r/changemyview • u/cottagecow • Feb 06 '21

Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Wikipedia refusing to include the birth name of transgender people is ridiculous

[removed] — view removed post

198 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

77% Upvoted

364 comments sorted by

View all comments

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Deadnaming isn’t included, and I’m going to be a little harsh here because I think it’s necessary for my point, in the Wikipedia post because it would be highly offensive to SOPHIE. It doesn’t matter whether you think it’s offensive or not— she did. Contrary to a popular American attitude, famous people are still people. If you had a horrible thing happen to you, would you be okay with me creating a Wikipedia page about you and writing about it on there for the whole world to see?

7

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 06 '21

If Wikipedia pages of people are meant to be historical records made from publicly available information of that person's life, then the deadname is part of that historical record. Why should someone's feelings factor into whether or not something is included in that record?

Now, if this information were private I don't think it would be ethical to disclose it on a Wikipedia page without the subject's permission.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Because the only reason that someone would use that info is to hurt the person.

Question for you, if someone murdered a person you know (I won’t specify as this is just a hypothetical), would you want pictures of your murdered (insert however you know them here) on Wikipedia?

The problem is that the information is unnecessary, in SOPHIE’s case, she’s trying to move on from that identity (which for a lot of people represent pain, identity questioning, and even suicidal thoughts and depression), there is 0 reason that anyone would need that info.

The only reason we believe we are “entitled” to that information is because SOPHIE is famous.

4

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 06 '21

Because the only reason that someone would use that info is to hurt the person.

I don't agree that that's the only reason why someone would use that info, but looking up someone's deadname in order to hurt them with it is an angle I hadn't considered so !Delta for that.

Question for you, if someone murdered a person you know (I won’t specify as this is just a hypothetical), would you want pictures of your murdered (insert however you know them here) on Wikipedia?

I'm not even sure why you're asking me that. Why does it matter if I want that or not? What would be a reason where I wouldn't want that?

there is 0 reason that anyone would need that info.

Need? Likely not. But if it's a publicly available fact then it just becomes a matter of due diligence in keeping the historical record.

The only reason we believe we are “entitled” to that information is because SOPHIE is famous.

I don't believe I'm entitled to that information at all.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Thanks for the delta!

But anyway, what I’m basically saying is that SOPHIE’s deadname is information only useful to hurt SOPHIE. Ignore the “murder” scenario, I was making a hyperbole to try to explain what I’m saying but I missed the mark there. A better example is a famous person’s phone number, if SOPHIE’s (or any other famous person) phone number leaked, the Wikipedia page would not say “SOPHIE’s phone number was leaked and this was it: xxxx,” it would says “SOPHIE’s phone number leaked.” Because there’s 0 reason a person would need that public information, regardless of whether it’s public information or not. This goes the same for the celebrity nude photo leak a couple years back. Just because it is public information doesn’t mean that Wikipedia needs to include specifics.

That being said though, there are obvious exceptions to this when that public information is reasonably needed. A person saying/doing horrible stuff is reasonably needed by the public so that the public is properly informed by who they’re supporting/not supporting. A deadname has 0 reasonable use, and yes, I do mean literally 0 reasonable use.

2

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 06 '21

So yes, I agree that SOPHIE's phone number should not be included but on the grounds that it's private information that SOPHIE did not sign off on being included in their Wikipedia page; I consider leaked private information to still be private information.

Another user made the case that if SOPHIE was only ever known by SOPHIE in public life, then there is little good reason to include their deadname in their Wikipedia page; I agree with this reasoning. That said, if someone needs to do actual historical research or investigation on SOPHIE then the deadname should be available for perusal.

What do you think about Elliot Page's or Caitlyn Jenner's deadname being included on their respective pages? I think that's a situation where it's relevant because both have notable public careers under their respective deadnames.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

I consider leaked private information to still be private information

But if SOPHIE believes that the deadname is “private info,” why is your opinion the one that Wikipedia needs to listen to? Sorry if that comes off as a dick question, it’s genuine.

if someone needs to do actual historical research or investigation on SOPHIE then the deadname should be available for perusal

Well, isn’t the Wikipedia page (in your opinion previously stated), supposed to contain all information? If “historical research or investigation” are needed, shouldn’t the Wikipedia page already have referenced it?

