Talk:Lili Elbe

Intersexed

Could someone lead me to the source of this claim ? 23.242.139.139 (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Lili's letter from 29th January 1930, "Now he (i.e. the doctor) fears that this treatment in the dark (i.e. X-rays) may have destroyed my organs – male as well as female. Consequently, he wants me to go to Berlin as quickly as possible for the purpose of a microscopical examination. Some time afterwards he will operate on me himself. He wants to remove the dead (and formerly imperfect) male organs, and to restore the female organs with new and fresh material. Then it will be Lili who will survive!" See https://ihra.org.au/4872/lili-elbe-words/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.135.237 (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

It really is a mistake that Magnus Hirschfeld did carry out the first sex operation on Elbe. The name of the surgeon was Dr. Warnekros (from Dresden). Hirschfeld appears to have been involved in the psychological preliminaries of the operation, but he was a medical doctor, not a surgeon. Niels Hoyer's book about Elbe should be used with caution as a source for her life. Soczyczi 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree on both counts. Hirschfield supervised the first surgery and I believe he wasn't in Berlin long after this event anyway? I also agree that Niels Hoyer's book 'romantisised' the facts and created a lot of inacuracies. Fluffball70 09:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a moderate edit to delete contradicting and inaccurate information. Elbe's final surgery was to implant a uterus and at that point both ovaries had been removed. Deleted a couple of links, one was dead and one was a link to unrelated blog content. Looking for a better reference, as the current online source has no references.Glamrockboy (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

@Soczyczi and Fluffball70: This is a bit...late but I noticed that in the book it is never said that it was Magnus, identified as Hardenfeld in it, but rather Gebhard that did the first surgery, and from what I managed to find he(Gebhard) was never identified. Magnus is said to have only dealt with the psychological area of the transition, in the book. That said, can I ask why is the book not a good source ? No trying to be pedant here but I became very interested in Lili's life after I heard about her and would love to know if the book is in fact incorret. Thanks! Rafael.hocevar (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Consistency

From the top of the section entitled "Lili":

"that Gerda's women were in fact Einar herself. No one had suspected before then that the petite femmes fatales of Gerda's work could have been modeled on anyone other than a woman, but Einar had acted as Gerda's chief model for years. [3]

After that, in the 1920s and 1930s Wegener regularly dressed as a woman, attending various festivities and entertained guests in his house as Lili Elbe."

Ok, I really sympathize with the pronoun challenges here. In these sentences you are going through different periods of time and using both the birth name and chosen name. I just wanted to point out the inconsistency here. In the first paragraph, you use the birth name Einar and are referring to an early period before any major transition was occurring, yet in that paragraph you use "herself." That's not really wrong since you could justify using female pronouns throughout the article. However, in the following paragraph, you use the term "his house" even though in the period in question a clear transition was in play and the name Lili was established. Rather than just changing pronouns willy nilly on my own, I wanted to see if there is a clear plan for maintaining a consistent approach throughout the article. My guess is that there are two possibilities. One, just use female references throughout, even when the birth name and earlier untransitional periods of life are being discussed. That ensures consistency and respect but may suffer aesthetically. Two, separate all references chronologically and use the birth name and male pronouns for all early references and the chosen name and female pronouns for all later references. This approach may sound better to the ear but may be more likely to violate standards and philosophical goals.
jg (talk) 07:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

On Feb 12 the lede was edited to use the pronoun 'he' in reference to Elbe, then on Feb 20 it was edited again to use 'it'. Assuming good faith on the part of these editor(s), I refer to the MOS: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to using the gendered nouns, pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies when referring to any phase of that person's life." I'm not that well-read on Elbe's life, so I don't know if she consistently identified herself as female in the later part of her life, but 'it' is certainly not appropriate, and even before those edits the mixing of 'he' and 'she' is confusing and counter to the style guidelines. For the time being, I'm going to change all pronouns for Elbe to female.Dysfunction (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not sure, and am having difficulty finding, about guidelines on name use for persons who have changed their names. My instinct would be to use Elbe throughout, rather than either first name.Dysfunction (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems to suit the article best, and lead to the fewest inconsistencies. —Spudtater (talk • contribs) 10:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Another example: I've just changed "Einar managed to get his sex and name legally changed" to "Elbe managed to get her sex and name legally changed", for name/pronoun consistency with the rest of the article. As per the MOS, we should refer to her as female unless it makes the sentence confusing; I don't believe it does in this example. —Spudtater (talk • contribs) 10:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Lili Elbe was Intersex, NOT Trans.

