Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Marsha P. Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Formatted citations with time stamps and quotations

[edit]

OK, here are some of the main ones. As discussed regularly, and especially last month, RS sourcing a negative to statements from the subject (Never self-identified as trans) is not really possible. It's not that there are amazing, RS sources out there that we are ignoring. It's that we are dealing with a difficult-to-source bio here. But here are several strong statements of self-identification from interviews in Pay It No Mind, now with the timestamps. I'm going to nowiki them so they can be dropped in as needed. Many of these timestamps were added by productive editors in the edit summaries or are there in the notes; in those cases all that's been added is the quote. In places where something is stated in the beginning of the film, and repeatedly throughout the entire film, I haven't bothered with a timestamp (though for sake of completion, we could certainly cite those with a handful of timestamps). But as we've seen for anything at all controversial, that draws edit-warriors and POV-pushers, we need these. Also, in some places I have purposely avoided pronouns in the edits, due to it discussing times when Marsha either was insisting on a masc. name and presentation, or due to the lesser-known (and not well-documented fact) that Johnson never had "preferred pronouns," and I think some of the emphasis here on fem. pronouns, in the lede in particular, is what has led to the chronic, well-meaning but inaccurate changes to the article and even the source documents.

<ref name=ButchMakeupQueen>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=14:34}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. One of the first people to go in drag at Stonewall: "I didn't get into it right away; I was like the ''butch makeup queen'', working Greenwich Village. And then I started doing drag. ... I started becoming a drag queen." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=PrettyBoy>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=17:32}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. On dressing up for work and learning how to do makeup, because, "as a pretty little boy, or a pretty little transvestite, or pretty boy made up as a girl, that's the most money you're going to make." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=BoyTransvestite>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=34:08}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "People used to come and bring guns, and pull guns out on me because they didn't think that I was; you know I would tell them I was a boy and I was in drag and I would tell them that I would go, like, hustling, and would they want to go out? And they'd say, 'Yes, I want to go out.' And then I'd get up in the hotel and I'd take off all my clothes and they'd say, 'I can't believe that you're a boy!' And I know this man can't believe I was a real woman. Honey, I'm just a transvestite." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=LunaticJohn>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=34:55}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "It was just once in a while I would run into this ''lunatic'' who would actually have it in his mind that I was a woman. And I mean I'd tell him that I was a '''boy''' and he just wouldn't believe until he'd seen everything down my pants and everything. Another day, another illusion. [laughs]" Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=DragQueenName>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=37:17}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. Marsha P Johnson says Marsha 'Pay It No Mind Johnson' is a "Drag Queen Name" and again self-identifies as a "boy". Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=Homosexual>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=46:00}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "The life I thought I'd be living as a homosexual." Also uses "homosexual" as a noun several more times in section, for self and potential husband. Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

Johnson's last two stated self-identifications in film, in 1992, ten days before going missing, are "Legendary Queen" and as part of community of "all gay people.":

<ref name=LegendaryQueen>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=49:09}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "There's so many queens gone that I'm one of the few queens still left from the seventies today. But I'm not the only one; there's several legendary queens." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

<ref name=GayRights>{{cite video |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjN9W2KstqE |title= Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson |time=50:22}} - Michael Kasino. Published on Oct 15, 2012. "That's how come I walk every year. That's how come I've been walking for gay rights all these years. ... You never completely have your rights, one person, till you all have your rights. And I figure as long as there's one gay person that hasn't walked for gay rights... all of us should be walking for gay rights." Accessed 26 Nov 2017.</ref>

There are more, but that's what I've got formatted for now. <3 - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gagaluv1: Recent attempts to remove Marsha's birth name, Malcolm - which Marsha continued to use, along with other variations, sometimes going by the family nickname "Mikey", as well as "Marshall", may be well-meaning, but show a lack of familiarity with the sources, so I am renewing the info in this section. Marsha re-applied for the birth certificate we link here in 1990, removing the Jr., but keeping the birth name of Malcolm intact. I realize that with all the revisionist history out there, it's hard for some to understand that Marsha did not have preferred pronouns, and never really insisted on being called Marsha (it was just the most common name Marsha went by), but sometimes did insist very firmly on being called Malcolm, Marshall or Mikey. This is not part of the most popular narrative in the current activism you find among younger people online, but it's documented, as well as remembered by all of us who are old enough to have been in the Village when the "Mayor of Christopher Street" was still alive. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns, names and "deadnames"

[edit]

Well-meaning editors. I know you all have only the best intentions with these edits, but:

