Talk:Murder of Gwen Araujo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Preposition for transgendered persons

I've actually posted on the manual of style before in regards to this issue - what preposition do we use to described pre-op transgendered persons? It's POV whichever way we decide, and if we go with their chosen gender instead of their physical one, it's factually debatable too. →Raul654 05:06, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not. If it's good enough for the Associated Press, it's good enough for us. The pronouns in this article will get changed over my dead body. Ambi 05:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I personally don't care in the least, as long as our articles are (a) consistent and (b) clear, (which until I added the "male to female" statement, this article was absolutely not) →Raul654 05:18, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ambi. There is already preexisting guidelines to use self identification, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Identity, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_Sexuality/Terminology, Wikipedia:Style_guide#Identity. Dysprosia 05:22, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Accepted medical, social, and psychological standards regarding transgendered persons are fairly clear - someone that presents as female is to be referred to by female pronouns. To do otherwise, is hateful, disrespectful, and demeaning. Legally, its still a grey area, but transexuality is beginning to be treated more as a birth defect - the apparent gender of the sexual organs does not match the prenatal development of the brain - a transwoman is most accurately considered to be a woman that due to a curse of nature happened to be born with a penis. Triona 05:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sex is a biological fact, regardless of current political situations. Each cell of a male human has an XY chromosome, regardless of whether the person or the state recognizes said individual as female. -Naif 11:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately for us all, our society is advanced enough (or at least, becoming so) to realize that we are more than our genes. The question is not whether a transgendered person is biologically this or that, it's a question of identity, and on that subject, the individual decides. -Kasreyn 17:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Some (intersex) women who happen to have XY chromosomes gave birth to children and were unaware of having those chromosomes, besides chromosomes we also can be legal male of female, hormonal male of female and social as in the main article of this discussion. Artgoyle 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I was not aware that XY-intersex females could conceive and give birth... I've asked Artgoyle for a citation to substantiate that claim. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Most probably Gwen Araujo wasn't an XY intersex female, but the point was if having XY chromosomes meant being a man even if that person says she's not. Being a man or a women is not so black 'n white. Therefore the points on the talkpage of RyanFreisling. Some years ago I went to this congres about intersex children and it was very impressive, there are so many variaties! Artgoyle 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So my uterus mean nothing because I have male chromosomes? No, the determination between male and female is not at all black and white. There are "males" with a lack of androgen receptors, that look female and many have a female gender identity. There are also those who have afflictions on their SRY region on the Y chromosome (like me), that develop as female in every way until puberty, when it halts because of estrogen deficiency. Once on hormone replacement therapy, they develop fully as females, except for nonfunctional ovaries. Us Swyer syndrome girls are still capable of carrying babies to term, even if they are from donated eggs. We're no different to infertile XX women. On a different note, I wish we could adopt Spivak pronouns...

Female... and I agree with Ambi. There is no need to change it, and I guarantee you'll get a huge fight if you try. Coolgamer 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI: User:201.250.95.157 posted the following unsigned comment at 03:33 on 18 March 2007, on my talk page:

"I don't think Araujo should be called as a "she", after all, even though he "changed his sex", he was a man by nature."

Just providing this as an FYI and note that the user did, eventually, following my suggestion to try to discuss this issue before continuing to change the article (see edit history here and here as well as user talk here). ZueJay (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Transwoman" versus "Transsexual" in article introduction

I'm concerned about the use of the term "Transwoman" in the article's introductory sentences. The original term used was "transsexual". I haven't heard the term "transwoman"; it seems to be a jargon term. The term "transsexual" is more common, and I think would be more appropriate for the introduction. If "transwoman" is in general usage, it might be appropriate later in the article, or presented along with "transsexual" in the introduction (i.e., "she was a male-to-female transsexual, or transwoman"). Does that seem appropriate?

