Talk:Billy Tipton

"Anatomically female" vs. "assigned female at birth"
Given that it's currently the subject of a revert war (in which I am involved), let's try to figure out a consensus one way or the other. My argument in favor of "anatomically female" is that "assigned female at birth" is terminology long postdating Tipton, so it shouldn't be used to describe him; there's theoretically also the MOS clarity argument laid out by in July, but I'm not sure if "assigned female at birth" is unclear enough to be avoided.  O.N.R.  (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Assigned female at birth" is the standard, neutral language used in 21st-century cases, and I do not see a reason to make an exception here. We do not as a rule  "time travel" back to use period language in this way.
 * For example, Vice and The Legacy Project - both independent, reliable sources - use "assigned female at birth". Newimpartial (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, and not trying to make any kind of point about the discussion here, would you consider this section (which I wrote, and contains the terms 'anatomically male' and 'biological males') worthy of an exception to the standard, neutral language used in 21st-century cases?  Tewdar   (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no general rule; context always matters. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's why I'm wondering what you think of the specific case I linked. I used that specific language because it's (a) what the sources use and (b) probably the least problematic language, which can't really be substituted for anything else without losing clarity.  Tewdar   (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, ONR. "Anatomically female" is correct. What they discovered at the time of his death was not what words (i.e. the "assignment") the doctor said when he was born, but rather a fact about his body itself. Compare the principle at WP:EUPHEMISM. The status quo at this article contains "anatomically". Crossroads -talk- 07:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Crossroads, your view that AFAB is a euphemism and "anatomically female is correct is not supported by recent, reliable sources on this topic. Newimpartial (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To put a finer point on it: When he died, did people discover (a) the words the doctor present at his birth uttered, or (b) a physical fact about his body?
 * Let's take a look at some "recent reliable sources":
 * In the process of trying to save his life, paramedics discovered that he was female-bodied. Women and Music: A Journal of Gender and Culture, 2018
 * It was only upon his death that jazz musician Billy Tipton’s three adopted sons and many of his past romantic partners learned that he had been born biologically female. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 2018
 * his 1989 death made headlines when it was discovered that he had apparently been born female The Arts Fuse
 * they discovered that he had typically female anatomy The New Yorker
 * And after his death in 1989, Tipton was tabloid fodder and the subject of a biography by Diane Middlebrook when it was discovered that “she” was female. National Post
 * A number of sources say something like 'it was discovered he was transgender', but that seems unnecessarily vague for many readers.
 * Please do not edit war for this. Without a WP:Consensus to change it, the status quo should remain. Crossroads -talk- 06:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Presenting your personal POV that AFAB is a "euphemism", then supporting it with cherrypicked sources that do not use AFAB while completely ignoring the sources that do, is not convincing in any way. MOS:GENDERID applies to this article, and the standard language (AFAB) is better in line with GENDERID than this "anatomical" nonsense. It seems that this also will have to go to RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this hinges on the "euphemism" claim. I presented more sources than you, and any claim of "cherrypicking" applies equally to you. Your claim that AFAB is "standard language" for this is contradicted by the many recent sources I cited that do not use it to describe this matter.
 * Again: When he died, did people discover (a) the words the doctor present at his birth uttered, or (b) a physical fact about his body? Crossroads -talk- 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that's the argument I should have raised at the start. If "context always matters", then what was actually discovered should take precedence, even if it isn't the typical language used for this situation.  O.N.R.  (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We should follow what the sources say, here. I haven't looked deeply, but what I see at the surface are articles using terms like, "found that he was actually a woman", or similar. In popular usage, even at the level of major news media, gender and sex are often used interchangeably, and when the NY Times or the Seattle Intelligencer say "actually a woman" they are talking about sex, not gender. I'm avoiding saying that they are confused, because I don't think reporters at the NYT or SI are confused about the sex–gender distinction; rather, they are fully aware, and are writing for their audience. But whether they are, or aren't confused is actually immaterial for the purposes of this discussion; what matters is what the preponderance of reliable sources actually say. Wikipedia  follows, it does not lead; we should follow what the sources say, and not be in the vanguard leading the sources to where we think they should go. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, the New Yorker and National Post sources you quoted actually do describe Tipton as "assigned female at birth" at least once. Because Tipton's primary notability comes from being transgender, it's clearly perfectly acceptable terminology to use in this context (i.e. not a euphemism, neologism, jargon, etc.). The term's usage on Wikipedia is fairly well-established, and readers unfamiliar with the phrase can follow the redirect to . We don't get the same luxury with "anatomically female" unless we put a blue link to just female.
