Talk:Laura Jane Grace/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protection

This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. --Fæ (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Should further protection be required, please raise a request at Requests for page protection. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Gender transition

Today Gabel publicly came out as transgender and announced his intention to live as a woman, eventually taking the name Laura Jane Grace. The expected barrage of IPs and SPAs hit the article, of course, so I reverted back to an earlier version then added the new info with citations to the most reliable sources (Rolling Stone, who apparently have the exclusive, and Pitchfork, who made mention of his lyrics and songs hinting at this decision). I think a few things should be hammered out:

1. The article should continue to refer to Gabel as "Tom Gabel" and as "he" up until the present, where it should discuss the announcement of transition. After than point it can begin saying "she" and referring to her as Laura Jane Grace. It's inaccurate to refer to Gabel as "Laura Jane Grace" or as "her" from his birth to the present, because throughout that time he was Tom Gabel, a male. Speaking of which, the article really needs a Biography section with more detail on his life.
2. The article should only begin calling Gabel "Laura Jane Grace" after the transition is made. To be clear, Gabel announced his intention to transition his gender and to eventually take the name Laura Jane Grace (presumably after the transition is complete or at least in progress). I'm sure more details will follow when the full Rolling Stone article comes out, but as of this moment he's still Tom Gabel, a male. He's going to go through a process to become a woman, after which the article can begin referring to her as such and by her new name.

I've requested the article be semi-protected to prevent the inevitable onslaught of vandalism/unconstructive edits. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but a lot of the sentiments you're expressing here are horribly cissexist and I can't help but pick them apart because they're really aggravating me. (forgive me if this formatted weird I don't know how to Wikipedia).

1. You're saying that an article should refer to Laura as a man up until the present but then you continue to misgender her anyways? This type of thinking is really messed up anyways, it makes it seem as if we can never escape our past as something we actually weren't. She never was a man, even when she herself thought she was. I think it's a lot more respectful (and is more accurate despite what you're thinking) to refer to her by the proper pronouns all the time instead of just "after transition," whenever the heck that is anyways.
2. Which brings us to this; there is no "after" a transition. Transition is a process that goes on for the rest of your life. There's no point where she's magically going to "become a woman" that doesn't even make any sense. She's already a woman, she's just going through processes to make herself feel better about her body and her self image, and this article still referring to her as something she's not definitely wouldn't be helping that. She's going to have the hardest time in the world making people see her for who she really is and referring to her as a "he" is incredibly rude and insensitive.

Also could you please not do this "Tom Gabel, a male" thing. Is what's in her pants/in her genes that important? No, it isn't, so don't do that. --Pajipop (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion platform. You're making a lot of assumptions about what this person thinks/thought/feels, most of which are not backed up by reliable sources. All we have from the sources at this time is that Gabel "plans to begin living as a woman", "will soon begin the process of transition", and "will eventually take the name Laura Jane Grace". This means that these things are to happen in the (presumably near) future, that they have not yet begun, and that the name has not yet been changed. I do not see where the article is "misgendering" the subject: Gabel just announced a plan to transition to living as Laura Jane Grace. The article covers this, and will make the transition to "she"/"Laura Jane" in the biography portion as the events and coverage warrant. All this stuff about "She never was a man, even when she herself thought she was" is your own point of view. A biographical encyclopedia article shouldn't have a point of view, it should present facts: This person was born Tom Gabel, lived most of their life as Tom Gabel, and very recently announced a plan to transition to living as Laura Jane Grace. As much as you may perceive it as "insensitive" to use the male gender pronoun in referring to this person's life as Tom Gabel, it is nonetheless accurate and appropriate from an encyclopedic standpoint. I understand that this is a sensitive topic about which many people have strong views, but Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well being a trans woman myself I think I'm pretty sure I can relate to her on what she's feeling and thinking because I've experienced the same exact things, maybe not in the same way but the way that they feel is a very strong feeling that all trans people can relate to in one way or another. The article is misgendering (this is a real word, no need for scare quotes) her every time it refers to her as a man or uses masculine pronouns - she is not a man, it is not appropriate to refer to her as such. That might be my point of view but once again it's a learned and lived experience and I wasn't advocating for that pov to be included in the article anyways. Yes it is a fact that she lived a good portion of her life as Tom Gabel but once someone has come out about their trans status it's completely inappropriate to refer to them as what they used to be, and citing it as a "fact" is just a vile misuse. Things like this don't work in interpersonal relationships; it's rude in the highest caliber to continue to refer to someone who has begun or is still transitioning as their old selves in person, so why should it be ok for an article about that person to continue doing the same exact thing? I also don't understand the argument about this involving "strong views," how is it a strong view to want someone's pronouns to be accurate with how they view themselves? I'm really not making wild leaps when I make this assumption either, if someone has announced that they are planning to transition, they want to be seen as a different person as soon as possible, the problem is people have a hard time adjusting to this, which makes the process even harder.

And even if none of this conforms within Wikipedia's (admittedly quite awful) guidelines I think they should at least add some disclaimers regarding trans people who transitioned after becoming notable so things like this can be avoided and treated respectfully instead of someone just essentially saying "they're still a man, deal with it." I think it's a huge problem when people care about the rules or some misguided policies over accuracy and respect to someone's identity, because it creates things like this that are just really awful. At least try to understand where I'm coming from with this, at least as much as you possibly can. Apparently I'm wrong about the policies which I'm actually happy about, thank you Kez for clearing that up, I haven't kept up with Wikipedia's standards and I'm really not all that familiar with them. I'm glad to know I'm right in my line of thinking at least.

EDIT: If you don't feel all like that's good enough, basically what I'm saying is by using these standards in referring to her you're actually creating an article that is grossly inaccurate, which is the opposite of what you should be setting out to do. --Pajipop (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

IllaZilla your stance on this is prejudiced and pretending it is the only course of action conforming to Wikipedia's guidelines is completely misleading. Pajipop is correct - there is no "he" before the "she" when a transgender woman comes out. Check any number of other transgender articles and you will find that either - correctly, they use the correct pronoun throughout the biography (i.e. Estelle Asmodelle) or, in the case of articles of more public stars for whom cissexual/transphobic edits must be common ONLY THE NAME IS USED in the biography - no pronouns at all - until the announcement (note: the announcement, not until "after the transition" since FYI transition doesn't have an end point (i.e. Chaz Bono).

Full disclosure on this - I'm cis and have never been trans, but I still know all this, so I think you should take some time to educate yourself before enforcing your opinion on the article. -Kez (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kez, do you know if there is an established consensus somewhere on the approach to take here? Rather than doing this article by article, it would seem to make sense to have a general Requests for comment for any biographical article where the subject has changed their gender identity; if this already exists then we ought to just apply it, if it does not, maybe we should think about creating one.

Note that MOS:IDENTITY is probably the best guide based on consensus to apply here, but it is not easy to interpret for retrospectively changing pronouns. --Fæ (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for finding MOS:IDENTITY - I knew there was a section of the MOS that covered this, but didn't have time to look earlier. However, I don't see how this is "not easy to interpret for retrospectively changing pronouns":

"When there is no dispute, the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself. Wikipedia should use them too."

"Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life."

Seems pretty clear to me. -Kez (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Kez, please don't mistake my desire for encyclopedic neutrality and wording for prejudice. I am a fan of Gabel's, own all of the Against Me! albums, and will be seeing them in concert later this month. I will continue to sing along and cheer just as loudly as I did all the previous times I've seen them. This announcement has not changed my appreciation of their work nor of Gabel's talents as a musician and songwriter. In this discussion my only concern is presenting a neutral encyclopedia article that accurately conveys the information in a way that readers of the encyclopedia will be able to understand. I do not have prior experience writing about this type of situation and there may be consensus guidelines that I am unaware of. My interest is in ensuring that the article is neutrally-worded and sticks to its sources. I'm sure we will have much more source material to draw from regarding the subject's own feelings on the topic when the full Rolling Stone feature hits shelves on Friday. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Doh! Thanks Kez, for some weird reason I was completely word blind on the relevant sentence in MOS:IDENTITY, it may be something to do with the coloured text below it. I agree, it makes sense to me too and supports your viewpoint. I think we can see a consensus here, and the approach is supported by MOS. The only question is are the sources we have available sufficient to make these changes to the entire article now, or do we wait a few days as IllaZilla would prefer when a few more quality sources might pick up the story? --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now the only significant source is this, a Rolling Stone introduction to a full article that will appear in the upcoming issue (which hits newsstands this Friday). All other sources at present are essentially repeating that article. As for changing the entire article, what changes would that entail? Keep in mind that the article at present contains only 12 sentences of prose and is thus sorely lacking in biographical details. At present there are only 2 gender pronoun in the article, a "her" and a "she". --IllaZilla (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Eventually we ought to consider making the main article Laura Jane Grace rather than using a redirect. I agree there seems nothing to change right now, especially as the single real source we have uses "Gabel" rather than "Grace" and makes it clear than a preferred name change is some time in the future. The benefit of a consensus here, is that anyone turning up to make some changes or additions can refer to this preliminary discussion rather than overturning it. In the meantime "she" seems to be our consensus on the right pronoun based on the most recent sources we have. I don't think we need a heavier process than the calm discussion we have now had to establish that. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Works for me :) --IllaZilla (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And me. I agree that the name change (not the gender identity) is a future change, according to the source we have and thus this page should remain "Tom Gabel" for the moment. I appreciate that this was dealt with amicably and that all had good faith in dealing with this. -Kez (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note here to clarify that I've reworded one sentence in the intro to avoid gender pronouns entirely — since the article hasn't been moved yet and the reason why the gender pronouns are female instead of male isn't clarified until later in the article, using "she" in that particular sentence has the potential to confuse a reader who isn't already familiar with her gender transition. I do fundamentally agree with MOS:IDENTITY, the pronouns should indeed be female rather than male — but we also do have to watch out for situations where we might be confusing the reader, and using gendered pronouns in the introduction, before the reader has actually been informed that she's a transwoman, is one of those. After the reader has actually seen the explanation, of course, female pronouns are appropriate — and once the article has actually been moved to her female name, of course, then there won't be a problem anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, Wolfram Alpha estimates there are about 3,000 women in the U.S. called Thomas. Names are a different thing to gender identity, and it's actually interesting how many people have a name that's traditionally used for the other gender (myself included; my middle name is somewhat unisex but tends to the opposite gender). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the pronouns: I'm working on rewriting the article using the Rolling Stone piece and a 2007 article from Spin as the main sources (both have useful details on Gabel's childhood, teenage years, and gender dysphoria), and I'm having a heck of a time trying to stick to gender-neutral language without the sentences sounding repetitive and poorly-written. For example, I want to say:

• "Gabel's parents had an acrimonious divorce when he was 11 years old, and Gabel and his mother moved to Naples, Florida to live with his grandmother. Gabel's parents did not speak to one another after the divorce, though young Tom would occasionally spend summers with his father."