If people have any doubts, we have a perfectly good article on transwoman that is linked from there. Ambi 07:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you don't like transwoman, we can write [[transwoman|transsexual woman]], or even [[transsexual]] [[transwoman|woman]], or we can use the word transsexual as an adjective (but not as a noun, as there are problems with the usage in this form). Dysprosia 07:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Transwoman's a fairly widely used term, and is less cumbersome/confusing and potentially, less demeaning than "male-to-female transsexual woman" - it makes the fact that one is transsexual clearly known, it clearly expresses that individuals gender identification, and it can be worked cleanly into text in the same places where "man" or "woman" can fit. I'd also suggest that the term really only need to be used near the start of an article, unless a person's transexuality is a major focus of that article. Triona 11:36, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the term 'transgenderED' is loaded in that it assumes that it is a choice of some sort created by having something done to you...It suggests that you choose to be and become transgendered as opposed to being a transgender person. Its like saying 'I've become heterosexualised' or 'He homosexualised himself'. The preferred word should be transgender without the 'ed.' Bishop Shelby Spong I think was one of the first people to make that sort of distinction.

This is an absurdly politically correct sentence that is at odds with the facts: "Once it was discovered that Gwen Araujo was biologically male, she was struck on the head "

You cannot be "biologically male" and be "she." Words mean something, and "she" does not mean "biologically male"! User:66.214.88.100

That is your opinion, others have another - whether your gender is between your legs or between your ears is actually not really debated - it is between the ears. You might wish to inform yourself about the matter before making any more defamatory statements, actually. Or find another webpage to rant. -- AlexR 9 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

You are correct in that words mean something... you are incorrect in assuming that the word "she" only defines a biological female. A transsexual woman lives is a woman and wishes to be viewed as a woman. It is absurd to call somebody who lives as a female and wishes to be viewed as female a "he." Your use of "politically correct" is annoying. Any show of common courtesy could be called politically correct... and it is only within common courtesy to refer to a transwoman the same way as a biological woman.

No it is the truth, she is correct. The statement absurdly contradicts itself within one sentence. It's beyond opinion.

The sentence does not contradict itself, as it is made clear earlier in the article that Gwen identifies as female. "Biologically male" does not automatically mean "identified male," and on Wikipedia personal identification comes before biology.

Can we please quit this rubbish about the definitions of biological sex. A biological male doesn't have the secondary sexual characteristics of a woman (which includes evebn such things as thinner skin, etc). A biological woman doesn't have XY sex chromosones. Gwen was murdered when they fount out that she was a transexual woman, or my preferred (and widely used) term, a transwoman. Same thing, but more sensitive, and easier to understand. Please, lets quit the arguing. Crimsone 21:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Girl"?

AlexR, I don't know why you insist that Gwen is not a "child" nor a "girl". Legally, she was definitely not a "woman" -- she was not yet 18 at her death. That makes her a girl. Certainly, except for the fact that she was biologically a male, the prosecutor would have kept calling her a girl, a girl, a girl to the jury. Certainly I've had clients who are charged with consensual sex with 17-year-olds and the alleged victims are repeatedly referred to as girls in court. Please come up with a convincing argument on why Gwen was not a "girl". --Nlu 12:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, because "girl" has certain implications, you know. One is that she was far from grown-up, and that is something most 17-year-olds emphatically deny. Maybe a prosecutor would use that word, but then, a prosecutor does have to convince a jury. We do not, and I find it pretty insulting to call a 17-year-old, who also does not come across as particularly "childish", a girl. Particularly if this person also has sex on her own initiative. This is an article in an encyclopdia, not a legal text.