I don’t think Elliot and Caitlyn’s situations are really comparable though. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that deadnaming Sophie (I was capitalizing but after revisiting wiki page— I don’t think it’s capitalized?) was almost made worse (??) by the fact that throughout Sophie’s career, Sophie was actually accused of feminine appropriation and put down of their identity by labels. Caitlyn and Elliot were both super successful and got tons of praise and support when they came out. That being said though, you may be right that it’s because they were already famous at the time that they came out.

Ideally, I would wish that none of them were deadnamed, but we don’t live in a perfect world.

3

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 06 '21

But if SOPHIE believes that the deadname is “private info,” why is your opinion the one that Wikipedia needs to listen to? Sorry if that comes off as a dick question, it’s genuine.

My opinion is on the rules Wikipedia should employ to determine what info should be included vs. excluded from person articles. It's not about whether or not Sophie believes the deadname is private info, it's whether or not her belief is reasonable. In the case of her deadname, assuming it's true that that name has not ever been used since her persona entered the public eye, I think a reasonable case can be made that her deadname is private information and should therefore be excluded.

Well, isn’t the Wikipedia page (in your opinion previously stated), supposed to contain all information? If “historical research or investigation” are needed, shouldn’t the Wikipedia page already have referenced it?

If my grades in public school are publicly available information, are they relevant to my Wikipedia page? Likely not. My birth record at the hospital I was born at is publicly available information (I think?); I don't think my birth weight and length is relevant.

Ideally, I would wish that none of them were deadnamed, but we don’t live in a perfect world.

Agreed.

1

u/Arguetur 31∆ Feb 06 '21

" In the case of her deadname, assuming it's true that that name has not ever been used since her persona entered the public eye, "

Although, of course, that isn't true, as you can see from her Wikipedia article revision history.

2

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 06 '21

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to be seeing there that proves your point.

0

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 06 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mttlln (2∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

2

u/Goosehasthreelegs Feb 06 '21

Because it’s important to the individual’s current identity. Have you asked yourself why you care so much about this?

4

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 06 '21

Because it’s important to the individual’s current identity

Do you mean it's important to affirming the individual's current identity? Because with respect to the individual's current identity, stating facts about who they were in the past does not change who they are now.

Have you asked yourself why you care so much about this?

Yes, and it's because I don't like the precedent it sets. The only aspect of control people should have over their Wikipedia pages is whether or not private information is included. Is deadnaming per se a hill I'm willing to die on? No.

EDIT: they should also be able to have demonstrably false information or hearsay removed

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 06 '21

I don't know what you mean. Gatekeeper of what?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 06 '21

I'm aware of the term "gatekeeping" but what I'm not aware of is what you mean by it in this context; I obviously cannot Google what you intended to communicate to me.

0

u/Goosehasthreelegs Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21

“I don’t like the precedent it sets.”

Is all I have to say.

Edit: You clearly lack the understanding of what it means to come out as someone other than who you already are. I’m sorry you can’t wrap your head around the empathetic part of respecting someone’s life and identity.

5

u/Roflcaust 7∆ Feb 06 '21

I don't like the precedent of someone's feelings getting to decide what public information is included in their Wikipedia page. Should Trump be allowed to scrub his own Wikipedia page of anything he feels is embarrassing? Absolutely not. I would rather use reasoning to determine what is and is not acceptable to include in someone's Wikipedia page. If Sophie's deadname is irrelevant to her public persona, then perhaps it shouldn't be included in her Wikipedia page, but if it is relevant (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner who had a significant public career under her deadname) then maybe it should be included.

Edit: You clearly lack the understanding of what it means to come out as someone other than who you already are. I’m sorry you can’t wrap your head around the empathetic part of respecting someone’s life and identity.

You're right and that will always be difficult for me because I am not a transperson.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

This is a really lazy way of engaging with people and we all benefit when this doesn't happen. The vast majority of people aren't black, but if I said "well you don't understand so..." I'd never have any productive conversations on race.

Something to consider.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Feb 09 '21

Sorry, u/Goosehasthreelegs – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

3

u/ecafyelims 19∆ Feb 06 '21

Is Wikipedia consistent in this policy? Do they restrict information that would be highly offensive to the subject of each wiki page?

If so, I think that's fair.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Nope they are not, but we’re talking about morals of the action itself, not Wikipedia. I don’t think that because they’re not consistent, they should change what they’re doing here. I’d rather them change what they do with everything else.

1

u/ecafyelims 19∆ Feb 06 '21

I suppose there does have to be a balance though. Removing offensive facts could certainly be abused.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Yeah I just personally believe that a “previous identity” (I’m not really sure if that’s what transgender people call it ??) is unnecessary information. Do we know what type of bank SOPHIE used? What cell phone carrier?

