Talk:Albert Cashier/Archive 2

Pronoun gender
The article currently uses female pronouns. Given the arc of Cashier's life, and the persistence in chosen identity through various hospital stays, even when discovery occurred and threatened to become public knowledge, and the tombstone inscription ""Albert D. J. Cashier, Co. G, 95 Ill. Inf.", I find it jarring to see female pronouns being used here. More importantly than any sentiment on my part however, is what it says at MOS:GENDERID, namely: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources.  If fifty years of presenting as a man, participation in forty Civil War battles, and a male tombstone inscription isn't sufficient to indicate Cashier's self-designation, than I'm really at a loss to know what would be sufficient. Mathglot (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pure WP:OR and Synthesis. There are no sources pointing to self-designation on her part. A girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do to earn a living - even to wearing trousers. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * please see the talk page archives for the RFC we had on this subject. Consensus was to use female pronouns given the predominant view of reliable scholarly sources that Cashier was a woman. Do you maybe have more recently published scholarly sources showing that the prevailing view has changed? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree - the article should reflect the pronouns used in recent reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, thanks for the archive mention, I had somehow missed that link (it is kinda small). Wish I had noticed the Rfc; I would have joined in and had some comment or other, but it's not appropriate to second-guess that, now.  I will look for some sources, and see what turns up, although it sounds from the Rfc like that territory has been covered pretty well.
 * Just in response to Laurel, though, I don't agree that it's OR or SYNTH; I was referring more to the principle of MOS:GENDERID which is pretty clear in the first sentence that self-designation trumps RS usage in most cases. If that applies to this case as well, then the question devolves to two things: 1. whether a self-declaration by someone trans has to be in written form or not, in order to trigger MOS:GENDERID identification recognition, and if not, then 2. whether spending a lifetime presenting as male is a self-designation or not.  I'm unsure about the first, but I think the second is certainly arguable. It might be worth bringing up point 1 at WT:MOS unless this issue has already been decided. Does anyone know if it has? Mathglot (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems somewhat problematic to project modern definitions of gender identification back on someone who lived in a totally different era, so I think that reliable sources are needed to support any change. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It is probably unreasonable to assume that anyone prior to the 1940's was capable of identifying as a different gender to that of their birth, lifetime pretense to the contrary notwithstanding. The concept itself had not yet developed and therefore identification as trans was not possible. There is no reasonable evidence that she actually thought she was a man, nor any indication she was 'trans', there are numerous examples of girls who participate in military activities as men, who go on to marry and have children as women. I think it is unreasonable to assume that there is any motive beyond the necessity to pretend to be male to enter and stay in the military. In her early life she became accustomed to pretending to be a boy to get work. Additionally she did not make her tombstone, it stands to reason that the people who knew here buried her with her 'male' name, not knowing any different name to put on it (although 9 years later they tracked down her original name and put a new gravestone next to it.) All that being said, it is revealing that she continued to present herself as a man after leaving the military, this in itself however could simply have been a way of obtaining further employment, noting that men were often paid 10 times as much as their female counterparts in this period, this was also a requirement to claim her veterans pension, a relevant sum. I will also note that various people did find she was female throughout her life, although her public front of being 'a man' was for obvious financial reasons not disclosed. Dysklyver  10:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * These arguments that she could not have been a trans man because the term hadn't been coined yet are just as much WP:OR as the arguments that she must have been because of her dress and lifestyle. Throughout history we do find examples of people expressing more modern ideas of sexuality and gender in the language available to them at the time. It can be muddy, especially when things like "is attracted to women" and "is logical and adventurous" are taken to mean someone female has the "soul" of a man, but I would consider "she wasn't because she couldn't have been" a non-starter. Let's just pay attention to the sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources that all say she was a woman. My point is valid, and supported by current scholarship. Prior to recent technological and ideological shifts gender has always been an immutable fact. Additionally, be wary of confusing gender and sexuality as you just did, as they are two distinct issues. Dysklyver  00:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because there was no Pride parade or LGBT Center and they didn't have gay bars in Ancient Greece, Rome, or Asia, does not mean that there were no gay people until the word was invented. You can sit around and argue that it's anachronistic to call some Ancient Greeks "gay" because the term did not exist (and I'd agree) but gay people were always there, back to the dawn of history; it just wasn't called that then.  Obviously, they were of their time and place, as we are of ours; and it looked different then, and it was called something different then.  Likewise, transgender people have existed since the dawn of history.  The fact that HRT and SRS weren't available then, and we needed to wait a few millenia for the word to be invented, does not change a thing.  Whether Cashier was transgender or not should depend, as has already been stated, on our best evidence from the preponderance of reliable sources.  The fact that we won't find "transman" printed in contemporary accounts, or chiseled into Cashier's 1915 tombstone, should affect that determination not a jot. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The tricky thing about this is that prior to the emergence of transgender as an identity label that people called themselves, reliable sources would never have written about Cashier with male pronouns regardless of how Cashier might have self-identified. Personally, from the evidence at hand I think it's quite likely that Cashier, if alive today, would be identifying as a transgender man — I suspect the same of Willa Cather, too — but even if that's true the sources written at the time would never have extended Cashier that courtesy regardless of Cashier's own identity or pronoun preference. So, in fact, it's virtually impossible to reliably establish Cashier's true gender identity from the sources available. The fact that the sources use female pronouns is not in and of itself proof that Cashier wasn't what we would now understand as transgender, because sources written in that time would never have been written from a trans-friendly perspective regardless of the subject's gender identity. And it's also true that just because the word transgender didn't exist yet doesn't mean that people weren't capable of identifying and behaving in a transgender-consistent way — there's in fact substantial evidence that people did historically do that quite a bit well before surgical intervention became possible, and the fact that we didn't have a name for it yet doesn't nullify people doing what they could to live a transgender identity with the tools they had available to them. For a somewhat similar example, musician Jackie Shane was always written about in contemporaneous sources as a man who performed in drag, rather than as a transgender woman — it literally wasn't until just this year, concurrent with the new reissue of her singles, that media finally started putting it on the record that she identifies as transgender. Until those sources emerged, in fact, our article about her conformed with the "drag queen" sources, because although there were rumours that she identified as trans there were no sources for the fact. We stuck with what the sources said, but what the sources said was actually wrong. So in a case like this, where there's some evidence that Cashier may have been what we would now accept as transgender but no reliable sources to establish that definitively and no way to ask, my personal preference would be to use gender-neutral pronouns (they/them/their) instead of male or female ones, on the grounds that Cashier's own gender identity is actually unclear. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with almost all of it. Except, when you say, So, in fact, it's virtually impossible to reliably establish Cashier's true gender identity from the sources available, I'm not sure if I agree with that. If we require that the sources quote Cashier as saying, "I am a man", or words to that effect, then I believe you are right.  To be clear: if the only determination of someone's gender identity is an explicit statement by the person in question as quoted in a reliable source, then I agree.  But "the sources available" also refer to Cashier as "he", and write about Cashier's military experience, and other behavior that are indicative of how Cashier would have conceived of their identity. If reliable contemporary accounts indicate "he" based on all this, absent a self-declaration, does that satisfy MOS:GENDERID, or not? I believe this is a question that should be raised and resolved at WP:MOS, following which it should be revisited here.
 * In the meantime, here's a Gedankenexperiment: compare Wikipedia's choice of pronoun at the Billie Tipton article, to the choice at Albert Cashier. There are considerable similarities between the two lives, with the obvious difference of Tipton being born a year before Cashier died, and surviving into the era of transgender people, SRS, and public discussion of the topic.  Do we have a reliable source for Tipton saying, "I am a man," or was it merely unstated but obvious, with Tipton indicating it by "doing gender" as a man a hundred times a day?  In the section on Tipton's death, there is this: He was actually suffering from a hemorrhaging peptic ulcer, which, untreated, was fatal. It was while paramedics were trying to save Tipton's life, with son William looking on, that William learned that his father was a transgender man.  In what way was Tipton's life and death different than Cashier's, that they merit different pronouns?  In both cases, a life lived was in one gender, and a coroner's "sex assignment at death" indicated another.
 * We are recognized as our gender by our performance, appearance, and (sometimes) name; more rarely by explicit written claim. I would posit that a sufficient number of reliable sources describing Cashier's behavior and appearance as a man's, along with the chosen name 'Albert', and extraordinary efforts to struggle against discovery until death, are sufficient to establish Cashier's conception of self, barring a clear statement by Cashier, "I am a man."
 * Actually, I would go even further than that: I would argue that even if we turned up a quotation from Cashier, "I am a woman," it could not be considered evidence that Cashier was not a trans-man. Before the comprehension of gender as socially constructed and apart from sex, "man" simply meant, "adult penis-possessor", and "woman" meant, "adult vagina-possessor."  I'm sure if you gave a 19th-century trans-man truth serum and asked them, "Are you a woman?" they would say "Yes", purely as an indication of their genital anatomy as no other conceptual framework existed at the time to answer any differently.  That answer would give you no information as to their gender identity, a concept which had not yet been described.  Given the current state of knowledge, we might answer differently.  This is no different than any number of things that were understood and called one way in the past that we now understand better and name differently in contravention to a unanimity of contemporary reliable sources.  But that's more of a prophylactic argument, as to my knowledge, Cashier never claimed to be a woman, either. Mathglot (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * we're not relying significantly on 19th-century sources here. The sources surveyed in the RFC postdated the development of transgender language.
 * But I could just as well say "sure, in unenlightened times people thought that wanting to wear trousers and work as a carpenter made someone a man, but now we know that that's just about restrictive gender roles and stereotypes, and we have no evidence that Cashier suffered from any sex dysphoria." We could go back and forth all day with subjective opinions. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The later sources couldn't go back and ask Cashier about the gender identification question either, and had to rely on the same older written accounts that would never have countenanced that transgender was a thing it was possible to be in the first place. So they count for exactly nothing in terms of proving that Cashier wasn't transgender, because they don't know a damn thing more about Cashier's state of mind than we do. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So are the later sources which determine that Cashier was a man also unusable, since they don't know either and are likewise only relying on earlier sources? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's precisely why I suggested that we default to gender-neutral pronouns. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is that what Wikipedia does in the case of persons whose gender or sex was unknown? Or only for those who have expressed a nonbinary identity? (Are there other examples of articles that follow this suggestion?) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not personally aware of too many other examples where a person's gender identity was actually debatable and unclear, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't some. But one example I do know of is that we've avoided gendering "John Campbell" in Pictures for Sad Children due to conflicting claims about their gender identity, and there is a writer (I can't remember her name offhand) whose article was written gender-neutrally for a few years, until we were able to properly establish whether unreliable source rumours that she had come out as transgender were true or not. (They were.) Very generally, however, gender-neutral pronouns are not necessarily used only for people who specifically identify as non-binary, but are also frequently used for people whose gender identity is merely unknown or unknowable. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, good to know. I'm still not sure there's enough ambiguity to justify it, but it's good to know what the precedent was. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the above is an exercise is speculation, WP:OR and Synthesis. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * One potential case for why the pronouns should be moved towards gender neutrality (or possibly male pronouns) is the following. Every other woman who served as a man that has a page on wikipedia returned to their daily life as a woman after being found out or the war ended. I think the fact that Albert remains known largely as Albert, and lived their life as a man, as opposed to these other folks who are known as women and lived as such, points towards a difference between them. It seems strange that a person who was known by most of the people they encountered in their life as a man would be known as something else simply because of the composition of their genitalia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.207.36 (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