 * I don't think using "assigned female at birth" in the lede sacrifices clarity, because the lede is providing a broad description of Tipton himself. This is different from the article body, which is specifically describing the circumstances of his outing; I agree that using physically/anatomically female makes a certain degree of sense there. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 02:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Seeing a lot of recent sources which overwhelmingly use AFAB from a quick search, e.g. SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Variety, Salt Lake Tribune, Unbound by Arlene Stein, the "Express Yourself" chapter in the The Routledge Research Companion to Popular Music and Gender, just to name a few.
 * The sources Crossroads links seem mainly pretty low-quality (do we have any reason to think "The Arts Fuse" an RS? looks like a local theatre commentary blog with a sparse editorial team? Ergo doesn't look too hot either, especially as it's a single throwaway mention in an otherwise non-Tipton related philosophical essay -- no beef with Silvermint, but we should keep in mind WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:RSCONTEXT) or equally amenable to AFAB: the New Yorker article and National Post Crossroads links both use "assigned female" when discussing the wives and family! O brave new world, where sources adduced against AFAB...use AFAB 🤔?
 * IMO "preserve the status quo" and LEADFOLLOWSBODY are good, reasonably conservative general heuristics if you've had the page stable at a specific phrase for a while and someone's proposing a novel change, but sadly we aren't so fortunate--it's ping-ponged back and forth bc of infrequent bursts of editing for a decade with no real lasting agreement (see right), and often both individual people objecting to AFAB or sources that don't use it choose differing, idiosyncratic one-off phrases (just "female"? "female-bodied?" "physically"? "biologically"? "anatomically"?)) such that it's hard to point to one perfectly due, acceptable alternative. If we can't agree on AFAB vs something else it may be better to rephrase the sentence, but it certainly doesn't seem obvious the sourcing supports "anatomically female" more than anything else -- what I'm seeing is majority AFAB. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Y'all, I'm gonna start assuming bad faith with just how many hoops are being jumped through to justify using terms not considered accepted for articles about trans people. - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Two things are both clear: We need to, most important, rephrase so as not to sacrifice accuracy, and, second but not negligible, offend as few people as possible. We can write something like "at death discovered he was transgender". --GRuban (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "at death discovered he was assigned female at birth" is strictly incorrect, what happened at birth was not discovered at that time
 * "anatomically female" in the lead is offensive to trans people; I won't venture to explain why to avoid offending further
 * See no objections, so making the change. --GRuban (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop changing HIS pronouns.