It's proving difficult to construct this type of passage in a gender-neutral way: "Gabel's parents had an acrimonious divorce when Gabel was 11 years old, and Gabel and Gabel's mother moved to Naples, Florida to live with Gabel's grandmother." The many "Gabel"s read as repetitive and awkward (it's be easier to construct more varied sentences if I knew Mrs. Gabel's first name, but unfortunately neither of the articles has it). I've been aiming for gender-neutral language a la the Chaz Bono article, but as I come across more biographical details to write about I'm having trouble doing that, since I need to make reference to Gabel's parents and childhood experiences (the more such details I write about, the harder it becomes to stick to proper nouns and avoid pronouns).

The way the Rolling Stone piece is written, it uses "Gabel", "Tommy/Tom", "he", and "his" right up to the point where Gabel meets the interviewer dressed as a woman and introduces herself as Laura. From that point on, the piece switches to "Laura", "she", and "hers". That's what I'd like to do, in order to make the sentences less awkward and make Gabel's transition from man to woman make sense to readers. Obviously from the conversation above, there are some editors who I think wouldn't agree with me on that. Does anyone have any suggestions? --IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't fit to the MoS, though, which still says "refer to people by their preferred gender". Obviously, in the case of quotes, we leave them unaltered, but still... we say that "New Wave is the Xth Against Me! album", not "New Wave was the Xth Against Me! album". When we talk about (cisgender) people who have changed their names (either legally or otherwise), we refer to them by their new identity (see: Lady Gaga, not Stefani Germanotta), and I don't see why an exception should be made for Gabel. Readers aren't stupid. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, and I don't see features in this article that provide any basis for arguing it needs to be an exception. IllaZilla, I realize it's can be difficult to write, and I very much appreciate the legwork you've been putting in here, but the purpose of the identity guideline outweighs a bit of language struggle. One thing that might smooth the exposition is moving some of the tidbits of musical career in the lede into a section below, it feels like we need more musical coverage in any case, and a short lede beforehand could mention the transition. *shrug* --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Female pronouns should be used throughout, except in the case of direct quotations referring to Gabel before she came out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.134.204.232 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe, that's part of my rewrite. As I get to the bits touched on in the lead, I'll move them out of the lead & into the body. Sceptre, the way I read your comment it seems to indicate that we ought to change all instances of Tom Gabel to Laura Jane Grace, but that's actually not how we deal with people who've legally changed their names, at least in my experience: It's been my experience that, when writing a biography of a person who made a legal name change or is primarily known by a pseudonym, one usually refers to them by their birth name up until the point where they change their name or adopt the pseudonym. To me, that's simply good writing, especially in cases where they were widely-known by their birth name before making the change. In this case, for example, the subject went by their birth name for their entire life up until very recently, establishing a musical career and becoming internationally known as "Tom Gabel". The name Laura Jane Grace has only been known to the public for 5 days, whereas Tom Gabel has been known to the music press and general public for at least a decade (since the release of Reinventing Axl Rose). Referring to someone by the name they've been known by their entire life, built their career under, and released a half dozen albums under, rather than by a new name they just made public 5 days ago, isn't treating our readers as stupid. It's treating them as intelligent enough to follow the person's biography as it goes from their birth up to and through the name change, without pretending that they were known by the new name their entire lives (which, of course, Gabel wasn't). With respect to MOS:IDENTITY, I'm doing my best to avoid gendered pronouns in order to make the prose make sense as it communicates this particular life story, but it is presenting a language struggle. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

My reply was more concerned with gendered pronouns (which I don't think we need to torture the writing to avoid) with the name; referring to her as Gabel is still appropriate. For comparison, it's interesting to see how we write about two other musicians that changed their names mid-career: for Mos Def (now Yasiin Bey), we use his stagename throughout; for Cat Stevens (now Yusuf Islam), we use "Stevens" up to his conversion, and Yusuf afterwards. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Scepter, I just reverted some of your edits and I want to explain why: Per the above, I'm making a concerted effort to avoid gendered pronouns in the biography until I reach the part about the gender transition. It'll just confuse readers if we introduce a person named Thomas Gabel (a masculine name) and then refer to them as "she" throughout the entire thing, then talk about her transitioning to living as a woman ("Wait a minute? She's not a woman already? The article's been calling her 'she' the whole time!"). Hopefully you can see how this leads to confusion. In deference to Gabel's preferred gender identity I'm avoiding "he"s throughout, but as expressed above that means using a lot of "Gabel"s or reconstructing sentences in slightly odd ways. If we're to avoid "he"s entirely, then that seems the only route to take unless we want to confuse readers. It's also how the Chaz Bono article (which was brought up earlier as an exemplar) is written. We are, after all, writing about someone who had a public identity as a man for at least 15 years before deciding to change their public identity. We must consider that in our attempts to convey this story to readers.

I ask for some patience while I continue my rewrite of the article. I'm doing so around my work schedule and other commitments but I'm making every effort to knock this thing into decent shape in what free time I have. I'm seeing Against Me! next Friday so I hope to snap an updated photo of the band and some of Laura Jane Grace to add to the article. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The only place we'd even need to avoid gendered pronouns, if at all, is until we first mention her GID/trans status. Then it's fine. As I said, readers aren't stupid. The article on Dee Palmer, who was known as David during her time with Jethro Tull, doesn't even mention her transition until near the end. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my view, most of Sceptre's changes were constructive, and most of them were past the first mention of transition in the lede, I don't see a "confusion problem" at all post-first-mention. Primarily this is a matter of what I find awkward, and the continuing overreptition of the last name is very much so to me. Sceptre's revision is smoother.

More importantly, however: "Her husband" is not, in my view, consistent with the spirit if not the letter of MOS:IDENTITY, and it and any similar constructions I've missed, in my view, should be remedied sooner rather than later, For emphasis, the establishment of Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY is in part a statement that our commitment to avoiding harm to living people as codified in our WP:BLP policy and outweighs subjective concerns of awkwardness. As a guideline, it is not, without a very good reason, optional. (And, btw, I'm sorry if this seems harsh. None of this is meant to take away the otherwise great work you're doing on the article, IllaZIlla, and have fun at the concert! I'm jealous!) --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Inherent non-"neutrality" of gendered language

I'm not a Wikipedian, but I am transgender, intersex and queer person with a fair amount of critical thought and political action on the subject of gender under my belt, so let me say this to the Wikipedians who've tasked themselves with maintaining this article:

The English language, and the social structures which structure it, are structured by it, and with which it is interwoven, is itself not "neutral" vis a vis gender. It is structured on a mechanism of interrelated assumptions regarding gender: -that only men and women exist -that men are masculine and women feminine -that masculine people are men and feminine people are women -that masculine man and feminine woman are "opposites" -that a person's gender can be identified by their bodily morphology, dress or behavior -that a person's bodily composition determines their gender and so on. Unfortunately, many Wikipedia articles, in the course of following some combination of Wikipedia policy, common language and editors' personal biases and assumptions, treat their transgender subjects very badly. Part of the task for editors - especially cisgender (non-trans) editors - becomes to challenge the ideology of common language, including where it's embedded in Wikipedia policy and in sources (the upcoming Rolling Stone article included).

Media stories about trans people should absolutely NOT be taken at their word as regards the implicit gender ideology of their language. Importing the language and underlying assumptions of the Rolling Stone material into the article is precisely the wrong thing to do. Big media are usually very intent on a "sex change" narrative as regards trans people - "changing from a man into a woman," getting "sex change surgery," all that - because it's simultaneously lurid and more manageable for cisgender audiences to consume. This sort of thing is of course already rampant in the online hubbub about Laura Jane Grace. It's likely to be very present in the Rolling Stone article as well.

What is most important in producing a good article about trans people, Laura Jane Grace Gabel included, is not to make the subject easily understandable for cisgender people, but to honor the lifetime of pain and struggle that most trans people go through by using language that affirms our genders and our validity as people. There is a substantial body of considered thought by smart trans people online on this subject. If some of it is in conflict with Wikipedia policy, then Wikipedia policy needs to change.

Instead of trying to avoid being "confusing," be accurate; instead of trying to hold on to the name she was coercively assigned at birth as long as possible, be proactive and change the name of the article now. Use her pronouns throughout the entire article, including when referring to her pre-transition. Since you all like her music so much - which, you know, I have an Amebix back patch on my hoodie, I think I get it - honor her by making her Wikipedia article one place where the firestorm of bullshit that ALWAYS happens around trans people coming out doesn't penetrate.

And one more thing - trans people's existence violates the very underpinnings of the gender ideology implicit in the very fabric of our society. Don't assume that just because you know and love Against Me!, you necessarily understand how to properly understand, relate to or write about trans people and our lives, struggles and triumphs. Be considered, careful, challenge yourself, center things on Laura Jane Grace's needs as much as possible, have some humility, and above all, do a whole fuckton of research.