At James Barry (surgeon), opting for a version repeating the name and avoiding pronouns altogether has turned out to be reasonably stable and very readable. Awien (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising that. The same thing was done at Amelio Robles Ávila, and there's no reason that can't work here as well. (As a side issue: I wonder how many other articles with a similar issue have been dealt with in this way, and whether there should be a mention at MOS:GENDERID about this technique as a possible method of dispute resolution?) Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I just don't think the balance of sourcing justifies that here. (I mentioned on the Barry talk page that I haven't done a similar look-through of the available sources the way I did here, so I can't speak for that article, or the Avila one.) I mean, you also find the occasional person arguing that Joan of Arc or George Sand was a trans men. I think we need more than "the argument exists that this person was trans". Have more scholarly sources on Cashier emerged recently, with a different viewpoint? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't done any actual research, it's simply on the basis of the article and the talk that I conclude that the actual state of Cashier's mind is unknowable, and that the only way to put an end to the edit warring is for us to sit firmly on the fence by avoiding gendered pronouns. A compromise, i.e. a no-win, no-lose solution. Awien (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "We don't know what this person's internal gender identity was" is true for the vast majority of people throughout history. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * True, but nobody's edit warring over Ernest Hemingway or Charlotte Bronte's internal gender identity, for example, whereas for people like Cashier where they are, ducking the issue makes a lot of sense. Awien (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the idea that you (general you) can get tour way if you just edit-war long enough, hard enough, or with enough outside coordination. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I, personal I, got here more or less by chance and without preconceived ideas on the subject, so I have no axe to grind whatsoever. The war, to state the obvious, is between the masculine and the feminine pronoun proponents, and personally I see merit in the arguments raised by both sides. Avoiding gendered pronouns altogether is the elegant way of accepting that it's most unlikely we'll ever have a definitive answer as to how Cashier self-identified. Sometimes ambiguity happens. Awien (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the general problem with this thread is the emphasis on the "factual" answer to this question (whether Cashier self-identified as a man, woman, or something else) rather than taking the most sensitive and respectful action possible. Cashier clearly wanted to be known as a man, and whatever his reasons for that, I think we should respect them. Furthermore, this isn't just a question of correct information or respect for the dead but of the many, many trans men and non-binary people who may look at this page, see a connection to their own experiences - even an acknowledgement at the top of the page that he may have been trans! - and have the message thrown in their faces yet again through pronouns that trans people are a "trend" or that even if they are "real" and historically extant, it's still acceptable to fight over their identities and misgender them. I would err on the side of affirming trans people's identities rather than reverting to female pronouns in order to be "factual". User:jewishhelenarobles (talk) 3:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The idea that "respect" directs us towards only one possible solution is misguided. (Moreover, you state that Cashier "wanted to be known as a man", but following your implication to its logical conclusion would violate MOS:IDENTITY, which is about how people identify, not how they present.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It feels disrespectful to refer to Albert with female pronouns, especially with how hard he had worked to be referred to as such his entire life. It feels like people are trying to bury LGBT+ people in history to make it seem as though they never existed, although several accounts prove that there were strides being taken in that time period to accommodate gender nonconforming people up until World War II, which is when Westernized societies took a step back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crooked star (talk • contribs) 07:04, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You know, we speak a language which has a gender neutral singular third person pronoun, so why not use it and stop this pointless arguing? Replace the pronouns with a singular they. Simple. Acolossus &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 12:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In reference to the above talk: transgender identities were known before the 40s and there's surviving documentation from interwar Berlin to that effect, despite the best efforts of the nazis. Let's not pretend otherwise just because it makes the world seem tidier to cis people. 65.92.161.255 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The best compromise is NO pronouns. That way everybody is equally happy/unhappy. Awien (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we leave the pronouns gender neutral, please? Its very tedious to keep changing them Audrey (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The pronoun edit war is very tedious. A pronoun-free version (as in James Barry) would be perfectly gender-neutral, and unlike the singular "they", would avoid getting the grammar nazis on our case. But meanwhile, the consensus version prevails. Awien (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Nine Irish Lives
In looking at the newly published (2018) book, Nine Irish Lives, edited by Mark Bailey, the chapter on Albert Cashier uses male pronouns. In addition, when his physical birth assignment was revealed, he and the people around him ensured that he was male, not only in presenting, but in addressing, work habits, etc. He was put in a soldiers' retirement home for men. The only time he presented as female was when he was involuntarily committed to a sanitarium, bodily forced to wear women's clothing and share a room with a woman. There is speculation that this was done to get to his money but the author was unable to get the records (they're being refused access which indicates to me nefarious reasons for his committal). The chapter also discusses how he tried to pin his skirt into pants, ultimately tripping and breaking his hip, and exacerbating his death. It's clear to anyone reading this chapter that Albert Cashier was a trans man, with or without the label and should be referred to using male pronouns. I don't understand the obstinate continual use of female pronouns. This is not a case of a woman dressing as a man to enter the military as had been the case sometimes. The pronouns should be changed to male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.20.198 (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to discussion. My opinion is that right now, we have sources that use male pronouns and sources that use female, with the balance seeing her as female; Bailey may be part of a shift in the literature towards seeing Cashier as male, but we'd need more than just that source to show that the prevailing view has changed. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese is it possible to add this new source to the actual page? Two of the three sources currently there are fictionalized accounts and in my opinion should not be used as sources for pronoun use. I also agree with @Mathglot that fifty years of presenting male and the lengths he went to to hide his female anatomy should be enough to concede on using male pronouns. I disagree with a previous commenter that this was merely a way to make a living. His choice to join the military seems a patriotic one rather than an economic one. If it was simply for money, he could have worked and kept his head down, but he joined the military, choosing to live in close quarters with other men where discovery was heightened, and voted in elections, not something necessary to maintaining his job status but more in keeping with his self-identification as male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.20.198 (talk • contribs) 16:04, June 15, 2018 (UTC)

How about no pronouns
How about NO pronouns, as in the James Barry article? That way everybody is equally happy/unhappy, and peace can reign. It really does work. Awien (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The last Rfc was around a year ago, I'm not sure if the no-pronouns suggestion was considered at that time. If it wasn't, or even simply because of sufficient elapsed time, it might be worth putting it out there [again].  At this point, "no-pronouns" is looking more and more like a compromise suggestion I could live with, but I think any new Rfc should offer three options. Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"No-pronouns" sounds better than continuing to misgender Albert Cashier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.20.198 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't quote me, but I don't think the no-pronouns solution was offered that time. Awien (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would definitely advocate for no-pronouns, as otherwise the conversation and ensuing wholesale edits will continue forever. Smirkybec (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You're correct. The statement of the earlier Rfc did not actually raise the issue of pronouns; it offered the seemingly binary choice of: "Should the subject be referred to as a woman who dressed as a man, or as a transgender man?" That this choice was seen as binary, is confirmed by the following sentence, which mentioned "...sources which support both options".[emphasis added] That said, the comments mention pronoun a couple dozen times, and four other sections on /Archive 1 discuss the pronoun issue.  In the last one, several editors raised the possibility of either no-pronouns, or gender-neutral pronouns.  The closer noted the "multiple suggestions" to use singular they, adding that it's "worthy of consideration". Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue with singular "they" is that we would be almost certain to run into a grammar purist stubbornly convinced that it's incorrect. That's a problem you don't run into with pronoun-free. If we do go ahead with an RfC, I would suggest a simple proposal: pronoun-free, yea or nay. Awien (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can support your simple proposal. As far as singular they, MOS says nothing about it, and if we ran into a grammar purist, it wouldn't be a problem. The essay Gender-neutral language discusses this issue. Mathglot (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

With gender-neutral apparently everybody's fallback position, and no-pronouns being the ultimate in gender-neutral, maybe we don't even need another RfC. Unless anyone objects, maybe I'll just be bold and go ahead with eliminating gendered pronouns ... Awien (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest another RFC given the amount of participation in the first one, but either way, I'd suggest drafting the revision on the talk page first. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I've started a draft, which raises a couple of questions. Will I be stirring up a hornets' nest if I tweak the use of Hodgers/Cashier under Early life? And under Enlistment, without access to the primary source I can't verify whether it's correct that Cashier enlisted twice; seems odd, maybe a mistake? Cheers, Awien (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we just attack one problem at a time? Let's just do no-pronouns and finesse the other issue for now.  I'd do it myself but I'm stuck with phone editing for a while. Mathglot (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They're intertwined ... but I guess it's just a draft. I just don't want to tread on any toes. Awien (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The draft looks good to me (I didn't compare it to the current version but it doesn't read weirdly). There are a couple of things I'd change but it's not urgent. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No-gendered-pronoun version: a draft
Here you go, people, an idea of what it might look like. This is the first time I've done this (as opposed to seeing it done), so I imagine it could use some polishing up. Also, as I already noted above, there are issues with Cashier/Hodger and with the apparent double enlistment that I haven't addressed.