Marsha Johnson did not have a "deadname" because Marsha/Malcolm/Mikey/Marshall used all four of these names throughout life. Different groups of friends used the differing names, and Marsha would sometimes ask for one of their "boy names" to be used in settings where Marsha was not in drag and preferred to not stand out. Marsha also did not have preferred pronouns (except in the aforementioned situations where also requesting one of the "boy names", and then requesting he/him). Marsha died in 1992. The scanned birth certificate is one Marsha applied for in 1990, removing the "Jr." but not otherwise petitioning for a name or gender marker change. Please read the article and talk before editing if any of this is unclear. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about Marsha, but here on WP we've dug deep into the sources and stuck with the facts. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 18:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also if I recall from reading, Marsha would get really upset if called that when Marsha wasn't in drag. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that did happen; though it wasn't always predictable based on dress. In working on this article, it's also been necessary to explain the use of in-group speech, concisely, for a general audience. When we had the gender section, I linked to Lavender linguistics in an effort to explain that, in that era and still in some quarters, the use of she/her pronouns was usually a way of signalling that the speaker was part of the gay community, rather than an indication of gender identity. This is particularly evident in the footage of Sylvia at the pier, where Rivera uses she/her to refer to everyone, of all genders and orientations. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above, I'm a little surprised that the article consistently uses she/her pronouns without a clear explanation of why. As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't tend to use in-group speech, and the choice of he/she/they will be read by a typical, modern reader as signalling gender identity, not e.g. being gay. The first sentence describes Johnson as a drag queen and the article goes on to say Johnson variably identified herself as gay, as a transvestite, and as a queen (referring to drag queen). [...] Johnson never self-identified with the term transgender, but the term was also not in broad use while Johnson was alive. That sounds (to my ear) more like a gay man known best for their life in drag, rather than a woman, though with plenty of ambiguity. I expect this has been discussed exhaustively before but I haven't found that discussion in the talk page archives yet. Could the article be made less ambiguous by addressing the issue of pronouns directly, or by either changing them or avoiding them? Johnson seems to be cited quite regularly elsewhere as "the black trans woman who threw the first brick at Stonewall", which may be one reason readers find themselves here, which gives the choice of pronouns an added saliency. › Mortee talk 04:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to source as there is actually very little well-sourced material published about Marsha. There is a lot of blatant misinformation out there. When I write about Marsha I just avoid pronouns. It's understandable that those watching the documentaries would think Marsha preferred she/her as the interviewers have encouraged that from people. Marsha's family uses "he", but some who have interviewed the family have tried to pressure them to use "she". There are people who get very upset when she/her is not used for Marsha; they mean well, but it's unfortunate that they get aggressive about it because they don't know the whole story. They really don't understand that Marsha's family and friends are not being disrespectful. Marsha was always "Mikey" with family, and "Malcolm" with some groups of friends. It's just been a matter of which documentaries have been made and by whom, and who has been published. A lot of people have stayed out of it because they don't want to be attacked. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The least contentious course of action would be to edit the article to avoid use of pronouns wherever possible. Parts of it already read as if that has been done. AutumnKing (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make sense?
Why wouldn't the pronouns just be male pronounce since the person is a male.
First is this person is a Drag Queen they're not even claiming to be a female, A drag queen is a male dressing as a female. It's not related to being Trans.
Second, this concept of pronouns didn't even exist at that time, it might have within the LGBT community, but not considered official outside of it. If Wikipedia is going to be unbiased it should use what was considered at the time.
Third why is Wikipedia even using pronouns in this fashion anyways, it's obvious evidence that Wikipedia is biased even though it claims it is not. It's rather silly to debate about this. You'll say reliable sources use it, maybe that should make you question their reliability if they're obvious stating a wrong statement. --2605:A000:1E02:C0F7:CDA6:8651:130B:9255 (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will not claim to be well-versed on the subject of drag, but I believe that many people use she/her when presenting as their drag personas. Therefore I feel that pronouns related to the persona should not be automatically disqualified as an option in favor of other pronouns, especially when the article clearly uses a name associated with this persona as well. I am also confused by your point that pronouns were not "considered official" outside of the LGBT+ community which they were used in — several governments (and, often, large portions of populations ruled by these governments) refuse to acknowledge the presence of people who belong to the LGBT+ community, and even less their identities and labels. I feel that it would in fact be biased to erase these people's identities based on a notion of what is or was considered acceptable or normal by their oppressors. Therefore I believe that sources within the circles should be referred to first and foremost on such issues, in order to be unbiased — not the other way around. It would, after all, be the closest thing to a personal account in the absence of sources who were personally familiar with the person. This may not apply to all in-group speech, as noted above, and unclear instances should be clarified; but in the case of oppressed communities in general, I believe that their own ways of addressing themselves or each other should be acknowledged, especially when in contradiction with the "official". Doing so does not make the article not neutral.
However, I will not argue with the points made above this discussion related to Johnson's pronouns specifically. I feel like in such uncertain cases, seeking to avoid pronouns might be the safest method. It may however seem like erasure without a further clarification; a similar reaction has been shown in relation to the article about The Public Universal Friend, for whom people thought 'they' would have been approppriate. It might be in place to add a clarification to such pages themselves with a brief reasoning on the choice of pronouns, or lack thereof, lest it be misinterpreted as erasure. Identities and ways of presentation from the past may not be directly compatible with those of the present, and sometimes things are simply confusing, but people do not always immediately realize this. Therefore I think this should be spelled out, when relevant, alongside a note about the available sources being insufficient for basing such decisions on. --ShadowMetaru (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CorbieVreccan, BrothaTimothy, and Mortee: This talk page is inundated with well-meaning visitors' edit requests and I think something needs to be done about it (e.g. instating {{FAQ}}). Do you mind summarizing the previous consensus (if any) or discussion on Johnson's identity and pronouns? I think ShadowMetaru raises some good points, particularly insofar as a discussion of identity and pronouns in the article itself would be helpful. Nardog (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm in a great position to help with that, Nardog, sorry. My only contribution was to point out what I felt was a possible inconsistency; I don't know what the right approach is. It looks like the article now uses gendered pronouns much less than it did, which is consistent with Johnson not identifying as a woman or transgender while allowing for the fact that identity categories have shifted since then and that Johnson was known as a drag queen (i.e. a female character) as well as as themselves. It can be difficult to write about a person that way, but it looks like editors have done a good job of it. › Mortee talk 22:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A legal gender marker and name change on one's birth certificate is, even today, still an extraordinarily difficult process and prohibitively expensive. Thus, I don't think her birth certificate can tell you anything about her gender. These documents don't exist in a vaccuum and incorrect or inconsistent documentation can be a product of the difficulties that transgender people face having their identities legally acknowledged. Marsha did have her name legally changed according to the article accompanying today's Google Doodle. Was changing the sex marker on one's birth certificate even a possibility at the time? I don't think legal documentation can be taken as true to a person's identity in a society where the legal system doesn't properly acknowledge your identity. The same goes for somebody using their birth name and pronouns at certain times but not constantly -- I know transgender people in 2020 who ask their friends to use their birth name and pronouns in public for their own safety.

