending the entire community with the term male to female? And I didn't find anything in the article that you directed me to about why it is inappropriate. I suppose it is because we see ourselves as women only, and want the word to be separate. I get that. When I refer to myself, I always say that I am a woman. However, when we are referring to the condition of transsexuality, it is okay to be specific. I would love for you to point out your sources for your allegedly more politically correct terms. I am all for political correctness, but not the kind that renders terms meaningless. Please, please, I implore you, I must know where you are getting the information that has you so determined to make these changes. You have failed to do that so far, leaving me baffled and unable to understand where you are coming from. It would go a long way towards resolving our ongoing dispute. It is a healthy dispute, Mr. GeorgiaGuy, and never forget that. And since you obviously do not want to find any common ground, it is pointless for me to argue with you. Let's see what other contributors say. JanetWand (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Male-to-female

Near the top of the article, it says "...from male to female". We need to alter this; it implies that she actually was a man before the surgery operation, not a woman trapped in a man's body. Georgia guy (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't see it's a problem myself, but if you find those words problematical, remove them. The nature of the operation is implied in the phrase, sex reassignment surgery. Michael Glass (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
from male to female is the appropriate way to describe it. I am sorry that you do not understand the difference between gender and sex, but referring to someone as changing from male to female means that someone changed their sex, not their gender. Sex is male and female, gender is man and woman. One is the body, the other the mind. Perhaps you should not be editing an article about a transsexual if you do not know those basic facts. I am beginning to wonder about your motives GeorgiaGuy. JanetWand (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Those are hardly "facts." The sex/gender distinction is a very contentious issue. Not everyone accepts it as valid; I certainly don't, for instance. Also, the "mind" is the subjective manifestation of the brain, and the brain is part of the "body." In other words, there is nothing that is in the mind that is not also in the body. Are you now going to lecture me about how Cartesian dualism is also a "fact?" Also "woman" means "adult female human" according to most dictionaries (but wait! You have access to "facts" that most dictionaries don't!) So at the point Christine Jorgensen was an adult, but hadn't had her surgery, what was she? She was "male"? Then how could she be a "woman". . .if we acknowledge that she was adult and she was human? Positing that there is such a thing as a male woman, which is basically what you are doing, is positing a linguistic contradiction. The concepts of "gender" and "sex" are irrevocably tied together in Western culture. The categories of "male" and "female" are a social artifact. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that your opinion mattered at all. I was under the assumption that we were to merely cite sources and not become them. It is the height of oversimplification to quote a dictionary for something as complicated as human gender. Your description of what I'm doing is not at all accurate. I am merely giving you the definition that any psychologist knowledgeable on the subject would give you, or anyone remotely acquainted with the subject. Listen, you are out of your element and appear to be on a dubious errand and personal vendetta ("I don't, for instance"). Cease your pointless squabble, please. We will not be bullied by someone's biased personal opinion. JanetWand (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
"Finally, please note that this talk page is not a forum for expressing your own opinions about the statement that trans women are or are not women. If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the WT:LGBT, or, in the case of living trans women, to WP:BLPN." JanetWand (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
In case it was not clear before, transsexuals are either male-to-female or female-to-male. The transition is in the body, they change their bodies (biological sex) to conform to their gender which never changes. Female and woman are not the same thing nor are they mutually exclusive. Cisgender individuals do not have to change anything and seldom understand why a transgender individual feels the way they do. That is of no concern to the fact that transgender individuals feel this way and their condition is recognized by the AMA and every reputable health organization on earth. Someone's opinion about whether or not that should be has no bearing on this article or its choice of wording. We cannot go on what you would like, we must use the nomenclature given and not get distracted with attempting to follow superfluous rules to the exact letter to the point that they defeat the purpose of the rule in the first place. The purpose of saying, look, we must refer to this person in the proper way, reflecting the proper gender, is out of respect. Christine Jorgensen had no problem with being referred to as a male-to-female transsexual, neither does any transsexual. No one has ever claimed that the term was disrespectful. It is the standard way to refer to the condition. We cannot invent new titles and terms. We cannot use original content. If your content is so wonderful, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal and we will cite it. But don't hold out any hope for that. JanetWand (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't invent the term "trans woman". Where's your source that I did?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Look, you have to prove a compelling reason for making the change. Your reason for making the change is based on a fallacy in your understanding of the subject. The term male to female is not invalid and is the conventional way to describe the condition. I don't know how else I can explain it to you so that you will understand. JanetWand (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You said: We cannot invent new titles and terms. We cannot use original content. I didn't invent new terms or use any original content, did I?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Gender and sex are not the same thing. Write it 1,000 times. JanetWand (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Gender and sex are not the same thing. But, which is Wikipedia supposed to use when it refers to people by gender-specific terms?