Talk:Marsha P. Johnson/Archive 1

Birth year
1945 based on sign archived here. Fales Library Guide to the REPOhistory Archive Not the best source, but trans history gets pretty murky back then. Jokestress 06:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1945 does look to be correct, according to the Social Security database. I searched on Johnson's birth name and place, including date and location of death for additional confirmation, and widening the search to include anyone of that name born within two years to either side of 1944. There is only one Malcolm Michaels, Jr on record for Elizabeth, NJ who fits those parameters (including the known detail that Johnson was also known as "Mike" or "Mikey" by family), with a birth date of 24 Aug 1945. - Corbie V  ☊☼ 22:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender
I think it's a bit disingenuous to refer to him as a she, regardless of his sexual identity. I suggest we refer to him as a she only after that identity was adopted, not before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.114.207 (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The female pronouns are a drag queen thing. Most of Marsha's friends used she/her for Marsha, most of the time, but it was also common to use those as friendly (or catty) referrers to gay men then, as well. It's subcultural. Marsha didn't freak out if someone used male pronouns, either, as long as it wasn't done in a hateful way. If you watch the documentary she says things like, "I'm a man," two days before her death. Marsha didn't have a different personality in and out of drag. She just dressed femme most of the time, but she didn't do anything to change her body (even temporarily, as some queens will use strategic padding for performances). She was more like a radical faery than a high drag performance queen. - Corbie V  ☊ 21:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Carter goes into Johnson's 'male persona' as well. Looking for the page number now. The only mention I've seen of the "Marshall" name being used, besides hearing it from Johnson and mutual friends, is in a comment in the zagria source. The zagria source is interesting. Though it is hosted on blogspot, it is footnoted. I venture to say it wouldn't be seen as questionable if they had the resources to set up a proper website. I'm for including that page as a source due to the footnotes, much as we accept official sites that happen to use wordpress software as a hosting platform. - Corbie V  ☊☼ 17:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, in Carter it's the last three pages of chapter three, but it's generally about Johnson's "male persona" than specifics about pronouns. We didn't care so much about pronouns then as some do now, so I'm not surprised it's not spelled out. The online preview doesn't show page numbers. I'll keep my eyes open for sources on the "Marshall" thing. Randy Wicker has an interview with Johnson's sister where she calls him Mikey, and that is one of the names Johnson used when applying for social security (seen in source one). Contrary to online misinformation, Johnson never filed for a legal name change, and seemed to be in 'male persona' more and more often from the 1980s on. -  Corbie V  ☊☼ 18:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear that the assertion that Johnson identified herself as a woman is supported by the reference.

> Over the years, Johnson identified as a "drag queen", a "boy in drag", a "girlie", a "gay transvestite", a "homosexual", a "street transvestite", and finally, as a "woman", as indicated in the 1992 video interview with Johnson a few days before she died, in which she stated, "When I became a drag queen, I started to live...my life, as a woman."

"I lived my life as a woman" is not the same as "I am a woman." Transforming "I lived as a woman" to "I am a woman" seems like putting word's in Johnson's mouth, especially given the innumerable instances where Johnson refers to herself as "gay," i.e. a homosexual man, as well as a "transvestite," in this case a man who wears women's clothing. Is there another source that more clearly states that Johnson considered herself to be a woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.113.72 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC) (created an account: --Justthefacks (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC))

REGARDING MARSHA P. JOHNSON'S STATUS AS A TRANSGENDER WOMAN

Marsha never referred to herself as a "man", as is frequently misquoted in this section. She tolerated people mis-gendering her by "paying it no mind", and described herself as "gay" "homosexual" etc to indicate her cultural and sexual orientation, not her gender identity. That analysis is not supposition; it is evidenced by her entire life and trajectory. "Living my life as a woman" exactly describes the experience of a transgender woman. please read the wiki page defining 'transgender woman" for contemporary definition. Marsha continually differentiated her lived experience from that of the gay men surrounding her. in one example she states that Stonewall was a bar "just for gay men" (thereby excluding her) and later allowing "women and drag queens" to enter. If she was a "gay man", as one editor continues to suggest, she could have entered a bar for gay men. Yes, Johnson referred to herself elsewhere as "gay" but not as a "gay man". she referred to herself as a "gay transvestite" which intuitively describes both her sexual orientation (as being attracted to men) and her gender identity (as living "as a woman"). The word "transgender" didn't even exist when Marsha was growing up, and people utilized the words that were available then to describe their experience. To use her moments of self identification as "homosexual" or "gay" as evidence that she thought of herself in any way as "man" is misleading and transphobic. During Marsha's formative years, the street meaning of words like "gay" and "homosexual" didnt necessarily denote a gender identity in the way that the words do today. "Gay" could refer to anyone from a man who had sex with other men to a fully-fledged hijra. Critically, all of Johnson's closest friends still living identify her as "transgender", not as a "man". Randy Wickers, Marsha's roommate and patron for years, especially insists on it, as do all those who knew and loved her.

Marsha was an impoverished homeless prostitute for much of her life. The governmental and medical establishments of the 70s 80s and 90s were grossly transphobic, not to mention racist. Applying for a government name change would have required a level of bureaucracy that was not on Johnson's radar, especially as someone struggling with mental health issues, homelessness and AIDS. Her willingness to endure misgendering on birth certificates, social security documents or from medical institutions is not evidence of her waning core gender identity. She was struggling to survive and did not have the privilege, resources or mobility to pursue such ends. She picked her battles and expressed her primary sense of self in her daily presence just walking down the street. Randy Wickers' decision to take her in off the streets was contingent upon her wearing male clothes when coming and going from the building, and Randy describes how Johnson would change into women's clothes on the train on her way into the city, so again it is inaccurate to describe Johnson's transgenderism as having waned, especially in light of her final interview, in which she expresses her life as having been lived "as a woman". Furthermore, being misgendered by family members is not evidence of Johnson's maleness; it is evidence of her family's transphobic tendencies, which Johnson vividly recounts at the end of her life.

Today Marsha's gender identity falls under the category of "transgender woman" since her represention of her own womanhood was neither fetishistic (contemporary definition of a "transvestite") or solely performative (contemporary definition of "drag queen".) Her self-identification as a "drag queen" was a colloquialism that would today fall into the category of "transgender woman" because her dressing in women's clothes and referring to herself as "she" was not done solely for the entertainment of others (please see wikipedia definition of "drag queen",) but as a clear representation of her essential self. To this end, I know transsexual women even today who will refer to themselves as "queens" in the right company. The appropriation of terms like "gay" and queen" by some transgender women often reflects someone who was identified as a child as an unusually feminine "gay" and who was downstreamed(!) into the margins of gay society as a young adult, versus the "culturally heterosexual" transgender woman, who endured childhood in the closet, often presenting as a masculine heterosexual man until such time as her frustration compelled them to transition, mostly as an adult. There is still a rarely addressed chasm of difference between the ways that trans women from these two radically different trajectories utilize language, and of course there is a bit of cross over, but not much. However. as children transition younger and younger now, those cultural divides between these different branches of transgender women are breaking down. It often seems that "culturally heterosexual" transgender women have a hard time wrapping their minds around the lives of "culturally homosexual" transgender women, and these kinds of dismissive readings of Johnson's self identification are case in point. Compound this with differences in race, class and access to resources between different kinds of transgender women, and you are faced with subcultures of people using some of the same words in wildly different ways.

The very fact that all these editors are referring to Marsha as "she" while trying to insist that she was "man" is ironic to say the least and speaks volumes about Marsha's enduring core gender identity. To dismiss her female identification and its recognition by others as a "drag queen thing" is not only inaccurate; it diminishes her life, her courage, and her contribution as a frontline activist and pioneer for transgendered rights. There were plenty of actual drag queens around during Johnson's lifetime who lived lives of male privilege by day and then dressed up to entertain other gay men at night. If she was really more like a "radical faerie" than a transgender woman, why was she compelled to suffer for years as a cross-dressed street prostitute? She herself says that a life of street prostitution is a terrible one. If she had the agency of a gay man, why didn't she just get a job as a waiter and enjoy her "radical faerie" gender expressions on the weekends? What man cross-dresses during the course of his entire life just so that he can be a transgender sex worker, risking his life on a daily basis so that he can eat? Such a paradigm simply does not exist.