Some Stonewall veterans are still alive and still engaging in activism. Have you considered reaching out to one of them to inquire about how Marsha referred to herself? I think that would be a more reliable source than anything. Pastelprincette (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever said Marsha did a name change is incorrect. The birth certificate and Social Security info linked in the article was up to date at the time of Marsha's death. The birth certificate was in Marsha's wallet. Marsha re-applied for that birth certificate in 1990, doing a partial name change to drop the "Jr." from "Malcolm Michaels". I've posted just above that in activist circles Marsha also went by Malcolm and Marshall, and family called Marsha "Mikey". This went on for Marsha/Malcolm/Marshall/Mikey's whole life, and is well known among contemporaries. Watch the videos on YouTube. There's a lot of misinformation that gets repeated by lazy writers online. Even these details would have been cleared up by reading the article, sources, and talk thoroughly. Best wishes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They got the name change bit from that terrible writeup at Outhistory. It's a student paper. The author took an early version of this WP article, kept the footnotes, but then changed the facts completely, including inventing things out of thin air.
As to summarizing the talk pages... the talk got cluttered by some very emotional, repetitive and incivil posts by one person in particular, posting under a variety of IPs. They were posting out of order, as well, which made it confusing. Perhaps their rants should be compressed. However, the discussion is all there.
Marsha "Paid it no Mind" about gender identity and pronouns. During Marsha's lifetime, introducing oneself with "preferred pronouns" was unheard of. Stating preferred pronouns is a very recent development in the LGBT community. Marsha did act uncomfortable at times when called "Marsha" or if referred to as "she/her", notably when Marsha was in "Malcolm" mode. Which is one of the reasons why we eventually moved away from defaulting to "she/her" pronouns in this article. Much of Marsha's street "drag" was simply somewhat femme clothing - what people in the community at the time referred to as "scare drag". Most of the guys who were called "queens" in the press at the time were not drag queens at all - just gay men who were not trying to be straight-passing. This is all in the Carter sources and others. Perhaps this needs to be expanded upon.
I'll look over the FAQ template and see about working on it a bit later, but I would like some of the other regular editors of the article to weigh in here, as well.
I'm not convinced the driveby disruption will stop with a FAQ. The same people who refuse to look at footnotes in the article will probably refuse to read a FAQ.
BUT, I do think this disruption is peaking with the Google doodle and its attached, unsourced, blatant misinformation. We've also seen that the disruption is seasonal. So, we're at a double peak. I think it's going to die down markedly in a few days. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expect CorbieVreccan is right about the source of the current traffic, and the fact that it will fade shortly. I guess we'll see soon. › Mortee talk 22:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Page view chart shows the spike. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That the traffic peaks in Pride Month (accelerated by the Google Doodle this year in particular) and that FAQ likely wouldn't prevent people from requesting edits are immaterial IMHO. My point is that having something handy we could point to in face of such requests is going to be a net gain. Nardog (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree the information needs to stay prominent on the talk page, which is why I put the code on this "deadnames" and pinned quotes sections to keep them from being archived. If we do the FAQ, I still think we should have these sections, even if just to say, "See the FAQ". - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize you had pinned them. I'm replacing them with {{Pin section}} and linking to the sections in {{Round in circles}} above for better visibility. Nardog (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've passed the peak page time of pride month, can we reopen the discussion on Marsha's pronouns? It seems from the above talk there is a lot of conflict about their preferred pronouns, and I think their page should better reflect that. Their performance work and identity section is somewhat confusing and misleading. I'd like to help organize an edit to more clearly talk about the things we *do* know about their identity and pronoun usage, and better compare it to modern queer customs to clarify to readers why pronouns are not used. We should also consider using they/them pronouns for their article, as that is the current custom for people we don't know the pronouns of. This, with the explanation of why, would help clarify this page is just trying to be unbiased, not disrespect Marsha's memory. --Twiinarmeggedon2 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha used she/her pronouns. See the documentary 'Pay It No Mind - The Life and Times of Marsha P. Johnson', where the people who lived with Marsha use she/her pronouns to refer to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.127.129 (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is how Johnson self-id'ed, not others, and Marsha didn't. Marsha was fine with all pronouns - Pay it No Mind. (She/her pronouns also didn't mean the same thing then, as many just used she/her for gnc/femme gay men.) While most of the folks interviewed in PINM tend to she/her in that doc, not even everyone in that documentary does. And aside from Randy Wicker and Sylvia Rivera, those aren't "the people who lived with" Marsha. That's one particular group of friends from NYC. Others, especially in the activist community and family, used he/him, or they/them, and knew Johnson by their other names, as well. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References to support your argument, otherwise it is just speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.127.129 (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is corbie's mention of the Pay it no mind documentary not good enough for you? 136.56.105.42 (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah can I have some actual source on your little speculations like if people called her "She" that seems pretty case closed. They/them wasn't a thing back then so why on earth are we using it now?
Shouldn't the debate be between she and he? Not this "trans women who are a bit not fem get they/them" is actually a transphobic microagression so I vote we change it to She. Not that Marsha would care but this clearly about you
Vote to use she/her 136.56.105.42 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your WP:RS sources that Johnson ever requested fem pronouns? Or ANY pronouns? There's not much that's reliable that's been written about this because preferred pronouns simply weren't a thing when Marsha was alive. We just didn't do it. There has been unreliable speculation, and post-mortem fictions pushed, but we don't use that. The only time Marsha was concerned about pronouns was when people used she/her when Marsha was in "boy mode", and you'd get a death glare for doing that. You're clearly not familiar with the subject. WP:DROPTHESTICK. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel like Corbie has their own agenda, and statements such as: But the family used he/him pronouns, and pronouns are a "new thing" entirely misses out on the history of the trans community as a whole. That sounds like bias and ignorance of trans history. There are trans people in history that did insist on one set of pronouns or another, or let their family decide to stay safe. Those aren't definitive proof. And it's still not legal in several states to change ones name or gender. The fact that Marsha P. Johnson herself stated in an interview that she wanted surgery and was taking hormone pills to try to transition is deleted from the article? Why? Is there an an agenda there to make sure that is not mentioned? The part about the judge also was dropped, which had a source, so I think there is a general bias here that needs to be openly addressed as well. I'm not saying that Marsha P. Johnson would have always insisted on she/her pronouns, but the erasure of facts to make sure that no one thinks Marsha P. Johnson was trans is kinda telling. And personally, I don't think terfs/gender critical edits belong in the edits of this page. What came AFTER the line of transsexual in the interview cited? Marsha P. Johnson said that she was working on getting a sex change and identified as "transsexual". C'mon. Don't delete the facts to make it more palatable for the haters. State the facts as they were, and let the audience judge: Was she transfemme nonbinary or was she transfemme and a trans woman. Because after she says those lines... welp, she ain't cis. And haters just need to DEAL with that. BTW, I do know transfemme NBs that still use he/him pronouns, but I don't believe the agenda of make sure that Marsha P. Johnson appears cis is a good idea given the interviews she gave and insistence on trying to fin ways to actively take hormones. She actively took hormones. Get over it. BTW, trans people who are trans femme still can actively identify as gay. Goes way back in history. Should we start citations there too? What I'm asking is to not make wild assertions without proof or knowledge of the trans community.--KimYunmi (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you're implicitly proclaiming these edits are "terf" (which is more or less a slur at this point) and "gender critical" shows you're not taking this in good faith and you have your own agenda. (Seriously, you don't speak for the trans community. You only speak for yourself.) You really think these efforts are made to make it "palatable to the haters?" Has the thought ever occurred to you the haters don't actually care? (Unless by haters you don't actually mean transphobes but anyone who disagrees with you.)
The point of this was never to make Marsha P. Johnson "cis." It's more to show that Johnson's story doesn't neatly fit in with the taxonomies that queer people use today, and trying to do so is fraught. (This is in stark contrast to STAR co-founder Sylvia Rivera, who everybody agrees was trans.) What you risk doing by demanding certain facts be put front-and-center is that you provide an opening to conveniently erase others.
But maybe that was your agenda all along? Your actions, like others before you, certainly reek of cultural appropriation. And that would definitely be par for the course for you, given the amount of appropriation happening elsewhere to make up for a lack of culture and (dare we say) history. Brokenwit (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023