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Now you're asking the right questions. In this case, because it is referring to the change in the body, where George became Christine, it is the sex. Male and female. to say someone is male to female says nothing about their gender identity which remains the same. Remember that disrespecting someone's gender identity is what is offensive. If you were to ever say that Christine Jorgensen was a man, at any point in her life, before or after transition, then you would be saying something highly offensive not only to her but to every transsexual. Do you see now? JanetWand (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Now I understand what you're saying as implying that the word male is not a gender-specific term. Any corrections?? Georgia guy (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Just one: I don't doubt you anymore. I see that you are doing A LOT of good work on wikipedia and as a professional who uses the wiki daily, I have to thank you. JanetWand (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I will try to explain myself better, I know I have a tendency to make not sense. JanetWand (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Please try hard. Georgia guy (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I did the best I could with what I have to work with. I think it is funny that you still don't understand that you are nitpicking yourself out of common sense. A little advice, try to look at the big picture from time to time to avoid the myopic. More advice, it is important to communicate in these discussions. Your method is to pick out one insignificant piece of information and run with it until you are so disconnected from the subject that you don't make sense anymore. I often feel as if I am speaking to a wall in my communication with you. Even when I reach out and try to come to an understanding, your comment is for me to try hard. How empty a gesture, how callous and ignorant you sound. Who are you? What is your purpose? Who is mentoring you, G. Gordon Liddy? If you are not going to reach across the table, then neither will I. JanetWand (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's look at this:
Suppose we have a group of 10,000 flowers in a yard. Most of them are either yellow and have 4 petals or are pink and have 5 petals. But one of them is yellow and has 5 petals. This flower is simply a yellow flower with 5 petals. No one has difficulty understanding this statement.
Suppose we have 10,000 people and most of them are cisgender, but one is a trans woman whose body hasn't yet been fixed with surgery. Per what you're saying is the difference between man/woman and male/female, you're literally implying that this woman is a "male woman", and thus that there is such a thing.
Now, how are we supposed to think of Christine Jorgensen?? She is a woman. She differs from most women in one way; she had the wrong body before it was corrected with surgery in 1952. A trans woman before her body was changed with surgery must be thought of as a woman trapped in a man's body. The term "male woman", which is consistent with what you're saying is the difference between male/female and man/woman, is a term I cannot ever recall having heard.
Okay, we're back here again. The only person who has ever used the phrase "male woman" is you. Before Miss Jorgensen had the procedures to correct her genitalia, she was a pre-operative transsexual. Before she began the transition to change her body to female, she was still a she but her body was male. To say that she went from male to female is the most accurate way to describe it, this I am mentioning to you for the fifth time. To change that basic term is to use terminology that is not orthodox and will not be properly understood under the paradigm of transsexuality. By the very tenets of gender theory, there is no better way to describe it. JanetWand (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I want to add that it seems your confusion is the result of your misunderstanding and/or disbelief of conventional gender theory. If you want to argue about that, I suggest you go the PhD track at a local university and publish a dissertation. That is not a concern to anyone but you. Your opinion has no place in this article. JanetWand (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Per the information you're giving to me on the talk page, you're implying that man and male are not the same thing, and it suggests that there is such a thing as a "male woman". This is a term your arguments suggest is an acceptable (even if not commonly used) way of thinking of a pre-operative trans woman. She has always had her female brain. She simply had a brain-body mismatch that was corrected with surgery. Georgia guy (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I made no implications at all, sir. I made no suggestion of the kind of anything near the term "male woman". Your war is with medical science, not me. Not commonly used? Try not used at all, ever, anywhere but here. You've really elevated the argument with your bird-walking down Absurd Lane. Male and female does not always correspond with man and woman. Deal with the consequences of such a truth, or don't, but don't bring your politics into this forum. JanetWand (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you are. You're saying "Male and female does not always correspond with man and woman." This implies that women can be male, doesn't it?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I should also note that the article on trans women is titled Trans woman, not Male-to-female (which is a re-direct,) which means that "trans woman" must now be the most common term. Georgia guy (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem we are having in our communication is that you want to keep referring to what you think most people think about transsexuals. We run into problems if we bastardize the terminology commonly used to cater to ignorant and bigoted people. Most people are actually not bigoted against transgender individuals. There are but a few who magnify their hatred through unwitting shills. However, the truth is that transgender individuals do exist and there is nothing wrong with them. They are oppressed and discriminated against, but that does not mean that we should pander to their oppressors. If you want to continue to go that route, I will bring in the LGBT to discuss this. JanetWand (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't deny their existence, and I am not ignorant on them. The problem I'm having here is which point of view Wikipedia is supposed to use when talking about them. It is mentioned in the manual of style; the section headed "Identity". Specifically, it is in the second paragraph. It says that trans women must be referred to as women throughout their lives, doesn't it?