Many Intersex people are getting increasigly fed up with Trans people appropriating Lili Elbe. Lili has been proven as having reproductive organs of male and female. This made Lili an Intersex person. Lili was transitioning from Intersex to female. Please stop marginalising Intersex people any further by trying to make out we don't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.74.183 (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that?--ukexpat (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Taken from "The Praeger Handbook of Transsexuality: Changing Gender to Match Mindset", quote "Lili Elbe, born male in Germany in 1886, was one of the first recorded GRS cases. Unfourtunately, she died a year after an attempt was made to surgically remove rejected ovaries that were placed in her abdomen in the original GRS. Since her blood contained more estrogen than testosterone, feminization probably resulted from klinefelter syndrome. This meant that she had a 47 XXY sex-chromosone karyotype, containing an extra X chromosone. So one of the first transsexed people publicized in the media was probably intersexed." Kitsunedawn (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing in that source! Unfortunately, it doesn't make any claims but rather speculates that Elbe was "probably" intersex based on inference from the amount of estrogen in her blood. I think we would need a better source. -- Irn (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The article already contains citations supporting the perspective that Elbe was intersex (in the lede). But I fail to understand the premise of the argument that it is not possible to be both intersex and transgender. Numerous notable individuals who are both are listed at List of intersex people alongside intersex people who are not transgender. Trankuility (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Ukexpat I've found a source in Lili's letter from 29th January 1930, "Now he (i.e. the doctor) fears that this treatment in the dark (i.e. X-rays) may have destroyed my organs – male as well as female. Consequently, he wants me to go to Berlin as quickly as possible for the purpose of a microscopical examination. Some time afterwards he will operate on me himself. He wants to remove the dead (and formerly imperfect) male organs, and to restore the female organs with new and fresh material. Then it will be Lili who will survive!" See https://ihra.org.au/4872/lili-elbe-words/. The only evidence in the Wiki article questioning that Lily was intersex is the article by Jodi Kaufmann. However, in that article, Kaufmann does not have an argument against Lily being intersex, only an argument that that only way Lily could argue for treatment was to emphasize her intersex condition. Therefore there is no reasonable doubt to be had about Lili's own testimony, and references to such doubt should be removed from the article. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.135.237 (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

References

IP edits

Comment moved from my talk page to here. -- Irn (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The changes I made on the Lili Elbe page were not intended as vandalism. I merely wanted to correct a number of historical inaccuracies: The name she was given at birth is Einar Magnus Andreas Wegener. The name she chose for herself in November 1930 is Lili Ilse Elvenes, despite the fact that she is know as Lili Elbe today. She died on September 12th, 1931. She had four, not five surgeries. Warnekros never attempted a uterus implant. That is a myth. Her last surgery was a vaginoplasty. Also the marriage to Gerda Wegener was resolved in court and not by the Danish king. I would kindly ask you to withdraw your veto on my changes and allow for her to be represented in a historically accurate way. Thank you. 78.52.10.31 (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! I saw a lot of small changes with no sources or edit summaries, and so I reverted them. The article is very poorly sourced, so it's hard to know what's legitimate. Do you have any sources for your claims? I've gone ahead and reverted my revert, as I don't think anything you've put forth contradicts what the only online reliable source says, except for the death by transplant rejection. But if you can provide sources to back up your claims, that would be great. -- Irn (talk)