One editor uses Johnson's lack of use of padding as a further lack of commitment on Johnson's part to perform as female. But in Pay It No Mind, Johnson talks about using her natural hair to be more attractive to men, and her friends refer to her as striving for a "natural look". And the very fact that she "didnt have a different personalilty in and out of drag" is further evidence that she was a transgender woman 24 hours a day, no matter how she was dressed.

Only representing Johnson's gender identity with antiquated language, the meanings of which have since changed and which were colloquially charged to begin with, leads to a misrepresentation of the subject's life and core identity. In my view it is important both to represent her multi-faceted use of language to describe her identity and then to frame her life to the best of our ability with contemporary language in an effort to better understand and represent it to readers. Rebismusic (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you check Marsha's birth certificate, check the date of when it was sent, probably paid for (1990), she still identified as a "male" and her legal name was still Malcolm Michaels (with just the "Jr" designation removed). If she really had transitioned and "was a woman" as you said (again, she only said "woman" as something she identified with and at the time that wasn't enough to say you were transgender, and we don't know if she only said that because she suffered from depression and had suicidal episodes). A final decree could be a death certificate but remember when she initially considered transitioning, it was in 1972 and eighteen years later (and less than two years before she died), she still was identified as "male". It's true she never said she was a "man" in the final interview but she also said she was gay (or a homosexual) and also said things like "people couldn't believe I wasn't a real woman, I was just a transvestite" and recalled what her mother told her after he came out as gay, saying "being homosexual was lower than a dog [to her], she told me 'you're gay, you're lower than a dog'", which is something written in the same article. So how can she be transgender and still refer to herself as a homosexual in the same interview? You see what I mean? Sylvia did the same thing and she wasn't a trans woman (as far as I know anyway) either. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 21:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Timothy, thank you for joining me in talk. Many of your questions are answered in the post prior to yours, but i will try to respond to each of your points for clarity.

If you check Marsha's birth certificate, check the date of when it was sent, probably paid for (1990), she still identified as a "male" and her legal name was still Malcolm Michaels (with just the "Jr" designation removed 

In order to change your sex on your birth certificate in those days you had to have completed a full sex change operation or have a very crafty doctor. Marsha was beholden both to welfare services and the lowest rung of medical care, and she without the means to attain legal advice. She had a long criminal record and would have been loath to engage city institutions to endure the humiliation of trying to charge her name legally. Her birth certificate was likely her only piece of ID. Remember that her motto was "Pay it No Mind".

''If she really had transitioned and "was a woman" as you said (again, she only said "woman" as something she identified with and at the time that wasn't enough to say you were transgender, and we don't know if she only said that because she suffered from depression and had suicidal episodes). she also said she was gay (or a homosexual) and also said things like "people couldn't believe I wasn't a real woman, I was just a transvestite" ''

Marsha grew up in the homosexual street subculture and was attracted to men. In those days transgender women who had grown up as very feminine "boys" and who sought out gay subcultures to find like minded people would often appropriate some language used by gay men to describe their identities. This was before a category of "transgender" was available to them, and many of them used the words "gay" and even "homosexual" to describe their specific type of transgender experience. Imagine that "gay" describes her sexual orientation and "transvestite" describes her gender identity. This makes it easier to understand. The only other newly emerging category in the 70s was "transsexual" and even some transsexuals still identified as "queens" in the right company. It might seem complicated to understand but these words meant different things to different demographics during different periods of history. The word "drag queen" today refer very specifically to gay men who dress in women's clothes in order to entertain others. Marsha does not fit this description. She was a street prostitute who lived most of her life dressed as a woman because that was how she felt most comfortable.

Regarding her mental health, there are plenty of people with more than one thing going on in their lives, and their are plenty of transgender people with mental health issues, but i have never seen evidence or documentation of a person who was only transgender because of their mental health, especially not someone as naturally feminine as Marsha. In fact, one source in the wiki article expresses that her expression of her female transgender identity would falter when she was having mental health issues, not the other way around.

Please look up the definition of "transgender woman" here on wikipedia. You might be surprised to realize that the category is much broader than simply those who have taken steps to transition via medical surgery.

''A final decree could be a death certificate but remember when she initially considered transitioning, it was in 1972 and eighteen years later (and less than two years before she died), she still was identified as "male". ''

A death certificate would not be able to report on Marsha's gender identity but only on the remains of the body that the coroner examined.

Did you know Marsha personally? All of her closest friends here in NYC considered her to be a transgendered woman and refer to her as such today. The only people who might contest it are those gay men who havent accepted transgender as a legitimate status at all, but unfortunately those are not enough grounds to rewrite someone else's lifelong narrative.

''Sylvia did the same thing and she wasn't a trans woman (as far as I know anyway) either. ''

Actually Sylvia very vocally identified as a transgender woman later in her life, and you can find many videos of her on youtube discussing this, starting in the late nineties until she passed away. She would never have suggested that Marsha was anything other than a transgender woman.

I hope this helps to clarify things for you. It is so important, especially now that Marsha P Johnson is becoming a more visible icon in the world, that her Wikipedia entries are accurate and dignified and recognize her work, her courage, her identity and her vulnerabilities. A whole new generation of young people are learning about Marsha now. As someone who was closer to her, it is important to me that she is represented with the respect and accuracy that she deserves. It will make a huge difference to trans kids around the world. Imagine how confused they would be to try and visualize Marsha P. Johnson as one of the drag queens on Rupaul's Drag Race. She was not as they are, in fact she was barely a performer, and she was always 100 percent herself.Rebismusic (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Rebismusic: do you have a source that says Johnson identified as transgender or as a women, i.e. "I am a woman" or equivalent? If not, the most generous way to describe that assertion here (that Johnson was transgender) is "original research." As far as I know this is not allowed on Wikipedia. If there's no source for the claim that Johnson identified herself as transgender this claim should be removed.


 * Above is my "technical" complaint. Some additional editorial thoughts follow: In gender/trans theory, how a person self identifies is considered paramount. Telling someone who never explicitly identified as trans "you're trans" is no less misgendering than telling someone who identifies as trans "you're not trans." Johnson was a person with her own identity who lived when she lived, not in 2017. Whether she would identify as "trans" today, we'll never know, and it's not responsible or respectful to assume we know the answer to that. All we can say about Johnson's identity (at least here on Wikipedia) is what she herself said, and she did not say she was trans.


 * In the source you quoted, Johnson says "When I became a drag queen, I started to live...my life, as a woman" (emphasis added). If you really want to draw a conclusion about Johnson's "ultimate identity" from this quote, it would make more sense to say she ultimately identified as a drag queen (which she "became"), not a woman (which she "lived as"). To repeat: can you please provide a source stating clearly in Johnson's own words that she identified as trans or considered herself "to be" a women? So far there's little more than conjecture here. Justthefacks (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I can see your point.My goal is to remove the presumption that the word "drag queen" in Johnsons vernacular means the same thing as it does to people today. I have proposed a new soultion in the opening statement that is very specific in this regard. Let me know what you think.Rebismusic (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear "Just The Facts" Thinking more about your statement, of course you are correct that how a person self-identifies is paramount. And of course telling someone what gender they are is a fool's game. But that is not the situation we are faced with here. In this case, we are trying to best understand how to represent a person who has been dead for 25 years who used a panoply of words to describe herself, including "drag queen", long before the word "transgender" was being significantly circulated, but whose life in no way conformed to the contemporary accepted definition of "drag queen". (see link to Bob Kohler's statement "in those days we didnt have transgender") This is a person who never explicitly identified as a "man" but is on record as "living as a woman". And this is a person whose narrative is being contexualized right out of the gates within the modern definition of 'drag queen', a classification which refers overwhelmingly to gay men who dress in exaggerated female costumes to entertain others (while marsha was a homeless sex worker, noted for wearing her own hair and for having a "natural look" because she felt it made her more attractive to men.) There are obvious issues here of era, race, class, sexual orientation, privilege, and transphobia that are erased by simply stating that Marsha P Johnson was a drag queen and linking to the wiki page on drag queens for further information. Furthermore, in response to your statement that Johnson cannot be identified here as trans because she never explicitly stated she was trans, the definition on wikipedia of "transgender" says that the term extends to include cross-dressers, and she certainly identified as a "transvestite", and if transvestites are indeed a subset of transgender people then by Wikepedia's own standard, Marsha qualifies at the very least as a transgender person who was "living her life as a woman". Randy Wicker, Johnson's best friend and roommate for the last ten years of her life, refers to Johnson exclusively as transgender. In any case, as someone who knew and admired Marsha P. Johnson, I represent those who find this approach of reducing Johnson's experience to that of a drag queen without any qualification on the matter to be offensive, disrespectful, and an unjust misrepresentation of her life.[User:Rebismusic|Rebismusic]] (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't recall Randy mention Marsha being transgender in that documentary you cited. Neither did Agosto Machado, another androgynous gender non conforming gay activist that you quoted as saying she was transgender. The only one who said so was Michael Musto when he mentioned her being in Andy Warhol's Ladies & Gentlemen series, describing her as a "transgender version of Campbell's Soup, but a prettier one"; Musto was the only one to mention "transgender" among those interviewed; but neither he nor anyone else interviewed ever uttered that she was transgender or even transitioned (if she did, I think it would've been brought up, no?); I did hear "drag queen" from Randy and Agosto though when they described her (as did most of the people interviewed in the documentary, most of them mentioned her being a drag queen way more so than a transgender woman; in fact one person even used he/him pronouns for Marsha. Otherwise, whenever Marsha was discussed, it was as a gay person. Not necessarily a gay man, but a gay person nonetheless; the "saint of gay life", "homophobic gay men" in response to the backlash she got from other gay men about her presence at Christopher Street and in Greenwich Village entirely. Also, a transgender person profiled on HBO years ago described the difference between a transgender woman (who she was) and a transvestite saying transvestites "wore women's clothes and lived as women". Which is what Marsha basically said; again, Marsha's description that when she became a drag queen, she lived her life as a woman, that can explain most drag queens who don't transition though some drag queens eventually do transition; like I said, if Marsha was serious enough to have surgery, she'd save enough money so she could get it done but she never did and seemed to be satisfied on being a gay person. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