If I've made any mistakes in terminology, please put them down to inexperience and not to prejudice against any group.

Make of it what you will. This ends my involvement, I have too much on my plate in real life to get involved with an RfC etc. I just hope you can achieve an acceptable resolution by whatever means.

Cheers, Awien (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that Cashier maintained the male identity for life. His identity changed because he was forced into a female sanitarium and forced to wear women's clothes. (My use of male pronouns isn't to suggest them here, my suggestion is only the length of the male identity. Apologies if I've put this in the wrong place) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.20.198 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's up to you people as far as I'm concerned: do to, with, or for it as you see fit. But as Roscelese says, if you want to adopt this version, you need to get consensus via a Request for Comment. I'm otherwise occupied right now. Awien (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Albert D. J. Cashier (December 25, 1843 – October 10, 1915), born Jennie Irene Hodgers, was an Irish-born immigrant who served in the Union Army during the American Civil War. Cashier adopted the identity of a man before enlisting, and maintained it almost for life. Cashier became famous as one of a number of women soldiers who served as men during the Civil War, although the consistent and long-term commitment to the male identity has prompted some contemporary scholars to suggest that Cashier was a trans man.

No-gendered-pronoun version: a draft
Here you go, people, an idea of what it might look like. This is the first time I've done this (as opposed to seeing it done), so I imagine it could use some polishing up. Also, as I already noted above, there are issues with Cashier/Hodger and with the apparent double enlistment that I haven't addressed.

If I've made any mistakes in terminology, please put them down to inexperience and not to prejudice against any group.

Make of it what you will. This ends my involvement, I have too much on my plate in real life to get involved with an RfC etc. I just hope you can achieve an acceptable resolution by whatever means.

Cheers, Awien (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Albert D. J. Cashier (December 25, 1843 – October 10, 1915), born Jennie Irene Hodgers, was an Irish-born immigrant who served in the Union Army during the American Civil War. Cashier adopted the identity of a man before enlisting, and maintained it almost for life. Cashier became famous as one of a number of women soldiers who served as men during the Civil War, although the consistent and long-term commitment to the male identity has prompted some contemporary scholars to suggest that Cashier was a trans man.

Hodgers was born in Clogherhead, County Louth, Ireland on December 25, around the year 1843. According to later investigation by the administrator of Hodgers's estate, the child's parents were Sallie and Patrick Hodgers. Hodgers's later accounts of moving to the United States and reasons for enlisting were taken when Hodgers was elderly and disoriented. Hodgers was also typically evasive about life prior to emigrating; these narratives are therefore contradictory. Typically, Hodgers's stepfather was said to have dressed the child in boy's clothing in order to find work. Even before the advent of the war, Hodgers adopted the identity of Albert Cashier to work. Hodgers's mother died prior to 1862, by which time Hodgers had traveled as a stowaway to Illinois and was living in Belvidere.

Hodgers first enlisted in July 1862 after President Lincoln's call for soldiers. As time passed, the need for soldiers only increased. On August 6, 1862, Hodgers enlisted in the 95th Illinois Infantry for a three-year term using the name "Albert Cashier", and was assigned to Company G.  A company catalog lists Cashier as nineteen years old upon enlistment, a farmer from New York City, 5 feet 3 inches tall, blue-eyed, and of a fair complexion.

The regiment was part of the Army of the Tennessee under Ulysses S. Grant, and fought in approximately forty battles, including the siege at Vicksburg. This campaign proved to be a challenge for Cashier, who was captured while performing reconnaissance. Cashier managed to escape, however, and returned to the regiment. After the Battle of Vicksburg, in June 1863, Cashier contracted chronic diarrhea and entered a military hospital but somehow evaded detection. The regiment was also present at the Red River Campaign and the combat at Guntown, Mississippi, where they suffered heavy casualties. Throughout the war, the regiment traveled a total of about 9,000 miles during its term. Other soldiers thought that Cashier was small and preferred to be alone, which were not uncommon characteristics for soldiers. Cashier fought with the regiment through the war until August 17, 1865, when all the soldiers were mustered out. Cashier was honorably discharged on August 17, 1865.

After the war, Cashier returned to Belvidere, Illinois for a time, and worked for Samuel Pepper while maintaining the Cashier identity. After moving to Saunemin, Illinois, in 1869, Cashier worked as a farmhand as well as performing odd jobs around the town, and is attested on records of the town payroll as Albert Cashier. Joshua Chesebro, who employed Cashier, also provided a one-room house. In over forty years living in Saunemin, Cashier was a church janitor, cemetery worker, and street lamplighter. Living as a man, Cashier was able to vote in elections, and later claimed a veteran's pension under the name Albert Cashier. In later years, Cashier ate with the neighboring Lannon family. Later on, when Hodgers fell ill and was examined by a nurse, the Lannons learned that the person they had believed to be a man was physically a woman, but did not make their discovery public.

In 1911, Cashier's leg was broken in a collision with a car. A physician discovered Cashier's secret in the hospital, but did not disclose the information. On May 5, 1911, as a result of no longer being able to work, Cashier was moved to the Soldiers and Sailors home in Quincy, Illinois. During this stay, Hodgers was visited by many fellow soldiers from the Ninety-fifth Regiment. In March 1914, a deteriorating mental state led to Cashier being moved to the Watertown State Hospital for the Insane. It was at the Watertown State Hospital that attendants giving Cashier a bath discovered their patient's biological sex, and after fifty years Cashier was made to wear women's clothes again.

Albert Cashier died on October 10, 1915, and was given an official Grand Army of the Republic funerary service, along with burial with full military honors in the uniform that had been kept intact all those years. The tombstone was inscribed "Albert D. J. Cashier, Co. G, 95 Ill. Inf." It took W.J. Singleton (executor of Cashier's estate) nine years to track down Cashier's birth name of Jennie Hodgers. None of the would-be heirs proved convincing, and the estate of $418.46 was deposited in the Adams County, Illinois, treasury. In the 1970s, a second tombstone, inscribed both Albert D. J. Cashier and Jennie Hodgers, was placed beside the first.

Within six months
do you have a quotation on the six months thing? It seems to be at odds with what's already in the article, if Cashier is being investigated for fraud by the end of 1914 and isn't dead until October 1915. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the timing seemed squirrely to me, too, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. it's from Wheelwright (1989), but I think she might be quoting Clausius (1958) about the timing. The bit about the fraud investigation I think was put in the wrong order (or the thing I added was, because it matched the sequencing of talking about the change in clothing, and then the death, so I copied the same sequencing in that edit). Wheelwright begins the paragraph talking about Hannah Snell, and what the connection might have been between her retirement from the British Navy and her subsequent decline."Did any connection exist between Hannah Snell's insanity, and her retirement from the British Navy forty years earlier? Certainly her transition back to womanhood was not a peaceful one. Many former female combatants and women who cross-dressed in other male occupations, never accepted the lowered status that accompanied their resumption of female dress. Some led a dual life, venturing forth in their breeches armed with a male name to maintain their connection to the masculine world. But for others, old age or illness made the acceptance of another identity impossible and they were forced back into a social position abandoned so long ago.The consequences could be devastating. After former infantryman Albert Cashier was admitted to the East Maline State Hospital in Watertown, Illinois and coerced into wearing dresses, her condition deteriorated rapidly. After three years active military service she continued to live as Albert, working as a gardener and handyman in Livingston County even after a doctor discovered her identity in 1911. When she became seriously ill Albert was taken to the Soldier and Sailor's home in Quincy where the physicians and administrators agreed to keep her secret.  However, she became increasingly mentally disturbed and was transferred to Watertown where, for the first time in more than 42 years, she was forced to wear women's clothes. She died six months later on 10 October 1915[56]." This is from Wheelwright, p. 146–147. Footnote 56 is Wheelwright's, and references Clausius (1958), p. 380-387 (which, iirc, is the entire monograph, or most of it) and I'll have to go back and check it to see what it says about it. You probably have access to it through your public library e-collections.
 * One interesting thing about Clausius, is that it uses male pronouns throughout, which struck me as pretty unusual, especially for the time. Also, some of the relatively inconsequential details in Clausius like hair color or more consequential ones like how long since she wore women's clothes don't agree with other sources we use, which makes me wonder who got what right or wrong, and what sources they used. It made me think about how to handle the disagreements in the article, and I decided to use footnotes for that; there are currently two disagreements noted, but we may need to add some more. Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Tsui source doesn't actually mention when/how the attendants discovered she was female - I think it must be cited for the "fifty years" statement, but am not sure where the other info is from because I have only partial access to the Blanton source, which seems to be one of the most complete ones we have. I wonder if the "six months" sources are simply confusing March 1914, when she was committed, with March 1915, ie. about six months before she died? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, something we don't appear to be getting across is that AFAICT there was some public awareness of Cashier's sex independent of the attendants discovering it? I'd need to go through these again. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment about pronoun usage
Should Albert Cashier's page be changed to exclude gendered pronouns? Audrey (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, i.e. Yes. In cases where a long-dead person left no statement as to how they self-identified, it is ultimately impossible to know what their choice of pronouns would have been. All modern attempts to interpret the bare facts of the person's life are subjective and speculative, and lead different people to different conclusions.
 * Singular "they" has been suggested as a possibility, but there are enough grammar purists around who consider it simply incorrect that it too would almost certainly lead to edit wars.
 * Eliminating gendered pronouns yields a version like the one I offered above for your consideration, while an article where the strategy was adopted and seems to be working is James Barry. Both sides of the debate (he/him/his vs. she/her/hers) can apparently live with pronoun-free, given that it avoids what they consider misgendering the subject.
 * Awien (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Invited by the bot. The contents of the article in essences say that it was a woman pretending to be a man. Even under current initiatives which promote that someone can say and tell themselves that they actually are a gender different than their genes and body parts would not come into play because their is not evidence that they did that. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was asked to also reflect on the specific question asked.  I'd try to minimize gender-specific pronouns, and use female ones for any that remain, if any. In addition the the points in my first post society's term for someone with female genes and body parts is female, current initiatives to change that are just that. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Would be okay with a version similar to the one drafted above that avoided gendered pronouns in a non-awkward fashion, but would not support singular "they" (or "he"). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - use female gender. Sources refer to her as female, so she would. Modern retconning of history to fit 21st century gender politics should not be a consideration.Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources refer to Cashier as female, but he referred to himself as a man for almost the entirety of his life. But the issue was, that no matter what we say, we cannot know for certain how Albert identified. Which is why a page that relinquishes gendered pronouns is the best option. It would be beneficial in stopping editing wars, for on the talk page used to discuss this issue, it became an agreed upon solution. But I have to add, that using a gender-neutral "they/them/their" singularly, is grammatically correct, and to minimize redundancy, can and should be used when needed. Audrey (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.. "they" is grammatically correct as a singular pronoun? According to whom? Which dictionaries?Peter K Burian (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The National Park service uses the same method as NPR in their article but the author is less accurate as to *when* the switch in pronoun should be made. https://nps.gov/articles/jennie-hodgers-aka-private-albert-cashier.htm Peter K Burian (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Use female gender initially ... switch to male gender later as NPR does. i.e. Jennie Hodgers was a woman pretending to be Albert Cashier, a man ... even after the war, in order to earn more money, and to be allowed to vote and have a bank account. NPR solved the quandary for us re: Hodgers/Cashier. This source refers to the person as "she" until it is obvious that the person had made a final decision to continue life permanently as the male Cashier, post War. Then, NPR starts referring to the person as "he". https://www.npr.org/templates/story.php?storyId=104452266 That seemed strange on first reading but then I realized that it made the most sense. Peter K Burian (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The real issue is that it seems as though consensus on which pronouns to use is unattainable. The question being asked is therefore: in order to avoid interminable edit warring, do we adopt a version free of gendered pronouns (cf. the sample above), yes or no? Cheers, Awien (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Try singular they and Merriam-Webster. Audrey (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If you prefer singular "they" in this article to a no-pronoun version, I'd suggest starting a separate RFC. I would strongly oppose your proposal. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also oppose that. Peter K Burian (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, User:Awien, the question was: Should Albert Cashier's page be changed to 7exclude gendered pronouns? The answer is not simple in this unusual situation. That's why I suggest referring to the person as "she" initially but then switching to "he" as some publications have done. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I was only clarifying that using a singular "they" is grammatically correct, and would support either Peter's proposal, or the no-pronoun version. Thanks. Audrey (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Has the consensus decided in favor of the no-pronoun edit? Audrey (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not seeing a consensus for any of the three options in the notes above. My first choice would be to use she initially and switch to he later. Second choice would be gender neutral and I would not object to that. I don't really understand exactly how that is done, so could not do it myself. But yes, the article should •not• stay the way it is now. There is consensus about that.