Not to mention that there is another problem with replacing "transwoman" with "transgender girl": Once you try to decided whether Gwen was "transsexual" or "transgender", you are bound to invite another discussion (and particularly if you do so in the introductory paragraph). You might notice that this is not definitely stated anywhere in the article, and given the mining field this "war of definitions" sometimes can be, that is most decidedly not the worst way of keeping it. -- AlexR 16:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"Girl" is dimunitive and is often read as "not even close to being an adult woman" so I don't think it's unreasonable to want to avoid that term; many females in their late teens and twenties accept the phrase "young woman", in my experience. So rather than deciding between "girl" and "woman", how do you feel about "young woman", sufficiently qualified, like "transgender(ed) young woman"? Perhaps "…young transwoman — a transgendered woman, biologically male but projecting as female" would be a reasonable compromise? It would allow the casual reader to avoid having to research "transwoman", which is not in most people's vocabulary and is as ambiguous as any other term. — mjb 03:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I must say I am still not sufficiently happy about it. That many teenage girls would not like to be called girls (just as teenage boys don't like to be called boys often) doesn't make them non-girls. And again, I think the major tragedy in this is that Gwen's life is cut so short -- and, while I am not blaming her for her own death (like, apparently, Magidson's attorney more or less did), she made some rather major mistakes in deciding whom to associate with and whom to get intimate with, mistakes that would hopefully not have been repeated had she been older and more mature and more understanding that these were not men that she should have been involved with. However, there doesn't seem to be a good number of people agreeing with me. But I think AlexR misses the point, in particular; the way that Gwen was murdered (and I think I can call it murder now) is tragic and brutal, and, I'm sorry, but her behavior was not adult behavior. (I know many adults behave this way, but she was clearly acting as a teenager trying to win acceptance by providing sexual favors -- like many other teenage girls -- not realizing that that doesn't bring you acceptance, but only humiliation.) Calling her a (tran)woman simply ignores that part of the tragedy. --Nlu 13:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, as far as I know, girls don't have penises (never had to pluralize that before...)♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute template

I have added Template:TotallyDisputed to the article in order to warn the reader that there are allegations of bias and factual inaccuracy that are being discussed on the Talk page. I see by the article's edit history that there's a bit of a battle going on, and the discussion here does not seem to have produced much consensus yet.

One thing that I noticed in the article was that the 'Death' section does not even mention when it is believed that she died. It makes it sound like she was buried alive… — mjb 03:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A problem is that there is no real definitive or convincing account on how Gwen died -- an issue that plagued the prosecution's case during the first trial. I don't think that will ever been known, conclusively. Even the second trial didn't really resolve the matter legally -- by convicting both Magidson and Merél, the jury clearly believed that both of them were involved with her death, but by not convicting or acquitting Cazares, the jury also signified that it was not convinced that either the prosecution timeline (as given by Nabors) or Cazares's account was accurate -- not to mention that we don't have to agree with the jury's determination, either. Indeed, I don't think that one can even rule out the possibility that Gwen was buried alive, however unlikely that was. Indeed, the convictions of both Magidson and Merél implicitly means that the jury discredited both of their versions as well -- and the prosecution relied on Merél's testimony in arguing Magidson's guilt, which, in my mind, muddies the picture more. We will never know who did what in Gwen's death conclusively, I'm sure. --Nlu 13:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I see the template was quickly removed by AlexR, yet the allegations of bias remain unanswered. As near as I can tell, the long-winded anonymous complaint in the 'bias of article' section above seems to boil down to one main point of contention which you have not addressed: the characterization of the Gwen's assailants as 'transphobic', which is guessing at their motives — it's certainly plausible, to me, but I can see the point that it may not be documented diagnosis/fact, and the article should not present it as such, especially when it seems to advance the agenda of those who are sympathetic with the victim and would like to portray her in the most positive light possible.

(The complainant feels the case for labelling them transphobic is further undermined by various downplayed or unmentioned reports that would instill a reasonable doubt that the assailants were completely unaware of Gwen's biological masculinity at the time of their sexual encounters, but as you pointed out, the failure to cite sources aside from a passing reference to Rolling Stone renders the bulk of that argument speculative.)