[edit]

Please change the line "Marsha P. Johnson (August 24, 1945 – July 6, 1992), also known as Malcolm Michaels Jr.,[3][4] was an American gay liberation[6][7] activist and self-identified drag queen.[8][9] Known as an outspoken advocate for gay rights," to instead say "Marsha P. Johnson (August 24, 1945 – July 6, 1992),was an American gay liberation[6][7] activist and self-identified trans woman. Known as an outspoken advocate for gay rights," including Marsha's deadname is disrespectful and unnecessary, this is not who she identified as nor what she wants to be remembered as. Not only that, she was not a drag queen, she was a trans woman who fought for the trans community, there is a very important difference. 2600:1011:B13C:4878:C45E:53D5:9689:8D19 (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: read

Hyphenation Expert (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The David France link goes to the wrong David France (not the person who made the documentary). 2601:19B:4100:3F92:44DB:2258:23C8:DBB4 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hormones & Gender Transition

[edit]

It appears Johnson took female hormones, planned on travelling to Sweden for sex reassignment surgery, and identified as "a transsexual". This twitter thread cites seemingly reliable sources. https://x.com/doublehelix/status/1491689077623730177

Is there some reason I'm missing why this isn't mentioned in the article and it seems to talk around Johnson's gender identity? Are these sources wrong/unreliable? -MugaSofer (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This line in particular seems to be outright false, or at best incredibly misleading: "Johnson distinguishes this [identifying as a transvestite] from transsexual, defining transsexuals as those who are on hormones and getting surgery." The source cited actually says: "A drag queen is one that usually goes to a ball, and that's the only time she gets dressed up. Transvestites live in drag. A transsexual spends most of her life in drag. I never come out of drag to go anywhere. Everywhere I go I get all dressed up. A transvestite is still like a boy, very manly looking, a feminine boy. You wear drag here and there. When you're a transsexual, you have hormone treatments and you're on your way to a sex change, and you never come out of female clothes." ...which appears to be the exact opposite, saying that (to Johnson) a transvestite/transsexual is someone who lives as a woman, as distinct from a "drag queen" who only dresses up occasionally. -MugaSofer (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mugasofer: So, here's that source. At the bottom of p. 114, Johnson is referring to transvestites as "we", then refers to themself as a "transvestite[ ]... with tits". On the next page, they refer to transvestites in general with she/her pronouns, and then refer to "women" in a way that could be read as including themself. They are then asked whether men "think you're a woman," and quote themself as saying "I don't know what I am if I'm not a woman." A few sentences later, in the same answer, they call themself "a smart transvestite"; two sentences after that "no woman gets paid after their job is done." On the next page, they speak of "transvestites that are working as women" and dreams of a day where transvestite can work in female-presenting roles while still identifying as men. They contrast transvestites with transsexuals, referring to the latter again with she/her pronouns, but do not explicitly identify with either group. On 117, Johnson again calls themself a transvestite and a boy. A paragraph later, they speak of "transvestites" rather than "other transvestites." On 118, they're a "transvestite[ ] in female attire," in contrast with a she/her masc-presenting transvestite.
It's with all of that context that we get to the exchange on p. 119. I honestly don't know how to read "Transvestites live in drag. A transsexual spends most of her life in drag." The definitions appear synonymous. Is she saying she's one of these, or the other, or both? Is it an editing error, and if so, is it that she said transvestite both times or transsexual both times? Either way, though, the interviewer then describes Johnson as a pre-operative transsexual, a label they neither accept nor reject as they talk about their plans for bottom surgery. The interview ends without further discussion of the transsexual label. The final identifier Johnson aligns with in the interview is drag queen.
Let's get a few things out of the way: First, going onto HRT and having bottom surgery make someone, in the medical sense of the term, transsexual, but not necessarily in the colloquial sense of that term (the one that's largely been supplanted by transgender). We know that today many nonbinary people are "transsexual" medically speaking while not (necessarily, exclusively, binarily) identifying with the gender associated with the sex they've transitioned to(ward). Second, not everyone identifies with a consistent gender label or set thereof. That's true today, and it was true in Johnson's time.