Peter, you can see above my draft of a gender-neutral version. Awien (talk) 12:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

A person who maintains a Male persona for decades should not be referred to as "she" ... (after the enlistment into the army as a man and living as a Male persona until losing control of that to the authorities). Peter K Burian (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Roscelese has been the most adamant against the suggestions for male or gender neutral pronouns, have you changed your mind at all? Or would you care to give us your reasoning against it? Thank you. Audrey (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, what have people said here that would be at all likely to change my mind? Cashier certainly never went by "they." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. The only purpose of using singular they pronouns was because we don't know what Cashier would prefer to go by in a modern context, Cashier certainly didn't choose to go by "she," either. But I understand your point. Audrey (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Audrey, Roscelese says above that she "would be okay with a version similar to the one drafted above", that is my draft of a version without gendered pronouns. Unless we hear to the contrary, that seems to be a yes. Awien (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a reminder about procedure: This is an Rfc, not a free-ranging discussion about every possible way to improve the article in connection with gendered pronouns. We should respect the formality regarding Rfc's, and part of that is to discuss and vote on the proposal that the Rfc brings to the table, which is this: Should Albert Cashier's page be changed to exclude gendered pronouns? The possible responses here are Yes, and No; if you have a third alternative (such as using male pronouns), that's essentially a No vote plus a desire to have a follow-up Rfc or discussion after this Rfc completes. Mathglot (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes – there's enough uncertainty that avoiding pronouns is the best way forward. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes – OK, I changed my vote. I agree... no pronouns at all. That seems to be the most logical compromise. (One method is to refer to Cashier as "this individual" sometimes.) Peter K Burian (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes-The gender-free edit remains the best option right now. Audrey (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Go ahead with the edit: gender-free Looks like the edit should proceed now. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment Rfc's typically run for up to 30 days (except for withdrawals or snow close), so please respect the process and other editors who may not respond right away away, and allow the process to play out. It's premature to change the article before the Rfc is closed. More opinions are still welcome.  ( 26 prior participants notified )  Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * An emphatic hell no This to me is more a matter of writing a great wrong and a great wrong that was not verbalized in this time period. If this were 2050 and a discussion on a deceased Catilyn Jenner I'd find it to be a more reasonable discussion. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes-The gender-free option seems to be the best decision right now. bwitiye (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral On first impulse, I was a little frustrated to see this issue has arisen again so soon; there was a series of consensus discussions, including an RfC, not long ago that arrived at a set of narrowly-tailored edits that sought to represent the span of perspectives in the sources without prejudicing the reader with our own take on the issue (you know meant to be doing when we work on articles for this encyclopedia)--discussions which were arduous at times (partly owing to entrenched views, partly because of sock/meat-puppetry) but ultimately productive and arriving at a wording that presents the span of interpretations of Cahier's life that are found in reliable sources. So I was initially inclined to see this renewed discussion as a little disruptive--barring any new developments in the available sources, which does not seem to be the case.  But I guess it has been near 18 months since the most recent RfC, so if we have to re-argue the matter, so be it.


 * I said in the previous discussion that a version of the article without gender pronouns was not outside the realm of possibility as a viable solution, but that it would be incredibly difficult to construct such an article that did not have tortured prose which made the article difficult to parse and obscured (rather than elucidated upon) the details of Cashier's life and disputed identity, and that it was not an advisable solution unless someone managed to first generate something workable. With all respect to whoever produced the worthy effort of the draft version above, I still don't feel that the burden has been met with regard to clear prose that clarifies, rather than confuses.  That said, it's not as awkward as I expected it to be.  I still lean towards the previous consensus version; I think it does a fair job of presenting Cashier's life in a non-prejudicial manner, and in a fashion that is more consistent with the WP:WEIGHT of the sources.  That said, if this will end the highly pedantic debates between two deeply entrenched sides, it may be an acceptable solution.