- <3, Anja Flower — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.155.255.188 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are pushing on an open door here. As soon as we have some sources to verify that Gabel is living as Laura Jane Grace, the article move can be proposed and will doubtless go ahead. As for trolling and bullshit, sadly this does happen all the ruddy time in these situations. I hope you understand that the fairly quick article semi-protection is part of how we can help avoid this escalating and I also hope you appreciate that good handling of BLP articles means that any significant change relating to people's personal lives needs to be handled sensitively, with a view on long term encyclopaedic value, and supported by quality sources. As pointed out above, there is plenty of good faith here and several well informed people keeping an eye on this article. If you see a problem or want to discuss an improvement, this page is the right place to flag it up. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what I meant earlier (in my response to Pajipop) about Wikipedia articles not being a place for strong views. Anja Flower above obviously comes to this page with some very strong views, and they come across in opposition to some of Wikipedia's core policies. Particularly "What is most important in producing a good article about trans people is not to make the subject easily understandable for cisgender people, but to honor the lifetime of pain and struggle that most trans people go through by using language that affirms our genders and our validity as people." "Honoring lifetimes of pain and struggle" and "centering things on Laura Jane Grace's needs as much as possible", while certainly noble goals, are not necessarily Wikipedia's goals: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and seeks to present verifiable information in a neutral manner. Specifically, we avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them.

In other words, while we certainly write about transgender topics including Gabel's transition to Laura Jane Grace, we attempt to do so from a neutral point of view and do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox, either to champion viewpoints or disparage them. What is, in fact, most important in producing a good encyclopedia article about this or any subject is to make the topic understandable to both a general and specialist audience (Wikipedia having a global audience of all backgrounds). That's the reason Wikipedia exists in the first place: to gather human knowledge and present it to a worldwide readership in the form of a well-referenced encyclopedia. Were we to focus on championing struggle and not attempt to make the information understandable to a general readership, we would be doing a poor job as writers of a neutral encyclopedia.

In summation, the guiding principles here are neutral point of view and verifiability, not our particular passions. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure NPOV or verifiability are actually that useful. MOS:IDENTITY seems rather more applicable for the issue at hand. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

New reliable source for gender transition

Against Me!'s Tom Gabel Makes Live Debut as Laura Jane Grace in San Diego is a new article on the Rolling Stone site that has more information on this subject.

The article starts by referring to "Tommy Gabel" but then switches to using her female name, Laura Jane Grace, and use the female pronoun, referring to "her wife" and how "she's open". It also notes that Grace has started hormone therapy.

It's probably still too early, but given that the source suggests that they are now living openly as a woman and under the new name Laura Jane Grace, I'm not sure what else is really needed before we contemplate moving the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I was at that show, and she didn't introduce herself or say anything about the transition at all. The band did play a few new songs which are presumably from the forthcoming Transgender Dysphoria Blues (including the title track), but otherwise no mention was made. I had planned to take photos of Gabel/Grace for use in the article, but it was a no-cameras venue & the security guard close by was being very strict about it. I don't think any of the shot I managed to get would be article-worthy (I did get a picture with Heather, though...fanboy moment for me). Anyway, I'll take a look at the new source and see how to incorporate this into the article. I still don't think a move is warranted yet. WP:COMMONNAME is still rather overriding. IMO the time will be when the new AM! album comes out, if it credits Laura Jane Grace rather than Tom Gabel. That'll be the surest sign that she's openly going by the new identity. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

New name

Just for for clarity. Is Grace her new surname or one of her new middle names with her retaining the surname Gabel? The way it reads just now in the also known as etc makes it seem like a surname. RafikiSykes (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had wondered the same. That's probably another reason we should wait for stronger sources before we actually move the article. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The current sources don't make that clear. I imagine the full Rolling Stone feature will go into more detail. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Rolling Stone's coverage of the San Diego gig seems to indicate that she's using Grace as a surname. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See below, under #New reliable source for gender transition. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved

There's no reason for it to continue to exist under her old name. It's pretty much confirmed. Alexandria (chew out) 14:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I must say I'm rather surprised that you, as an admin, would take it upon yourself to move the page without establishing consensus first or discussing it in any way. If you peruse the discussions above you will see that we have every intention of moving the article when the time is right. "Pretty much confirmed" doesn't cut it. The surest indicator will be when she begins crediting herself as Laura Jane Grace on her published works (ex. the upcoming Against Me! album). That will be the clearest sign that she has openly and publicly switched to the new name. Until then WP:COMMONNAME is still the overriding policy. We are dealing with a situation of a sensitive personal nature and which doesn't have a clear turning point: As the Rolling Stone article says, "there's not some 'ta-da" moment where she'll flip a switch and magically turn into a female. It's a long and carefully prescribed process." Gabel's transition to Grace isn't going to be abrupt, and neither should this article's. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me exactly what part of WP:COMMONNAME the move violates? Alexandria (chew out) 01:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph, first few sentences. Most sources are still using "Tom Gabel", and even the Rolling Stone feature announcing the transition describes the name change as an "eventual" thing and the transition as "a long and carefully prescribed process". This has been discussed in some detail in the threads above. As I said, we will certainly move the article at the appropriate time, most likely when she begins officially going by the name Laura Jane Grace (most easily evidenced when she releases an album crediting herself under that name). Since the next Against Me! album is already on the horizon, that shouldn't be too far off. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It is my view that this represents a reliable source that Grace has begun "officially going by the name Laura Jane Grace". I also see no reason to think that an album publication is the ultimate test of identiy, were Grace were never to record another album, surely we would not be prevented from recognizing a well-documented change of name. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, under #New reliable source for gender transition, I was at that show and not only did she never introduce herself, no mention of name or transition was made at all. The source itself says as much, so I don't know where it's getting the idea that she "performed with the band under her new name". Anyway, a single source doesn't justify an immediate move. I've done a lot of reading about this situation over the last 2 weeks (in the process of completely rewriting the article), and the majority of sources (even those discussing the transition post-announcement) still use the name Gabel. Again, this is a gradual process of transition, there is no "ta-da" moment, and thus there is no call to immediately or abruptly move the article. I never said album publication was the "ultimate test", merely that it would constitute good evidence that she's publicly and officially going by the new name.

Remember we are dealing with someone who has numerous published works under the name Tom Gabel, and is known all over the world by that name. The name Laura Jane Grace will no doubt come to be known more prominently as she continues to be public about her transition and begins to publish things under that name. At this point it is still too early to move the article, in my opinion. It's an interesting case, to be sure: generally speaking, we tend to be writing about transgender persons after the fact. This is the first time I've worked on an article about someone who was famous pre-transition and is in the process of transitioning. It certainly poses interesting questions and considerations vis-à-vis wording and article titles. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use things like album liner notes: they are self-published sources, and making inferences about a person from their published works is original research. (Do we infer lesbianism from Jenna Jameson's extensive filmography?) The very public statements from the subject about being transgender, combined with the more recent reports from the concert, which have been widely written-up (Guardian, The Advocate, Spin, NME) have nudged me into thinking that it's probably time.

You say this is an "interesting case". And I hope I'm not setting myself up as a spokesman for transgender people ('cos, you know, I'm neither a transgender person or a particularly good spokesman for anything), but this isn't just an interesting case, it's important that we get it right: The Wachowskis got turned into a battleground by fanboys who didn't seem able to accept that the creator of their favourite movie might be (gasp!) a transsexual! No, per MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BLP, let's not delay on this. The sources are using "her" and "she", and using Laura Jane Grace. This isn't a contentious case like Bradley Manning: Grace has started taking female hormones and started the transition process. This "person's latest expressed gender self-identification" is female, and is Laura Jane Grace. I really can't see any policy-based reason why we shouldn't move this. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Pink News used her new name too. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that most of the sources point to her new name, unless I hear any very, very compelling arguments not to, I'll move it again tomorrow. Alexandria (chew out) 02:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done it's moved. Sorry, I had some real life issues come up that kept me away from here (WP is not my focus by any means). Alexandria (chew out) 14:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I would think a name is a lawful connection to a person. In the absence of a source that a legal name change has occurred, everything else is a nickname. Heck, you can call me "late for lunch", but don't misrepresent it as my name unless it is legal. How do the checks clear the bank? Can Laura Jane Grace vote, or must she vote under the name Thomas James Gabel? How does this one case supersede wp:crystal? The dang Superbowl is scheduled, but we can't write that its going to happen or publish details on locations and dates, because it is a future event. I suggest the name change is a future event and is at best only credibly likely to happen, but it hasn't happened. I think this is a bad move that discredits our encyclopedic integrity in favor of fringe disillusion. My76Strat (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan doesn't really vote under that name either, so while I understand where you are coming from, the legal name argument doesn't make much sense. Neither does the 2014 Super Bowl argument. If you would ask the articles subject her name, she would give you Laura Jane Grace. This has been repeated in numerous reliable sources. Now is this her WP:COMMONNAME? Truth be told, I don't know. A strong case can be made against it, as much as a good case can be made in favour (most reliable sources now use her new name). Still, I strongly support the article to be here. Why? Out of common decency. The only good reason I can give for the article to be at her old name is that the name (still?) might be more common. Or not. I can't say for sure. All in all it could go either way on that one. On the 'the right thing to do' front however, the subject here want's to be known by her new gender identity. Name plays a very important part in that. I think it is a very good idea to let that argument prevail here, especially when countering an argument that isn't particularly strong anyway. Let's keep this article here, because there are no real strong arguments to move it back, and it is the right thing to do. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the first line of Hulk Hogan: Terry Gene Bollea (born August 11, 1953), better known by his ring name Hulk Hogan. Or heck, this one: William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III; August 19, 1946) is an American politician who served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001. These follow convention, the article is titled in the name they are best known as, and the prose are truthful. This article is not presenting the title because it is the most well know name, it is, as you say, the decent thing to do. But being decent, or hip or cool is not the best manner for generating encyclopedic prose. Why are we disambiguating it with the middle name. Are we promoting that this should be the common form? A lot of things go awry when you change your MO to be decent. I still believe neutral is the way to go and unfortunately that doesn't allow you to choose who when and where decency belongs. I promise you there are many who feel it would be decent to treat the subject exactly as you would treat any other subject. The very insinuation that there is something different due this subject defeats the stated goal of equality. it's perplexing really. My76Strat (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A final thought and then I'm on with things; Alexandria, I think it was a moment of poor judgement when you chose to move this article. Why in the wiki world would you put your admin integrity at risk for the miniscule gain of doing this yourself? My76Strat (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Clinton or Hogan are comparable; when Clinton was impeached, he was referred to as "William Jefferson Clinton", even though three hundred million people knew him as Bill. It's more like Dee Palmer, who changed her name by deed poll during her transition. There, we use a "X (born Y) construction. On the subject of COMMONNAME... that says that "ambiguous or inaccurate names [...] are often avoided", and calling her Tom Gabel now is inaccurate because sources are pretty clear that she's taken on her new identity as Grace, and reliable sources in the past few weeks refer to her as Grace now. There's been a consensus on this talk page that it should be moved, just we differed on when to move it. This is backed up by MOS:IDENTITY, which itself reflects most journalistic, academic, and medical manuals of style, and social guidelines: you refer to a trans person by their current identity, not by their identity of birth. (And "Laura Jane Grace" is more common than "Laura Grace", just like "Sarah Jane Smith" is more common than "Sarah Smith") Sceptre ^(talk) 06:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand. It sounds reasonable. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