Added sources and changed the death date back to the 13th - had made a mistake there. The transplant rejection is not confirmed as the cause of her death, just speculation, so I removed that again. 78.52.133.31 (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice work with that source! Does that source you have contest the cause of death? Or do you have another source that says that her death was not related to the surgery? Because we have a least one reliable source (the Copenhagen Post) explicitly tying her death to the surgery, and other less reliable sources saying the same thing, so if you have something that contradicts or contests the cause of death, I think that should be added to the article. -- Irn (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Many sources listed in the article (such as The Telegraph, The Guardian, Biography.com, etc) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] claim that she had a relationship with Claude Lejeune and died form organ rejection due to a uterine transplant, but someone is erasing this information from the article claiming that it's "false information", but with no source to prove that it's false. He/she is even changing the date of Lili's death without providing any source, it's only his/her word. This person has been doing this for months. Can a mod do something about it? (179.111.181.22 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

Noting plagiarism and other article issues

I came here as a fact checker today, of an outside manuscript in preparation that references the WP article, and found that the closing paragraph in the Marriage dissolution section was not derived from a stated source, but was rather fully plagiarised from that source. (The text appears, verbatim as it does in the source, without quotation marks.) This paragraph, in my view, needs a vary hard look, both because of the plagiarism, and because the source on which it derived is not an encyclopedic source (it is a self-published web source, see here).

As well there are various other issues with language and sourcing that keep this article from being encyclopedic; look for plaices where the prose, it is "likely that" or it is "very likely that" appear. Such subjective medical statements are not appropriate, unless they are the expressed opinion of an encyclopedic source, where the person (author) holding the opinion is clearly identified. In the indicated places, the majority of sources in support are news reports pertaining to a movie production (i.e., they are not authoritative sources regarding a medical conclusion).

I have no personal opinion on the matters being discussed. But I do strongly encourage the editors of this article to follow WP:VERIFY strictly, and not to use popular press statements to support one or another side of a fact-based matter, medical or otherwise. Le Prof 73.211.138.148 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Dora Richter

Much of the section "Lili Elbe x Dora Richter: the first sex reassignment surgery" seems out of place here, as it isn't about Elbe. From the information presented here, it seems that Dorchen Richter should be the subject of her own article, not shoehorned in here. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I've moved most of that content into a new article, and relocated the info about Elbe from that section to the appropriate section of this aricle. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160123144038/http://www.arken.dk/udstilling/gerda-wegener/ to http://www.arken.dk/udstilling/gerda-wegener/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

What MOS genuinely says

Contrary to Fæ's repeated assertions, MOS:GENDERID does not say that birth names should not be bolded. In fact, it does say "The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first", which exactly contradicts that claim. Furthermore, WP:R#ASTONISH encourages the use of bold when there is a redirect from another name, to avoid confusing a reader who may follow it to an article with an unexpected name. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please take more care to read and interpret, and take care with cherry picking from guidelines. The words I refer to are "explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article", and bolding deadnames in the lead text is unnecessary, nor explicitly required even though there are examples in BIRTHNAME where deadnames are bolded. Leaving this unbolded seems a perfectly reasonable way to avoid "overemphasis", in a case like this where the person is only ever referenced or known in the real world by "Lili Elbe".

With regard to the title of this section, "what MOS genuinely says" is "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term." In this case it should be avoided, it can be avoided without confusion to anyone, and so is not appropriate. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "without overemphasis" doesn't mean "without emphasis"; if that had been the intent of the guideline, it would've been written with four fewer letters. :) The fact that Elbe was given a male name and misgendered for much of her life is a major theme of the article, so it needs some degree of emphasis in the lede... the only question is how much. Bold+italics would be "overemphasis"; bold alone is just "emphasis". There isn't even a BLP concern at stake for why we might want to de-emphasize it; this is a historical figure who deserves to be treated like any other historical figure, whose birth names are almost always given in bold.