At the very least, you should qualify the opening statement of the article to clarify who is making the claim that the attackers were transphobic, rather than reporting it as a general fact that they were/are transphobic. — mjb 09:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes, I did, and that is because all you gave for a reason were "disputes on the talk page" which about every 2nd article has. Also, even if there is a dispute, a "totallydisputed" tag only goes into articles with current edit wars, usually, and not just any article where just any person felt there was something "unresolved". Not to mention that all sex/gender related articles get hit with a variety of dispute template and nutcase allegations regularly, which does influence ones willigness to remove such templates.

As for the alleged unresolved dispute, that is a claim , lacking, as far as I am aware, any merrits. An IP put up -- weeks ago -- a long rant that consists of very litte more than conjecture and "must have been, because I think so". The matter isn't discussed very deeply because said IP vanishes in a puff of fould smelling words after being contradicted and called to back up their allegations. (What a surprise ... a real first!) And now, weeks later, you walk in here, have nothing to back up these claims either, and slap a "totallydisputed" tag into the article? Well, you can expect it to be removed again, unless you have a few arguments to back it up. Hint: Allegedly quoting a paper article and then conjuring up a case on half a sentence of that article is not exactly going to win your case. -- AlexR 08:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

First off, people come and go, and stumble across articles, all the time. Sometimes it takes months for someone to run across and article and find something questionable about it and to do something about it. Just because the article or talk page was stable in the meantime does not mean it has no problems, and how much of a newcomer I am to this page is irrelevant to issue at hand. FWIW, I came here because I saw a recent report about the verdict on a news site, and I wanted to get some of the backstory on the case. I looked at the article, had to go look up transwoman, then noticed the missing death info. Then I looked at the discussion page, and saw the anonymous rant and your hasty dismissal of it. I looked at the article again and noticed that it did indeed still label the attackers as transphobic, without any qualification of that statement to indicate who came to that conclusion (a court of law didn't, and a doctor didn't).

The 'totallydisputed' template (an unfortunate name for a template whose text is actually quite benign) very accurately characterizes this article as having questionable accuracy and neutrality. By removing it, you are asserting that everything stated in it is fact and does not reflect bias. Yet, as was pointed out, it presents contentious assertions as fact.

You are right in that most of that anonymous rant is speculative and can be ignored, but the point remains that the article is overly sympathetic to the victim, and it does, at the outset, label Gwen's attackers as transphobic, which has not been sufficiently demonstrated, at least not by anything in the article, as being true. Plausible, yes. Certain, no. The average newspaper would never be allowed to print such unqualified statements. Exactly how is there 'no merit' to these points? — mjb 22:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Bias of article, continued

mjb states "You are right in that most of that anonymous rant is speculative and can be ignore" Really? Just what is speculative mjb? Why don't you provide specifics! The facts I posted are just that. ' 1) Gwen's friends stated repeatedly that "Eddie couldn't pass for female!" No speculation there!

2) There is no mental illness, nor is there a condition recognized as "Transphobia", hmmm! Thats mot speculation either!

3) The only account of the killing is from the alleged killers. That is speculative?? I'd thats a fact!

4) AlexR never addresses Araujo's risky behavior, at least at any great length. Thats pretty factual as well i'd say!

The argument I set forth about what possibly happened was surmise and speculation, and I made that very clear! But mjb use a little common sense here! Most of Araujo's friends said 'she' could not pass as female, in none of the photographs I've seen does Araujo look convincingly female, at least in my opinion. Yet we are to believe that all of these young men

I am in no way saying that Gwen's killers definitely didn't know she was a transwoman, but your photo example is insufficient. You knew she was biologically male before viewing the picture.

1) Has anal sex with Araujo, but hade no clue about Araujo's biological gender.

2) They were all convinced Araujo was indeed a biological female, despite what Araujo's family and friends have stated??

3) All three suffered from something called 'Transphobia' and all had 'Gay Panic' all at once! What are the mathematical odds of this statistical anomaly??