please understand that transgender people do not have to undergo surgery in order to be transgender, or to be "serious" about being transgender. In fact, they dont have to transition in any recognizable way at all. The word transgender is an umbrella term that potentially embraces a wide cross section of gender variant people, according to the wiki definition of transgender, and can include people who also identify as "gay". i think you are confusing the word transgender with transsexual. you rightly note that she doesnt call herself a gay "man" but just "gay" and that is the crucial distinction. she was not another gay "man" according to her own self ID, but she did share aspects of gay culture with gay men.


 * Well back in those days, "transgender" was hard to define. If you wanted to transition, they didn't use "transgender", they used "transsexual", if one was to transition, whereas transgender wasn't even around at the time. It's kinda vague to put every drag queen in the column of transgender though a good portion of drag queens did transitioned, Marsha herself never did. Even Sylvia Rivera eventually got on hormonal treatment and started growing breasts and she and Marsha were in that same boat together. So if Sylvia managed to transitioned, why didn't her best friend in the world join her? You see what I'm saying? Both of them were dead broke and homeless and had to hustle in the streets but Sylvia still got around to transition while Marsha, for some reason, decided not to (from what I can gather). And as I understood, no, you have to have surgery to transition. I think when we talk about Marsha, we have to respect what she herself said. YES she said she "began living as a woman" when she became a drag queen, but it's still not the same thing as "being a woman", you know? For her, acquiring another gender meant to see if "she could get away with it" (her words) and despite all those scrapes and being shot at and thrown in the river, she was proud she survived it up until that fateful day when she disappeared on June 30, 1992 before she was found in the Hudson River six days later. I mean I understand what you're trying to say but in Marsha's own mouth in the final interview she did, she still say she was gay. That's just a fact. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No one is denying that she self-identified as gay. She did not, however, identify as a man, and the transphobic sentiment that trans people must medically transition to be "seriously trans" does not enter into this. Whether or not someone is trans is not determined by whether or not they wanted, or could even access/afford hormones, etc. The fact that she did not change, or could not easily change, given her life situation, the name on her birth certificate does not make her any less trans. Whether or not someone is transgender is not defined by any of these things; it's defined by the lived and experienced gender of that individual.


 * Marsha P. Johnson lived her life as a woman. We have a source for her saying this. She was most definitely a transgender person, living as a woman. She was not a drag queen, certainly not as would be understood today. To link to drag queen in her lead, but not reveal that she was in fact trans, frankly only serves to perpetuate negative stereotypes, and misinformation. At the very least, we should be able to say that she lived as a woman in the lead, and add that all her close contemporaries have since clarified that she was a trans woman. Language around gender was different at the time, and we cannot misapply terms like "drag queen", to a woman who was only herself, for herself, and not simply for the entertainment of others, as drag queen is defined. She was not a tranvestite, either, as there was not a fetishistic aspect to her gender presentation. How can we denying that she was trans?× SOTO (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture
According to Stephan L. Cohen's book "The Gay Liberation Youth Movement in New York: 'An Army of Lovers Cannot Fail'" the picture used for this entry is not Marsha P. Johnson. Photographer Diane Davies, who took the picture, mis-labeled the photo as Marsha when in actuality it is a portrait of Nova, a member of the the New York-based gay liberation organization Gay Youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.67.167 (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the New York Public Library has it wrong. Was it just the one photograph that was mislabeled? Davies also had some other photos of Johnson. Gobōnobō + c 07:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks as if it was just the one photo that was mislabeled. Cohen (p. 48) notes that ze was identified by Bob Kohler July 21, 2003 and Perry Brass, January 7, 2007. Gobōnobō + c 21:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Transgender
Some contributions I made to the article were reverted. One reversion that was mystifying and unexplained was taking down a reference to Johnson as a transgender rights activist; she is labeled as such by many of the sources already in the article and in the infobox in the article. Another reversion took down references to Marsha herself as transgender. This is referenced in two academic texts that I added as citation. There is also an interview, can be found here, with Marsha P. Johnson where the interviewer asks if she's a pre-op transsexual and planning to have gender reassignment surgery, which she says she plans on having in a year. This question is on p. 29 of the Rapping With a Street Transvestite interview. I believe these sources are strong enough to refer to Marsha as transgender or transsexual in the article, but let me know if there is any issue I'm missing or an opinion on how this information should be added. Rab V (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Rab, on WP we go with the person's last stated identification rather than things they might have said once when much younger. There is no year on that interview, but given the discussion, terminology and financial amounts stated, I think it was very early (probably early 1970s). Johnson never followed through, and over and over in that same piece Johnson self-identifies as a "gay transvestite." That interview was the only instance I've seen or heard of Johnson saying that s/he was considering surgery, and it is overwhelmed by all the times Johnson identified differently, especially near the end of her life where s/he said, two days before s/he was murdered, "I'm a man." As I commented above, near the end of Johnson's life, Johnson was increasingly presenting in the Malcolm, Marshall or Mikey persona. If we can find corroborating evidence, I think we could use it as a source for, as in the Rivera article, a brief bit under the identity section about having considered transition when younger but ultimately rejecting it. I think the interview in "Pay it no Mind" supersedes that one statement, even if we decide to mention in the gender section that s/he considered it.


 * I did a text search on both of Stryker books and re-read the chapters where Johnson is mentioned and there is nothing to support Johnson identifying as either transsexual or transgender. If you think I missed something, please post an exact quote with page numbers here so we can discuss it. Stryker's choice to include a few lines on STAR in a chapter on trans activism is not a statement of self-identification by Johnson. As I went into over at Talk:Sylvia Rivera, the word "transgender" had not yet come into popular usage while Johnson was alive. The small number of us who were using it in the early '90s were doing so to describe all gender-nonconforming (gnc) people. It was also used specifically to distinguish gnc people from transsexuals who were taking a medical/surgical route. In Rivera and Feinberg's early usage, they meant all gnc people, and from everything I can find that they wrote and said, as well as personal memories of community discussions they were in, that is the meaning they continued to use for the rest of their lives. When you swapped in "transgender" you also removed citations where Johnson and Rivera refer to themselves and each other, over and over, as queens.


 * Despite this (but I do think it's fudging in a bit), due to Rivera's later renaming of STAR I think it's acceptable to have "transgender activist" in the body of the article, just not the lede as that was not Johnson's main focus. Rivera founded and later renamed STAR, not Johnson. It's in the infobox up top already.


