Talk:Lynn Conway

Including Male name given at birth.

I'm going to start this on the talk page, because we are going to end up here anyway.

I would like to add "(Redacted)" to the article, preferably by changing "Conway grew up in White Plains, New York." to Conway (born (Redacted)) grew up in White Plains, New York". The references definitely exist, including *primary* sources at (Redacted) and (Redacted).

I'm familiar with WP:DEADNAME and given that in my opinion she was not notable prior to arriving at Xerox PARC, her name given at birth should *not* be in the Lead (This is a Laverne Cox situation in that degree rather than a Caitlyn Jenner or Chelsea Manning.

I have no intention of making this edit until after at least some level of discussion here (or a week without response, which I seriously doubt will occur)Naraht (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not really needed, though. And I don't see Cox's birth name in her Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 RebornThere is no good reference available for Cox's birth name as far as I can tell.Naraht (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unhelpful. Adding a WP:DEADNAME to this WP:BLP gains little but intrudes a lot. It's unnecessarily invasive. Msnicki (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  MsnickiIf it were the situation like Laverne Cox, I might agree, but in this case, the *primary* source at UMich was created by her and she uses (Redacted) to refer to who she was, so in *this* case, I don't believe the Deadname is intrusive. If it had come from someone cross referencing school attendence with property tax records or something else without her consent, it would be different to me.Naraht (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  It's not clear to me that the name "(Redacted)" she uses was her actual name, as opposed to a placeholder. And I think her last name was not Conway (in spite of what the secondary source says). Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  DicklyonSee the womenyoushouldknow source. Born (Redacted) Conway.Naraht (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  That's the secondary source I'm referring to. It's not convincing. As far as I know, Lynn has never publicly mentioned her birth name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  At WP:DEADNAME, it says, "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." It doesn't say that means using it somewhere outside the lede is a good idea. At best, it indicates it's a judgement call. I think it's a terrible idea and my judgement call is that arguing that she reported it, therefore we can, too, is irresponsible. You asked for feedback, you got it, I'll never be on board with this. Msnicki (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  I think we agree that WP:DEADNAME doesn't cover this. My question is how is it invasive if she has written about that name herself? What level of comfort for a person with their name prior to transition would be appropriate? (If Lynn had an interview on 60 minutes where she talked about being born and growing up as (Redacted), would that be enough?) It sounds like you are looking to expand WP:BLPNAME treating a former name at the same level as a child's name.Naraht (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  There's no "if Lynn had an interview on 60 Minutes" to discuss because it never happened. All you have is a couple of mentions that appear to establish what her name used to be. So what? WP:DEADNAME may not offer explicit guidance but it surely doesn't encourage publishing old names. It discourages doing that. I don't see any reason why adding this is a good idea. But apparently you do. Unfortunately, you've kept it secret. Exactly why do you think this is this a good idea? Msnicki (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