We aren't talking about a whole city here, only three people. Transphobia and homophobia often go hand in hand. It's like saying that three friends who all hate black people and hispanic people at the same time would be a strange occurence. If it -were- the case, it wouldn't by any means be a "statistical anomaly."

Speculation would be promoting the idea that this happened with nothing to back it up. This was a hypothesis! AlexR's silly contention that I no longer showed up here, due to a Alex's excellent rebuttals is very absurd. It was my frustration at his absolute ignorance, and bizzare defense of his fiction which kept me away! :)

AlexR obviously has no interest whatsoever in factual accuracy, but seems hell bent on maintaining an overly simplistic, fictionalized account of the events which depicts Araujo as a beautiful, flawless, innocent creature who met a horrific demise at the hands of evil straight "transphobic" alpha males who existed solely to obliterate this fragile flower.

People like 'AlexR', with their own extreme agendas, as well as total indifference to fairness and objectivity, are the very reason that wikipedia has now had so many credibility issues. The pettiness, and hypervigelance this person exhibits is jarring. 'AlexR' treats this page as though it is his (?) personal website, and that his fictionalized ideal account of events is definitive. One should keep in mind, the only accounts we have of the killing, is from the alleged killers, which should be taken with a great degree of skepticism.

'AlexR' will not actually address valid points of contention, and based on his writings, I surmise he has neither the honesty, emotional fortitude, nor intellectual capacity required to engage in an honest informed dialouge. Any disagreement is met with hissy generaliztion like "That's your opinion", and keeps actual debate to zero. Any attempt on anyone's part to revise the Araujo entry is met with a swift and hysterical deletion by 'AlexR' The self appointed authority on anything Araujo!

I would hope fair minded posters will bring this matter to the attention of wikipedia. People like 'AlexR' with simple minded fantasies ready to substitute for fact are the very reason wikipedia is having major problems with credibility! Let's deal with this situation and stop this insanity!

Yes, you did make it clear that your conclusions were speculative when you said "My conclusion (and this is purely my opinion in the way the writer's entire piece is purely opinion, although presented as factual) based on all of the know[n] facts is that…" so it should not come as a shock to you that AlexR and I both characterized your commentary as being mostly speculative.

In my opinion, you generally do raise good questions about the case and the way it is being described by this article. It is true that there are certain pieces of information that were underreported, and certain suspicious circumstances that, as far as we know, were not topics of consideration during the trials. But the bulk of your rant is imploring the reader to retry the case or harbor certain doubts based on your selected bits of circumstantial evidence. If the GLBT community or convicts' legal representatives are demanding further consideration of these issues, then it can be easily reported on in the article; but if it's just you asking "how can conclusion X be reasonable, given evidence A B and C?", the best you can probably do is research whether the evidence in question was considered in the trial and then report on that aspect accordingly (and carefully).

Things that I don't think are points of contention are that Araujo was attempting to pass as female, Araujo was attacked and subsequently died, certain conclusions about the case were reached by a jury, and certain groups take a heightened interest in the case due to the victim's transgendered status (passable or not). To be constructive, I've gone ahead and rewritten the intro/summary paragraph in order to declare these facts as neutrally as I could. — mjb 02:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Whoa, people! Look at the pretty flowers. Let them calm you. --Kizor 18:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Fieldoftulips.jpg

This page needs more flowers

Pronunciation

I'm translating the article into Hebrew but I'm not sure about the correct pronunciation of "Araujo". Can anybody help? tnx! Odedee 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If the pronunciation is supposed to match pronunciation of Spanish - ie if I'm right in assuming that Araujo is an Hispanic name - then it would be "ah-ROW-ho". I don't know the universal pronunciation code symbols, or whatever they call it (I find it unreadable anyway). Note that the last syllable is a very vocal consonant. A "j" in Spanish is pronounced as if you are making a "k" sound but then rasp air through the area rather than closing the "k". Hard to describe! Hope this helped. -Kasreyn 17:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this did help. This matches my understanding. As for the j, I will use the Hebrew letter corresponding to the first H in "Hutzpah". That's the closest, I guess. Odedee 23:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Old name