 * While the Untorelli compilation is very useful, there are also issues with it. It's self-published, isn't it? There's a lot of opinion in there by the editor that does not line up with what the subjects had to say for themselves, and it's seriously lacking in context for many of the pieces. There are some statements in there by Johnson and Rivera that make no sense, that contradict themselves mid-paragraph. I would really, really like to see more about the original documents, and basic documentation like what years the interviews were done. For instance, did Rivera type this up herself? Write it by hand? Dictate it? Obviously some of it, like the 1973 Liberation Day speech is transcribed. And.... we have to ask, what state of mind was Rivera in? These pieces were written or transcribed over a wide range of time, and only compiled after Johnson and Rivera were both dead. Rivera struggled with heroin and alcohol addiction, and Johnson had severe mental illness. Given this, contradictory statements are no surprise. So while I feel it's useful for some sourcing, I really feel we need to confirm some of the things in there with additional sources.


 * Again, some of these words have changed in meaning over the years since they died. In some cases, the change in definition has been radical, and to apply them retrospectively would misrepresent the subjects. Not all writers in the field seem to know this. As on other historical articles, it's not our place as Wikipedians to speculate on what dead people would have called themselves now. It's our place to document how they self-identified, and then if footnotes are needed to explain how meanings have changed, as is done on other historical gay/LGBT articles, that's what we do. Best, - Corbie V  ☊☼ 15:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I just removed two citations used to show they identified as queens since I didn't see that information in the references. I am not arguing they had never identified as such, and didn't change the content of the article in that regard, just changed the citations. It sounds like I missed the relevant info in the sources though I haven't checked back again. The untorelli compilation was linked since it is available online in it's entirety, but the interview appeared beforehand in the book Out of the Closets edited by Karla Jay and Allen Young and was first published in the 70s. The interviewer is cited as Bob Kohler of the Gay Liberation Front. Rab V (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have changed the citation from Untorelli to the original "Out of the closets" published and copyrighted by Allen Young who was the interviewer. Untorelli as an anarchist group apparently doesn't respect copyright law and doesn't bother itself with attribution. Pjefts (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Marsha P. Johnson's documentary and her gender
I find it interesting that one editor seemingly keeps editing information about Johnson. At no point in the interview did she mention being a transgender woman. Most drag queens like Johnson often talked of "living life as a woman" without actually going through with transitioning, which was a new process at the time (Christine Jourgensen was among the first to talk about transitioning and that was in the fifties). But unlike, say Crystal Labeija and Felicia Elizondo, who lived similar lives to Johnson (often homeless and working as sex workers; while Labeija basically was a drag queen and later created one of the first drag balls in NYC), Marsha never went ahead with transitioning while Labeija, Elizondo and other trans icons such as Jackie Curtis and Holly Woodlawn went through with it. Both Johnson and her best friend/partner in the STAR organization, Sylvia Rivera, still identified as drag queens until the end of her life. And as mentioned in the article I edited, Johnson DID mention being homosexual/gay. I just don't get how editing out while not adding much information about her being transgender works for the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be about research. From now, I'm just gonna use quotes and put them as references. Again, if you wanna dispute that, you might need to watch the entire documentary again. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 21:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

''Most drag queens like Johnson often talked of "living life as a woman" without actually going through with transitioning, which was a new process at the time ''

Could you support that statement with some evidence in an official definition of "drag queen"? ''other trans icons such as Jackie Curtis and Holly Woodlawn went through with it. ''

Jackie Curtis never transitioned. Further more, todays definition of a transgender woman does require that she undergo medical intervention.

''Both Johnson and her best friend/partner in the STAR organization, Sylvia Rivera, still identified as drag queens until the end of her life ''

Sylvia vigorous identified as a transgender woman later in her life.

''Again, if you wanna dispute that, you might need to watch the entire documentary again. ''

I actually helped to edit the documentary.Rebismusic (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So you edited that documentary, yet except for a quote from Michael Musto, none of the people interviewed ever said she was a transgender woman? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

we are talking little in circles here. Johnson is not recorded using the word "transgender" to describe herself, but by stating she is a "transvestite" she is included under the umbrella of transgenderism, at least according to wikipedia. she stated in the interview that she lived as a woman. it feels a tiny bit tragic that there are people still unwilling to acknowledge what is so painfully obvious to those who knew her or who had any compassion for her at least and it is a sad state of affairs when the leading trans activists of this country still cant be called trans because of some kind of perversely transphobic word policing. there is barely any documentation about marsha there are a few scraps of video and a few dubious ancient interviews. And believe it or not, Pay it No Mind wasnt edited to include "proof" that she was trans. it didnt even occur to us that we would need to defend a legacy that seemed do obvious. it is only now that we ee it, in the face of this antagonistic obsession on the part of some whose intent it seems to be to thwart the most glaringly obvious part of Johnsons' narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebismusic (talk • contribs) 06:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Article in need of some serious improvement.
I've been trying to make sure this article is well researched but one editor keeps making a mess of the article. Plus that California section is not well researched either. Instead of just adding information and untruths, let's fully researched what we can so we can come to an agreement. Especially as far as Marsha's gender identity goes. Oddly enough, no one has touched Sylvia Rivera's article but people are heavily editing this one? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, we all see that only one person is heavily editing this article to suit their own narrative, despite many different editors call this person out on it. Mileyboo3 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Their claim is they helped produce the documentary but it's funny in that documentary, none of the stuff the editor claims hasn't been corroborated at all. Thing is if Marsha herself had she WAS a woman as opposed to living life as one, then that'd be one thing but she also claimed being gay and a transvestite until she died. And for some reason, the editor wants to constantly erase that despite Marsha's own words not fitting with the narrative. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 04:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

its funny that you say the article is full of untruths, when virtually every sentence in it is referenced or a direct quote.

The article is filled with references to Johnson being a transvestite, a drag queen, homosexual etc. There have been alot of interesting compromises made in the last few days. We have gotten to a point where nowhere does it state that she was a woman, it only states that she lived as a woman. This is also important information, and the word "woman" comes after gay, transvestite and drag queen, so it seems like a strong compromise to me.

some of the quotes you have added are really useful, such as the one describing Johnson's struggles and threats faced upon being discovered while working as a prostitute. so many trans women die this way as you know. marsha expresses great sadness in the documentary about how hard life is as a "transvestite" sex worker, mostly because so many have lost their lives this way.. anyway i agree that the california section needs some citation. i put a note saying citation needed as it is obviously coming from a person with direct experience, and there are honestly so few real sources of info on marshas life. that is why we made the documentary to begin with, from the scraps of video that people had collected in the early 90s. but in the end the california section will need to be corroborated.Rebismusic (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The California section won't be corroborated until someone writes a book simply on Marsha. It took years before someone wrote about what Marsha actually did during the Stonewall uprising and that wasn't throwing a brick or a shot glass but a heavy object into a cop car. As far as I know, the California information could be a violation of Wikipedia's rules of original research. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Stonewall contributions
Okay, somebody please stop erasing important information of what Marsha did at Stonewall that June night. Also, erasing the part where Johnson herself disputes the urban myths surrounding her contribution (saying she arrived at 2:00 in the morning, this is from an actual interview she took five years before her death) is not respecting what she did. To just write it as just "being one of the first to start clashing with the cops" without adding the information of what she did is not respecting her legacy. Please, stop erasing it. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 02:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. This person should be reported for repeatedly trying to delete this important and relevant information.Mileyboo3 (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Somebody please report the person who keeps imposing their own narrative on this page
There is this particular user who insists on erasing Johnson's gay identity, and impose the label "transgender" on Johnson despite Johnson never identified as such. That user keeps ignoring Johnson's own original words, takes Johnson's words out of context and impose their own interpretations. The user also keeps deleting paragraphs with well-cited sources. The user has been called out by many different editors (See edit history), yet keeps doing edit wars and revert the article back to their own version. I am new here so I do not know how to report this user. More experienced members, please report this user to keep the wikipedia page unbiased. Mileyboo3 (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

unfortunately that is not what is occurring. the page is full of references to Johnson as "gay". the opening line declares that she herself identified as a drag queen. the problem is she was also documented saying that she lived as a woman, which complicates her identity and requires a more complex representation of her life, one that shows Johnson in all her multifacetedness.Rebismusic (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is what's happening. Your long history deleting other editors' well cited paragraphs in Marsha's wiki page is the proof of this. Stop vandalising the page. You also falsely accused me of not engaging in talks while I did. Please refrain from making up lies. Thank you.Mileyboo3 (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

For the person who insists that transvestites fall into the transgender category according to Wikipedia standard
NO IT DOES NOT. Here are the sentences cited from the transgender Wikipedia page (the one you often direct people to when they argue that transvestite is not transgender), word by word (unless you edit that page to suit your own narrative again):

"Although some references define transgender very broadly to include transvestites / cross-dressers,[8] they are usually excluded, as are transvestic fetishists (because they are considered to be expressing a paraphilia rather than a gender identification) and drag kings and drag queens (who are performers and cross-dress for the purpose of entertaining)."