Now the article is at Laura's new name, I think the article could do with a rewrite to make the writing flow more naturally than the stilted way we wrote it during the period between her coming out and the move. Also, I'd really like an image like this to adorn the top, but I don't really know how to approach flickr photographers for copyright releases. :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 22:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it, but it's difficult to write about someone who changes their identity after already being widely notable under their original identity. For example, you can't just go back through the biography and change all mentions of "Gabel" to "Grace" (as many IPs and SPAs are wont to do) because she wasn't Laura Jane Grace then, she was Tom Gabel (not referring here to male/female identity, but to name and public profile). She didn't change her identity or come up with the name Laura Jane Grace until this year, so it's historically inaccurate to perform that kind of revisionism (writing as if she were named Laura Jane Grace the whole time). That said, I haven't edited the article since before the move and I may take a fresh look at it.

As for the picture, I went to the opening date of Against Me!'s current tour with The Cult, and brought my camera along with the express intent of snapping a new infobox shot for this article, but it was a "no cameras" venue and the security guard near me was being a real hard-ass about that rule. The shots I managed to sneak in didn't turn out well enough to even be worth uploading to Commons. Commons does have a guide for Flickr photos: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flickr_files If you find any with compatible licences, there are some tools available to help upload them easily. If you do find some with compatible licenses but have trouble with the upload process, pass the URLs along to me & I'll be happy to upload 'em myself. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You say, "you can't just go back through the biography and change all mentions of "Gabel" to "Grace".... Actually, yes you can. And that is precisely what MOS:IDENTITY requires. Unless you can point me at the policy or guideline which says otherwise, I'll make the change tomorrow. Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense. For 31 years she lived, was known, and credited herself as Tom Gabel. She didn't come up with or start using the name "Laura Jane Grace" until 2012. You can't go back through her entire life pretending that's what her name was the entire time. That's just plain factual inaccuracy, and not at all what MOS:IDENTITY is about. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is precisely what MOS:IDENTITY is about. "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life."

I'm sorry this doesn't make sense to you.

For what it's worth, it's not a matter of hiding Laura Jean's transition, of course we can and should talk about it in the article. In my own view, the reason for MOS:IDENTITY reflects instead is a default assumption that in the majority of cases for transgender individuals, that it's often considered hurtful, insulting or even in some cases harmful to refer to them by the gender we might have thought of them by before. In essence, it matters little what you and I think, what's important are the BLP implications.

But that's just my own rationalization of the basis of MOS:IDENTITY, it's not really required that we agree. I regularly live by and enforce policies and guidelines at Wikipedia I don't quite agree with. I expect you do as well.

What's important in this case is that It's a consensus (reflected as a guideline) of Wikipedia editors, and a broader one than any consensus we'll find on this talk page. The appropriate way to argue this question is to lobby for changes in MOS:IDENTITY.

I've intentionally hesitated to bring this to a head until now of the excellent work you've been doing on this article. But I value more minding carefully the effects our encyclopedia has on the living individuals, such as Grace, that we cover in our articles. And so, on this one issue, I must disagree. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Illa, there's a reason why I chose the Terminal 5 show specifically. The cover of "Androgynous" is pretty heartwarming. In any case, I was more about introducing more "she"s instead of "Gabel" all the time... Sceptre ^(talk) 03:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just had a look on flickr, there don't appear to be any photos younger than two years ago. That said, there's a pressing reason to call her "she" distinct from the matter of "Grace"/"Gabel", which can be dealt with another way with regards to ethics and writing. If she has changed her name legally, then she should definitely be known as "Grace" throughout. Until then... I'd prefer Grace throughout, but it's up for debate. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Joe Decker) But a name is a proper noun, not a gendered noun, pronoun, or possessive adjective. It's certainly not about hiding the transition (I mean, that's mentioned in the lead & given its own section in the article...we're being pretty direct about it). As it's currently written, the article deliberately avoids gendered nouns, etc. in the interest of logic (telling the story of someone who lived publicly as a man for 31 years before beginning a transition to living publicly as a woman). It's the same way the Chaz Bono article is written. Going through the whole bio simply doing a find/replace job on the names, as if she were always named Laura Jane Grace, would be writing a false history. Maybe it's my history degree talking, but the very idea makes my head spin and I don't see that MOS:IDENTITY supports such an action. It's also not what I'd expect to see in any other article about any other person who'd gone through a name change at some point in their life.

I don't think that referring to someone in a biography by their birth/legal name up to the point where they decided to change it can reasonably be interpreted as hurtful, insulting, or harmful. There's certainly no BLP issue in referring to someone by their birth/legal name, especially when it's the name they lived publicly under (and credited themselves as on all their published works) up until last month. Changing the name (in the article) and changing the gender aren't the same thing: I'm certainly not suggesting referring to her as "him" or anything, just not going back in the bio to the point where she was 17 and writing as if her name was Laura Grace at that time, which it wasn't. Are there any GA or FA bios of transgender individuals we could look to as exemplars? --IllaZilla (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre, I don't know if there's (yet) been a legal name change. I haven't read anything to that effect. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Source for the birth date?

Anyone got a source for the birth date of November 8, 1980? That's one detail I haven't found mentioned in any sources so far. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I found a source but I'm not sure of the reliability. Since Gabel was arrested in 2007, the booking report is public record. I didn't realize there are a ton of sites out there that post mugshots & arrest reports (then charge you if you want yours taken down...it's a total scam). Anyway Gabel's booking report is here and includes the date of birth. Is that a citeable source? --IllaZilla (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone care to help answer this? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Name on other pages

I just noticed that on Heart Burns, someone replaced all instances of Tom Gabel with Laura Jane Grace. Is that the correct thing to do? I would think that since the release is credited to Tom Gabel, then that name should still be on there somewhere. With previously published material, is there a guideline on when the current name should be used and when the name as-published should be used? -Joltman (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not the correct thing to do. All material released prior to 2012 was credited to Tom Gabel, and should remain credited as such since she didn't come up with or start using the name Laura Jane Grace until 2012. To go around doing a find/replace job on all occurrences of "Tom Gabel" as if she was named Laura Jane Grace her whole life is revisionist history. The correct thing to do is leave the name "Tom Gabel" in the text, but use a piped link to direct it thusly: [[Laura Jane Grace|Tom Gabel]] --IllaZilla (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What does the template related to trans women at the top of this talk page say?? Here it is again:

It makes no difference. From her birth until May 2012 she was known as Tom Gabel. That was her legal name, by which she credited herself on all of her published works. This is not a matter of gender identification, it's a matter of names. Her change of expressed identity has entailed a change of name, but that doesn't justify pretending that her name was Laura Jane Grace her entire life when that was in fact not the case. She just came up with that name and started using it 2 months ago. To go back through history removing mentions of the name "Tom Gabel" and replacing them with "Laura Jane Grace" is inaccurate and not supported by MOS:IDENTITY. Rephrasing the gendered phrases in these articles ("he" vs. "she", for example), is covered by MOS:IDENTITY, and is a matter that I'm not disputing. What I am disputing is pretending that this person's name in 2008 was Laura Jane Grace, when that is simply not true. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Illazilla, this is an ongoing debate across projects but it is incorrect to simply revise all these articles as if someone else wrote them and it is effectively rewriting history. Someone unaware of Tom Gabel/Laura Jane Grace comes across a particular album article, seeing a credit to Laura Jane Grace leaves the article misinformed about the reality of the situation and the true history. Lots of actors have stage names and real, legal names, but their credits and references to them in other articles do not reference these legal names. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the appropriate action to take in this case. Most trans folks, once they begin transition and take a new name, seek to erase as much record of their original name as possible. Referring to a trans person by their birth name is akin to referring to them by their former pronoun; rather impolite, and offensive if done intentionally. As for the comparison to stage names versus real names, that's not a valid comparison. Many actors and performers retain use of their original name under certain contexts. Trans people do not, for the very most part, do so. The name Tom Gabel is, under no circumstances or contexts, the appropriate way to refer to Laura Jane Grace. I'd actually like to see her birth name removed from the article period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.173.170 (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Too bad; that is simply not going to happen. You do not rewrite history in this fashion. A person changing their identity does not suddenly wipe their previous identity from history. With all due respect to Grace and other trans persons, we are writing an encyclopedia, one that is historically honest and accurate. That must not be compromised just because some people think it impolite. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 December 2012

I request a change in the photo representative of this person due to the announcement of her transition from male to female, and therefore request a picture that more accurately portrays her as a woman, not as a man. Pozoe (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done There does not appear to be a freely-licensed image available at this time to fill such a request. Since this is a living person, a non-free image simply to show what she looks like would not pass the non-free content criteria. The image used at present may be from before she decided to publicly change her gender identity, but it is nonetheless an accurate representation of her as she presented herself publicly at the time stated in the caption (2011). --IllaZilla (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Update picture please

Laura Jane Grace looks amazing now and it would be nice if you update to a current pic. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.88.62 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is already addressed above, under #Edit request on 18 December 2012. Due to copyright issues we cannot simply use a photo from elsewhere on the internet. To obtain an updated photo one must either (A) photograph Grace oneself and then upload the photo to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under a free license, or (B) find a photo online that the copyright owner has released under a free license, which is pretty rare. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabel or Grace?