 * However, I really hope that in endorsing this solution we do not end up with a situation where some of the more battleground editors here decide, in another 18 months, to make a push for referring to Cashier via exclusively male pronouns. The proposed solution here is a questionable concession to the contingent that wants Cashier to be seen as a trans man, being already significantly out of step with the weight of WP:reliable sources. If there is no change in said sources, and this group continues to push in that direction, it will probably be time to look at conduct and inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK, especially given the degree of meat puppetry that has been at work here across the discussions. Personally, I consider it a very reasonable (if clearly empirically unverified) position if one, as a personal matter, decides to assume Cashier must have been a trans man, based on the available historical record.  But as Wikipedia editors, not private individuals, we need more than personal instinct to WP:VERIFY matters and present them in a neutral manner on this project, and we are not here WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or promote particular social views or gender ideologies--no matter how much we sympathize with a class of person whom we feel the history books have often misrepresented or misunderstood. The gender neutral version is an imperfect but probably acceptable solution to this long-standing debate, but it certainly infuses an uncomfortable amount of WP:original research/editorializing about Cashier's identity that is not really fully supported by the sourcing. So I hope the Cahsier-as-trans advocates accepts the windfall here for what it is, and don't look the gift horse in the mouth.  Snow let's rap 21:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed, and well-thought out explanation. I won't respond to everything here, but one thing I wanted to address, was your comment about tortured prose. As a result, I took a crack at a non-gendered version, which you can find here. (Please note, that as much as possible I tried to restrict my changes to those required by the degendering task; that leaves a good bit of awkward prose still in the article (e.g., search 'Typically').)  This is only a first pass and likely can be improved. There's a list of such drafts now below, in section . Mathglot (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like a viable draft to me. I still think the current version is acceptable too (indeed, probably still preferable as a WP:WEIGHT matter) so I will leave my !vote as "neutral". But I must admit, the gender pronoun-less version is not as a problematic as I would have expected it to be. S<b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 05:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, using singular they. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment four additional contributors notified. 74.70.20.198, Crooked star, Jewishhelenarobles, North8000.  Mathglot (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was asked to comment here. My comment is that as the subject of the article was a biological female the article should refer to her as "she". Enough said. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support avoiding pronouns if this is a compromise that will achieve sufficient consensus. Given we can't ask Cashier about their preferred pronouns and there is insufficient consensus to use (a) singular they throughout, (b) male pronouns throughout or (c) female pronouns initially and male pronouns thereafter (per NPR, as a least-worst solution), then avoiding pronouns altogether is a good compromise. —  OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 10:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)  summoned by robot
 * No In human biology, there is no such thing as gender neutral; one is either male or female. It's possible that some people might like to think of themselves as transitioning, fluid or transformed. That thinking, while it must be respectfully accepted, has no bearing on the underlying biology. A man who has undergone a gender reassignment operation is still a biological man, albeit now an eunuch. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that Cashier was biologically a man, or hermaphroditical in any way, only saying that we did not not know how he would have identified in a contemporary situation . Changing the article to not use pronouns is so we can "respectfully accept" both sides of this issue. Audrey (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By "contemporary" do you mean 2018 thinking? If so, I don't see how that would be relevant. Or do you mean the thinking in place in Cashier's own time? If so, do we have any evidence of such thinking? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict):: sorry, but actually, you're mistaken, there most definitely are people whose gender is impossible to determine in terms of the traditional m/f binary. That, however, is not the issue here; there's no suggestion that Cashier was anything other than biologically female. The issue is that in the absence of any statement of gender identity or pronoun preference on Cashier's part, sources and WP editors disagree strongly as to whether to use masculine or feminine pronouns. Since either choice on our part is non-neutral, the solution being considered is to use neither masculine nor feminine pronouns, i.e. to simply avoid the use of gendered third-person pronouns altogether as in the three draft versions of the article referenced above. Cheers, Awien (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as a non neutral gender. To use pronouns to pretend otherwise is in itself POV-pushing. I oppose this pretense: let the biology dictate the choice of pronoun, not wishful thinking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, whichever set of gendered pronouns we use, we're siding with one point of view or the other (go by biology vs. go by apparent choice). So by avoiding the gendered pronouns altogether, we maintain neutrality by siding with neither point of view. Awien (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No. MOS:GENDERID is pretty clear about this. Use the pronouns associated with the gender that the subject identified with. To wit: "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example 'man/woman', 'waiter/waitress', 'chairman/chairwoman') that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification." According to MOS, we don't need to know a person's preferred pronouns to use gendered pronouns. All we need to know is a person's gender self-identification, which in this case we do. Albert Cashier identified as a male, and he/him/himself are the male pronouns in English. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cashier expressed no preference, and the problem is that sources and WP editors have different takes as to what that preference might have been. Maintaining neutrality on the subject by avoiding gendered pronouns is the compromise proposed in order to avoid interminable edit wars. Cheers, Awien (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The article talks about "consistent and long-term ... commitment to the male identity" ... "she worked for Samuel Pepper and maintained her wartime identity [after the war]"? My whole point was: Cashier expressed a gender identity, but did not specify any preferred pronouns. MOS:GENDERID tells us to use gendered pronouns associated with a gender identity, not necessarily preferred pronouns (and certainly not to abstain from pronouns when there is no explicit preference by the subject). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The other interpretation of the facts is that having discovered how much more convenient it was back then to live as a man (work, wages, vote, clothing, etc.), Cashier simply passed as a man for expediency rather than identifying as one psychologically. Awien (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah - the fact of the matter is that in many cases it's really impossible to know, and even in cases where a subject does approximate some statement of self-identification there may be other factors at work (such as a historical lesbian maybe saying that she has the soul of a man because in that period, homosexuality is construed as having the "soul" of the opposite sex). We can only rely on the opinion of reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, also suggesting use of singular they, which is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style as well as the Washington Post styleguide. For historical figures, it remains possible that some of them might be intersex, so this would also support its use. -Mozucat (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Avoid gendered pronouns Use singular they as the most correct choice. Style guides recommend this and it is the least confusing way to present the subject.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose We should use the most common pronouns associated with a person, so as not to be jarring. A gender neutral article is apt to look jarring and forced, and since this person is dead, it should be left with the usual pronouns used by our sources. If someday most reputable historians refer to this individual with male pronouns, then we can refer to her with such but as for now it seems like female pronouns are more common.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  21:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes Use singular they. It's more respectful and less obtrusive than the rather jarring 'she/her', and no longer makes the article a personal crusade for editors with anti-transgender biases. 74.130.72.39 (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Gender neutral pronouns using "they" or "them" will be most effective in stopping editing wars. 64.184.147.30 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose, the 'gender neutral' version is less 'clunky' than I would have expected - nonetheless, there is a 'slippery slope' element here of interpreting historical figures in terms of 2018 perceptions. Cashier is a puzzle precisely because we cannot know her reasons for living as a man. Given the very limited choices available to women at the time, her motives might simply be the rejection of all female social/economic roles available to her at that time - but we cannot know with any certainty why she lived as she did. I was tempted to support the 'gender neutral' version, but in the end concluded that doing so simply 'fudges the issue' and avoids the central fact that sources record her as a woman who lived as a man - pointedly avoiding 'she' effectively imposes on history our contemporary values. Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Pincrete. Wikipedia should follow that reliable sources say on the matter, and most of them view Cashier as a woman. All the propose drafts are also stilted and unwieldy. Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Throwing in a very late vote for singular "they" here. Reliable sources are inconsistent here, so the best route is to discuss the disagreement and avoid taking a specific stand. I think it's noteworthy that many sources refer to Cashier using their assumed name, even though the questions of motivation and identity would seem to apply equally to the adopted name and the adopted gender pronoun. Lastly: academic sources move slowly, but it seems like the more recent coverage of this person in the press is more consistent in identifying Cashier as a trans-man. This may be worth revisiting in the future. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:
 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 16:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think User:Mathglot's draft reads very well. I would only suggest changing "Cashier" to "Hodgers" in the "Early life" section when describing events that took place before the newer name was adopted. <span style="color:#0;border:0;font-weight:normal;padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:1px 4px 8px #F70,-8px -6px 10px #ee7f2d,1px 1px 1px #FFF;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Closing the Rfc
Okay, so it has been over thirty days since this RfC started, and this seems to be the consensus:

11 votes in favor of a gender-neutral article, with 7 proposing the use of singular they pronouns

5 votes against a gender-neutral article, still favoring the use of female pronouns

1 vote of neutrality Would everyone be alright if we proceeded and ended the RfC? Also, take a look at the suggested drafts for the gender-free article below. Thanks, Audrey (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Is 11 versus 5 plus one abstention considered consensus to go ahead?Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  07:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * More than half the vote (65.75 percent) was in favor of revising the article. That sounds like a general agreement to me. Make sure to look at the drafts below. Thanks, Audrey (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Audrey, I'm sorry, I reverted your closure. For one thing, you and I are way too WP:INVOLVED to be closing this. Secondly, you seem not to be aware that Rfc closures are not done by counting "votes". That's why they are called "not-votes". Please seek an independent, uninvolved editor to assess the Rfc. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * For a more detailed description about why neither you,, nor I should be closing this, please see the essay Advice on closing discussions. As creator of the Rfc, you are hardly neutral about the outcome. (Neither am I). In addition, you registered at Wikipedia two months ago.  This is not enough experience to close any Rfc, let alone one you created and have an opinion about.  What we should do now, it to post a request for closure at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.  (By the way: you rated it as 11-5-1 in favor, but I rated it as 3-4-10 against.  Most of the !votes are simple "I like it"&mdash;in most cases&mdash;or "I don't like it" votes, with no argumentation; I discarded those in my count.)  An independent closer is needed to properly assess this. Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and posted a request for closure of this Rfc from an uninvolved editor at the noticeboard. This can sometimes take a while, so please be patient. Mathglot (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Postscript

 * The Rfc has closed. The question remains now, how to implement it.  Interested parties: please add your comments at .  Mathglot (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Implementing the Rfc
The Rfc about pronoun usage has now closed with a result of support for the proposal to "exclude gendered pronouns". That now leaves us with the task of implementing that decision. I'd like to start a discussion about how to do that, here.

It seems to me there are various issues to discuss:
 * what – Several no-pronoun drafts have been proposed; do we want to just pick one of them? Combine a couple of them? Pick and choose bits from among them?
 * how – how do we want to merge portions of a draft into the current article? All at once? Section by section? Other?
 * who – who does the actual change, and does it matter? Should it be just one person?
 * when do we do this?

As far as the "who", imho ideally it should be someone(s) with experience, and without a major stake in the drafts or the outcome although any experienced editor acting in good faith could do it. I think I'd vote to ask Roscelese, Snow Rise, or Awien to do the merge, as each of them had shown some skepticism originally about the proposal and perhaps are not crazy about the outcome, but I trust any of them to perform the implementation. I'd be happy to implement it, but I proposed a draft myself so might not be seen as neutral. I'm not too bothered by when it happens, but sooner is better than later before the current article diverges too much from the draft versions.

Please add your thoughts about this. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For my part, I would have no objection to the implementation of the draft version verbatim, provided it does not substantially vary from the version that was being discussed at the time when I made my last !vote. Mathglot is correct that I was initially skeptical about how smoothly a non-gendered pronoun version could be implemented, and I was mostly won over by the specific wording adapted during the discussion. So, while I am not across-the-board supportive of any version without gender pronouns, I was sufficiently convinced of the potential of that particular draft to forestall further argument about the "appropriate" pronouns and would support it.  Alternatively, I would be willing to help draft a version per Mathglot's request, but must ask indulgence on the timing, as I have very little in the way of discretionary time just now. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 08:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't specify among the three which one you liked.
 * My suggestion would be to choose one of the drafts and go with it, then tweak as necessary or appropriate.
 * I would rather not be the person to do it. Not sure my technical skills are up to doing it correctly, and my only knowledge of the subject is from having become interested through this article. Somebody who has actually studied Cashier would be a better choice.
 * Cheers, Awien (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe this is the version that convinced me that this approach may be acceptable after-all, and comparing it against the alternative draft proposals, it remains the one I am most inclined to endorse. (No offense intended to Audrey or Awien). <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 20:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No offence taken, Snow Rise. It's exactly the basis on which I offered my attempt. Awien (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The thread has been quiet lately, and imho we should complete the Rfc implementation so we can put it behind us and move on. If I were to do this, I would do a section-by-section merge, keeping in mind any changes to the main article that occurred after the draft was created. Roscelese, any thoughts on this, and would you like to do the honors? Do we want to wait and solicit more opinion first, or just do it and then let subsequent editing make adjustments as necessary? Mathglot (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to your going ahead. Awien (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's been very busy in real life and with other projects. I would suggest carefully/selectively merging from Draft:Gender-neutral article, where we've worked out a lot of the stylistic kinks, and yes, making sure that subsequent changes to this article, eg. in sourcing, are reflected. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Comparisons
Things have been quiet here for a while. There's been one suggestion to go with this version (let's call it version A) and another for this version (version B). Diffs are complex and less than helpful in actually seeing the differences, imho, than side-by-side comparison (but if you want diffs, they are here: current::version A, current::version B, version A::version B). A side-by-side comparison is easier to view.