Wikipedia also does not include transvestites/drag queens/kings in "Transgender topics" categories. Stop using Wikipedia transgender page to support your argument. Your own argument is self-defeating: according to Wikipedia standard, you are wrong.Mileyboo3 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

For the person who insists that transvestites do not fall into the transgender category according to Wikipedia standard
YES IT DOES! dear Mileyboo3. thankyou for your passionate response. the complete entry reads as follows

Transgender people are people who have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.[1][2][3] Transgender people are sometimes called transsexual if they desire medical assistance to transition from one sex to another. Transgender is also an umbrella term: in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are genderqueer, e.g. bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender).[2][4][5] Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender.[6][7] Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers,[8] regardless of their gender identity.

Funnily enough, the part of the definition that you are relying on is the only part that has no reference and should be excluded, ie: "they are usually excluded, as are transvestic fetishists (because they are considered to be expressing a paraphilia rather than a gender identification) and drag kings and drag queens (who are performers and cross-dress for the purpose of entertaining)". Rebismusic (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Funny how you cite the wikipedia page yourself but fail to read the keyword:

Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers,[8] regardless of their gender identity.

Thanks for proving my point that it's not professional to include drag queens in transgender category. Now if you can just stop the name calling and stop referring to everyone who wishes to maintain Wikipedia's unbiasedness a transphobe. How would you feel if I call you a homophobe since you keep deleting Johnson's gay identity, which she consistently refer to himself in her own words, in the summary paragraph?Mileyboo3 (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Infrequently does not mean the same thing as never. Johnson infrequently conforms to contemporary definitions of drag queen, transvestite, and homosexual, if ever.Rebismusic (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Marsha P. Johnson saw herself as gay. That was one of the final things she mentioned prior to her death. The definition of transgender when it comes to Marsha didn't mean transitioning (though she did consider such at one time, which can't be disputed). For her, it meant she can transitioned from one gender to another without changing anything. So technically Marsha would be considered androgynous or gender non conforming. In the transgender article, many transgender people would describe themselves as gay or bisexual or straight. In Marsha's case, she never stopped identifying as gay. And to say she did would take away from her words. Yeah, Randy Wicker might've called her transgender (and he's probably one of the reasons many in the media insist on calling her transgender) but Marsha herself never really change her identity or her orientation. She always was consistent in referring to herself as a gay transvestite and drag queen. And in some circles, "transgender" can be considered an umbrella term to describe any person who deviates from the gender norm. If Marsha had transitioned for real, she would either be a transsexual, which many don't use anymore. That was the word used in those days. I can't compare her to Christine Jourgensen, who was actually a transgender woman. And about Sylvia, it can be argued she can be confirmed as a trans woman. It's not so clear with Marsha though since she never said she wasn't gay anymore, she always insisted she was. So technically, she wouldn't fall into the transgender definition. How can Marsha identify as gay and yet folks still misgender her as transgender? It's not respecting what she was as a person. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Being transgender is still not about transitioning. Her choice, or lack thereof, regarding changes to her body had nothing to do with whether or not she was trans. You are incorrect to assume that you're simply gender-non conforming if you don't want to change your body to look more like a cis person's. Many, many binary trans people do not seek any surgeries m, and not all desire hormones, even if accessible. Martha's decisions surrounding her body are not the basis of an argument you can make, to pretend she was a "man in drag" all along.


 * Moreover, terminology like 'transgender' was certainly not around for Christine Jourgensen, who you identify as such. It's quite clear that those who deny Marsha's gender identity, which is to say livef gender, refuse to acknowledge her as a woman simply because she did not medically transition, and so would not have been identified at the time as "transsexual".× SOTO (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism warning
Rebismusic, please refraining from deleting other people's well cited paragraphs. Your contribution history has a long history of deleting other people's contributions and revert it back to your favourite version. This is considered edit warring or sometimes  vandalism.

You also tend to use your own original theory to justify your deletions of other people's contribution. You have refuted professional historian's account and you have refuted documented reports' validity, and instead impose your person interpretation on the topic. Some of your reasoning for edits are plain homophobic. For instance, you call the paragraphs cited from David Carter, renowned Stonewall historian and an authority on this topic, "the opinion of one gay man". In another revision history by you, you devalued another editor's contribution, citing the following reasons, "you are most likely a gay man. its ironic that you probably think you are her ally." It is unprofessional, and borderline discriminatory and harassing for you to judge other people's validity by your assumed sexual orientation of them.

You also fabricated lies. In the reasons you wrote in one revision history, you accused me of "won't engage in talk pages", while I already posted two subjects on this talk page prior to that comment. You added "girlie" as Johnson's gender identity, but the word "girlie" is nowhere to be found from the source you cited. I deleted the word, but you immediately restored it back without giving any evidence.

Since you once used Wikipedia "transgender" page to support your reasoning of inclusion of transvestites into the transgender category, I posted on this talk page the exact sentences from Wikipedia "transgender" page to refute your claim. As a result, you immediately deleted the sentences I cited, from the Wikipedia "transgender" page. This is completely unprofessional, biased, and intentionally disruptive. It's fortunate that the contents you deleted on the "transgender" wiki page was restored by Kaldari, an self-described employee of Wikimedia Foundation and a regular Wikipedia editor.

Please refrain from imposing your own theory on this Wiki page. Please refrain from constantly deleting other contributors' well cited sentences. Thank you. Mileyboo3 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what's behind Rebis' motivation to constantly edit. One excuse they gave was they were editor of the Marsha documentary and when I called out that no one except for columnist Michael Musto mentioned that she was transgender, she had to bring up another video to prove her point. Also, you're absolutely right about her not saying "girlie" in the documentary despite Rebis' assumption she did. Only time she mentioned "woman" in relation to her was when she mentioned that she lived as one (as opposed to being one) when she became a drag queen, which would definitely fit the definition of the now oft-controversial word transvestite, which describes a guy dressing in woman's clothes to live as a woman. That's it. That's why STAR was originally named Street Transvestites Action Revolutionaries. Only later and much later after Marsha's death did the word "transgender" become a popular term and even then it doesn't describe Marsha. She was not a transgender woman, she said clearly she was a boy and that she was gay. I just wish they get the message that editing and deleting researched sources doesn't help their cause. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism warning
Mileyboo, please refraining from deleting other people's well cited paragraphs. Your contribution history and BrothaTimothy's also has a long history of deleting other people's contributions and reverting it back to your favourite version. This is considered edit warring or sometimes vandalism.

You also tend to use your own original theory to justify your deletions of other people's contributions. You cite sources that pathologize transgenderism and represent it as a mental illness, claiming that because it was once written in print, it is a source of fact, despite the words being are plainly transphobic. It is unprofessional, and borderline discriminatory and harassing for you to refute so many people in the trans community who knew and celebrated Johnson, and recognize her as transgender. You refuse to acknowledge that there is a long history of discrimination against trans people within the gay community and recklessly quote transphobic sources even when they directly contradict the opinions of people who actually knew Johnson. You claim that you know better on the basis of your research than Johnson's best friends, claiming that even Randy WIcker is misguided in his perception of Johnson, with whom he shared his home for over a decade, and who led the charge to try and force accountability on the part of the police when she was found dead. He was on the street every day, demanding justice for her, but beasue he makes a joke about being trans-aged you suggest his narrative should be dismissed, when he is the closest living source to Johnson.

You frame quote with words to prove an agenda that Marsha was not transgender, filling the article with views that deny Marsha's complexity and authentic cultural identity.

Please refrain from imposing these censorial impulses on this Wiki page. Please refrain from constantly deleting other contributors' well cited sentences. Thank you. Rebismusic (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please indicate the timestamp in the documentary where Johnson describes her gender as a "girlie". Otherwise, it is defamation that you accuse me of fabricating lies.Mileyboo3 (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that I was mistakenly including the world "girlie". .Rebismusic (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You deleted your original accusal of me in this page that could constitute defamation.

