Talk:Victor Barker

A terrible waste

The authors of the article doubtlessly worked very hard at their task, but unfortunately they were misleaded by untrustworthy and stupid sources and have in turn produced with this article an untrustworthy source for the readers of the Wikipedia. The article has practically everythig wrong: names, facts, figures; and historical, sociological and literary implications. Even worse, it reduces a colorful personality like the Colonel Barker to a simple crossdresser by leaving out all the information, that puts her in an encyclopedic kontext, namely that she was first a member of Rotha Lintorn Orman's BF (British Fascists) and was later described as the head of the NF (National Fascisti) in London, that in 1927 she was arrested (but not convicted) after a brawl with an other Fascist splinter group, that she claimed and was believed for years (even in courts) to have won the Croix-de-Guerre and the French Legion of Honour, and, and. This mess should serve as a warning as to what happens, when an article relies on the support of the wrong sources. -- Hanno Kuntze 10:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronouns

A previous editor changed all female pronouns to male (his, her) which created some awkwardness when it referred to Barker's time in the Women's Royal Air Force and as wife and mother. I have restored some to female for the period before she lived as a man and attempted to sidestep some pronouns by using a surname. Nedrutland (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

VAD?

I have removed "She enlisted in a Voluntary Aid Detachment in 1914". The searchable records of the British Red Cross for WWI are available - http://www.redcross.org.uk/About-us/Who-we-are/History-and-origin/First-World-War - but I can not find a mention. Nedrutland (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Name

OK, the fact that the lead of the article puts four different names the person was known by in bold, but none of them is the one used in the article title / page name, seems ... less than ideal. Should the article be moved? Should the existence (and status) of the name which is used as the page title be mentioned (and ideally explained) in the lead? -sche (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not made a comprehensive search, but in a cursory search the sources I find mostly refer to Victor Barker, Valerie Arkell-Smith, or both, but there is also the detail that the person died under the name "Geoffrey Norton", if that constitutes "latest" expressed identity(?) in the language of MOS:GNDERID. Incidentally, Harold Arkell-Smith's name in our article is missing its hyphen. -sche (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I have now added "called Valerie Arkell-Smith after marriage" to the lede. Did Harold generally use the hyphen? https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/P11005243 refers to "Second Lieutenant Harold Arkell Smith" without one and the nominal roll has Smith as the sole surname and Arkell as a middle name. Nedrutland (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"AFAB" vs "F"

@DragonflySixtyseven, I propose we change "afab" in the following text to "female."

Barker involved himself in the kind of rough-housing that became the hallmark of the group and later recalled that "I used to go out with the boys to Hyde Park and we had many rows with the Reds." That he was assigned female at birth was never picked up on by his fellow members.

The word "female" refers to sex. Victor Barker was female. Surely what the other fascists didn't notice about him was the fact that he was female, not the fact of his having been observed to be female thirty years prior. Of the universe (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Physically female"? DS (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good! Of the universe (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted this. Assigned sex at birth is the correct terminology to use in this content area based on reliable sources. Physically female, biologically female, and other similar choices are words that we tend to avoid, as they are non-standard and non-neutral terminology. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

But calling a woman who chose to hide her sex because of oppression a "transman" is neutral, is it? Sickening. Fixingyourwebdesign (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

From what I've read of the sources, Barker did not chose to "hide his sex because of oppression". He was pretty consistent in what we would now call his gender identity, brushes with the legal system aside. If you know of sources that state otherwise, please link them here so they can be evaluated. Though it is unknown whether or not Barker either knew of the term nor called himself transexual after its introduction in either Germany in 1923, or England in 1949, many sources over the last thirty or so years describe him as either a transsexual man or transgender man, depending on their age. Describing Barker as a transgender man in the lead seems fully compliant with WP:NPOV. Not "transman" though, as that is a non-neutral and highly loaded term. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you know whether there any MOS guidelines or RFC discussion on "assigned at birth"? Thanks. —Of the universe (say hello) 01:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TRANSNAME and Wikipedia:Gender identity, though mostly that comes from the term assigned sex at birth and its variants being standard medical terminology, and the recommended terminology in most relevant style guides for this type of content (for example AP Stylebook, GLAAD Media Reference Guide, Trans Journalists Association Stylebook). Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to start a discussion on this more broadly, I'd suggest WT:MOSBIO as the most relevant and widely watchlisted venue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems like "assigned at birth" has not been extensively discussed on those pages, so I may start that discussion. In the meantime, what if we changed the phrasing to "That he was trans was never picked up on by his fellow members."? —Of the universe (say hello) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

My reasoning: The phrase is confusing imo in this context because the sentence is discussing a 30-year old adult and it links to an article that discusses the process of discerning an infant's sex. What is the relationship between the process of sex discernment on an infant and the experience of a 30-year-old transgender man? —Of the universe (say hello) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, the phrase assigned sex at birth is standard terminology when referring to the birth sex of a trans person. Most of our biographies on trans people that I'm aware of contain either assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth, when it's contextually relevant to discuss or refer to their birth sex. As such I don't really see your proposed phrasing as something that brings any additional clarity here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand it's standard terminology, and I don't object to the phrase "assigned male/female at birth" in many contexts, specifically, as you noted, when it's relevant to discuss a person's birth sex, or when discussing a system of social norms that started at birth. The issue in this case is the relationship between the 30-year-old adult and his birth. How could his birth sex possibly be observed by his fellow fascists? They can't observe his birth, they could only possibly observe (or fail to observe) his adult transgender status.