Hey IllaZilla. I have some changes I'd like to see in this article, but I thought I should discuss them with you first as you seem to have strong opinions on how the article should be written and have clearly put a lot of work into it so far. My main interest in this article arises from the fact that, like Grace, I'm a trans woman. Specifically, I believe this article should be written in a way that respects the intention behind MOS:IDENTITY, displays NPOV, and follows the same patterns that generally appear in articles about non-transgender people who have changed their last name. I just did a quick survey of celebrities who changed their last name, for example, and I found that generally the entire Wikipedia article is written using the current last name. For example, see the entries on Jon Stewart, Elton John, Freddie Mercury, etc. They are referred to by their last name even as children, well before their name change, so your concern for historical precision seems not to be shared universally among Wikipedia editors. Of course, these are all people who are more famous under their newer last name whereas Grace is arguably still better known as "Gabel." So I'm not sure what's the right move here, but I want whichever last name is used for the bulk of the article to be consistent with similar cases in other Wikipedia articles, rather than just one individual's personal opinion (no offense). So if you could cite me, IllaZilla, instances that supports your editing decision on this I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I think perhaps we should think about editing the bulk of the article to reduce, if not necessarily eliminate, the number of references to "Gabel," which after all is no longer in the title of the article and is no longer Grace's name. Finally, I just want to say I appreciate your contributions to this article and hope through discussion we can reach a consensus that is agreeable to both of us and consistent with Wikipedia policy and common practice. Rebecca (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I just did a little more searching, and it looks like in the article on the Wachowskis (the directors of the sci-fi film The Matrix), Lana Wachowski (a trans woman) is referred to as "Lana" for the bulk of the article, even during the period when she produced her most famous works and went by the name "Larry Wachowski." So that might be a useful precedent for us to consider also. Rebecca (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed pretty thoroughly in some of the discussions above. MOS:IDENTITY is fine when it comes to sensitivity, but is not a mandate. Good writing and what makes logical sense in relating a person's biography to a reader of an encyclopedia is the first consideration. Grace lived a public life as a male under the name Tom Gabel up until 7 months ago, and became internationally famous under that identity before deciding to change her identity in a very public way (via a Rolling Stone exclusive interview). While we should certainly be sensitive to the fact that her current identity is Laura Jane Grace, a woman, we cannot and should not discount that until this year she was already a very notable person named Tom Gabel, presenting herself publicly as a man. The Rolling Stone feature in which she announced her transition does it thusly: by referring to her as Tom Gabel (and using "him") up until the point when she makes the decision to transition, and then switching to Laura Jane Grace (and "her"). I took a lot of care when rewriting this article to avoid "his" and "he"s throughout, and to use "Gabel" or "Tom" during the times of life when she was, both publicly and privately, going by that name. I then explained the gender transition and the adoption of the name Laura Jane Grace and its meaning, and switched to that name for the rest. It makes no sense to refer to her as Laura Jane Grace in parts of her biography before 2012, since she didn't adopt or even come up with that name until 2012. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response IllaZilla. I read all the discussion above from months back and am taking this seriously, but I think the issue remains. I agree with you that good writing and what makes logical sense is paramount here; we just disagree about what make logical sense. I will draw an analogy to history, since you are a history buff. When describing historical events from the perspective of the present, one does not need to defer to the name that the event was known by at the time it was happening. In an encyclopedia article, we refer to World War I as World War I even though at the time it was known as the Great War and the term World War I had not even been invented until years later. We use terms like the Middle Ages or the Paleolithic that also did not exist back in the day. The name of the subject of this article is Laura Jane Grace. I understand that you wanted to follow the lead of the Rolling Stone article because they provided a lot of your source material. But Wikipedia is not Rolling Stone. We don't follow the standards of journalism, we follow the standards of an encyclopedia, one of which in our case is MOS:IDENTITY. MOS:IDENTITY is obviously only a few sentences and so must be interpreted as best to apply it to different situations. I would argue if you look at precedent in other Wikipedia articles, the way to do it is to minimize references to the name "Gabel" here. I am not advocating scrubbing the word "Gabel" from this article or any such thing. This article should still redirect from "Tom Gabel," there should still be enough references to "Tom Gabel" to indicate that this had been what Grace was known as for most of her life before she become known by her current name. But, to be blunt, I think you should consider taking a step back and think about how much you really know about the particular issue of how to most accurately convey information concerning a transgender subject. You use incorrect constructions in your above paragraph like "deciding to change her identity in a very public way." Grace did not change her identity. She was always female and always had the same identity; this is why we have the MOS:IDENTITY policy. MOS:IDENTITY is not about sensitivity (as you suggest), it's about accuracy and trying to best maintain NPOV on a controversial topic. You may not be aware of this, but continuing to use a transgender person's old name to refer to past events is something that is never done in transgender community or among people considered friendly to the transgender community. It is, however, commonly done by individuals opposed to legal and social equality for transgender people. This article will be read by most people knowledgeable about transgender issues in this political context and will therefore be read as not NPOV, but rather as taking a stance in a controversial social debate. There is no way to really achieve true NPOV on such a controversial topic, but Wikipedia has decided that the best bet is MOS:IDENTITY, so that is the standard that should guide this article. One final point: most transgender people ultimately get their birth certificates changed to feature their current name as the only name on the birth certificate. If most jurisdictions in the United States (I'm not as informed to the situation in other countries, unfortunately) allow the name on a birth certificate to be rewritten, why can't we do that in an encyclopedia article, when doing so makes the most sense and is consistent with encyclopedia policy and the precedent in other articles on similar subjects? Rebecca (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

IllaZilla, since it appears you have decided to stop talking to me about this, I went ahead and changed most of the references to "Gabel" to "Grace" or "she." The justification behind this is to conform to NPOV and the standards used in other articles about transgender subjects on Wikipedia, as I explained in my previous comment here. I'm still willing to work with you on this, but if you refuse to talk to me about it, I'm going to have to go ahead and make changes on my own. Please don't simply revert my edits, as I also added information derived from Grace's latest interview, which was with MTV's House of Style. (which is accessible here: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1699239/against-me-laura-jane-grace-house-of-style.jhtml). I'm afraid to say your stance on this issue is simply mistaken, is not consistent with how journalists have been writing about Grace since her Rolling Stone interview (check out this more recent interview in The Guardian, which I'm also planning to incorporate: http://propertyofzack.com/post/27890071995/laura-jane-grace-im-a-transsexual-and-this-is-whats), or with the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. If you really think your viewpoint is going to prevail on this, feel free to start an edit war with me (because I'm not going to back down here), but I have a feeling in the long run it will be a losing battle for you. Rebecca (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not an NPOV issue. There is nothing POV about referring to someone in a biographical/historical context by the name they were using at the time being described. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says when a person changes their name or expressed identity, that we go back through their entire history changing nearly all instances of their prior name. It is also not consistent with Wikipedia's treatment of persons who have changed their name or expressed identity, from what I can tell (I do not see any GAs or FAs about transgender persons, but if you know of any please point them out and I will take their treatments under consideration). I don't see anything in the House of Style bit that isn't already covered; all it says in regard to the transition is that she's taking hormones, which is already explained. There might be couple things in that Guardian interview, but for the most part is just repeats things that were in the Rolling Stone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The House of Style article says that she is currently on hormones; your previous copy said she was going to start hormones. This is a big difference. The House of Style article also makes it clear that her current name is Laura Jane Grace. Your previous copy makes it sound as though the name Laura Jane Grace is some future thing that will be implemented, rather than her present name. The Guardian article shows that it is completely OK to refer to Grace by her current name when discussing past events before her transition, just like we use the term World War I when discussing the events of World War I even though that name did not exist at the time. If you look at articles of transgender people on Wikipedia, they virtually all use the subjects' current name when discussing their past lives. They also use their current gender pronouns when discussing their past lives, per MOS:IDENTITY. Is there some reason you didn't include a single "she" when discussing Grace's past life, even though this made from clunky constructions and goes against Wikipedia policy? It is POV to insist on referring to a person using an obsolete name for almost their entire article and never use any pronouns when talking about them, and that's not the precedent within journalism or Wikipedia. From the beginning, you have attempted to delay acknowledgment in this article of Laura Jane Grace's identity as a transsexual woman. Six months ago you were trying to prevent the right pronouns from being used. You have yet to provide any compelling justification for any of this. I will continue to revert all your edits that are trying to keep Grace locked in her old identity. You're not going to win this. Rebecca (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the most recent revision I made, I had updated the recent info to reflect that she started hormones at the time of the announcement, and also that that was when she started using the name Laura Jane Grace. I had updated the info to make it current. Did you not see those changes?

The comparison to World War I is hardly apt; you are comparing apples to oranges. But if you insist on continuing with that comparison, note that the article on World War I makes it very clear, from the second sentence of the lead and the entire "Names" section, that the term "World War I" did not come into use until the outset of World War II.

Since there are no GA or FA articles on transgender persons that I can find, there are no exemplars to prove your point that "virtually all use the subjects' current name when discussing their past lives". When I completely rewrote this article, I took great care to avoid the use of gendered pronouns up until the point where it discusses her transition. This does not go against any Wikipedia policy: MOS:IDENTITY is a guideline, and encourages avoidance of confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage. For example, to say "daughter" and "she", "she", "she" throughout the biography, then to come upon a section titled "gender transition" and read about this person changing her expressed identity from having lived 30 years publicly as a man to now living as a woman does not make sense from a reader's standpoint; since the biography is written using female-gendered pronouns throughout, it causes awkward problems of logic in comprehension. It simply does not read well to refer to her from 1980 to 2012 by a name that did not exist and was not in use until 2012. It is not an "obsolete name" when she was already quite notable as Tom Gabel prior to coming out, and published numerous works and sold many thousands of albums under that name.

I have in no way "attempted to delay acknowledgment in this article of Laura Jane Grace's identity as a transsexual woman", and if you took the time to look at the article's history you would see that. Here is the article before I rewrote it, compared to a more recent version which I am around 90% responsible for having written. How can you say I'm trying to delay acknowledgment of something when I've written paragraph after paragraph about it?