Overall, if we can say nothing else about Johnson's attitude toward gender based on this interview, it's that they were not using these terms the way most people in common parlance in 2024 would. They refer to themself as a transvestite and a woman in the same breath. They describe something that meets the medical definition of being transsexual, maybe using that term to refer to themself or maybe not, and neither accept nor reject that label when it's applied to them. Perhaps some of that's intentional. Take a gender-fluid contemporary figure like F1NN5TER, who'll refer to himself as a man, woman, cross-dresser, and femboy in a short period of time.
[TL;DR? Read this graf.] So I don't think there's anything hiding in that interview that means we should change how we refer to Johnson: They did not reliably identify as any one gender label, and to the extent they gravitated toward one it was transvestite, and the article reflects that. I do think, though, that we should cut the "Johnson distinguishes this..." sentence due to the ambiguity in what they actually meant by that, and should mention something like "Johnson alluded to taking feminizing hormone therapy and expressed an intention to get gender-affirming surgery in Sweden." That's an important detail of their life, and should be included.
A closing thought for this already-too-long post: When there's an interview where someone mostly says transvestite and at one juncture maybe says transsexual, and the reaction of some people on Twitter and Tumblr is that we're insulting that person for calling them the former instead of the latter, I can't help but feel that there's an underlying notion that there's something lesser about being a transvestite. Too often, on talkpages like this and other historical figures whose genders don't map neatly onto today, I feel there's a notion that goes unchallenged that a binary trans identity is somehow more valid than any other non-cisgender identity, and so we are disrespecting people if we do not call them binary trans. Being a man who wears dresses is valid. Being a full-time cross-dresser/transvestite is valid. Being nonbinary is valid. Being genderfluid is valid. Not knowing how you identify, not caring how you identify, just living your life the way you want to live, is valid. Being binary trans is not somehow more valid than other options just because it's the most "complete". I'm not saying that you're saying that, Mugasofer. But the idea is out there, and it's a shame, because it leads to a lot of trans people and allies saying things that go directly against the identities of about a third of trans Americans today. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin Good analysis.
For context, I encountered that thread via an argument in Twitter's Community Notes, where some people were arguing it was historical misinformation to describe Johnson as anything other than a cis gay man who was a drag queen. This seemed to be quite a popular position with very aggressive supporters; that Johnson was a firmly cis gay man, who woke people were trying to "retcon" into something else simply because "he" sometimes wore drag to perform.
Which left me concerned by the fact that this article seemed to (have possibly been selectively edited by someone to?) give the same impression. But I'm no expert, so it was also possible that I was being misled, and in fact the evidence that thread was presenting that Johnson was not straightforwardly cis was unreliable.
It might be worth having an actual section dedicated to this; I don't think it would be undue emphasis given how prominent a factor their LGBT activism and identity is. -MugaSofer (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin Regarding that specific transvestite/transsexual line, the interviewer replies "You’d be considered a pre-operative transsexual then?" - they seem to have taken it (and I agree) that Johnson was describing "transvestite" and "transsexual" as effectively synonyms and applying both to themself. But I'll see if I can find some reliable secondary sources, so we're not left performing exegesis on the original text. If I can't find a decent selection, it might be better to just include that whole section of the interview as a quote so people can make up their own minds what it means. --MugaSofer (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A further possibility is that in the line "Transvestites live in drag. A transsexual spends most of her life in drag. I never come out of drag to go anywhere. Everywhere I go I get all dressed up.", the words transvestite and transsexual were accidentally swapped (not necessarily by Marsha herself, but perhaps by an editor just as confused as we are by the line). She seems to say that (for simplicity, I'll only talk about people assigned male at birth here, because that seems to be her main concern here) one group is en femme (virtually) all the time (100%, or close to 100%) and the other most of the time (more than 50%). That's not quite the same.
Unless I completely misunderstand her point here, she definitely seems to say that one group spends more time en femme than the other. It would fit my understanding what she means by transvestites and transsexuals and her life's reality (she was still relatively often encountered in "boy mode", even if in public she usually presented en femme), but it contradicts her words afterwards: She claims that she presents en femme 100% of her time.