The guideline about redirects explains why that kind of (just plain) emphasis is important: the "principle of least astonishment". Your belief that no one will ever be confused by Einar Wegener redirecting to Lili Elbe seems like just a convenient assumption to support the outcome you want. There are paintings in galleries with that name on them, catalogued under that name, so it's reasonable to think that it would happen. The MOS guideline on this subject even gives a similar example of possible confusion (a woman also known by an entirely different male name) and it bolds both names, including the far less-known one. You may wish otherwise, but Elbe was notable under her birth name (for example) and WP standards for that are unambiguous. WP:BIRTHNAME says the name should be in the lede. WP:R#ASTONISH doesn't mandate that it be bold, but presents an argument for why the name should. While your argument for why it shouldn't seems to be nothing more than "it shouldn't". You'll pardon me for not being persuaded by that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As said, nobody would be "astonished" by the deadname not being emphasised. The reasoning is overly technical and logic chopping, compared to sticking to the spirit of respectful treatment of trans biographies per MOS:ID and WP:TRANS?. I am disappointed to see reverts and arguments about adopting a respectful approach that is easily done within policy. --Fæ (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Astonish" is in quotes as a figure of speech; the point is that arriving at the "wrong" article can be unexpected or confusing. That's a real thing, which is why WP presents guidance to address it, because our first priority here is supposed to be the reader. But if this is going to be about respecting the subjects instead, let's look at that. There is obviously nothing disrespectable about being misgendered at birth, any more than there is about John Wayne being named "Marion", or George Burns being born as a "Birnbaum", or Jerry Ford being named after an abusive father. So we present their birth names, the same as we would anyone else who changed their name, for any reason. What about respecting their wishes not to be called those other names? We do that: by using the names they identified with. This whole article is written in a way that underscores and affirms the fact that Lili Elbe was Lili Elbe. The campaign against acknowledging trans people's birth names seems to be based on an assumption that they are inherently weak, universally damaged victims, none of whom can handle (even from the grave!) people knowing the names they were given at birth. I find that implication condescending, and that is why I resist it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in what you have written is a rationale to put the deadname in bold text in the lead. The rest, including trans people being "inherently weak" as part of a "campaign", is nothing I have said, there is an endless list of offensive or bigoted things I have not said or done, so do not make further ad hominim statements about what what you like to think is in my head or what you like to think I am part of unless you can provide solid proof. Especially in consideration of my role within Wikimedia LGBT+, it is offensive, it is unwelcome, it is potentially damaging; please stick to what I have actually written here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the offense. I see a fair amount of agenda-based deletions under the rallying cry of "deadnames", much of it justified by the mindset that to be trans is to be a victim in need of rescuing, and that kind of well-intended disempowerment upsets me. I'm sorry for lumping you in with that.

You say I've offered no rationale, so allow me to express it more directly. Wikipedia normally bolds birth names, and it bolds notable also-known-as redirects. This is an example of both. Bolding it would demonstrate consistency and equal treatment, and those are important principles of WP, stemming directly from NPOV. Your reason for wanting to treat her differently is to show respect, but that's what I want too. We disagree on how to do that. You apparently think it's done by de-emphasizing the misgendering she experienced. I think it's better done by treating her the same as we would treat any other historical figure. I've been a queer activist since the 1980s, and in my experience insisting on the same treatment has gotten us farther than asking for our lives to be treated differently from others'. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest: The key word is "normally". We have specific guidelines for trans biographies because many articles were subject to reverts and argument without them. The community's understanding of how to treat the subject and articles on individuals respectfully is based on these "abnormal" guidelines backed up by Arbcom rulings. If you believe that the simple interpretation that avoiding unnecessary emphasis, in line with community agreed guidelines, can extend to whether bolding of deadnames in the lead paragraph requires a RFC, and a consequent amendment to those guidelines to spell it out, then that may be the best way to move forward. As this is Christmas, if I have to create it, it will have to wait until the end of the month. In the meantime, I suggest the emphasis remains removed. --Fæ (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Fæ, you are operating under the assumption that this person would not associate with their birth name. Please demonstrate this is the case for this specific person before we proceed. Bones Jones (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I have made no such assumption. The facts are as stated in the article. Please check what others have written, before making demands.