Also, can you please clarify a grammatical question? Is assigned x at birth an adjective about the present or is it a past event? If you were talking about a trans man in present day, would you say "he is assigned female at birth" (adjective) or "he was assigned female at birth" (past event)? If the latter, then the verb tense in this article is wrong, it should be "had been assigned female at birth." Thanks! —Of the universe (say hello) 13:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no response, and given the grammatical ambiguity, and the lack of clarity on how Barker's birth affects his adult life, I am making this change. If "birth sex" or "assigned sex at birth" belongs in the article, it belongs in the "Early life" section. —Of the universe (say hello) 04:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

"transgender" is an anachronistic and loaded term. It would be better to leave it out altogether and try to stick to facts: history pages should be as neutral and disinterested as possible. Barker passed as, and referred to herself as, a man, for sure. But she was female, as, no doubt, her "war wounds" demonstrated. (Female pronouns would be more appropriate, therefore, too.)Katiehawks (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Katiehawks The use of male pronouns appears to be in keeping with MOS:GENDERID, although I'm not sure whether there have been discussions about pronouns for historical figures.

Re: the term "transgender" your criticism of the word is reasonable, but we defer to reliable sources, so the question is whether reliable sources use the term (which I've been unable to verify because I haven't found a copy of the cited books). Do you think "assigned female at birth" is preferable to "transgender"? —Of the universe (say hello) 21:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello universe! We don't know whether she was "assigned" anything at birth (again, this phrase is a moot point), but you're right, it probably is preferable. Katiehawks (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you think "assigned" means in this context? DS (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it a bit more, would something like "Victor Barker, born Lillias Irma Valerie Barker (27 August 1895 – 18 February 1960), was an officer of the National Fascisti, as well as a bankrupt and a convicted criminal. Becoming, upon marriage, Valerie Arkell-Smith, Barker later went by various pseudonyms, including John Hill and Geoffrey Norton. As Colonel Leslie Ivor Victor Gauntlett Bligh Barker, Barker married Elfrida Haward." That avoids the issue entirely, but (I think!) keeps all of the current intro information in??? (and, indeed, includes the best - I'd like to say "unhinged", but shouldn't judge! - name of all!) Katiehawks (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Katiehawks The article needs to be clear that Barker's sex was female and that Barker passed as a man in society, so if we remove "transgender man," we'd have to replace it with something else that gets across the same idea ---the fact that his birth name was female and his chosen names were male isnt enough. (I support inclusion of the best name, though, haha) —Of the universe (say hello) 18:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, do you have sources to support the idea that "transgender man" is anachronistic, and unsuitable for wikivoice? —Of the universe (say hello) 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

While the term transgender would certainly be anachronistic to works produced prior to the 1970s writing about transgender people, outside of geographical names, when writing about the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Latter_Day_Saints#Avoidance_of_anachronistic_terminology LDS Church, military flags, and personal names for some individuals in articles outside of their biographies, there is no guideline I'm aware of that requires us to avoid using anachronistic language in our articles.

We typically use contemporary terminology when describing individuals, for example W. E. B. Du Bois is described as an African-American, despite that term not seeing any widespread usage until 20 years after his death. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th It's not just about when the term was coined, it's about whether the term applies outside of a certain temporal context. Nero, for example, married a man, but nowhere in his article is he described as gay or bisexual, (nor trans or gender fluid, given that he played the role of the bride). Historians are often hesitant to apply modern terms for gender and sexuality to other time periods because those terms carry cultural baggage and assumptions. I'm not sure whether or not the term "transgender" has these problems when applied to Barker though, since he lived only 100 years ago, so I'd like to see how the sources handle it. —Of the universe (say hello) 01:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Historians are often hesitant to apply modern terms for gender and sexuality to other time periods I'm not sure that's true. At the temporal extreme there are historians who consider Elagabalus transgender, and there are some historians who view the Public Universal Friend as non-binary. Now it is difficult to be certain about the gender identities of people who died hundreds and thousands of years ago, like anything historical not only are their identities shaped by the language of their times, but also our knowledge of them is shaped by the surviving record. Thankfully, as you say Barker lived and died within living memory.

Now for Barker, Jack Halberstam, as cited in the article, does consider Barker to be transsexual (which was the more widely used term when Halberstam wrote his book, and would now be described as transgender) based on statements made during Barker's life. Tress deCarlo's Trans History from 2018 explicitly states on page 75 that Barker was a transgender man. Philippa Punchard's Gender Pioneers from 2022 includes Barker in her list of "transgender, non-binary and intersex icons". Now while Barker's history may not be as well documented as say Ewan Forbes or Billy Tipton, there are still still sources about him that consider him to be transgender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether 'transgender' is synonymous with 'transsexual' is another can o'worms! Katiehawks (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th My claim about historians being hesitant comes from A Queer History of the United States by Michael Bronski, but it's possible I'm misremembering, I'll need to get back to you with quotations. And thank you for the sourcing on the term "transgender"! —Of the universe (say hello) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)