I am in no way "trying to keep Grace locked in her old identity", and I find it insulting for you to suggest it. I have put hours of work into this article gathering sources, writing prose, and fleshing it out into a proper biography from what was once a stub of only about 12 sentences. I have read many articles about her transition and taken care to keep the information in the article accurate, verifiable, and neutrally worded. I even went to her first public concert as Laura Jane Grace, and met her wife Heather whose work I am a longtime fan of (I will add a photo of Heather to the article once I crop myself out of it; I had intended to get snap a photo of Laura onstage and donate it to replace the infobox image in the article, but it was a "no photography" concert venue and the security guards were hassling me about my camera). I am offended that you would seemingly accuse me of prejudice in this matter, and flat-out threaten to edit-war with me over the issue until you get your way. My only concern is, and always has been, good writing: to tell the history of this person's life in a way that makes sense to a reader of a general encyclopedia. You have yet to provide any compelling justification as to how your changes service this goal. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You were keeping Grace locked in her old identity in this article, whether you were trying to or not. If the government can agree to put "Laura Jane Grace" on her birth certificate, if The Guardian, a very reputable newspaper, can refer to events from Grace's past exclusively using her current name, why can't we do it on Wikipedia? Don't you think the writers at The Guardian care about not confusing readers also? Do you think Wikipedia readers are such idiots that they are not able to comprehend something that is really quite simple? To use "she" to refer to a woman is not confusing. Grace has always been a woman (or a girl before that). It is insulting that you seem to think otherwise. Look at some of the articles on famous trans women: Lana Wachowski, Renee Richards, Wendy Carlos. They freely use "she" when talking about the subject, even prior to the subject's transition. It may be confusing to many readers to refer to Grace as a woman, at all, since many readers believe that all trans women are men and that we will always be men even decades after we transition. Nonetheless, Wikipedia's purpose is not pander to readers' prejudices--instead, it is to strive for neutrality. It's simply too bad if some rather ignorant readers find it confusing that someone who had been coerced into living as a man was actually female all along, even if that's what the person in question herself says. If I were to write this article given my point of view, I would talk about how Grace was born a girl and then nonconsensually given a male name, assigned a male legal status, and referred to by male pronouns from infancy on. I would talk about how all this was gravely oppressive. Of course, I can't write this article from my POV; that's not Wikipedia policy. You shouldn't get to write it according to your point of view either that Grace was really male all along (or, at least, according to your idea that Grace cannot be referred to by her current name or the appropriate pronouns according to the MOS:IDENTITY guidelines because to do so would be too "confusing.") Instead, this article needs to be written using a NPOV that falls somewhere between the POV of trans people like myself and the POV of cissexist people like you. By the way, sorry if it merely seemed like I was accusing you of prejudice earlier. I'll clarify what I think: I think that you, like most people in the world, are prejudiced against transgender women. It's nothing personal I have against you. . .I intend to also stand up against the many other editors here who are exemplars of the Wikipedia:systemic bias on Wikipedia against trans people. My only concern here is that Laura Jane Grace's entire life doesn't get gravely misrepresented by people who don't know shit about the type of person she actually is. I"m guessing both I and Laura would have preferred a stub to the sort of article you ended up writing before I edited it. Rebecca (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your attitude Rebecca is not endearing of your cause, Wikipedia and the article on Laura Jane Grace are NOT Laura Jane Grace and does not give two craps about her personal feelings, that isn't how an encyclopedia works. If George Bush gets a bit upset about the section on his failings in preventing 9/11 in his article, we don't remove it because he might get teary eyed. The facts are that he was born Tom Gabel, did work as Tom Gabel, represented himself as Tom Gabel and at a point made a change that for record keeping is represented by the government so they can find her for taxes and charge her for committing crimes. That doesn't retroactively adjust history and any attempt to whitewash the existence of Tom Gabel is comparable to attempting to control information for a specific agenda, in this case censorship, which is not acceptable under any circumstances. MOS is a guideline, and Illazilla had a good handle on the situation, accusing him or others of systemic bias because you yourself as systemically biased towards your own goal is not a good stance to take. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of jursidictions do "retroactively adjust history"; in the UK, for example, I believe the original records of a person gaining a Gender Recognition Certificate are sealed or modified to reflect their new identity, including the issuance of new birth certificates, marriage records, the whole nine yards. We are required under BLP to treat all living people ethically. It's considered a breach of medical and journalistic ethics, at the very least, to treat trans women as men (although they still do), and vice versa, and standard advice when talking about transgender individuals in both fields is that pronoun and name usage retroactively expand before the start of their transition (for a trivially simple reason). The idea of "whitewashing" the existence of Tom Gabel is laughable when you're advocating whitewashing Ms. Grace's identity. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

How is that remotely what is happening? Oh no, you're reflecting reality, and not making any attempt to hide her later change, you're white washing her identity. Well that makes sense *insert eye roll smiley* Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What I said about Grace's personal feelings was not to justify the changes I made to the article. I made the changes because of the NPOV policy, among other things. I merely mentioned her likely feelings to counter IllaZilla's implication that he was doing right by Grace by going to her concerts and not being prejudiced and blah blah blah. I pointed out what I did to disabuse him of any notion that he has been doing some sort of favor to Grace here on Wikipedia. But really, that's not the central point. The central point is that Grace is female and her name is "Laura Jane Grace" and therefore she should be referred to in such terms in the bulk of this article. No whitewash involved. Just the standard form of treatment that should be involved for any woman or any person. You are being cissexist and advocating the article be written with a biased POV because you think an exception should be made for Grace, and that we should use an obsolete name for the entire article and not use the word "she," simply because she is trans. You all can twist yourself in knots to justify what you are doing, but it's clear to me that you are bigoted yourself, Darkwarriorblake, since you believe in misgendering trans women (as you just did in this post). That's part of systemic bias. The fact that you think I am part of systemic bias just shows you have no idea what that term means. Trans people are marginalized and oppressed in society and don't have the power to censor anything. You probably also think it's an unfair that there is a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and no National Association for the Advancement of White People, huh? Rebecca (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My previous argument stands, you're clearly not neutral on this issue. I want to reflect reality, you reply by calling me "bigoted", "sexist" (how that does that work here, i'm genuinely curious, was i not sexist when she was Tom Gabel but i AM sexist now that he is a she? Did you actually think that one through?), "biased" because i give you a rational explanation to your emotional whining, accuse me of wanting to omit her name from the article when its the name on the goddamn article, let's see what else you typed in this cavalcade of ridiculousness, oh yeah, trotted out the minority card AND the racist card. *clap clap*, that's quite the little soap box you've got there. The mark of the person with no genuine argument is the person who has to accuse their opponent of everything imaginable. I'm a bigoted, racist, sexist, transgenderist, and biased. You're a damn joke Rebecca, I give you a clear defined argument in favor of Illazilla's position, a dispassionate, rational, logical argument devoid of involvement because I don't give two craps who or what she is, and you insult me in numerous ways. Pathetic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look at the changes which have been reverted and I'm with Rebecca on this. The argument IllaZilla is making appears to be "I worked really hard on this and I don't intend to be disrespectful". However, intent does not magically excuse being disrespectful, nor does it excuse ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and established practice on the issue, which to my mind are quite clear. (Rebecca gives good examples, to which I would add Sophie Wilson. Old names are mentioned only at the start and female pronouns are used throughout) In particular, the use of trivially avoidable words like "son" is completely inexcusable. ~Excesses~ (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How are they clear when we've had repeated unended discussions about them? They're probably one of the most contested issues on here: on one side a group of users who live in the real world, and on the other side, people like Rebecca. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Profile Picture

I think it's time to change the profile picture, there quite a few to choose from the recent MTV interviews, wouldn't you all agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyntho (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't just take a picture off of another website. That would violate Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The thing to do is either (A) find a more recent, freely-licensed photo from someplace like Flickr, or (B) take a photo of your own and upload it under a free license. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that she needs a new infobox picture as soon as possible (legality permitting) Thatemooverthere (Talk) 03:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Birth name in first paragraph