Also, your previous response is the perfect proof that you do not attempt to verify the source before you edit, and even after you are called out about your mistake, the first thing you did was to restore your corrected edit rather than double checking your source. Your behaviour clearly shows you have a pre-defined personal narrative in mind before you edit a Wiki page. Due to you failing to stop edit warring after my warning, I have reported you to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Mileyboo3 (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * How were you able to do it? I'm getting tired of checking Wikipedia and seeing all those notes and messages (which I'm sure Rebis is sending constantly). It's hard to report someone when they're not actually a member of the site. Her constant reversions (which I didn't think was possible because once you edit an article so much, you have to edit on your own but for some reason she seems to find a way to "revert") are nuts. I simply asked her for sources on her claims. I even gave a source to her contributions to transgender advocacy and I don't know if she reverted that for a crappy YouTube video misspelling a gay rights legend's name in the process (lol). And the only thing she seems to be able to do is to delete sources and then calls us "harmful". It boggles the mind. We've been respecting the legacy of Miss Marsha (or Saint Marsha) and instead of understanding that, she seems hellbent on gay erasure. Amazing, really. Then she claims she's close to Marsha's friends. Yeah... I'm sure she is. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. When she was called out that she had no source, she would accuse you in an aggressive manner that you are lying, and revert to her edition. It's not until I told her that her accusal of me lying would constitute defamation did she finally admitted that she was wrong. This speaks highly of her professionalism.Mileyboo3 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Hence the 100 notes I would get from her reverting back to her original research (which I finally sent to her to remind her how Wikipedia works) and then accusing me of transphobia (???). Like did she not view the documentary she claimed she was one of the editors of? There's no indication of Marsha ever saying "girlie" or saying she had transitioned. In many cases, she always stressed she was a drag queen, that she was homosexual, that she was a boy, something that was understood a million edits ago (though maybe a little exaggerated, i.e., "she stated to the interviewer that she was a man" lol). When she's presented with facts, she has a harder time trying to put the focus from how she would like it. Last reverts, you can tell she was desperate. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 19:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes and I do not get her insistence to erase Johnson's homosexuality and push her into the transgender category. Drag queens are not transgender. It's actually insulting and delegitimizing the transgender community's daily struggle to say drag queen s are transgender. The GLAAD Media Reference Guide clearly says, " Transgender women are not cross-dressers or drag queens. Drag queens are men, typically gay men, who dress like women for the purpose of entertainment. Be aware of the differences between transgender women, cross-dressers, and drag queens. Use the term preferred by the person. Do not use the word "transvestite" at all, unless someone specifically self-identifies that way." I do not get Rebismusic's insistence to chnange the transgender definition: she literally edited out the paragraphs I cited from transgender wiki page after I used them to prove her wrong. That's some dedication here.Mileyboo3 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It shows her disrespect for Marsha's words. She kept saying "transvestite" to describe herself and from what you write, why would she be transgender? It is clear from what GLAAD wrote, Miss Marsha wouldn't fit in that definition of transgender at all. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 21:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Marsha P. Johnson's gay activism and sexual orientation
I've noticed that whenever someone edits the article, they always make sure to make it seem like Marsha was only a transgender rights activist, when that wasn't the case at all. When she started her activism, she was advocating for gay rights and gay liberation. She joined the Gay Liberation Front and the Gay Activists Alliance. It was only later did her trans activism come to light, with the formation of Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, which was actually a subset of the Gay Liberation Front, rather than its own organization. The house supported gay runaways, street drag queens and transgender women (not sure about trans men). But in that interview she took in 1992, Marsha talked about gay rights. She shouted "I want my gay rights" at a rally in the early '70s. And also to bring it up, why edits keep referring to her as transgender, if she was transgender, that wouldn't have made her a gay person anymore, it would've made her a straight woman. And that takes away from her contributions as a gay activist (not just a gay rights activist, which can include straight people, but as a gay activist, meaning an activist who is gay), she was fighting for people who were like her and even those who wanted to appear more masculine. She was what you call a radical gay rights activist. Even when mentioning STAR in the same interview, she always said "drag queens" and when mentioning Rivera, she called her a transvestite, not a trans woman. I'm sorry but this revisionism is driving me (and a few other people) crazy. Taking away quotes from actual cited sources is not helping the matter. Wikipedia always stresses that claims should be sourced and constantly erasing them to add original research goes against the rules. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you are you talking about. the first line of the bio states that she was a gay liberation activist. please note that because of your concerted efforts we have deleted every direct reference to Marsha as transgender out of the article, even though her community here in NYC always considered her transgender. But we are only using first person quotes now. You say her activism as a trans person only surfaced "later", but Johnson fought alongside trans people at Stonewall and founded STAR within 2 years of those uprisings. Yes she said she was gay. In those days, Trans people considered themselves a part of the gay community. They were the front line of it, the first ones to be raped and killed. But within a couple of years they were blocked from walking in the parade by gay men and lesbians who were offended by Johnson's presence. As you know, transphobia has been a hurtful thread through the last 45 years of the LGBT civil rights movement. Please allow for Marsha's gender diversity to be discussed as a part of the gay community. The definitions of transsexuals and transitioning that you mention are outdated, as are the assertions that transvestites or gender nonconforming people aren't transgender. Please reconsider. Rebismusic (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

BrothaTImothy now you delete references to the transgender community specifically holding Johnson in great esteem today. For many of us it is the most significant aspect of her legacy. A few months ago there were pictures and descriptions of Marsha published in the transgender focus edition of Vanity Fair. Your justificationfor deleting reference interviews with all the premiere trans activists of the day talking about Marsha it that was a video source? It is a program on Logo, hardly an obscure source. Meanwhile you have been endlessly quoting the video that I helped to produce. This lack of understanding is disheartening. So many of your interventions have been retained. Can you imagine compromising on this issue, and allow the honor that trans people feel for Marsha to be represented here? How does that impose on your sense of what is true about Marsha and her legacy?Rebismusic (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Only thing I deleted was your poor use of a source. I know Marsha was a trans advocate but the way you write it was not Wiki-approved. Yet you seem determined on making those errors no matter how many times we try to politely, and I stress that word so much, warn you not to do it. I was just fixing them but believe what you want. And stop sending me messages to my personal page, just talk to me here. But I'm afraid you went too far in your edits. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution and Edit Warring
This is primarily for Rebismusic, BrothaTimothy, and Mileyboo3. The three of you are currently involved in a prolonged edit war/dispute regarding particular points and terminology within this article. Between the three of you, several key Wikipedia tenants have been disregarded and your behavior is becoming an nuisance, nevermind counter-productive towards improving the article. I understand that the topic is something all three of you is passionate about, so perhaps a third party who frankly does not have an interest or history with the topic is what you need to help you all take a step back and work on collaborating together rather than making this a personal mission to "win" and have your understanding/opinion portrayed in the article. This talk page has become nothing more than you three grieving each other's edits and attacking one another, rather than a collaborative space with the goal of strengthening the article. I understand that you might not be equally guilty in contributing to this, but you each have an equal part in correcting the current situation. The first step to success here will be assuming that you are all acting in good faith, attempting to help improve the article. This might not be the case, but we all share in our duty to assume that we are acting in the best interest of the article.

Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policy articles I linked within this posting if you are not already. A dispute resolution has been opened on your behalf and I will likely be participating. If there's anything I can do to help, please feel free to ask - but please put some honest effort into correcting the current course of this article. --Slazenger  (Contact Me) 08:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Appreciate it. I myself will stay away from personal attacks. It's not worth it. I hope we can all come to an understanding. Least I am. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 14:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be avoiding personal confrontation too. I hope that we can all come to a reasonable conclusion and make this article a fair, unbiased representation of the subject. Also, please do have an admin monitor this article. Mileyboo3 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The source book Queering the Non/Human
Page 252 of Queering the Non/Human, the book this sentence is cited from: "Alongside fellow activist Sylvia Rivera, Johnson was one of the co-founders of S.T.A.R. (Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries), making her one of the pioneers of the transgender rights movement.", may not be a good source for the claim. This is the original words from the book:

"Marsha Johnson, or Saint Marsha, and Sylvia Rivera, an important figure in the nascent 'transgender' civil rights movement, started a group in 1970 called STAR, Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries."

From the quote, we can see that the subject of "an important figure in the nascent 'transgender' civil rights movement" is Sylvia, not Marsha.