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth are you rambling on about Janet? First of all, you seem to be under the impression that Georgia Guy and I are the same person? We are two different people, and we both disagree with you. Secondly, the only reason I brought up my personal opinion about the sex/gender distinction is because you brought up YOUR personal opinion about the sex/gender distinction. If you are going to push your personal opinion on a Wikipedia talk page than expect me to also. Basically, it's just simpler to call Christine Jorgensen what she unambiguously was for the lead here. She was transsexual. She was a woman. Hence "transsexual woman." The way "male to female" is tacked on at the end of the sentence with a dash is clunky. Also it DOES make it sound like she was once male, or at least had a "male body" (something you admit that you believe). This comes close to being a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, given that in our culture--as I said--"male" is a gendered term (despite your claims that it only refers to anatomy). The word "male" has never referred simply to anatomy and never will refer simply to anatomy: it didn't it Proto-Indo-European (where it originated), it didn't in Latin, and it doesn't now in English. If you want to really make it clear you are talking about anatomy--talk about penises, testicles, etc. Or say Jorgensen originally "appeared to be phenotypically XY" because that gets closer to the reality than using vague gendered terminology does. The fact that the medical establishment regards transsexual women as male both before and after our transitions only evidences their prejudiced perspective; it has surprisingly little to do with empirical research or controlled experiments. So I am reverting to the language I put in, language that two people agree with here rather than just one (your version). It's also language that is obviously true. Oh, and this is a minor aside, but I feel the need to correct some incorrect things you said. I am not "out of my element." This is my element. I spend a great deal of time editing Wikipedia articles on transgender and transsexual topics and my edits are generally accepted. You, on the other hand, are not somebody I remember seeing around here much. Secondly, I literally laughed out loud at your claim that "Christine Jorgensen had no problem with being referred to as a male-to-female transsexual, neither does any transsexual. No one has ever claimed that the term was disrespectful." Um, have you ever even READ anything that was written by a transsexual, say in the past twenty years? Julia Serano, hello? Anyway, there are LOTS of us that have a problem with the term "male-to-female." I'm one of them (though I'm aware my personal opinion doesn't "matter at all.") I would never willingly associate with any person who persistently referred to me--to my past or my present--as "male." Male-bodied, biologically male, male-to-female: these are offensive to me and people who want to hang out with me don't use them. The only thing that has ever been "male" about me certainly wasn't my penis. The only thing that has ever been male about me was rather that, growing up, I was brainwashed into thinking I was male (and therefore a boy) by cissexist people like you, Janet. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you need to revert your edit. We are not finished with this discussion. We won't be able to make a decision until more people respond. JanetWand (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to revert my edit. What's your problem with it? Christine Jorgensen was an "American transsexual woman," correct? Why is it also essential in your opinion to use the phrase "male to female" in the opening and awkwardly tack it on the end of the opening sentence with a dash? Rebecca Weaver (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I am not a cissexist as you called me. I am transgender, as you are, and so we can lay that to rest. It is interesting that you have no trouble referring to your penis but a problem with the term male. Male bodied, that is what we were before. Now we're not. Its fact and if we are going to explain that to people, we might as well tell them the best we can. So, other than the dash, you don't have a problem? So if we reword and eliminate the dash, you will not have a problem. I suspect not. So don't try and make it about the dash. It is about the term male to female, which is not inappropriate, it is a way to accurately describe what is taking place. I'm so sorry you have a problem with the reality Ms. Weaver. In order to make the distinction between gender and sexuality, it is important to report that we were male because the male is the body. Do you get that, or are you as inept as your friend GeorgiaGuy? We have always been girls/women, but our body did need correction. Isn't it important to make the distinction for budding transsexuals that are faced with such a conflict between mind and body? Should we hide behind a brick wall and go in stealth? Look, this is an important issue. JanetWand (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
As for your attack of my wikipedia work, I want to remind you that I actually bring content and don't spend my time revising (slanting) the work of others. I also do much more for the community outside of wikipedia. Anyway, it is a small person who touts their achievements as an excuse for why their inaccurate information is accurate. JanetWand (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Rebecca Weaver, I never wanted to have a long argument. I want to make sure that if we make a change to this article that it is based on a solid reason. Can you direct me to sources that substantiate your assertion that using male in any way is offensive, that the implication that we were ever a boy is inappropriate? I would be willing to change my position if I were presented with evidence of a new approach that is gaining acceptance. I invite you to school me. JanetWand (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit to not reading the above wall of text but dropped in to say that the idea that male-to-female can be considered a trans woman but not all trans women are male-to-female and many find the MtF labelled rather rude unless used in a scientific sense to simplify a study, for instance. But generally it's a coinage to avoid when trans woman is available. Similarly "transsexual" is often avoided because it conflates sexual activity with transgender issues and sex and gender are distinct. One way to simplify it is we are sexual from the neck up and gender from the neck down. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead

We have gone completely off the deep end in concerns to the lead. It does not make sense and it needs to be corrected. Why does there seem to be a conspiracy to fool around with the header of this article? The reader is not going to understand "for having sex reassignment surgery away from the sex assigned at birth." Away from the sex assigned at birth? What in the world are you talking about? Does anyone else realize the unorthodox nature of that sentence? A few reactionaries have applied rules to the point that the rules do not make sense anymore and they misunderstand transgender completely. Let me tell you something right now - the transgender individuals who find terms like male-to-female and female-to-male offensive are operating from a dubious fringe of the community. That is because they do not understand the difference between gender and sex. Further, no one has brought forth a source that verifies these wild assertions that somehow the term male to female is offensive. If a valid argument is not put forth within 7 days, I shall rewrite the lead myself and use the conventional terminology whenever it is necessary. I am not going to have a group of radicals ruin this article. This is not an article about gender queers. This is an article about the mother of TRANSSEXUALS. Transsexual is a term that I am not afraid to use or apply to myself. I am not alone, either. It is not a bad word. The editors that have made the most recent changes obviously are trying to water down the terms so that bigots can digest this better, but I say to them that those bigots are not going to start liking us just because we refuse to acknowledge sex and gender as two different things. We cannot bow to hate. The editors may also be bigots in disguise, they seem to be the type to fight for meaningless trifles and ignore the glaring proof that no one else has this view but them. When asked to present evidence, they have responded with nothing. I am reminded of a hairstylist that, when I confided to her that I was trans, began to act funny. You could tell that she did not understand what I am. Our relationship quickly turned cold. Before I told her, we were practically sisters. Do you see? I am very keen at noticing subtle hints that someone does not understand me. They do not have the guts to say anything to my face, but their actions speak louder than words. I am seeing it here too, and the individual who has created this editing madness has shown me that he has no logic and is only bent on destroying the truth for his own agenda. This is an editing war and I will continue to fight until the truth wins. JanetWand (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"Transsexual" is often avoided because it conflates sexual activity with transgender issues and sex and gender are distinct. Similarly male-to-female implies something which is not universally true or understood. Many trans women do not feel they have ever been male but simply had to abide a reality that was forced upon them at birth. Ambiguous genitalia is common and most doctors are only minimally aware of the long-term trauma they cause by assigning a gander at birth. More enlightened medical professions generally advise to let the child discover who they are in time and act accordingly. This is hardly universal and many people have to go on a bumpy path of discovery to find out they are transgender, and then how to manage that reality. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want to enter this discussion, Sportfan, I suggest you bring evidence to support your claim. Vague phases like "many trans women" begs the question, WHO? Where is the evidence? I don't see it. Christine Jorgensen did not have ambiguous genitalia, as you claim. Please get your facts straight. Hardly universal? How so. Care to expound, and keep in mind that we do not need your opinion only hard facts. Thank you. JanetWand (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Your hostility isn't helpful. What source(s) are you leaning on to promote any changes? Let's see what the best ones state. I see ""Nature made a mistake," she wrote, "which I have corrected"" Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I am not promoting a change. I am merely putting a stop to an editing war. The lead was changed, I protested. I undid the change, and the reactionary changed it back. I don't do editing wars. But, the fact remains that the lead is under dispute and has been since it was changed. The burden of proof is on those who want to change what was already there. The dispute about the lead is ongoing, it was changed from the convention of male to female. You would have to show proof that the convention is changed and show that the change is accepted by a majority of experts on the subject, or that it is gaining acceptance. And my hostility will continue so long as you keep coming in here under different names trying to sell your bogus claims that have no basis in reality. Male to female is not offensive, if you claim it is then why don't you show proof? The answer to that is because there is no proof of the kind. You have fabricated this whole thing just to promote your warped agenda. Listen, we are not going to take this abuse. Your argument is denied. JanetWand (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Christine Jorgensen was a transsexual who, yes, underwent sex reassignment surgery. The quote you are using has no connection to the current argument. It is accepted and agreed that Christine Jorgensen was a woman and was always a girl or a woman in her life. However, because she was transgender, she was born with a male