Your revert to the article is not appropriate diff. The "original state" of the article was not having the deadname bolded in the lead, in fact the deadname was not even in the lead until two days ago. --Fæ (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That is not true, Fæ. It isn't even close to being true. Her birth name was included at the beginning of the first version of the article in 2003,[6] and based on a series of spot-checks I've just done (at least one per year), it appears to have been included in the lede – in bold – ever since then. The only exception I've found was two days ago, when the name was briefly removed two times by a single-purpose IP editor, with two different editors restoring it, each citing WP policy. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

From this conversation, and others I have had with you, it's clear you prioritize consistency and equality, as you have just stated. But an equality that means simply treating everyone the same regardless of context, is misguided at best. Different people have different circumstances and, as such, need to be treated differently. (I'm reminded of the classic Anatole France quotation "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.") Deadnaming is a very different act than reporting on a cis person's birth name, and it needs to be treated as such. -- irn (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's nice, but it's not policy. You can't harm a dead person by stating a name they used to have, and you have no idea if this particular dead person disliked the use of their birth name (though she did use the pseudonym "Andreas Sparre" in her autobiography, she had no problem with describing her past self as male: her autobiography is called Man Into Woman, after all: also we're screwed on this argument anyway because that book's full title at publication was Man into Woman: An Authentic Record of a Change of Sex: The true story of the miraculous transformation of the Danish painter Einar Wegener (Andreas Sparre)). There isn't just one prescribed way to be trans: for example, in Christine Jorgensen's autobiography, she starts out by stating that she was born as a boy called George. The idea that mentioning birth name somehow invalidates transitioning is a modern one, the term "deadname" is probably not more than a decade old. It's fine to make this argument for living people who were never famous under their birth name and are just trying to live a normal life as their preferred gender, but it's ridiculous to apply the same standard to a dead person who is famous for being trans.

Also, quoting a dead French communist isn't a very compelling argument against equal treatment. Particularly when you're the one arguing that trans people need to be treated as a homogeneous monolith. Bones Jones (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Apart from you writing "homogeneous monolith", where did anyone else say this? It may be that this thread has become poorly indented. --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

That's what you're saying. Any trans person must be treated in accordance with what modern trans activists have decided all trans people think, regardless of their own opinions on the matter. Bones Jones (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is expressed above in my words. Please keep in mind that you may be jumping to assumptions in a way that old timers that contribute to sometimes difficult LGBT+ articles like myself are less prone to do. Though I have a lifetime of experience in gay culture, I do not have the honour of being a positive activist for trans people and respect those that are. Please do not use that label as an insult. Attacking the person, rather than sticking to evidence and guidelines, fails ad hominem. I'm recovering from 'flu, but maybe next week I'll feel up to starting a RFC to set a precedent to make our guidelines a bit clearer. Happy New Year to you. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You seem to like this tactic of dancing around saying "you don't get what I'm saying" without clarifying what you are saying. Please assume my conclusions on what you are saying are the result of my already reading everything you've said above and respond accordingly. Saying "when did someone say that" or "I didn't say that" is just a delaying tactic and isn't going to help with building consensus. Also, don't expect an RFC to give you an answer that doesn't include the phrase "case by case basis" somewhere. Also FYI, I never said you were an activist, I said it's a something modern activists came up with. Bones Jones (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Name and gender pronoun usage