Also in the footnote on the same page the author herself acknowledges that her claim that STAR was a "transgender political organization" is "a bit historical", and she risks "playing the part of a 'bad historian'".

I have not made the edit yet because I want to listen to the opinion of fellow editors. Should we delete this sentence? Mileyboo3 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure I'll edit that part. But yeah I see Sylvia is usually the pioneer of the trans rights movement and not Marsha. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 21:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Article clean up
Before today I refrained from editing this article as it seemed clear Rebismusic (I see no good reason to pretend I'm not talking about a particular person) was more dedicated to fighting over the contents of the article than I was. Now that his account is gone (?), I would like to take some passes at cleaning up portions of this article, in particular Gender identity and health. I don't have a list of specific edits, but generally:


 * I would like to cut out a lot of the "Tom said Marsha was a X, Bill said Marsha was Y, Sally referred to Marsha as 'Z'." It's not clear what relevance this stuff has beyond shoe horning the word "transgender" into the article as many times as possible despite the subject not referring to herself as such.
 * I would like to (and have started to, see recent edits) clean up the caveats & addenda that serve no purpose besides watering down the "Gay rights" nature of Marsha's activism and spinning it as close to "transgender" as possible.
 * Basically, trim it down to relevant and notable facts about the subject

I am polling for opinion here first in the interest of avoiding further edit warring and to avoid wasting time cleaning up the article if it's still an ongoing target of vandalism. Justthefacks (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I trimmed the "gender identity" section down to just a couple sentences. Most of it was third party accounts and extended summaries of a documentary on the subject's life. There was one notable anecdote about Johnson's experiences as with prostitution but it didn't fit squarely into the section on "gender identity." I'm leaving this extended note because the edit was major (to the section) and is seems likely to provoke discussion. I'm open to other proposals to rework that section but I think the current version is better than the previous as it's more clearly on-topic & easier to understand. Justthefacks (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Also pinging recent editors &, because it's largely their work you just deleted.


 * The material about the assaults and abuse, the injuries Marsha sustained and the lunatic guys, and what Marsha had to say about it all, should go back in. Either with similar content in the main section, or perhaps in a new section before death, as it's from the Pay it No Mind interview. It does fit in with the danger Marsha lived with. Maybe that would be also a place to work in Victoria Cruz's research into Marsha's death. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You must source all the statements about gender identity. It has been too controversial in this article, and other editors spent too much time logging the interviews with Johnson, for it to be cut to just a bare, unsourced sentence or two.
 * The reason I haven't just wholesale reverted you is that, yes, it's unencyclopedic to include all those other people's opinions. On WP the gender policy is that we go with the article subject's last-stated self-identification. So it was in accord with policy to cut others' opinions. However, you need to not only re-instate the sourced statements Johnson made about herself, but I would further strongly recommend that you make sure there is a timestamp on every one of those quotes. The reality here is that most people do not watch the interviews, even the people with strong opinions. Johnson made the statemets, and so the timestamps need to be there so people can just check for themselves rather than edit-warring. The timestamps are in the history and on the talk. They need to stay in the article.
 * I agree with cutting all the coatracking and career-boosting from the tributes, but I've added back the emphasis on how beloved Marsha was, as well as the mention of actors, as that reminds people of the difference between documentaries and dramatic interpretations.
 * I also think that either the Lavender linguistics, or something else that explains gay vernacular of the era, needs to be mentioned, at least in a footnote. Those from outside the subculture reading this article who don't understand how drag queens and gay men spoke then (and, in many communities, still speak now)... I really think they get very confused listening to the interviews. Notably, by the pronoun usage. Johnson used both pronouns, and dressed both femme and butch, depending, and truly did not care. But most people in that crowd used, and still use, fem. pronouns for everyone. Readers now get very worried about misgendering. Marsha paid it no mind, but the readers don't. This has to be footnoted and made very clear or we will have endless well-meant but disruptive edits and wind up with this needing to be protected again.
 * At the very least, use the old sourcing. If necessary, I have quotes logged here and can add them to talk. But it's on the person who changes it to repair the sourcing if you don't want to get reverted. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 18:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "...the timestamps need to be there so people can just check for themselves rather than edit-warring. The timestamps are in the history and on the talk. They need to stay in the article." I fully agree. There are, at last count, 31 references to the "Pay It No Mind" documentary. I am new to wikipedia so please correct me if I'm just missing it, but I do not see timestamps on any of the references to this documentary. I am happy to withdraw my edits along with all other statements with un-timestamped citations on the documentary. My edits were primarily intended to add clarity and remove cruft, they also happened to reduce the references to this (in my opinion over-cited in this article) documentary from 40 to 28 references. I'm happy to remove even more references but I'd object to reverting my edits on the grounds that they reference the doc when the content I removed contains 12 additional references to the doc. If my version relies too heavily on un-timestamped references, let the solution be even fewer such references, not reverting to more.


 * I think it would make sense to remove the Sexuality and Gender Identity section completely; I did not do so because I am trying to strike a balance with people who clearly think it's important. After removing extraneous & non-relevant narrative, the section is a single sentence, and I think Johnson's work as an AIDs & Gay Rights advocate, in conjunction with other portions of the article, shed adequate light on her sexual orientation. Adding a section to say "she was gay" seems redundant (it's clear from context), and "she didn't use the term transgender to describe herself" was a clumsy compromise on my part: the statement makes no sense and is impossible to source, I left it in from a previous edit but I'm happy to see it trimmed. Justthefacks (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to revert the changes you made. I agree all the gender identity issues are clear from context. Well, except when the insistence on uniform pronouns muddies it with, say "she" and "gay," if the original phrase was, "gay boy". In an ideal world we wouldn't need a "gender identity" section at all (because people would actually read the whole article instead of only caring about that one facet of the person). Sadly, that section (and a few words in the lede and infobox) seems to be the only thing many who come to this article care about, rather than Marsha's actual life and legacy. We could try cutting it, but... Right now I'm leaning towards keeping it as there's now at least one article online (recent Jezebel article) that links directly to that section. I personally have no problem with keeping the section brief. I was just concerned it wouldn't satisfy readers. No one has seen to revert the changes, and there's only been minimal edit-warring (and elsewhere in the article), so maybe I was overly-concerned. I think just adding a bit of sourcing to the doc timestamps would be sufficient. If it's not clear how to add them and we have no takers, I'll see if I can get to it later. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 16:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As the IP drivebys have started again, with deletion of sourced content and addition of unsourced, I just cut the section. Adding the timestamped sourcing I have here will add voluminous quotes to the footnotes. That may be the way to go, but for now let's just see what happens if people have to actually read what Marsha was notable for - being an activist. Seeing the edit summaries, I think sourcing won't matter to some of the POV pushers and we will probably wind up with this semi-ed again if the IPs continue. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Great decision. That section has caused a lot of controversy. Marsha was more important than what people want to label her (though she herself said numerous times she was gay). One of the MANY early heroes of the gay (later LGBT) rights movement, that's how she should be remembered. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 21:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes to lead / proposed clarification of self-identity
The lead could include that she was an activist for Black trans women and other femmes of color. To clear up some confusion?!? Also, "self-identified" almost sounds invalidating and it sort of interrupts the flow of the sentence.Tthoma84 (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've made a clarification in the lead that I believe is justified. I'm curious if it would be warranted to add a paragraph to the lead (below the current one) that discusses Johnson's identity in the context of modern meanings of drag queen, transvestite, and transgender. (Or, alternatively, just a sentence or two somewhere in the current paragraph if it doesn't distract from her impact as the paragraph is written.)