body. That is not in dispute. Her chromosomes were in fact XY and she clearly had male anatomy to start with. She would not be offended for you to mention that. You are out of your element and do not know a transsexual from Adam. I am transgender so I know significantly more about the subject than you could ever possibly understand, especially since you seem stuck on something as simple as the difference between sex and gender that is not under any dispute because if it were you would prsent evidence just to shut me up. But good luck finding evidence about this because there is none, the term male to female is perfectly acceptable within the community and who are you to claim otherwise when you are not within the community? JanetWand (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't see to be much support for changing back to male-to-female terminology. You might note that Wikipedia directs male-to-female to trans woman, and that apparently happened several years ago. It seems the consensus is to use trans woman instead. I will disregard the other comments made as to how I need to justify my involvement or gender identity. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The consensus? Mr. Sportfan, you will bring evidence to support your claim. Male to female is the term that is used in the DSM. How can you justify not using that term if the authority on the subject prefers that term? So, if you are going to come onto this wiki article and try it, I can tell you that unless you bring actual evidence, the lead is going to change back. Just because a consensus of 2 people on this wiki do not understand the concept of transgender, that does not affront me and I will continue to push and the truth will win. JanetWand (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
All the evidence you need was in your very own edit when you attempted to change back to male to female which ultimately leads the reader to the article trans woman. Please gain consensus to change this, and please stop the battleground mentality. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
If this is not a battleground, then why don't you lay down your arms? Is it because you are creating the battle to begin with? I am merely pointing out that there was not a censensus to change the lead in the first place. I am sorry if that is offensive to you, but the fact remains that there was not enough discussion to warrant the change. You have still not presented any evidence except some insinuation about another wiki article, which we both know cannot be considered an authority. I will continue to stand in the way of any edits to this page that violate the integrity of the article and that is what I'm doing despite your inaccurate characterization. JanetWand (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Sex reassignment surgery (male-to-female) uses the term Male-to-female in the title to distinguish between the two flavors of transgender. Now, you are so worried about offending my community. Without the term, confusion is all that there is and that seems like what you want. I am in my community and you are not. That means that you are arguing for something that you do not have a stake in, which is dubious to say the least. JanetWand (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That article is about a physical procedure, one that many trans women never undergo. As far as I can tell it's to differentiate from female-to-male sex reassignment surgery. And that articles title does not seem to in any way mitigate that Trans woman is the preferred term, at least on Wikipedia. In the above discussions about the use of male-to-female we have three editors generally opposed to its use, one not terribly bothered (but perhaps not too invested in why the terms are sometimes contentious), and your self who is opposed to removing it. So the rough consensus is to remove it in favor of more contemporary terminology. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Sportfan, let's be honest with each other. Where are you coming from? What has led you to fight for the removal of that term? I have managed to correct the problem with the lead and I'm sure that everyone will agree with it. However, I just have to know why you made such a fight over this, even though I still disagree that anyone cares, you obviously do, and I just have to know why. And the rest of you, who made the same argument, where are you coming from? It might help me to understand the purpose of this argument. Do you know anyone who is transgender? And even if you do know someone who is, are you intimately close with someone who is transgender, like a spouse, mother, father, or sibling? My point is that your perception of the community is a little off and it really bothers me because I am keenly aware that transphobia is real and it seems to be at work at least to some degree here, directly or indirectly. I am especially bothered when an outsider attempts to define who I am. That is my point and has been all along. JanetWand (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The terms "male to female", "female to male" are superfluous, long winded and unnecessarily concentrate on the obvious process of sex change and over stresses the individual's past 'legal' gender. Trans woman and Trans Man are simpler and clearly understood terms.
Though not directly covered in either http://www.transmediawatch.org/Documents/Media%20Style%20Guide.pdf and http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender are good guides. -- BOD -- 19:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodney (talk • contribs)