  Fair enough, there is no 60 minutes interview, but the Retrospective written *by* her seems to me to be at the same level of willingness to see it public. I don't see WP:DEADNAME as discouraging the use of old names. There are *lots* of things that don't belong in the Lead Sentence. My reason: This person was called (Redacted) for an appreciable part of her life, the article should include it. The fact that the name change occurred at the same time as the change in the person's publicly expressed gender should make no more difference in whether the name is included in the article than any other reason that the person changed their name.Naraht (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, I've heard you out and you haven't convinced me of anything, so I'm still opposed and that's not changing. That leaves you with zero support for this. So, unless can find some support from someone else, it's not happening. Msnicki (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The lack of alternative names is a significant issue because, with people with a career spanning decades, a lot of literature might be referring to them with their other names. It’s quite critical for research. 2) For the same reason, the reader may not be familiar with the new name and might have trouble associating the page with the actual person they know. Ssg (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ssg that simply isn't the case here. The only records of her notable work pre-transition at IBM were never made public under her deadname, and IBM seems to have long since lost or destroyed any work that was performed under that moniker. 2607:FE28:20EE:7E00:4CDC:B924:2AEB:AFCA (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Then, that should be mentioned in the article. Because in this specific case, for example, people might confuse her with the inventor of Conway's Game of Life, John Horton Conway, and might think that was her old name. Ssg (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ssg if that were the intention we'd be better served by adding a disambiguation link at the top of the article. 2600:1014:B1A8:384:0:11:A5B:6F01 (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Which one? I couldn’t find a suitable one for that purpose. Ssg (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that that's likely at all. Either way, the policy is at MOS:DEADNAME, and we should go by that — not by whatever hypotheticals you can conjure. By the way, you're replying to a conversation that's over four years old, and might be better off beginning a new discussion than hoping people see your comments in the middle of a long-stale one. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Old discussion, but I don't see anything wrong with it. WP:DEADNAME only objects where it creates a privacy issue. Based on Nahrat's explanation here, it does not. Dovid (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The one source that purports to give the birth name is not credible, in my opinion. I know that Lynn has done her best to eradicate the old name, and if it was (Redacted), I still doubt that it was Conway. In any case, I think she would prefer to protect the privacy of her relatives. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes were made at MOS:DEADNAME and it now clearly states not to include the deadname anywhere in the article if the subject was not notable under that name. Rab V (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Lynn Conway herself has explicitly requested her deadname not be released, to protect her family: https://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/ACS/Archive/ACSarchive.html#nameclarification so that would seem to be the end of the discussion, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.25.92.28 (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with stating the name given at birth. It is the same thing as a last name someone had before marriage. Sadly, there are terrorist groups with a narcissistic disorder who are mostly actually unrelated to trans people, and use this as yet another tool to gain power and terrorize people. They have invented the hateful prejudiced narrative, that even mentioning the birth name somehow implies hate and discrimination, so they can spread hate and dicriminate against anyone disagreeing with them. A typical behavior in people with narcissistic disorder when occuring in combination with a pathologically low self-esteem.
The problem is that the vast majority of trans people have no problem with their birth name at all, and the vast majority of people just see it as the birth name and nothing more.
In the end,, it is just a normal fact of reality, and does nothing to anybody. Making a taboo out of even speaking out certain names of generally willfully ignoring parts of reality, is a typical symtom of mental illness though (unrelated to if a person is trans), and if untreated, can lead do more severe schizoid illness, to a point where the person becomes incompatible with much of actual reality and cannot live a healthy life in society anymore. So while incompetent laypeople will mistake that as helpful, it will in fact just worsen and prolong the symptoms of what it meant to have a body of the different sex than your brain and be gaslighted into thinking it’s not the case.
Unfortunately, it seems many people are still so utterly clueless and naive, they are falling for those terrorist groups and let themselves be used as tools to oppress people, while believing they are righteous white knights coming to the help of poor poor helpless minorities. (See: holy wars)
— A trans person and neuro-psychologist who seriously had enough with this condescending bullshit, and doesn’t need any of you terrorists as a savior from anyone! 2A02:3035:612:AF3:2D13:3D20:2112:A797 (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussions of the policy itself are better suited to policy pages like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity, rather than specific articles. You're certainly welcome to propose changes there, although I would strongly recommend not referring to other Wikipedia editors as "you terrorists" if you decide to continue discussing this. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources for news of death

Why are personal websites and blogs being used to assert that the subject has died? If there are no high quality sources available, we shouldn't be editing a WP:BLP and asserting that. If it is true, then we will have reliable sources shortly. Hist9600 (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Andrea James is reporting it on her own personal blog. She would be a reliable source: Lynn Conway, 1938–2024 74.135.59.47 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