I've noticed that there's been a bit of a back and forth of edits and reverts concerning whether Grace's birth name of "Thomas James Gabel" should be mentioned in the first paragraph. I thought I would register my opinion on the matter since I've been one of the most vocal proponents of reducing the number of references to Grace's birth name in the article overall. Basically, I view this as an exception to my general stance, and I view it as entirely appropriate and, in fact, desirable to include Grace's birth name in the first sentence. My point the entire time has been that Grace's life should be discussed in stylistic ways that are similar to how other people's lives are discussed on Wikipedia--both non-transgender people and other transgender people. This is a big part of why I thought Grace's former name shouldn't be used for 90% of the article: it wasn't consistent with precedent elsewhere on Wikipedia. The precedent elsewhere on Wikipedia is very clear, however, that individuals who have changed their name have their birth name listed in the first sentence along with their date of birth, as has been done in this article. This precedent involves a large majority of well-known living figures, so far as I can tell, as well as most well-known living transgender people (in cases in which the subject's birth name is even known.) Also, I agree with the point IllaZilla made when he reverted one of the edits taking Grace's birth name out of the first paragraph. Grace has published all of her musical works under the name "Tom Gabel," so I think it's important to make it very prominent at the start of the article that this was her birth name to enhance the readability of the article. In fact, my belief that it is unnecessary to use the name "Gabel" over and over again throughout the article was partially based off the fact that the birth name HAD BEEN in the first sentence, and was therefore utterly unmissable, and therefore clarity did not require its constant reiteration. I think removing the birth name from the first sentence decreases the clarity of the article and treats Grace differently than other similar living persons, and I see no justification for that. Rebecca (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at other articles, it appears that old name is used a maximum of twice - once in the summary and once in either the first paragraph OR the Infobox. At the moment it appears three times so we should remove either the Infobox or first paragraph reference. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox is the logical place to remove.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing the old name from the infobox. Rebecca (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest it should not be in the lead as we note in the article this has caused her a lifetime of concerns. We can reference the transitioning without the name, and the birthname logically will appear in the early life part of the article. I think it can also be removed from the info box. Insomesia (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No. The notability of the subject was obtained under her birth name. It is a disservice to our readers to remove this information from the lead. It is not contentious and well sourced. Thus no BLP. The fact that the subject may not like the name is a minor concern, especially since the article in its current form does not harp on the name and is respectablly neutral.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is contentious, that's the point. We can minimize the use of her birth name to the bare minimum. Use it sparingly and only where needed. If it wasn't an obviously male name I would have less concern. We can address the gender change in the lead without using her former name. I think we should choose to do so. Her gender change is what's notable not the name change. Insomesia (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The birth name is not contentious. It is extremely well sourced. Furthermore the subject's notability derives from their musical career, not whether or not he thinks he should be a woman. We are using the MOS correctly, and leaving the birth name in the first sentance is consistent with ever other article that has subjects with a different birth name.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article right now is completely unreadable; while my general distaste for MOS:IDENTITY extends further than this, it's worth noting that even that asinine guideline doesn't say that we have to rewrite history. Bluntly put, this is an encyclopedia and not an LGBT opinion forum; when people undergo a name change, we refer to them by whatever name that person was using at the time we're talking about. Even our current grossly slanted policy doesn't go as far as giving people amazing retroactive name changes. I'm currently pretty much entirely sucked into one article right now, one with much weightier issues than this, but when I finish with that I'll give this another look. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you're completely wrong. As has already been thoroughly discussed here, Wikipedia articles generally refer to all sorts of living people, including living transgender people, by their current name throughout the article. The only reason it's hard for you to read this article is because you apparently hold prejudiced views toward trans people; it has nothing to do with the article being written in some sort of inherently unreadable way. And the only problem with MOS:IDENTITY is that it doesn't go far enough. It should be a mandatory policy, not merely a guideline. Rebecca (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You are making a lot of assumptions about my thinking process, none of which are warranted; setting aside the fact that you are completely wrong about my thoughts on LGBT people, you may wish to read argumentum ad hominem, which is considered a logical fallacy for a reason. As to your assertion above, I would direct you to the article on Muhammad Ali, who is about as good a case as we're going to get; he is someone who underwent a life-changing event, in the process changing his name. It's much easier to keep track of the chronology of the article, which is a very important aspect of any biography. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't like the MOS:IDENTITY guidelines, which I assume means that you believe transgender people should be misgendered. If you think it would be potentially accurate to call Laura Jane Grace "he" or someone's "son" in reference to some past point in her life, then you are prejudiced--very horribly prejudiced, actually. I wasn't making an argumentum ad hominem. I was explaining to you the reason why you most likely have difficulty reading this article. You have difficulty reading and understanding this article probably because you have an inaccurate conception of transgender people based off your prejudices toward them. Grace was always female; she was never male at any point, and that's what should be reflected in this article. Furthermore, people without your prejudice will not have problems reading this article. And I believe this article should be written using NPOV, not re-written to cater to people who happen to share your prejudice and therefore have problems with their reading comprehension on this topic. Finally, numerous examples have been given by me and others to explain why what is done in Grace's article is within Wikipedia precedent. You will have to do more than give a single counterexample to make your argument credible. Rebecca (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with judgments about gender (not that my opinion matters, but I think once we leave behind cases of chromosomal/hormone receptor disorders it's venturing out into an ontological nightmare land which neither I nor anyone else is ever going to map out, and as I myself am quite unaffected by it I'm more than happy to live and let live), it's about clarity; we are going to confuse people with the current approach. Also worth noting is IllaZilla's point above on how the reliable sources are treating this; the idea here is to follow the reliable sources, not create guidelines like MOS:IDENTITY that in instances like this actively set us apart from them. If you and I were having a conversation, I'd be totally with you, as we're both familiar with the subject matter, but in our articles we're writing for people who don't necessarily know the background and are going to be caught by surprise. There are comments on almost every single article on transgendered people from people who are left completely lost by the way the articles are written, that there aren't any on this talkpage should perhaps indicate things here were right to begin with. If you're looking for another example, how about Malcolm X, Renee Richards (someone who I rather admire) or (somewhat shameless promotion of my recent work, I'll admit) the special education teacher in the article on Genie? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The manual of style exists and we follow it for a reason, rather than following sources which may themselves be prejudiced. There is no exception that says "unless one editor thinks it's confusing". If you don't think the guidelines are right, this isn't the correct place to discuss them. ~Excesses~ (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you realize that wasn't my argument at all; you're getting straw everywhere, but not actually addressing my point, which is that our readers are going to have a hard time with this. Instead of repeating myself, just reread my comments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand your argument entirely. I disagree that reader confusion is sufficient reason to disregard the MOS. ~Excesses~ (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering our prime function is to build an encyclopedia, IAR does apply when it comes to crafting lucid articles. This particular MOS may be too rigid for such purposes.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And do you not think this was considered when the MOS was written? Your argument invalidates the MOS for all articles, not just this one. If there is something about this article that makes it different from other articles, that needs to be explicitly stated and discussed. Otherwise we're just saying we can ignore the MOS when we feel like it. ~Excesses~ (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

@Rebecca -- Whoa, that is a pretty harsh and unfounded accusation. Please tone it down. I understand Blade's problem with this article. Coincidentally yesterday I looked at the Ali article for comparison, as it seemed to be the obvious example on how name changes should be addressed within articles. I suggest you read the Ali article and note how the lead uses "Ali" mostly throughout, yet "Clay" is used until the name change, and then once again it is "Ali".  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a harsh nor an unfounded accusation. I myself hold all sorts of prejudices, unfortunately, as most people in our society do. Blade apparently is one of those who is prejudiced against transgender people; if he wasn't he wouldn't have the position he does. I don't know why this observation should be considered "harsh," since the vast majority of folks are prejudiced against transgender people, and I seriously doubt Blade gives a crap about my opinion of him. And as I told Blade, you will have to come up with more than one counterexample to the many examples that have already been given if you want your argument to have any credibility. Rebecca (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignore Rebecca, if you don't agree with her she slanders you in all kinds of ways, she's a poor example of a user and not someone to be engaged, except to be warned for her offensive behaviour. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a fair comment. There is a lot of cisgender systemic bias on the encyclopedia; why else would we be having an argument on how to refer to Brandon "Won Hilary Swank an Oscar" Teena on that article's talk page? Look, reader confusion isn't an excuse to Ignore All Rules, because the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform and educate. Transgender people exist, and I've seen an awful lot of effort from cisgender editors to erase that fact. Nor is the existence of transgender people "confusing"; fuck, little children can understand transgenderism completely, so why belittle readers by saying adult readers can't?

There is a culture on Wikipedia to blindly follow what the reliable sources say without caution or examination, and this is more than evident when it comes to transgender topics. BLP dictates that we treat our subjects ethically, and there can be no ethical treatment of transgender subjects without strict adherence to MOS:IDENTITY. The idea that reliable sources can say more about a person's identity, gender or general, than the person itself is completely laughable, and if you're seriously suggesting that, you have no place editing BLPs. I would like to draw everyone's attention to page 666 of the Leveson Report, or fuck, today's Observer, to see how "reliable sources" often treat trans people.

Oh, and protip? Don't presume expertise or knowledge on a topic when arguing with someone to which the topic is integral to their existence. It's incredibly parochial, privileged, and condescending. You would never accept white people talking over people of colour when it comes to race theory. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't have time to make an extended response to this, but I will address a couple points; I'm not claiming expertise, though I certainly am familiar with the subject and in fact stated above I'm non-judgmental on it, and I also note it's interesting you're attempting to play the race card here. Secondly, the idea that we're supposed to abandon WP:OR is also laughable, which is essentially what you're advocating; it's not actually on us at Wikipedia to right great wrongs, as many, many nationalist disputes over the years should indicate (if/when this becomes the standard, then I'll be among the first to look to change to it, but it's not). Third, all the Against Me! albums are credited to Tom Gabel, and our rewriting this article to pretend that's not the case isn't going to change that, all it's going to do is confuse the hell out of people when they click on the album and say "Wait a second, who is this?" And finally, we don't give groups of people free reign over what to call themselves; if that were the case, everyone in India would be the descendant of a king or warrior and there wouldn't have been a single farmer to be found. Obviously it's a major determining factor, but it's not the only one; historical accuracy can and sometimes does override personal preference. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You talk of "rewriting history", but you are attempting to rewrite Wikipedia guidelines on an individual talk page. The proper place for your arguments is over at MOS:IDENTITY, not on individual talk pages ~Excesses~ (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No I am not; there is nothing in MOS:IDENTITY which says we can or should retroactively change peoples' names, which is what I'm driving at. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"...the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself" and "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the gendered nouns pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Seems clear to me. It clarifies: "This applies in references to any phase of that person's life". ~Excesses~ (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

And since when is a person's name a "gendered noun", "gendered pronoun", or "possessive adjective"? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