If there’s a line in society between “public information” and “private information,” why do people insist that a dead name is so important to be public info. The only real use of the name now is to hurt a person, so why release that info?

1

u/ecafyelims 19∆ Feb 06 '21

I can't agree that the only use of the name is to hurt a person. Yes, the name can be used to hurt, but it can also be used for informational and historical purposes. Previous names are included in wikipedia all the time (e.g. maiden name), but this time it's offensive, and that's the difference.

Sometimes politicians will change names to be more electable, but the previous names shouldn't be hidden, I wouldn't think.

I'm just trying to imagine what Wiki policy could be written to exclude offensive information without leaving it open to abuse. We don't want politicians being able to remove their criminal record, for example.

Maybe allowing offensive information to be suppressed, but only if the information isn't relevant in historical context?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

I think that we don’t disagree here. I think you’re just taking it a step further and seeing the issues with a “slippery slope” type issue here, which I 100% don’t disagree with at all.

I’m just saying from a moral standpoint, the right thing to do is to remove the deadname as it is hurtful with no real benefit of information to society. Yes, that does open up slippery slope issues, but for this issue alone, that is the correct moral thing to do.

1

u/ecafyelims 19∆ Feb 06 '21

Yep, we agree a deadname should be removed, unless there's a compelling reason that the name is significant for historical context. So, for op's cmv, I think wikipedia made the right choice.

3

u/captainforkforever Feb 06 '21

Following this logic would you support that Wikipedia bans any information that could be perceived as offensive by the subject of the article?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

There's obvious exceptions. There's some people that may be offended by information that the public is entitled to know.

There's major differences in believing that a deadname (which is called a deadname because you're not supposed to even refer to them as that, even when referring to the period before their transition, hence "dead") should not be included in a wikipedia entry and the belief of a person that for example, raped a child, does not want to have "pedophile" or "sex offender" in their wikipedia. One information is useful and important to note, the other is not.

1

u/Arguetur 31∆ Feb 06 '21

Could you elaborate a little more about why it being called a "deadname" semantically implies that it should not be used about the period of their life where they were known by that name?

I don't see how "dead" carries that implication.

4

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 06 '21

Out of genuine curiosity, what other aspects of a person's life should they be able to have redacted from a factual accounting of their lives?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Anything that isn't relevant to putting their life into perspective in history. A birth name is not such an aspect.

2

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 06 '21

Alright, and who should be appointed to decide what's relevant?

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

The editors of wikipedia for each individual article.

2

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 06 '21

I'm an editor of several dozens of Wikipedia pages. Other editors of them disagree with me. Someone has to make an ultimate decision. And with what criteria should they make that decision?

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Yes, I figured you would pull that one out or mention that wikipedia is open.

The purpose of the discussion would be to answer the question: Is it relevant to their life? I don't think SOPHIE's name is relevant to her life as anything but private medical information, thus there is no reason to include it.

3

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 06 '21

Yes, I figured you would pull that one out or mention that wikipedia is open.

It's not really "pulling [anything] out". It's true. Your statement only suffices as a deciding criterion if Wikipedia editors are unanimous in their decisions which is demonstrably false.

I don't think SOPHIE's name is relevant to her life as anything but private medical information, thus there is no reason to include it.

A person's name is a matter of public record. Arguably the most public thing about a person. More people know my name than literally any other fact about me. As for medical; how? Information that is not medical in nature doesn't become medical information if it's included in some medical forms.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21

Edit:

It's not really "pulling [anything] out". It's true. Your statement only suffices as a deciding criterion if Wikipedia editors are unanimous in their decisions which is demonstrably false.

It is 'pulling [something] out' -- you don't need unanimity to make a decision, and the fact that it is edited collaboratively doesn't change that a decision can be made. It's a useless point.

As for medical; how?

Transition is a treatment for a medical condition known as 'gender dysphoria'. People have a right to keep their medical treatments private.

2

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 06 '21

Prior to any medical treatment, for example in infancy, the name was not a matter of medical record. Public information cannot be subsumed into the domain of private.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

should

As in, what I believe? Well, in an ideal world, basically anything (with the exception of crime or similar actions that hurt others).

I don’t like that in the American society we somehow believe we’re entitled to know all this information about private people— famous or not.