Whether using diffs or side-by-side:but bear in mind two things: so comparisons (of any type) will vary accordingly.
 * 1) there have been subsequent additions to the article since the alternate versions were created, and
 * 2) version A was written more as a drop-in, and version B more just to update sections which need it

Side-by-side comparisons:

3-way: Current::A::B
{| class="wikitable" ! style="color:#307040" |current article ! style="color:#704040" |version A ! style="color:#6060E0" |version B






 * }

Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi : just an FYI, I did not receive the ping here and only noticed the newest request for input because I happened to be checking back in on recent discussions I've participated in; it's possible that the others did not receive the notification as well (there are any number of technical issues that can cause this to happen. As to the inquiry, I lean towards version A over B, but the differences are trivial between the two versions, imo. <b style="color: #19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 21:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the tip. Repinging . Also, don’t want to redo an rfc that’s already had its day by pinging everyone who took part, but should we be pinging anyone else, or maybe just leave this discussion open a month or so and see who weighs in?  I guess the other approach is to just be bold and do something now, and see if anyone complains.  Mathglot (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * hi, you may have pinged me and got overlooked, real life has been demanding. I'm fine with either version, and think by now you would be justified in simply going ahead. Cheers, Awien (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for the re-ping; I prefer version B, but I'm biased because I think that's the version I did some cleanup on. I mentioned selectively loading it in earlier because I know the article has had some expansion/referencing and I wasn't sure if the draft was being kept up to speed, but I'm not opposed to a drop-in on stylistic grounds; we can always keep on tidying it up. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2018
Replace she/her pronouns with he/him pronouns and change references of subject from Hodgers to Cashier. Cashier worked hard his entire life to be recognized as the man he was, and was forced to battle for the right to be buried as a man with the correct name in his gravestone. To refer to him by his deadname and misgender him is disrespectful towards that legacy and the legacies of all transgender individuals living in a time when to be themselves was considered a crime. 137.165.170.56 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ This has already been extensively discussed in archived discussions and a recent Rfc, and is contrary to consensus. Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Cashier image file rename
Heads up, the file used for Cashier's home is still named File:Jennie_Irene_Hodgers_home.jpg, even though Cashier only ever lived in it as a man. Might be worth a request to rename? cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hardly seems worth the trouble, as the viewer of the article would never see the file name. Do you see an argument for changing it? I don't.  It already shows up as the number four result if you search Commons for "Albert Cashier", so I don't really see the point, but I wouldn't oppose it if there were some good reason for it.  I think if it were changed, I'd argue for both names to be included: Jennie_Hodgers_Albert_Cashier_home.jpg. (By the way, I've taken the liberty to rename the section title to something I think will be more transparent; feel free to change it back if you don't like it.)  Mathglot (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Wheelwright
I just implemented more of the changes from Draft:Gender-neutral article and some other stylistic changes. Additionally I removed this source, which was cited only for the statement "within six months, Cashier was dead" (which doesn't seem to match up with the dates either of the transfer to the mental hospital, or the fraud investigation). See Talk:Albert_Cashier/Archive_2.) Here's the citation if anyone sees fit to use it for something else.

–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Fraud
Since women were not permitted in the US Army at that time, the only way that Hodges could have enlisted was to falsely present as a man. This is a fraud. Is this fact disputed? If not, then it may appear in the lead in my view. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He was a man. Stop trying to invalidate trans people. --Wickedterrier (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The assertion that Cashier presenting himself as a man is 'false' in any way is unsupported, and appears to reflect 's POV rather than anything else. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * How is it not false? Had Cashier presented as a female, he/she would have been refused. Yet he/she was enlisted. Therefore he/she presented as a man knowing that that was not his/her birth assignment. That the presentation was knowingly false, is the logical conclusion. To assert otherwise requires us to believe that Cashier had undergone gender re-assignment surgery that was unavailable at the time. A knowing, willing deception of the enlistment officer is the only way that enlistment could have occurred. This does not require any elaborate conspiracy theory; the facts speak for themselves. If anybody has evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it. To assert that Cashier was already male in his/her mind is to apply 21st-century thinking to the 19th century; that would indeed be unsupported and reflect a particular POV. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. If the sources don't emphasize that this was fraud, to say so is WP:NOR. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We could do without you "he/she"ing him (this is transphobic - use "he" or "they" instead). We could also do without you asserting (without evidence) that accepting trans people as who they say they are is "21st century thinking" (we actually exist throughout history, and erasing us in this manner is transphobic). I'd kindly ask that you refrain from engaging in transphobia as that behavior is not WP:CIVIL.
 * To answer your question: I'm sure some at the time (and now, evidently) would view this as fraud. However, in the 21st century, calling this "fraud" would be highly contentious as you're also calling every other trans person fraudulent (which, for the record, would also be transphobic). --Wickedterrier (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be ahistorical to say that Cashier was born in the Republic of Ireland since, at that time, no such entity existed. Similarly, it would be ahistoric to say that it was possible for a woman to enlist in the US Army since, at that time, no such enlistment was legally possible. I challenge the above contributors to produce evidence to the contrary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is not to do research on request to help bigots overcome their bigotry. The fact of the matter is that no reliable source characterises it in the way that you do, and so your point of view should not be reflected in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly assume good faith. With a little self-awareness, you might also see that the comment "to help bigots overcome their bigotry" could equally apply to you. This is not a matter of sources, nor is it a matter of OR. To defend the possibility that Cashier's actions were not the result of fraud, it is necessary for one to say that (Option A) - Cashier was in fact a man when presenting for enlisting or (Option B) Cashier was female but due to a mental deficiency or blindness was unaware of this fact. Is there an Option C? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A, easy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia, we state the facts: born female, enlisted as male. Unless reliable sources interpret this as fraud, which is a pejorative value judgement, we don't say it. To do so would be in breach of two policies: maintaining a neutral point of view, and refraining from making our own interpretation of the facts. Awien (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Laurel Lodged, your insistence about fraud without a scintilla of evidence, and in the face of numerous editors pointing out the requirements of reliable sources to you, is starting to become disruptive. Please provide some sources in your next post supporting claims of fraud, or withdraw gracefully from this discussion.  See additional comments regarding your behavior at User talk:Laurel Lodged. Mathglot (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It would only be disruptive if I persisted in my proposals beyond 3RR; I have not done so. Participating in a free ranging discussion on a talk page is not disruptive; in framing the comment above so as to give the impression that my views, which are mainly contrary to others expressed on this page, are in themselves disruptive is misleading, contrary to the intended purpose of a talk page and, frankly, an attempt to cower and bully me. The attempt will not succeed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What's next, long fights on the Mulan talk page arguing the main character needs to be called a fraud and a con? No sources talk this way so neither will Wikipedia. Rab V (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Laurel Lodged, you're mistaken about what disruption is; it's not only about edit warring; it's also about many other things. Failure or refusal to "get the point" after numerous editors have explained that your original theories about fraud are not appropriate here, can also be disruptive. See WP:DISRUPT for a whole list of other things that constitute disruption.
 * And I am not attempting to bully you, and calling it that when it is not counts for nothing; I am trying to tell you what the proper use of a Talk page is, and it is definitely not for repeatedly expounding your private, original theories about Cashier, or fraud, or anything else, absent any connection to sources. The Talk page guideline specifically says, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it." Others may be complaining about 3RR, but I'm not ; I'm saying that this talk page is about improving the article Albert Cashier; if you don't have a concrete suggestion about how to do that, you're in the wrong place. Your original theories about fraud are bogus, keep them off this page. If you want to discuss your theories about Cashier, try the WP:REFDESK, where it is allowed.
 * WP:TPO permits collapsing threads that are off-topic and not related to improvement of the article. I don't see anything you've raised here that is about how to improve this article. It is disruptive, and a time-sink for other editors here. Please desist. Mathglot (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Cashier should be referred to as a man.
MOS:GENDERID is crystal clear on this:

1. Is this a Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned? Yes. ✅

2. The MOS says Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources. Did Cashiers self-designate as male? According to the article, he had a consistent and long-term (at least 53 years) commitment to a male identity, publicly and privately, until his death, and he was buried under a male name. So Yes. ✅

Therefore, he should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns that reflect how he presented himself.

"But we can't know for sure why he identified the way he did." So what? The MOS doesn't say we need to know the subject's heart-of-hearts, just that we need to reflect the identity they presented.

"But how can we know for sure that he's transgender?" Again, what difference does it make? We don't have to definitively state that he was or wasn't transgender in order to respect how he presented himself to the world.

The article, as it is now, is contorting itself to deny Albert Cashier his identity. I'm disappointed that it's been presenting such a distorted picture for so long. I hope we can work towards making the article both accurate and neutral. Here's my proposed version of the article, which I put forward per WP:BRD. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems open and shut, I agree that we should use masculine pronouns for Cashier. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add: I have looked through the discussion history and do know there was a fairly recent RfC on this. I would've just moved along but, well, the correct version of the article planted itself in my head and refused to leave. :) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 06:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think framing the discussion as our asking "why he identified the way he did" is begging the question in a big way. MOS:ID specifically is not about prioritizing people's expression or appearance over their stated identity. To get into the weeds a little more, what makes dealing with historical cases so interesting and difficult is that - again, still not really why, but can this person be said to have "identified as a man" in a time when "having the soul of a man" was the accepted language to explain lesbianism and/or traditionally male interests. Not that this is the case with Cashier, who doesn't seem to have made that kind of statement either, just pointing out why your comment is begging the question. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Roscelese. I agree that gender and identity are both complex. I also agree that historical cases can be very difficult and need to be approached cautiously. I would never advocate making assumptions about someone's identity. For example, I absolutely do not think that the James Buchanan article should take a definitive stance on whether or not he was gay. And I would never say that Joan of Arc was transgender or male. However, in this case (or in the case of Dr. James Barry), well, he presented as a male practically for his whole life both publicly and privately. It's true we can't know how we would've identified if he was alive today. Maybe he would've identified as a transgender man, or maybe as a butch lesbian instead. Maybe non-binary. Who knows. It doesn't really matter. We can't know how he may have presented himself in some alternate universe or alternate time, but we do know how he presented himself in his time. To refer to him with male pronouns isn't making an assumption or a guess: it's just respecting who he was and the choices that he made. Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 17:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO, based on everything I know about the subject, I agree it's a clear case where we should refer to him as a man, a he; however, given that there as an RFC a mere five months ago which led to avoiding pronouns, I am not optimistic about how well a new RFC (as would be needed to overturn a previous recent RFC, AFAIK) would be received nor about its chances of finding a different consensus. (I would suggest waiting at least a few days on one anyway since WaPo just posted and tweeted some stuff about him, so the article may get some POV-pushers from one POV or another driving by.) -sche (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No. No gendered pronouns, as per the RfC. Anything else is imposing our interpretation on the unknowable. Awien (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2019
"The Lannons discovered their friend's true sex when Cashier fell ill, but decided not make their discovery public."