|In context, the "term most commonly used" line refers to names, not pronouns. ~Excesses~ (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's "when there is no dispute", which is obviously not the case here; when there is, it refers to such policies as verifiability and NPOV. The sources, i.e. verifiability, follow the convention IllaZilla laid out above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, another one who trots out "White people walk like this...", this is an encyclopedia and it should be encylopedic to the truth and the truth alone. We cannot slander, that is the ethical limit of our responsibility. The purpose of the encylopedia is not to ensure that a person's feelings are not hurt, it is to reflect the truth, reflect the history. According to the article she is Laura Jane Grace as of 2012, everything done before then was credited, signed for, done by, etc Tom Gabel. You can have your what-if arguments about whether she would be where she is if she'd had to do it as a woman, but the history is what the history is and it should be reflected honestly, without bias or POV or taking one single person's feelings into account. Refer to her with all the labels you like, but eliminating almost every mention of Tom Gabel and pretending that the history represented in the article was done as a woman named Laura Jane Grace is a joke and a lie. And I say this as someone who has never heard a song by this person, I'm not a fan. And pro tip, don't give pro tips, it's super lame (And yes I am aware I used pro tip but I used it ironically, you used it like you thought it was clever). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My personal experience shouldn't determine what we decide to do here, but it may add a bit of flair to the conversation, so I think I will mention it. I'm a trans woman, and I certainly hated my birth name, and when I legally changed my name I was very diligent in my attempts to completely scrub my birth name out of existence, changing every official record that I could, including my birth certificate, old college transcripts, old HIGH SCHOOL transcripts, everything. And I hope if I ever become famous (which is not likely) no one will be able to find a trace of my birth name; I certainly won't be volunteering the information. But if the name were to find its way into the public square somehow via reliable sources, while I might not like it being mentioned in an encyclopedia article, I certainly wouldn't complain or fault the encyclopedia. After all, it's a significant fact about my life. People may try to hide the date of their birth, the location of their birth, and a bunch of other things for any variety of reasons. These are still things that are appropriate to include in the introduction of an encyclopedia article though. They are important for readers to have a complete and accurate understanding of the subject. "Thomas James Gabel" was Grace's birth name and the name that most of her work has been published under. I think it's important to the include the name in the first paragraph of the article. I agree it could be removed from the info box, though. Rebecca (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Wikipedia does not have a specific rule either way about the inclusion or exclusion of a transgender person's birth name in our article — that decision is made on a case-by-case basis depending on the context. In this particular case, Grace was already notable enough for, and indeed already had, a Wikipedia article under her former name before she came out as trans — meaning that in this context it is necessary for us to include her former male name, because that's actually the name she was known by and released work under for several years, and even if we decided to exclude it a reader could still find it out by reviewing the page history (or by consulting one of the old albums) anyway. Of course, the article should be titled with her current name, and should use that name in almost all places in the article body, but because her former name is contextually relevant it is necessary to at least include a mention of it. (This is also the situation that pertains at Chaz Bono and Alec Butler, for other examples, because they were both already notable enough for Wikipedia articles before they came out as trans too.) There are, on the other hand, many other cases where the birth name is not necessary information, and should properly be excluded on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds. But the question is one of whether or not it's relevant and necessary information in each individual context, rather than a blanket policy of always allowing or always disallowing it. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is pretty much precisely my view. Imagine that a potential reader searches on "Tom Gabel" and reaches this biography. It does a complete disservice to both our encyclopedic goals and to the artist herself to not provide some indication to the reader that they've found the page they've been looking for. We have had vigorous arguments sometimes about how to properly balance comprehensibilty concerns vs. living subject concerns, but in this case, I feel that both factors weigh toward the same result. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Move proposal

Any thoughts or objections about when to move this article to Laura Jane Grace ? --Fæ (talk) 05:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not move. Gabel has not yet changed his name. Read the sources: he intends to eventually change his name, most likely after his gender transition is complete. I've requested that the article be semi-protected to prevent precisely this type of thing. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Move it already. This source makes it clear she is already using the name, and the very reliable source here is using "she". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The gender pronouns in this article aren't the issue; MOS:IDENTITY is already very clear that we use the pronouns that are consistent with a person's professed gender identity, not necessarily the ones consistent with what kind of sexparts they happen to have between their thighs — so any attempt to switch the gender pronouns in this article back to male will be reverted quickly.

However, the source in question — which is just a summary of the existing Rolling Stone piece and a bit of the cultural reaction to it, and not a new interview with Tom/Laura that reveals any new information, is not at all clear that she's actually already using the name Laura. Going by the TG/TS people I've known, she'll certainly make the change sooner rather than later — if it works in the US anything like it does here, she'll actually have to live and present herself as a woman named Laura for a period of time before she can even have her surgery at all — but while the source reaffirms her intention to go by the name Laura, it falls short of properly demonstrating that she's already doing so. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree w/ Bearcat. The Rolling Stone source, which is the original source from which all other sources are picking up the story (RS has the exclusive, apparently) explicitly says "Gabel will eventually take the name Laura Jane Grace". When "eventually" is, time will tell (will the next Against Me! album carry the credit "Tom Gabel" or "Laura Jane Grace", for example). WP:COMMONNAME is also relevant here: For 31 years this person has been known as Tom Gabel and has been credited as such on all of their creative output over a 15-year career of releasing albums and touring. The name Laura Jane Grace was only introduced yesterday, and framed as a name Gabel intends to adopt as this announced transition is made. We must take into account how Gabel is and has been known, and be conscious of the principle of least astonishment in how we present this new information to readers. An immediate move of the article, based on the information currently available and how it is framed, would not be of good service to readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just wanted to provide a point of comparison to the fact that we handled the situation with Chaz Bono a bit differently, moving it to his current name as soon as he announced it — the difference in that case was that he came out as trans after he had already begun the process and was already living as Chaz, so even if it took the media and the culture a bit of time to catch up it was still unambiguously clear that he was already Chaz rather than Chastity. What's different here is that at least according to the sources that are available, Tom/Laura seems to be coming out about her gender transition earlier in the process than Chaz did; she's certainly decided to transition, but it's not yet clear from the sources how far along in the process she actually is. Further coverage over the next few days will hopefully clarify that, however. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Good points. When to move the article, as well as when to change things like the name in the infobox title bar and lead sentence, are points of editorial discretion that will likely have to be based on when the name starts being used in earnest, both by the subject (in album credits, on tours, etc) and by secondary sources (in biographies, etc). Chances are this won't be an abrupt change, and a consensus to move will have to be reached after the initial fervor over this news dies down and more details about the subject's transition plans become available (given that this is being announced in a feature article in Rolling Stone, I presume that the transition to Lauran Jane Grace is meant to take place in the public eye and will continue to be highly publicized). At present, the vast majority of sources reporting on the story continue to use the name Tom Gabel, likely since that name is already familiar to most interested readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

One other argument, and maybe this is daft, dunno, for a short pause to wait for sourced usage before a move--will common usage settle on Laura Jane Grace or Laura Grace? I'm more than willing to take on faith that she will take the three-part name as her legal name, but it may be that the correct move target will be Laura Grace rather than Laura Jane Grace. Rolling Stone's sentences could be read as indicating a full legal name (e.g., "William Jefferson Clinton", rather than what will eventually be the name used for her in reliable sources. Very soon, the sources will tell. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A similar question was asked below, whether the full new name is Laura Jane Grace (first-middle-last) or if the surname Gabel will be retained (Laura Jane Grace Gabel). This is a detail I hope the RS feature article will clear up. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I see it now, that raises a separate and excellent point. I really do expect this will be resolved quickly. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect to getting the name right, I'm now convinced by usage in sources that "Laura Jane Grace" as the whole name is getting coverage, I think there's enough, even if spread thin yet. I'm good with moving the article now. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

While it's nice that you're "good with it", the sources explicitly say that Gabel will eventually begin going by the name Laura Jane Grace. Meaning that she's not yet going by it. Once she does (ie. on album credits & the like) it'll be appropriate to consider the move. Until then WP:COMMONNAME is still relevant. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To put my position more clearly, I'm neutral on whether there's enough information to meet that WP:COMMONNAME, and my other concern is no longer (in my view), valid. There are some reliable sources out there now using it without the future tense. *shrug* --joe decker^{talk to me} 08:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe Decker (or anyone else), could you point out the sources that don't use the future tense? I have briefly searched on LexisNexis but the quality sources I see so far, including the Guardian and the Independent, are qualifying mentions of Laura with "will". If there are a couple without this, I would be happy to make a proposal to move so we can have a quick straw poll to see if now is the right time. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, although part of my neutrality was simply abstention, that is, I really haven't gotten into the sources deep enough to have an opinion. I'd been looking at the 9 May Advocate "Laura Jane Grace, who used to be known as Tom Tom Gabel," [1], and man, I could of sworn I had something out of a Toronto paper as well, but I'm not seeing it now, so I'm confused. I can see a counterargument w.r.t. the Advocate, it appears to be rereporting Rolling Stone, one would expect RS in that case to be a more ... RS. I note (without expecting it to be taken as authoritative evidence) that GLAAD's press release on this (and I tend to trust GLAAD's clue) is still using Tom, and a future-tense on the name change. NPR predominately used Gabel here, but uses Laura Jean Grace in a forward-looking but unqualified context at the end. Murky from a standpoint of pure evidence, but then, we'd *expect* there to be confusion in the press, too, and it would be wise to consider a certain amount of systematic bias. --joe decker^{talk to me} 16:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll park the idea for a while yet, it sounds like even the most friendly sources are still too ambiguous to do this without it being weak in terms of sufficient verifiability. In the meantime I have put in a request for longer semi-protection. --Fæ (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Good call on the semi, thanks. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is some kind of Wikipedia policy I am unaware of regarding the retaining of her middle name, this article should be moved to Laura Grace. Other biographical articles do not include the full name of the person in their titles (for example, James Hetfield instead of James Alan Hetfield, Barack Obama instead of Barack Hussein Obama II, Stephen Colbert instead of Stephen Tyrone Colbert, Alexi Laiho instead of Markku Uula Aleksi Laiho, Andy Biersack instead of Andrew Dennis Biersack, etc., the list goes on). — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The policy you're probably looking for is WP:COMMONNAME, the reason we use "Bill Clinton" instead of the longer form is that that's the form that's usually given in recent reliable sources, etc. If post-transition coverage has preferred "Laura Grace" to "Laura Jane Grace" then that policy would say we she should do the move. However, most of the coverage I've seen has used "Jane", so, without more evidence, I'd oppose the move. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense! And yes, that policy is applicable to this discussion. Thanks! — Tha†emoover†here (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles pre-transition

I wanted to bring this up in case anybody opposes it, but somebody changed all of the references to "Tom Gabel" in every related article to "Laura Jane Grace." While that's fine for Transgender Dysphoria Blues and anything post-transition, the use of "Laura Jane Grace" in, say, "I Was a Teenage Anarchist" is factually wrong. For instance, this section: "The music video for the song features Laura Jane Grace in traditional punk clothing running through a park being chased by a police officer." This is incorrect, since it leads the reader to believe that the video features Grace post-transition, when in fact she was still Tom Gabel when it was filmed. The same goes for all of the album credits. In each of the album, Grace was still credited as "Tom Gabel," and wasn't credited as "Laura Jane Grace" until the most recent album. So unless anyone has any reasonable objections, I'll be changing these back shortly. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 09:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Gender identity. It answers all the questions about why Wikipedia is supposed to treat transgender people this way. Any questions you strongly disagree with here?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough! Thanks for clarifying. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Birth Name

You should include a birth_name perimeter in the infobox with "Thomas James Gabel" in it.--76.105.96.92 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Jinkinson talk to me 13:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2014

Her birth name is irrelevant and would be best to be left off. This is coming from an actual transgender person myself. Jjamjackjack (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)