The following text seems awkward and misleading: It is generally believed that Elbe was born in 1882, in Vejle, Denmark. Her year of birth... Einar Wegener was born in 1882 and he was male at birth, at least he was legally listed and regarded as male. The previous writer above states that, in cases of name change the name in use at the time should be used to describe the event. I agree, as otherwise it leads to a confusing narrative. I would also suggest that in referring to his gender, the pronoun for the gender he had at that time should be used, and then at some later point the feminine pronoun should be used after her transition to a woman, or perhaps after her self-identification as a woman. See the article on Cat Stevens, who was known by three different names. It smoothly makes the transition of name usage at every step, in a way that is clear to the reader. This is not a transgender/intersex/politically-motivated comment, it is just a standard used across Wikipedia for clarity. Jaywilson (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No, per MOS:GENDERID and the large notice at the top of this page. --Fæ (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The notice at the top of the page seems like a really silly policy, though: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman') that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to give you the objective truth? I'm not a regular editor, just a passing reader, but from the outside it looks like this policy was written by some closet cross-dresser who wishes that being transgender was socially acceptable and is trying to use Wikipedia to influence the real world. (Just my honest reaction!) I wanted to screen-cap this article to show to some friends, but I had to go through and edit the part I'm screencapping to make it less confusing, which is an annoying hassle. You guys need to fix this policy.2601:188:C180:FC2:1163:4F9D:1C2B:8556 (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a policy that was reached after considering discussion and debate. Sorry you find it confusing and contrary to your prejudices (which are not "objective truth" I'm afraid). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Gohrbandt?

The section on Elbe's surgeries mentions Dr. Erwing Gohrbandt's vaginoplasty surgery twice, but provides only his last name (not even the title "Dr."), with no explanatory links. As there is no page for Dr. Gohrbandt himself, I searched for his name and found it, with a little more identifying information, on the page for Dora Richter. I'm not sure what the best way to address this would be, but I think there definitely needs to be either no mention of Gohrbandt at all, or more info than just his last name—preferably, something indicating who he was in relation to the other doctors Elbe was treated by. I don't know enough about Gohrbandt (TBH, nothing at all beyond what's on Dora Richter's page) to know whether he's worthy of his own page, much less to write one, but since he seems to be the first person to have ever performed vaginoplasty, he's significant enough to be worth more than just a last name reference. Quantumpanda (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Source of her name?

While reading about Magnus Hirschfeld's role in the homosexuality trial of Kuno von Moltke I noticed that the name of von Moltke's ex-wife (who testified against him) during the time of his trial was 'Lilly von Elbe'. Have any scholarly sources noted the parallel here? Was Lili Elbe's name a reference to this? PigeonAppreciator (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Lili Elbe was the first recipient of SRS.

In October 1930, Danish court invalidated the couple's marriage. At that time, Lili Elbe had transplanted ovaries and did not have scrotal, testicles and penis. Removing all male genitalia and transplanting female gonad are sex reassignment surgeries. Danish court thought that Lili was legally a woman in October 1930. Vaginoplasties of Dora Richter and Lili Elbe were performed in 1931. It should be mentioned that Lili Elbe was the first recipient of SRS. --Sharouser (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

That needs a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Many WP:Reliable sources refer Lili Elbe as the first recipient or SRS. --Sharouser (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Rest in Peace for User:Flyer22 Frozen. Per 'Hoyer, Main into Woman, 1933, page 112', Lili's photograph was referred as Einar Wegener (Andreas Sparre) as Lili Elbe, Dresden, May 1930, between second and third Operations. Per 'Hoyer, Main into Woman, 1933, page 128', She was referred as Lili Elbe, Woman's clinic, Dresden, June 1930 (after the operation). These sources are enough sources. Sharouser (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Other reliable sources say that she was not the first. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Gender Fluid?: A Primer for the 21st Century says that she was the first sex reassignment surgery recipient which surgery was enough for legal gender change. I will add a distinction between Lili Elbe and Dora Richter. Sharouser (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Original name