Should be changed to:

"The Lannons discovered their friend's birth sex when Cashier fell ill, but decided not make their discovery public."

Because "true sex" is an evaluative term while "birth sex" is a term of fact. Nlukeg (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I agree "true sex" is improper, as a value judgement. I wonder if just "sex" would work here, but I suppose having a modifier promotes clarity (being clear even if one is not thinking of the sex-gender distinction). But referring to the sight of an elderly person's body (as opposed to e.g. the uncovering of a birth certificate, or the sight of an infant's body) as discovery of "birth sex" feels weird to me, because it's so far removed from the era of the person's birth. What about "anatomical sex"? -sche (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd lean towards just using "sex". "Omit needless words" - Strunk & White. Given the broader context of the article, I don't think any readers would be confused by it.
 * (There is, as it happens, a specific word for when the gender someone identifies as does not match their sex... but something tells me it would be hard to get consensus for "The Lannons discovered that their friend was transgender". :) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (Went ahead BOLDly made the change.) Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 04:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft links
If you have a draft of the article which conforms to the Rfc suggestion of no gendered pronouns that you would like considered, please link it below. Just bulleted links in this list, please, with optional brief description:


 * Awien's version of 25 June 2018, here on the talk page: above. Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Peter K. Burian's draft from article version 853758013 of 20:36, August 6, 2018. (Tried to pick the one you would have picked; but feel free to change it.) Mathglot (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Albert Cashier/Rfc proposals/Mathglot – gendered-pronoun free. This is an attempt to respond to Snow's concern about awkward or tortured prose. (diff against article version 853921774 of 20:38, Aug 7.) This is only a first pass. Mathglot (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No-Pronoun version From Audrey (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft discussion

 * Add any discussion about drafts below, or use the dedicated Talk pages for drafts that have them.


 * Audrey's no-pronoun – Hey, Audrey, it looks pretty good! A couple of minor possible improvements; I'll add them directly to Draft talk:Gender-neutral article, a bit later. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Audrey's no-pronoun: reads really well! Awien (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I just updated my draft, so it flows much better... Audrey (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Liked it better before; added some comments on the Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your latest changes help a lot, imho. Mathglot (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note on draft boilerplate, and bots deny: Added bots to stop bots from altering the standalone drafts (Audrey's, Mathglot's) so they remain the way you want them. (You can override this to allow individual bots with the 'allow' param.) Also, edited the subst'ed draft boilerplate text so it is now accurate wrt these two drafts. Mathglot (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question, may other users edit the draft? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, as far as my draft is concerned, feel free: edit, plagiarise bits, whatever. But I think I prefer Audrey's as the base to adopt if this goes ahead. Awien (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead on mine, if you like, user: roscelese! (Mine probably needs help anyway) All we want is to improve the page! Audrey (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto on my no-pronoun draft. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like Mathglots', but did we decide we aren't going with singular they? I think that's the best option in terms of prose.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  22:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate my opposition to singular they and would suggest that if you still want to push it, you hold another RFC. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought the RfC was between female, male, and neutral, and I was too busy pushing female pronouns. I think that now that female and male pronouns are both out, 'they' is the least bad option. I will start a new RfC if that's the only way to avoid saying 'Cashier' every second sentence.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds  04:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake re: who had supported what. I'm also very opposed to awkwardness but I think the draft we're working on flows pretty well; I would otherwise oppose replacing the female pronoun version with that version. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Both draft versions look okay to me, but it might be difficult to avoid using any pronouns at all in future edits. Following the WaPo style guide might be useful here. To summarize: prioritize clarity, and reword when possible, but use singular "they" when it is necessary or more clear. One area where this might be necessary in the future is when discussing things that Cashier did or said about themselves. For instance, "Cashier fell down a flight of stairs and broke their hip in 1915", or "Cashier offered conflicting accounts for why they chose to live as man". In cases like that, singular 'they' offers the most clarity. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:
 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your concerns, and these are good hypothetical examples. Note that they both could be written equally smoothly without "they", with just a bit of rewording. For example, "In 1915, Cashier fell down a flight of stairs, resulting in a broken hip", or "Cashier offered conflicting reasons for choosing to live as a man". <span style="color:#0;border:0;font-weight:normal;padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:1px 4px 8px #F70,-8px -6px 10px #ee7f2d,1px 1px 1px #FFF;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to once again emphatically insist that "singular they" be its own RFC. I would be fine with a version that omitted pronouns but would strongly oppose sneaking in singular they via the backdoor in a month. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that many of these cases can be dealt with by re-wording the statement, and the drafts as written seem fine. Roscelese an RfC seems reasonable, but maybe you could explain why you are so opposed to using singular "they"? [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 19:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think because it reflects neither Cashier's life nor the available sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Speaking for ourself, we (that is, Lwarrenwiki) think plural pronouns are jarring when referring to a singular person such as us. :) <span style="padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:-2px -3px 3px #ee7f2d,2px 2px 3px #F70;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 03:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * @Roscolese: but it seems like we're already accepting gender neutrality as the standard, so the question of singular "they" is primarily a stylistic issue.
 * @Lwarrenwiki when I hear an editor say "they is a plural pronoun" I always wonder: "do they actually write and speak that way, or do they just think they do?" [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 00:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It makes one think of Queen Victoria. As they reputedly said, "We are not amused."
 * The royal "we" agrees perfectly with the singular "they", and both usages have distinguished literary or historical precedents. Neither usage could be dismissed outright as unacceptable in English. But this editor finds the royal "we" and the singular "they" to be jarring on stylistic grounds, and is pleased to rank a gender-free version without singular "they" as the most satisfactory choice. <span style="padding:0 1px 0 1px;text-shadow:-2px -3px 3px #ee7f2d,2px 2px 3px #F70;">Lwarrenwiki (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As it stands, I'm on board with the drafts as well, so long as an acceptance of this draft version isn't construed a consensus for never adding pronouns to the article in the future. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 18:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on WP:CCC I think you can set aside any concerns you might have about consensus never changing. Also, regarding your post above about it being difficult to avoid using any pronouns at all in future edits: It's a little bit difficult, but with some thought and creativity, it can be done, as the four different drafts which already do this for the entire article amply testify.  I found it somewhat of a challenge, but easier than I had imagined. Other editors who were initially skeptical of how awkward a read it might be, were later mollified when actual examples were available. Mathglot (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, and kudos to you and Awien for doing excellent work on that front. My reservations are entirely hypothetical and I just want to clarify what I intend by endorsing either draft. [[User:Nblund |<span style="background-color:


 * 1) CC79A7; color:white;">Nblund ]]talk 01:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Revised article, removed gender-based pronouns
I have made the revisions as per the consensus. At times, omitting gender-based pronouns makes the text seem a bit strange. Perhaps someone will make other minor changes for improvement. But please do not use "they" or "their" as a singular word. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus yet; changes to the article involving pronoun changes during the Rfc process have been backed out. Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Really?? Ok, fine, I can access the revised version anytime in future; will make the same changes then. When will a consensus be reached? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The RfC CAN be ended at any time, if a solution becomes clear. Our RfC got a bit off track, but the majority did agree that a no-pronoun version was the best solution, even if it was in a short amount of time. Audrey (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought.. which is why I did the edit, removing masculine and feminine pronouns .. and every word was reverted by Mathglot. Peter K Burian (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The "go-ahead and edit the article" comment in the previous section was made two minutes after the previous comment before that. That's not enough time to wait to close a discussion. There is no hurry to reach a decision here; various discussions about what gender pronoun to use have taken place for a year or more.  There is no reason to be precipitous about a decision now.  Just wait a bit and make sure that participants in previous discussions have all had their chance to participate in this one.  If there's no further discussion a week or two after others have been notified, then the Rfc can be closed.  There's no advantage to rushing things. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The following participants in earlier discussions should be notified of this Rfc: 23.20.10.162, 27.55.5.145, 66.205.171.204, 108.16.207.36, Asarelah, Awien, Bearcat, Bwitiye, Chris Troutman, CityOfSilver, Dane, Dlohcierekim, EEng, FreeKnowledgeCreator, Laurel Lodged, LeGarde-Chiourme, MechaChrist, Nick-D, Ouchlckhcchloh, Pincrete, Roscelese, Serialjoepsycho, Snow Rise, Wilderwill, Yellow Diamond, Yvarta. Mathglot (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC) ✅ Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wording of pronoun warning??
Is this correct??? NOTE ON PRONOUN USAGE: An RfC has been held withdrawing the usage of pronouns on this page. If you wish to propose a change to pronoun usage, please do so on the Talk page.