There seems a bit of a contradiction here, or even an attempt to present her desire as reality, but maybe she's trying to make a different point here that I'm just not getting. For example, conversely to my interpretation, she might be saying that transvestites are actually more often "femmed up" than transsexuals are, and in public virtually always ... because transsexuals are better able to pass as cis women even without being dressed up to the nines, and may even pass as cis women without presenting as feminine, even in androgynous to masculine clothing. So a trans woman who takes hormones and has had surgery feels less of an urgency or need to present in a pronouncedly feminine way, pretty much just like a cis woman usually does, and both are commonly found looking just like a "woman next door".
And that's exactly what she goes on to say: attempting to "translate" her words, a transvestite is read as male and does not actually pass as a cis woman, even en femme, while a trans woman can do that. (Of course, that's still a generalisation – in both groups, cis-passing abilities vary widely; though the tendency seems to have been even more pronounced in her day – because of selection effects, such as strict gatekeeping of those who were allowed to become transsexuals and well-passing, typically young transvestites going on to become transsexuals, and transsexuals investing a lot of time and money on surgeries and consistent everyday passing – for transsexuals to pass well as cis women and for transvestites to be usually read as male, if feminine.)
So she may (at least in this passage) primarily be trying to contrast drag queens (who only dress up for a stage character, not in everyday life) from transvestites and transsexuals, and only then, maybe, did she start to think of contrasting transvestites from transsexuals. Because (as another contradiction) she then goes on to say that transvestites are only found en femme "here and there", that is, occasionally, not even most of the time. In contrast, transsexuals always wear feminine clothes. That's pretty much the inverse of what she was saying initially and fuels my first suspicion: that "transvestite" and "transsexual" were accidentally swapped at the beginning. Maybe she was misspeaking, in the excitement of the moment, and that's why the whole quotation sounds so incoherent: she was trying to correct herself at the end. (That is, her point is: drag queens dress up en femme only for the stage, transvestites also dress up in other situations, transsexuals are found en femme quite generally.)
I actually think that's really the most likely interpretation, now that I consider the whole excerpt. We have to make room for mistakes, that she was speaking unprepared and struggling for words, trying to phrase her thoughts clearly but initially stumbling. Now it would be helpful to have more details about the circumstances in which this utterance was made. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The part "transvestite[ ]... with tits" is particularly confusing. Is that an allusion to her taking hormones? When did she say that? In which context?
If these sources (RS?) can be believed when they say that she took hormones at least for some time (near the end of her life?) and was even planning bottom surgery (near the end of her life?), which seems to imply that her plans were only cut short by her premature death, this should definitely, absolutely be mentioned in the article. This is decisive info, and – even if she might not have fully seen herself as a woman, with the ambiguity of her statements and her switches between female and male role possibly (but not necessarily) indicating what we would now call a nonbinary gender identity (which would make her even more similar to Sylvia Rivera) – makes the attempts even more ridiculous to re-interpret her as simply a (homosexual) gender non-conforming or feminine (cisgender) man, or as a gay man who liked to wear drag occasionally. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also striking that Marsha tends to say "boy" when she refers to herself and other transvestites. As if she was avoiding the word "man". (There could be an additional nuance here – a reappropriation of the racist tendency of white people at the time to infantilise Black men, or men of colour, by referring to them as "boys". But then, she also refers to other transvestites as "boys", regardless of ethnicity, apparently.) It's subtle, and most people seem to miss this detail, but I find it telling. In my experience, it's a typical way for queer people to distance themselves from the concept "man". It makes it only less plausible, in my book, that she saw herself as unambiguously a man – a man who just happened to be gender-nonconforming or feminine or who just happened to wear feminine clothing sometimes.
To be fair, there is quite a bit of nuance here, given how closely the binary gender labels "man" and "woman" are tied to specific gender roles and social roles, which can make it difficult to embrace these labels as a gender-nonconforming person, to say nothing of the way they are tied to sexual orientation, gender-based interaction and company, socialisation, and scripts of behaviour and social interaction, which can also make it difficult to embrace these labels as a person who isn't heterosexual. Still, you can find plenty of gender-nonconforming people, even starkly gender-nonconforming, of any sexual orientation, who insist that all their life they've never had any doubt that they're a (cisgender) woman/man (or girl/boy respectively when they were minors). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