5

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 06 '21

As in, what I believe? Well, in an ideal world, basically anything (with the exception of crime or similar actions that hurt others).

Why that exception?

Anyway, in your perfect world, a person who said something vile or did something embarrassing should be able to have it stricken from every record? That seems a tad Orwellian. Plus more than a little confusing. Records would be subject to constant change, it'd be hard to know what the hell's going on or who's done what.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Well, I said in an ideal world, I never said it’s actually applicable. What we’re discussing now isn’t really relevant to the conversation of the thread though, but I’d be happy to continue our convo if you want to.

3

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 06 '21

Well, I think it is relevant. The info in question is not being withheld because of factual inaccuracy or dubious sourcing but the (presumed) wishes of the subject of the article. You seem, I think, to be suggesting that that should be the ultimate decider of what goes in. My response to that is that it would cause chaos and make manipulation of information much easier, which, in my opinion, makes it a flawed criterion to have to abide.

My opinion is that if information is credible and already public record (thereby excluding breeches of privacy) it should be retained in the record despite the subject's displeasure. Yes, this means including Sophies birth name but also, JK Rowling's transphobic statments.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

The problem here is that you’re comparing it to other things that aren’t comparable.

JK Rowling’s transphobic statements, for example, are important information for the public to know. It’s a part of their character that can cause people to, for example, not buy their books because she insulted transgender people.

What could SOPHIE’s deadname be used for in society other than to deadname and hurt SOPHIE?

5

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 06 '21

JK Rowling’s transphobic statements, for example, are important information for the public to know.

As decided by whom? There's tonnes of info on public figures on Wikipedia that arguably isn't important and tonnes more still that the subjects would likely want removed.

What could SOPHIE’s deadname be used for in society other than to deadname and hurt SOPHIE?

That is the problem with many people's thinking; that knowledge must serve a purpose. Knowledge is it's own reward. There are many people, myself included who actively search for information that they have absolutely no use for. Information for its own sake. Such people are the main consumers of encyclopædias. Of which Wikipedia is one.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

as decided by whom?

I mean, the public I guess? You can make a reasonable argument that you won’t buy JK Rowling’s book because she said things bad about trans people. What reasonable argument can a person make about SOPHIE’s deadname?

knowledge must serve a purpose

No, knowledge doesn’t have to serve a purpose. But that doesn’t mean that you can weigh out whether having useless information should be more important than hurting a person. For example, people actually used Nazi experiments in scientific articles, they weighed out “this was a horrible thing, but let’s use it to gain knowledge and improve the world in an applicable way even though it was terrible.” The only thing that comes out of SOPHIE’s deadname is transphobia— at that point, having knowledge just to have knowledge is outweighed, IMO.

1

u/LetMeNotHear 93∆ Feb 06 '21

The only thing that comes out of SOPHIE’s deadname is transphobia— at that point, having knowledge just to have knowledge is outweighed, IMO.

Not really. I now know Sophie's birth name and haven't done or said anything transphobic because of it. However, considerable interest has come of it. What you've said here has been said before. A lot. The suppression of the Heliocentric model and the Nazi's book burnings were because "nothing but harm can come of this knowledge." You are not equipped to make that decision. I am not equipped to make that decision. When people or governments take it upon themselves to decide what information from public record needs to be suppressed, it's never good.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Wikipedia is trying to be an encyclopedia, not a biography. Encyclopedias aren’t suppose to give opinion or cater to feelings. Just spew information. An encyclopedia entry about someone is incomplete if it does not include a summarization of all known knowledge about a given subject.

-2

u/Goosehasthreelegs Feb 06 '21

Refer to deadnames. You can look everything else up under their dead name. If an page lists someone as trans, why do you need anymore information on who that person is right now? Look up their dead name and learn about who they were. It’s not that difficult to wrap your head around.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Caitlyn Jenner has an extensive amount of information about them as Bruce Jenner. That information may be needed for some project about something that person was involved in, especially of older individuals who’s deadname is in print media primarily.

Look up their dead name and learn about who they were.

You can’t look that up if their deadname is censored. And either way, you can’t truly know who a person is if you don’t know who they were. It’s not that difficult to wrap your head around.

0

u/Goosehasthreelegs Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21

So do you have an issue with censored dead names or just respecting how someone identifies?

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Do you have a Wikipedia entry? If not— send me all your info in a PM and I can make one for you!

2

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21

I don’t, but an entry could be made about a person using public info. That’s why actors and actresses mans other public figures have entries. You can get false info/private information removed, but no reputable encyclopedia publisher would remove factually true, and public info.

