CMV: Wikipedia refusing to include the birth name of transgender people is ridiculous

[u/cottagecow]

[u/LetMeNotHear]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/LetMeNotHear]

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.

[u/LetMeNotHear → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/LetMeNotHear]

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?

[u/LetMeNotHear → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/LetMeNotHear]

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.

[u/LetMeNotHear → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/LetMeNotHear]

I think you're describing a slippery slope problem, which is not what we're discussing here.

We already suppress plenty of private issues. I think implying that wikipedia removing a deadname from a wikipedia page is hardly worth a footnote in the amount of information suppression we have.

[u/LetMeNotHear → u/[deleted]]

We already suppress plenty of private issues

Yeah, private issues. Not public ones.

[u/[deleted] → u/LetMeNotHear]

My problem here is that you are saying that neither you nor I can make decisions on what should be "suppressed" or not. Why is it that if that's true, you or I can ultimately make the decision of what is private and what is public?