[edit]

The paragraph about RuPaul uses inconsistent pronouns: "During an episode of his show" vs "RuPaul told her contestants" 74.109.181.230 (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns

[edit]

There are several points where Johnson is referred to with they/them pronouns. Johnson used she/her only. 2601:647:C001:2EA0:B58C:E3AA:F3F4:1788 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times does seem to exclusively refer to her with she/her pronouns, and I can't easily find any reliable sources saying she went by they/them, so I'll get to work on changing pronouns throughout the article as soon as I'm out of bed. miranda :3 14:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I am out of bed, there seems to be scattered discussion about this up above, that raises a fair point. Per MOS:GIDINFO, we should use the pronouns that Martha preferred to use, and we don't actually have any reliable sources that go into any detail about what Martha herself preferred to use, just what people close to her prefer to use when referring to her.
That being said, pretty much any reliable source I can find does refer to Martha as she/her, so that's what I believe the article should be using. I'll still change the article, and if anyone has any objections, they can revert it and we can discuss it here. miranda :3 14:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems reasonable, recent peer-reviewed scholarly sources are consistent about using she/her as well:
  • Calafell, Bernadette Marie. "Narrative Authority, Theory in the Flesh, and the Fight over The Death and Life of Marsha P. Johnson." QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking 6, no. 2 (2019): 26-39. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/733293.
  • Ashley, Florence and Sam Sanchinel. "The Saint of Christopher Street: Marsha P. Johnson and the Social Life of a Heroine." Feminist Review 134, no. 1 (2023): 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/01417789231166827.
  • Jackson, Jenn M. "Black feminisms, queer feminisms, trans feminisms: Meditating on Pauli Murray, Shirley Chisholm, and Marsha P. Johnson against the erasure of history." In The Routlege Companion to Black Women's Cultural Histories, edited by Janell Hobson, 284-293. New York: Routledge, 2021.
I agree that the above discussion of Marsha having sometimes expressed having no preference raises valid points, but this honestly seems like a case where it's not Wikipedia's place to litigate the issue—as you say, literally all the sources, including the ones that the "pay it no mind" quotes are taken from + peer-reviewed sources from journals in queer studies, ultimately use she/her. Plus, the NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/obituaries/overlooked-marsha-p-johnson.html) actually does say she most often used she/her:

The term transgender was not in wide use in Johnson’s lifetime; she usually used female pronouns for herself, but also referred to herself as gay, as a transvestite or simply as a queen.

I think it's good (and indeed necessary) to have the discussion about Marsha not identifying as any modern category + having multiple modes of presentation in-text (as the "Performance work and identity" section currently does, though it could probably use a bit of cleanup/expansion) but for pronoun usage within the broader article she/her definitely seems most appropriate. [ETA: For now, anyway. Alternatively, if we want to stick with the above decision to not use pronouns at all, the article still needs revision to avoid them.]
—Trellbailey (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So for some reason a male-born peson who did not identify as either transsexual (as the term would have been in his day) or transgender but as a transvesitite and who also used male pronouns for some strange reason must be referred to as "she" and "her" in this article?
(PS. I am not talking about any passages referring to Johnson's drag queen persona, which obviously would be female, but to the rest. Str1977 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's definitely a complicated issue, but all reliable sources, including interviews with people who personally knew the subject, refer to Johnson exclusively as "she" and "her" (and, as Trellbailey stated above, the NYT article does say that Johnson used she/her).
We don't really have any way of knowing for sure what Johnson would have preferred, so I think that the best option in this situation would be to reflect what the sources state instead of trying to make guesses.  miranda :3  22:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been argued about exhaustively and every time, the conclusion is exactly the same: that Marsha asked for different pronouns depending on when they were Marsha and when they were Malcolm, and we have no way of knowing which one they would have preferred for their Wikipedia entry, so "Johnson" it is. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the article still needs lots of revision if that's the case, since pronouns currently appear in a bunch of places—would need to eliminate all uses of "they" as well. Trellbailey (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, or at least I think I got most of them. It was actually just a couple of stray they/thems and one she...most of the time Johnson is referred to with they/them pronouns, it's in the context of Johnson and at least one other person. Beforesunsethighnoon (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the slur noted in a source be used in the text itself?

[edit]

I typically try to be WP:BOLD, but as this is a touchy subject, I wanted to bring this here for comments. In the prose sourced to NY Daily News where it discusses Johnson being called a homophobic slur, it specifically states what the slur was (which I will not be repeating on this talk page, even in quotations). I'm wondering whether or not it should be included in the article, per WP:NOTCENSORED, but given that I usually apply this policy to adding uncensored quotations of swear words as opposed to slurs on pages, I would like to know what others have to say about this matter. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marsha_P._Johnson&oldid=1256021086"