As a metaphor

"[Jorgenson] demanded an apology from Spiro T. Agnew, the U.S. vice president, when he called another politician 'the Christine Jorgensen of the Republican Party'."

I'm pretty sure that was [Charles Goodell] -- a conservative Republican congressman fron New York State who became a liberal Republican once appointed to the Robert Kennedy seat in the U.S. Senate -- to whom Agnew referred." Agnew never heard of political correctness, as indeed thye tern had not been defined.

Update: It's mentioned in the Charles Goodell article. WHPratt (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(It's refreshing to not find heated debate over the choice of pronouns -- which are bound to be a problem -- here. The idea is to impart information. Keep that in mind! WHPratt (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Update. Spoke too soon! WHPratt (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Georgia guy, I made a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

References

The very first reference on the list uses inappropriate pronouns for Christine Jorgensen, calling her 'he' and 'him'. This needs to be corrected, and I suggest that we combine the reference with the citation to the autobiography that is already there. The Newsday quoting of the autobiography is not necessary, we can just go to the first source, which I actually have in my possession. What do you guys think about this? JanetWand (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)d

You have to remember that we cannot re-word direct quotations; a rule that takes priority over all other rules in Wikipedia except the need to avoid foreign languages. Georgia guy (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong.

Tothmetres (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC) When I last visited this particular article, Her cause of death was directly linked to her surgeries (specifically, an attempt to implant a uterus). A very simple internet search proved this to be wrong. I suspect that I was a victim of one of the many attempts to vandalise this page. I see now that I was incorrect. Thank you, Blue Rasberry for pointing this out to me.

Why has her cause of death been conveniantly erased?

Some recent rewrites here positively stink of revisionist history. Someone with a little more balls than the ..... person who erased how she died please put it back in. It does the transgender community a grave injustice to simple erase what caused her death. Honor your heroes, and stop rewriting history to serve your own political agenda. I am loath to tolerate this kind of rewriting of history, and simply ask that someone from the community, do her the honor that she deserves by putting her cause of death back into the article.

Also, IMHO, the previous photo of her was better, but I wont put up a huge fight over that. I often showed that older, color, photo off to male friends, and asked, "do you find this woman attractive" they would usually answer "yeah, why do you ask" Perhaps both photos included in the article would be better. Tothmetres (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted, for purposes of record, that this comment was altered to conform to standards set forth by wikipedia. This rewriting was done at the request of a kind user who, I am sure, has everyone's best interest in mind. At no time will an editing war be waged. No one that has contributed here is, to my limited knowledge, a misogynist transphobe, as I previously asserted with careless certainty. I would like to offer my sincere regret over the entire matter. If anyone else interpreted my comments as violating common manners, I am ashamed of my actions for their sake. If I may speak in my defense, it would be to mention the true fact that transgender citizens are under constant attack from various factions throughout the world. I would hope that this article would not give even the slightest attention to the agenda of this blatant and often poisonous hatred. Anyone who would dare defame the human dignity of an American pioneer such as Ms. Jorgensen, solely based on her gender status and without factual basis, deserves the harshest criticism delivered as a slamming door in their face. I do see this article as a potential battleground against bigotry and I will enforce a strict code of conduct, to the limits of my rights as a common wiki editor. That will not include name calling, threats, or anything improper. It will include a vigorous reading of facts and a quick response to suckers who try to get cute. JanetWand (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Tothmetres The other picture was deleted because it has a restrictive copyright on it and the current picture has a free license. It is a Wikipedia policy to try to present the best free picture available in the articles, so the decision was made on that basis.
Since at least 2013 the description of her death has been the same. What do you think the article should say? I fail to recognize what you are calling revisionist history. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christine Jorgensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christine Jorgensen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christine_Jorgensen/Archive_1&oldid=1028723169"