The well-intended removal of her original name is not consistent with Wikipedia policies. That name is well known, with plenty of sources available. (It wasn't cited because it was obviously true.) In fact, she put that name on each of her paintings. As the article indicates, she achieved notability under that name, and that work remains well known.[7][8] WP policy recognizes that names under which a person was notable are appropriate to include, because doing so gives them proper credit for it. (This even applies to living persons, which she is not.) Bottom line: Before she transitioned, the person known as "Einar Wegener" was a noteworthy painter. Someone researching the artist should be able to find information by searching for that name on Wikipedia, and understand right away when they come to this article that it is about the person they're looking for. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The name I removed was not even the name commonly mentioned in RS. Rab V (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I see: I didn't notice that one of the middle names was incorrect. (My brain sometimes stumbles on germanic names.) But there are sources for Einar Magnus Andreas Wegener [9] and there are sound policy reasons to include it, in both the infobox and the lede. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I was a professional editor for 30 years. I spent a lot of time cleaning up this article . . .

although I refrained from making extensive changes, and now I find that more than one person has come along and changed it so much that it's unrecognizable from the version I started with (which was within the last week). For one thing, someone insists on referring to the male infant who became a female in adulthood as "she" and "her." That's unnecessary. When the child was born, he was male. I left the birth name, Einar Wegener, where it referred to Einar before he became Lili—for example, in discussing his marriage to Gerda. Someone has been so obsessed with "correctly" referring to this transgender person that they have lost all perspective and common sense.

I understand that the "anyone can write and edit Wikipedia" sounds very fair and equitable, but what's happened is that it makes Wikipedia a MESS. The volunteer "editors" are so concerned with their own personal hobgoblins--political, personal, or grammatical--that they allow horrible writing that makes no sense to stand, as long as no one refers to someone's birth gender "incorrectly" or gets some formatting wrong. WORDS MATTER. THE ORDER IN WHICH WORDS ARE STRUNG TOGETHER MATTERS. It seems to me also that some of these microeditors do not go back and read the whole article after their edits to see whether they have introduced errors or made detrimental deletions.

My pride is not wounded. I am not going through all the edits and reversions, because it's a waste of time. I just wish, if anyone reads this and gets my point, that that person would try to spread these ideas at Wikipedia. If you're going to replace the encyclopedia as the go-to reference for all the world, it's worth trying to be as accurate and clear as possible.

In my own writing these days, I am using britannica.com as a reference whenever possible, and I am encouraging others to do the same. 2601:5C2:201:7C90:B582:549F:73A2:6DC5 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to read MOS:GENDERID, especially the first sentence of it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

In terms of the main issue you are raising here, please note that MOS:GENDERID governs, among other things, the use of pronouns in relation to gender identity; it has been arrived at through repeated discussions involving hundreds of editors over many years, and has achieved a high level of consensus within Wikipedia. Individual editors of course have their own opinions, but those individual feelings do not override project-wide consensus. Of course, projects outside of Wikipedia represent different values. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

As a professional writer, I share your conviction that words and the manner in which they are combined matter. Granted, collaborative writing is often clunky and artless, and I share your frustration with that. But in my well-qualified opinion, the article as it reads today is at least clear. A person might have more than one name at various points in their life. They might even have different visible sex traits at various points in their life. However, the contemporary understanding of gender identity is that this person was always intrinsically female – regardless of what she looked like or what she was called – and to refer to her in places as "him" or to describe her as "male" would be simply inaccurate. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include Elbe's birth name?

For a modern trans figure, the birth name would not be included in the article if the person was not notable prior to their transition. Why does this article list it? JDBauby (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Because she was notable prior to her transition. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Such a view raises the question of what would be considered 'notable' or not, which could be partly subjective. Also, what would have made someone notable in the past might be deemed unimportant to day given cultural shifts and changes in societal norms.

I also think that since Wikipedia aims to be an 'encyclopedic' source of knowledge and it will soon be 100 years since she died, it is reasonable to include that information if it is known and a source can be cited. Likewise, if the individual is well known (might qualify as notable) and collectively "out" then it would probably follow that there is no especial harm in disclosing that information. Jnharton (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 19 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarahaguiar, Nr2023 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CyanCaribou.

— Assignment last updated by Rgxo (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)