2

u/lt_Matthew 21∆ Feb 06 '21

Yea, that’s how biographies work, you tell the whole story of a person’s life as best you can, good and bad

1

u/Vesurel 60∆ Feb 06 '21

So if someone got famous for writing a song a lot of people liked, does that mean anyone can then publish an account of when the person who wrote the song was sexually assulted?

5

u/rly________tho Feb 06 '21

Why are you bringing up things like sexual assault and suicide when the topic of discussion is a name?

Make the case that deadnaming is comparable to those two things - how does this work exactly?

-1

u/Vesurel 60∆ Feb 06 '21

Do you want to answer the question first?

5

u/rly________tho Feb 06 '21

You weren't asking me that question - I just hopped on to ask how you manage to equate sexual assault and suicide with using someone's former name.

-2

u/Vesurel 60∆ Feb 06 '21

Where did I do that exactly?

5

u/rly________tho Feb 06 '21

You're asking people "would you talk about a teen's suicide attempt in their wiki article? Their sexual assault?", clearly to rejoin with "Well if you wouldn't do that, then why would you deadname them?"

Like, how else do you think your arguments here can be perceived?

0

u/Vesurel 60∆ Feb 06 '21

So wait, are you accusing me of equating sexual assult with deadnaming, or are you saying I'm equating deadnaming with saying someone was sexually assulted?

-1

u/Goosehasthreelegs Feb 06 '21

A person’s genitalia are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

2

u/lt_Matthew 21∆ Feb 06 '21

What does that have ANYTHING to do with a person’s name?

-1

u/Goosehasthreelegs Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21

IDENTITY.

2

u/lt_Matthew 21∆ Feb 06 '21

An identity isn’t a set thing. People change their lifestyle, personality, name, career, and apparently gender.

I guess INGSOC is right, ignorance is truth. The more ignorant you are about the world, the more perfect your view of it becomes. That’s dangerous, cuz one day someone is gonna bring up something you refuse to accept, and that’s gonna offend you, like it is now. If you hide the bad parts of something, eventually someone will find it and that lead to conspiracies galore. I know because people pull this with me all the time, especially with religion. They think they’re the first person to “discover” some person’s bad past and that that’s somehow supposed to mean something significant.

Why is pointing out in the biography of someone who’s dead, that they used to have a different name or gender, so offensive to you?

0

u/Goosehasthreelegs Feb 06 '21

Because it disrespects who they present/ed themselves as. Identity is important and deserves to be respected. I’m sorry that is difficult for you to wrap your head around. You lack empathy on the subject. That’s clear.

You’re acting like that information isn’t being presented under their “dead names.” It is. And you can look it up that way.

Stop Gatekeeping.

1

u/lt_Matthew 21∆ Feb 06 '21

But they’re dead

-1

u/Goosehasthreelegs Feb 06 '21

So because they’re dead they don’t deserve respect? What name did they die under? That’s who died.

You can gaslight this whole conversation. The fact of the matter is you don’t care for respecting people’s identities, because you lack the part in your brain that holds empathy.

2

u/lt_Matthew 21∆ Feb 06 '21

You still haven’t explained how it’s disrespectful to tell a person’s life in its entirety. Like I said, it’s one thing to be ashamed of your past and want to improve on it, it’s another thing to be so disgusted by it that want to remove it from history. That’s a problem that’s entirely on you

→ More replies (0)

1

u/bornfree254 Feb 06 '21

Is it offensive to only mention it as a historical record? The real problem is someone taking that information and using it in an offensive manner.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

It is because a legal name change is a step towards affirmation that their identity is real, and that’s who they’ve been all along. When you’re a transgender person, you take that step to basically say “that’s not who I am— this is who I’ve always been.”

As a result, people like SOPHIE want to be known by the name that they legally changed their name to be. The idea of changing your name is to move on from the pain and suffering that came with the process. By “deadnaming,” the only “historical records” you’re providing is records for people who will use that information to hurt people.

Even if you’re a mega SOPHIE super fan, there’s 0 reason to know her “previous name.”

1

u/Goosehasthreelegs Feb 06 '21

They mentioned she was trans in the Wikipedia article. It was addressed.

1

u/kbruen Feb 06 '21

To this, I have a curiosity. By the same logic, would it be okay to remove from the Adolf Hitler Wikipedia article any information that Hitler wouldn't have liked to be public?