A personal blog is not a reliable source for news about someone's death. Hist9600 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The University of Michigan where she worked is reporting it on their web site - https://cse.engin.umich.edu/stories/the-legacy-of-lynn-conway-chip-design-pioneer-and-transgender-rights-advocate . 198.98.120.83 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That source may be adequate, since it's a former workplace, and it's a reputable university. It looks like the article was reprinted and the original is this URL: https://news.engin.umich.edu/2024/06/the-legacy-of-lynn-conway-chip-design-pioneer-and-transgender-rights-advocate/ Hist9600 (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The LA Times has an opinion column by Michael Hiltzik, though of course WP:RSOPINION applies: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2024-06-11/lynn-conway-leading-computer-scientist-and-transgender-pioneer-dies-at-85 LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like someone re-added the info and it's referencing the LA Times article. Much better than what was there before. Hist9600 (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Using an outdated term because it wasn't outdated back then?

Memories of, why do you think it's "historically correct" to use transsexual in 2024? Even if it was the term used back then, it's not what is in use now. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liliana,

Given that Wikipedia still has a page for the term transsexual, stating that it is very much still in use, I don't see why using it 'in 2024' is odd. That aside, the term is accurate to the time. Transsexual was the term used to describe those who experienced gender dysphoria, and denying it exists in favor of the term transgender is historical revisionism. Transgender is a vague umbrella term that does not make sense in this context. I agree that it's an antiquated term, I'd much rather use 'transsex', but I don't control language. Memories of (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing on this issue! However, I must respectfully disagree with using the term "transsexual" in this context, and here's why:

• As illustrated in the article on Leonardo da Vinci, "science" is used to describe his work rather than "natural philosophy," which was the term more commonly used during his time. This choice is not historical revisionism; rather, it aligns the language with modern understanding and terminology.
• The article on the American Civil War avoids using the contemporary term "n----es" to refer to Black people, even though it was commonly used at the time. Instead, it uses "Black people", which is both respectful and familiar to today's readership. Additionally, choosing not to use a outdated term does not erase its historical existence.
• For similar reasons, given that "transgender" is the most widely accepted and used term today, and is considered less offensive than "transsexual," it should be the preferred choice in this article.

Fioritura137 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ms. Conway herself also repeatedly used the term transsexual in her writings - bear in mind many older Trans folks do use the older term - as its a matter of identity for them, and it is not generally considered offensive if the person themselves used it. I however don't know what language she used recently - http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TS.html Alohawolf (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain it, then. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 13:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I updated my comment with this link - http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TS.html

She appeared to make a distinction between those who transition gender roles, and those who also seek out and undergo SRS/GAS - so that might shed some interesting light on how Ms. Conway would have like to have referred to. Which isn't modern, but reflects how the subject of the page saw themselves. Alohawolf (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

However, I believe the central issue in this discussion is choosing the appropriate term to describe Harry Benjamin's contributions, who is widely credited as a pioneering researcher in transgender healthcare.

After learning of the pioneering research of Harry Benjamin in healthcare for [transgender/transsexual] women and realizing that gender affirmation surgery was now possible, Conway sought his help. Fioritura137 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the pages on Conway's UMICH website are 15-25 years old, so they are not necessarily good indications of what terms Conway used for herself in the time since then. Hist9600 (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The cited source, which was published in 2000, uses the term "transsexual". And as defined here on Wikipedia these terms are not synonymous. So I would be opposed to changing it to "transgender". GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Notable if died at time of transition?

As best as I can tell from the Article Conway was fired from IBM and then transitioned in 1968. If instead of transitioning she had died, would that person have been viewed as Notable. I'm not sure which standard applies. 1) Would they be known as notable in 1968? 2) Would they be recognized as notable *later* after more information had been published on how vital their work was in the development of computers. The equivalent question, I *think* is would Alan Turing have been notable if they had died in 1944? Naraht (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. If Conway had died in 1968, she would have been four years into her career. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Inline external links

@Johnd39: First of all, please try to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks.

With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. See WP:ELPOINTS.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with adding redlinks to an article. See Wikipedia:Red link. If you don't like this particular one, feel free to de-link it. GA-RT-22 (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)