This is a summary of my recollection of the consensus:

NOTE ON PRONOUN USAGE: Before attempting to change any pronouns used in this article from feminine to masculine or vice versa, be aware that an RFC has already been held on this topic (see Archive 1). If you wish to propose a change to pronoun usage, please do so on the Talk page. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not correct, because it refers to the Rfc in the past tense. The Rfc is ongoing, and should be referred to in the present tense until it closes. Mathglot (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Both versions are in past tense. So, neither is correct? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a previous RFC which had consensus to use female pronouns - if there's an existing edit notice I'd assume it's referring to that one. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I changed it with the intention to end the RfC, due to the majority agreeing on the no-pronoun version in a short amount of time. The one you had was referring to the old RfC, where the people decided to use female pronouns. Audrey (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Female soldier who served as a man during the Civil War
The first paragraph refers to Cashier as one of "women soldiers who served as men during the Civil War. Since we can't ask Cashier if they were a woman, man, or neither, this should be changed to "female" because Cashier has a female body. The article that phrase links to is titled "Female wartime cross-dressers in the American Civil War" so I see no reason to refer to Cashier as a woman. 3CodySU (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Birth name in lede
Restored; this is not a straightforward DEADNAME situation. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

250 others
"Cashier was only one of at least 250 soldiers who were assigned female at birth and enlisted as men to fight in the Civil War". Were they "assigned female at birth" or were they women? Do we know anything about their gender identification? Do we have any reason to suppose that they were not women who were just happy to serve their country? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Without taking a position on whether or not the editorialization is appropriate, I want to clarify that saying they were assigned female is not saying that they weren't women. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't know if they were women; we do know that they were assigned female at birth. The balance of evidence presented in this article points to Cashier at the very least not being a woman, and to identify Cashier as a woman in the lead is inaccurate at best. I'm curious as to your reasoning for wanting to change from the more accurate and neutral "assigned female at birth", too, I don't believe you've presented it yet. Care to share? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The given source says nothing about "assigned female at birth". The given source *does* say, "women"; in fact, it says "women" twenty-seven times. You are substituting your own deduction of what must have happened, for what a reliable source says, which is contrary to verifiability policy, and is original research on your part. You might try suggesting better wording, that hews more closely to the source as a compromise. What about the wording in revision 883460664 by  for example?  I would be fine with that one, and it uses words found in the reference. You've reverted a couple of times now to a version that is unsupportable by sources; that version definitely will not fly for policy reasons, and I will revert it back to a policy-compliant version, if no compromise is found in this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus for Cashier is to avoid gendered terms. "Woman" is pretty gendered. "Assigned female at birth" isn't (and sex assignment dates back to ancient Rome; your claim of anachronism is wildly misguided). The WaPo article refers to Cashier as "biologically female", which is synonymous with "assigned female at birth". AFAB does hew close to the source... as in it's a paraphrasing of what the source says. Doesn't hew much closer than that. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not quite right about the consensus; the Rfc resolved to avoid the use of gendered pronouns, nothing more. Regarding the term assigned female at birth, I'm objecting to the term as an anachronism; there is no use of this term before the 1990s . It's jarring to use it with Cashier, referring to the 1840s; but even if you could excuse that, more important is the fact that it fails Verifiability: there is simply no reliable source that supports the claim that Cashier was assigned female by anybody present. The term biologically female most certainly is not synonymous with "assigned female at birth"; you miss the entire point of why that term was even introduced in the first place; see sex and gender distinction and sex assignment. Mathglot (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Laurel, regarding
 * In most cases, I would agree with you; this may very well be the case for the majority, perhaps almost all of the women who disguised themselves and enlisted. Cashier's case may well have been different; some scholars think so, anyway, and that is covered in the article. The problem is, we can't state it unequivocally in Wikipedia's voice (previous discussions have gone over this point in great detail; see the archives). But more to the point: since this article is about Cashier, and not about the "other women", that question doesn't really have to be answered here. I'd like to see an article devoted to Women soldiers in the American Civil War, then your question would rise to the surface again.  See these two categories. Feel like starting one? Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In most cases, I would agree with you; this may very well be the case for the majority, perhaps almost all of the women who disguised themselves and enlisted. Cashier's case may well have been different; some scholars think so, anyway, and that is covered in the article. The problem is, we can't state it unequivocally in Wikipedia's voice (previous discussions have gone over this point in great detail; see the archives). But more to the point: since this article is about Cashier, and not about the "other women", that question doesn't really have to be answered here. I'd like to see an article devoted to Women soldiers in the American Civil War, then your question would rise to the surface again.  See these two categories. Feel like starting one? Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Paraphrasing WaPo's "biologically female", I'd suggest something like Cashier was one of at least 250 anatomically female soldiers who enlisted as men to fight in the Civil War. (Or indeed, quote their "biologically female" in quotation marks and/or accept the current wording, as of my writing this, as a tolerable paraphrase.) -sche (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I dislike "anatomically female" for reasons I'm going to try (poorly) to articulate. I feel like it's neither a common phrase (like "biologically female") nor accepted jargon ("assigned female at birth"), and it implies (to me) some kind of autopsy-level examination of all these people that isn't borne out by the sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wording like biologically female is not advisable in this article because of ambiguity, and because we have no source for it. I hesitate to get into the minutiae of why, because this is the kind of side discussion that should be taken up at a venue like Sex, or Woman, or Transgender, and often has been.  But, since you're proposing it, I feel I have to respond.
 * It seems to me that most of the time, in general bios and other generalist articles, when someone says "biologically female", they basically mean "born with a vulva". But we don't know this about Cashier.  Perhaps Cashier was one of the possibly 700 intersex soldiers in the Union Army and may have had ambiguous genitals at birth, and ended up being raised a girl. Perhaps Cashier had CAIS and was one of the perhaps 20 Union soldiers with XY genes and a perfectly formed vulva. Given Cashier's career arc, neither conjecture seems all that unlikely. But, there is no way to know this. Or perhaps you meant the phrase differently; that goes to the point of ambiguity.
 * It is, of course, more complicated than just vulviform genital anatomy, as WaID's discussion at Talk:Woman/Archive 15 makes clear (also at Talk:Sex/Archive 5), or just genetics, and as was discussed at some length at Talk:Transphobia/Archive 4, and can get heated (such as at Talk:Clitoris/Archive 10, numerous discussions). But those are the kind of article where people are either already somewhat attuned to problems of sex and gender, or go there to learn about it. I don't think the Albert Cashier article is the right place to get into the niceties of what "biologically female" means. We should neither speculate on what Cashier's genitals looked like, nor the impossible task of determining their sex chromosomes. What we know for sure, is that Cashier was raised a girl.  There are plenty of sources for that, and that's all we should say about it. Mathglot (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Complaining about article sourcing
There is NO evidence that she was a "trans man" other than the speculations --- completely lacking any evidence --- of modern editors. There were many functional reasons that Albert Cashier could have used to "pass" as male: legal independence, ability to vote, etc. And absolutely ZERO evidence cited that she considered herself to be a man as her internal personal identification. Stop trying to rewrite history to fit today's current enthusiasms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done - no sources have been provided for any changes to the article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor have any sources been provided to support your claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.3 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are cited in the article. If any of the statements in the article seem to be unsourced, that would be a good use for this Talk page section. Newimpartial (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no assertion in the article in Wikipedia's voice that Cashier was a trans man, only that people made that claim, and that is well sourced. You are welcome, IP 71, to add claims by reliable authors who claimed Cashier was not a trans man, duly cited to reliable sources. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is a ridiculous standard. Nobody would bother writing an article saying that water was wet because nobody serious claims otherwise. Similarly nobody would write a serious article saying Ms Albert was a woman because there's literally no reason to think otherwise (except validating your gender feels). And we all know that if an academic was to specifically go and refute these claims they'd be doxxed and threatened. Your spurious arguments are just justification for ideological vandals. Also, fwiw, a source isn't automatically reliable because of who wrote it, but because it also purports to have performed research that conceivably relates to the issue at hand. As none of these "scholars" did any research their papers have zero weight outside of Wikilandia. Sadly, you turning Wiki into an echo chamber hurts everyone around the world. InverseZebra (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are in fact a number of sources in the article saying that Cashier was a woman; it's not as difficult to find as you seem to think. In these sorts of matters, we do not add them up and whoever has the higher number wins. The consensus a while back was to present both views. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Cat restore
I've restored Category:Female wartime cross-dressers in the American Civil War pursuant to the extensive discussions where we've declined to take a stance on which sources are correct about the subject's gender identity. (I would consider leaving both categories on even if at a later date we decide that the main body of sources consider Cashier to be one or the other.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Jennie or Mary??
"It took W.J. Singleton (executor of Cashier's estate) nine years to track Cashier's identity back to the birth name of Jennie Hodgers" "Albert Cashier was born Jennie Hodgers in Clogherhead, County Louth, Ireland on December 25, 1843,[7]: 52 [2] to Sallie and Patrick Hodgers.[2]"

Not sure where Mr Singleton got his info, but the parish records do not support his stated finding.

The Baptismal Register records the baptism (not the birth) of "Mary Hodgers" to Dennis Hodgers and Catharine (nee Maguire) on 25 Dec 1843 See Natl Library of Ireland - Baptism Register for Parish of Clogherhead, Diocese of Armagh, specifically, image 47, which is the reverse side of register page 22, where this is recorded.

A search of the same records for the following 6 months fails to show any entry for Jennie, nor any entries for 'Sallie and Patrick'. Transcribed birth and baptismal data at RootsIreland likewise produce no hits on any of those names in County Louth, nor can a Sallie Hodgers be located in any records. The sole reference to that name as a person born and deceased in Ireland is a Find-a-Grave entry that indicates burial site to be unknown - in other words, someone added the entry based on having read about her somewhere - very possibly here.

If anyone has access to Mr Singleton's source info, it might be worthwhile to review it. Irish Melkite (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Huh, that does look like Mary but I can see how it could be misread as Jenny. I'd also be curious about how Singleton got this info. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * That puts us in an interesting situation, because we cannot do anything about this in the article, as it is unpublished original research, even if everyone here would agree with it. Your best bet, is probably to contact one of the authors who has written about this topic and inform them of your finding. Perhaps they will update their work in a future edition, or you might be able to encourage them to write a letter to the editor of one of the reliable trade journals with the new information, which after publication we could then quote as an alternative reading. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert
Reverted recent change due to consensus in favor of avoiding gendered pronouns. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record: these changes (misleadingly summarized as "fixed some grammer mistakes"), and this consensus. Mathglot (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , this keeps happening, over and over. I've added an edit notice to the page, based on the recently expired edit notice from the Military history project, and added information about gender pronouns. It's currently set to expire in a year.  Please click the Edit tab on the article page to see the notice at the top of the Preview window. If you (or anybody) would like to change the wording, feel free to do so, or discuss below if we want a consensus-based wording for it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also added the Preferred pronouns template to the Talk header. See what you think. Mathglot (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Official US government sources use male pronouns for him. He is de jure a man. 2600:100A:B00B:83E4:0:1F:EF63:4E01 (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Rv
Reverted confusing change to lede - Cashier was an Irish immigrant to the US, not the other way round. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)