I think we should remove her old name. Mentioning a trans person's ex-name is generally considered rude and inappropriate information in trans culture and trans-friendly spaces. Who else agrees with me?--Sonjaaa 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. In this case, it's factually accurate (and relevant -- for one thing, without her original name, all the references to "Eddie" suddenly make no sense). This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. --Nlu (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. It may be transgender etiquette but wikipedia manual of style is more appropriate. This isn't a transgender publication, and though we will of course be as respectful as we can, it's unencyclopedic not to include her original name, for informational purposes. -Kasreyn 07:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kasreyn! Some people here seem to think this is the radical politicized, opinionary transgendered are all innocent victims, and anyone else is "Transphobic (?!)" forum. This is supposed to be an unbiased online encyclopedia, not a radical, hysterical online diatribe!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.179.235 (talk • contribs) 12 April 2006

Funny, this debate ... whenever people are asked to respect transpeople, some start whining (quite often anonymously) that it would be "unencyclopedic" to do so, or that respect towards transpeople is something that happens only in "transgender publications" or blogs, or that the demand is "radical", "hysterical" and so on. I dunno, but methinks those people just don't have any manners, and worse, they are so bloody eager to show it. Can't you for a change try arguments instead? Lemme show you how that works:

It is true that within trans culture it is rude to call a person by their old name, in fact, it is always rude to do so. However, we are not calling Gwen "Eddie" in this article, but we merely mention that her birth name was "Eddie". That itself I consider no more rude than mentioning that Cary Grant's birth name was Archibald Alexander Leech. Now, if a transperson - or anybody who ever changed their name - does take great pains to hide it (which not everybody does), and especially if the name is not general knowledge, I would consider mentioning the name here on par with outing some gay or lesbian person who is in the closet, something we don't do in the Wikipedia, either. This is not the case here - about every article about her mentiones her birth name, and I see no reason not to mention it (once, however, is perfectly enough). -- AlexR 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's only unencyclopedic if it's unsourced. Which, currently, the article on transphobia *still* is. I'm certainly not calling anyone hysterical; just because 24.34.179.235 agrees with me doesn't mean I totally agree with him or her! Everyone deserves equal respect on Wikipedia regardless of their lifestyle choice. My only problem is when activists push political buzz-words and propaganda (both positive and negative propaganda) words on Wikipedia as if they were real. I'm not against the efforts by transgender activists to sway public opinion, but it mustn't be done here. Which means that terminology like "transphobia" must be backed up with sources to avoid the appearance of partiality. Cheers, Kasreyn 20:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Errr ... and why are you then using words like "lifestyle choice" (which transgender is not - most trans-people would rather not be trans), or "activists" pushing "political buzz-words" and "propaganda" "as if it were real". Sorry, but that is your activism pushing right-wing buzz-words as if they were real. I also never said that you agree with the IP on everything, so what exactly are you talking about regarding this article? And here we are not discussing Transphobia, so if you have any problems with that article, why buillshit around here accusing people of abusing Wikipedia for propaganda? Especially since you are doing the same thing, only you don't have anything to back up your claim of "lifestyle choice". Except transphobic publications, of course. -- AlexR 20:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh. I wasn't aware "lifestyle choice" was such an odious term to trans people. I was under the impression that it was courteous. What do they prefer? "Accident of birth"? "Roll of the dice"? Please forgive me for not being up-to-date in my terminology. Kasreyn 18:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should actually think before commenting. Rebecca 08:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because I made a mistake (which I've already admitted to) is no reason to be insulting to me. Kasreyn 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well continuing to say offensive things like "accident of birth" or "roll of the dice" is no way to patch it up either....138.192.78.134 (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)