This is vandalization. Billy used he/him pronouns in his adult life. Being born female ≠ uses she/her pronouns. 2603:6010:53F0:8D60:C0D0:9E28:896:BE93 (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

He was born female. Being trans isn't a choice and trans men have always been male. They were just assigned female at birth @User:2603:6010:53F0:8D60:C0D0:9E28:896:BE93 Stephanie921 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit dispute (born vs. assigned name)
@Mathglot I should have discussed this here rather than edit warring and I am sorry. Please can we discuss our dispute here? I don't think it was OR as the grammar isn't specified in the source. It just says her assigned name. So it's up to us editors to say assigned/born/something else, as did the editor who originally wrote "born". I think assigned is appropriate. Aside from that, I've already said my reason, so the floor is yours if u like Stephanie921 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the proper location for discussing content disputes. You don't owe me an apology, no incivility was involved, but thanks for the olive branch. In my opinion, phrasing like "Assigned Dorothy Lucille Tipton in Oklahoma City on December 29, 1914..." (emphasis added) is awkward and inappropriate; I don't see any sources that use that kind of phrasing, while the wording, "Born &lt;original name> in &lt;location>..." is common. At this point, I'm content to let other editors weigh in, if they wish to. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting, why do you think it's inappropriate? I understand awkward from the reasoning you gave - although I completely disagree - but I don't understand why you think it's inappropriate Stephanie921 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a notice for any other editor who wants to chime in, so they understand the nature of the discussion: I think the opening of the early life section should say 'Assigned', because 'born' implies he chose to be trans - which isn't true cos being trans isn't a choice and trans men have always been male. However, Mathglot disagrees and thinks the current wording is fine due to the reasons they have said on this talk page. @User:Mathglot idk your pronouns so feel free to tell me and I'll correct my message here if necessary Stephanie921 (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification of the discussion issue. They is fine; thank you for asking. Mathglot (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Luvly, cheers guvna! Stephanie921 (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen "assigned" followed by some sort of codename or call sign, but wouldn't it be a very unusual choice of word to preceed an actual name? Is there evidence that "assigned [name]" is a common construction? I don't think that "born" implies anything except that that is what someone chose to name a baby. It applies to every baby that has ever been given a name. We have to remember that we're writing for people to read, not to make a point or 'right great wrongs': if this construction is unusual enough to make a lot of readers think "'assigned'... that's a strange word to use here", then we, as writers/editors, are getting in the way. I think that's the case with the proposal to use "assigned [name]". EddieHugh (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that way. If someone says Billy Tipton was born female then that's inaccurate, because being trans isn't a choice and trans men have always been male. So I think saying he was "Born [assigned name]" like the article currently says is inaccurate as it reads like he was born a different gender. I think it's historically accurate to use assigned rather than born and I think it is a common term. And even if it wasn't, phrases like 'the name he was assigned at birth', 'gender assigned at birth' and 'AFAB' are in mainstream use, so people unfamiliar with 'assigned name' would quickly figure out what it meant. Just like phrases like 'born a woman' or 'biological female' are against the Wikipedia manual of style to refer to trans people, I think a similar principle applies here cos 'Born' reads the same way. Stephanie921 (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (Risking getting philosophical...) does a name have an inherent gender? Some are strongly associated with one, but really it's just a collection of letters/sounds. Even Wikipedia's Dorothy (given name) asserts: "Although much less common, there are also male equivalents in English such as Dory, from the Greek masculine Δωρόθεος (Dōrótheos). Dorofei is a rarely used Russian male version of the name." We could use "assigned [name]" for everyone, but that would take us back to my previous points about this being at least unusual, as well as confusing for readers. EddieHugh (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting issue, but I don't personally see anything glaringly wrong with the current text. Although I see the obvious parallel with assigned sex, "assigned [name] (at birth)" looks like an uncommon turn of phrase even among trans activists. [Name] (born [Given Name]) seems like a fairly ubiquitous trope in biographical writing, and MOS:GENDERID currently treats it as an acceptable way to mention a subject's deadname. I don't see a real need to change this, but I think the preferred form would be Tipton was born ... and given the name Dorothy Lucille Tipton. He grew up in ... –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Billy Tipton was not a transgender. She could not make a living as a jazz musician at that time as a female. So she did what she had to do to earn a living - pretend to be a man. Think of females who pretended to be men to fight in wars where women were not accepted as soldiers. 2600:1004:B184:CB56:B4E8:8EA9:F523:CFF5 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you make of the fact that Tipton had three common law wives and two unofficially adopted sons, & all of them knew Tipton as male? If that is not transgender, please explain to me why not. P.S. I think that "assigned female at birth" is a perfectly good way to describe Tipton's original gender status. Peaceray (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)