I am not knowledgeable of her identity and what the sources say, but I strongly believe in looking at this article's recent edit history that something like this would be helpful in appeasing this conflict: "Johnson did not identify herself as transgender throughout her life, but she was – in her vocal advocacy – a proponent for what is now known to be a variety of queer sexual and gender identities." Anyone have any input on something like this? (And could aggregate sources to justify this claim?) – Rhinopias (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article history, "self-identified" is how it read in earlier versions.
 * As for adding commentary on gender identity, I get what you're saying, but that would be too open to interpretation, as the terminology has changed too much since Johnson died. It is not our place as Wikipedians to put words in the mouths of the dead. If you take the time to thoroughly read earlier versions of the article and talk you will see that: Something like that has been tried in the past, and it really did not help. Basically, this article is a vandalism magnet and political agenda football. We've had to work really hard over the years to keep the WP:OR, well-meaning POV-pusing and pure fabrications out of this article. The only real solution we've found is using direct quotes from Johnson whenever possible, relying on multiple contemporaries as second-best if we don't have direct quotes from Johnson, and sourcing the hell out of everything. The long-term semi-protection was inevitable and the best course to take here.
 * Before attempting any substantial edits I strongly suggest studying all the documentaries where Johnson speaks at length, rather than listening to others' interpretations and personal beliefs about Johnson. I would avoid the recent pop culture sources because most have done zero research and never met Johnson, whereas we have multiple people who've worked on this article who are very knowledgeable about Johnson, the era, and the community - as contemporaries of Johnson - and who have watched and read and vetted all the published sources.
 * It's essential to understand that we cannot do crystal ball here. We cannot predict or assume what a dead person would now identify as. Not all people in all sectors of the LGBT communities understand how much the terminology has changed over the years, and not all people even understand how different the culture was in Johnson's era. I believe that this is crucial to understanding the well-meaning - but ultimately disruptive and inaccurate - edits that continually happen on this article. Wikipedia policy on gender is that we go with last stated identity. For Johnson, in the Pay it No Mind interview and elsewhere, this is "Gay" and "Legendary Drag Queen." It doesn't matter what any of us think of this, or how these words are seen now. This is what is in the sources. Talk page consensus is also that Johnson is most notable as revolutionary activist and performer - for what Johnson did and accomplished in life - not for how Johnson happened to personally identify. -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to suggest speculation, just a consolidation of reliable sources to further discuss her identity. (Putting the two parts of that sentence together like I did seems weird to me now and not really related.) Is there not a reliable source that simply mentions she did not identify as transgender? Although, a reliable source saying why she did so in order to give context of the terms surrounding gender identity at the time I think would be even better. (And is what I thought I was proposing originally, but clearly did not do so successfully. :P) If no reliable source exists, so be it.
 * Also, which source(s) supports the statement Widely-known as a welcoming presence that you added to the lead here? I'm not saying it's not accurate or present in a reference already used, but I don't believe the reference for that sentence warrants the use of "widely"—quoting a few friends without more explicitly or obviously defining the scope—or "welcoming". I don't think "She later acted as a mother of sorts to a new generation of wayward gay youths in the age of AIDS." from the source is equivalent as it's very specific, and not necessarily the same thing. Maybe it just needs another reference, but I also think "hailed" is a bit extreme based off the reference and I purposefully altered that. – Rhinopias (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to watch the documentaries. On WP, the lede is a summary of statements that are sourced in the body of the article. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the work that's been done here. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 18:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability of content
My response is no longer about my proposed addition, but the verifiability question I did not get an answer to and the article in general. Your continued insistence that I familiarize myself with the article and sources before making minor changes (not "substantial", as you suggested), written as "the work that's been done" is slightly indicative of content ownership.

All due respect, I don't need to watch the documentaries to see content within this article has issues. I understand that the lead is a summary. If the statement "Widely-known as a welcoming presence …" is justified by the documentary, it should be cited in-line because that information is not explicitly present in the body of the article with a reference. Where is the attention given to that line's verifiability when you clearly indicated another was sourced elsewhere with the same edit – the "Widely-known as a welcoming presence …" part was also not in "earlier phrasing" as you mentioned (see ). I am not implying bad faith in referencing content here, but using Pay it No Mind to cite lines like "She is honored as an LGBT rights pioneer, a veteran activist, a queen, and a survivor.[3]" without identifying the part which the content is from makes it not only difficult for other editors to contribute to the article, but makes content difficult to verify. That line is so general that it's questionably verifiable at all – is that uttered in any way by Johnson herself, a friend, the directors via commentary, etc? "The S.T.A.R. House was short-lived but became a legendary model for future generations." – where is the in-line citation for that statement which could be challenged? The former example sentence and others are not very encyclopedic, such as "as she investigates Johnson's murder, and seeks justice for murdered trans women of color" and the very confusingly ending "Johnson is honored by them as saintly, as a deeply spiritual person who …". The amount of quotations in all of #Biography is quite distracting, and could be a copyright violation of the documentary. I don't think that slapping maintenance tags on this article (various editors have worked hard on) is appropriate for me to do at the moment, but I find it difficult to overlook these issues.

The page was semi-protected because I requested it after reverting an unsourced change by an IP which I then saw was a pattern in the edit history. Subject matter experts are also not exempt from satisfactorily verifying their contributions; if editors don't do so, we're not demonstrating that the content we add is free from original research. – Rhinopias (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't say minor changes in wording shouldn't be made. But your first statement here was that you weren't familiar with the article or sources, and your comments and suggested edits confirmed that. Then you brought up issues that have been discussed, in-depth, repeatedly as well as really recently; this indicated you hadn't even read the recent discussion here on talk. It's not unreasonable to expect new contributors to an article - especially one that has been as difficult, and deep as this one - to get up to speed with the work that's been done here. Page up and devote some time to this if you want to work on it. You're asking us to take the time to engage with you, to make sure you don't introduce errors, when you're not doing your part to get up to speed. That's not really fair. FWIW, I agree with you about the timestamps issue with sourcing to the documentaries. Which you would see if you'd just read the discussion. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 19:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of the discussions on this talk page over a two-year span are almost entirely arguments on what to say the subject identified as, which was not my proposal; I was suggesting that information about the subject’s identity be aggregated and expanded upon like it is in Sylvia Rivera. Maybe my comment could have been more eloquently organized, but I am confused how my saying that I wasn't familiar with the article or its sources meant I did not at all read the talk page? Telling me to watch the documentaries is not a valid defense against my concerns that the text in the lead isn't neutral based on its source which is not a documentary.
 * Per the section above in which you participated in October, you did mention that timestamps would be useful in referencing the documentaries. But around a week prior to that you added footnotes of the documentary without timestamps to two of the ambiguous statements I mentioned just above in this edit. You also removed the beginnings of a section that could have helped in clarifying her identity with this edit, which I agree the removal seems justified as it is not referenced carefully. It could have been refactored if even only one sentence was salvageable and then moved to a more appropriate location if needed? If reliable sources for this type of section simply do not exist, then all you had to do was say that in your original response to me and my suggestion would’ve been appropriately set aside until perhaps a time in the future when a reliable source is published.
 * My adding “self-identified” directly from the source that was already in use to her identity in order to clarify to readers that WP is not fabricating her identity is hardly a substantial edit. I don’t believe my reword of the sentence in the lead to match the source already listed, which you then reverted and unverifiably expanded upon, was also much more than minor. Where were the supposed errors that I introduced, indicating my lack of judgment or ability to catch up on this article’s development? I welcome attention drawn to errors I may have made in my edits to the article, but continuing to tell me to watch and read things when all I am doing now is pointing out general problems is stressful. It would be great to just receive acknowledgment that there are major verifiability (and other policy) issues here instead of deflections related to my lack of expertise in the subject, which somehow makes me unable to raise these points and begin a discussion to hopefully generate improvements.
 * I apologize for personally linking your edits now, as this was obviously not my intention when I made edits to this article or posted on the talk page. If you would like me to just be bold and attempt to make corrections as I get around to it, or bring this article to the attention of other editors elsewhere I welcome your suggestions. I know I would rather not spend my (and your) valuable time having this cyclical discussion! – Rhinopias (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying you want to re-instate the gender section we had, before we came to the consensus to integrate that material fully into the body of the article? Which version of it and why? No one has asked anyone else not to improve the article, only to respect WP process. -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 22:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's already been decided we won't bring it back. It'll just bring more problems and the risk of accounts being suspended for constant warring. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 03:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think your declaration is appropriate because consensus can change, but obviously that is not currently the case. I did not respond on this page for a while to avoid reentering this cyclical conversation about my original proposal against current consensus among those involved, so I'm no longer discussing it. Rhinopias (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for acknowledgement that your edit here, reverting and expanding upon my edit here the day beforehand to match the source, is not verified by the reference. I explained why the edit is not currently verifiable earlier (in the second paragraph) and also at the start of this section. I'm respecting an unofficial process by following BRD and not re-reverting your reversion, but I have yet to receive an explanation for why the reversion is warranted and why earlier phrasing flowed better, imho is an appropriate response to my edit (that was not a simple rephrase) with the summary refactored quote that is not present in source, and changed sentence to reflect.
 * The timestamps and quotations you compiled below are great and will be useful in verifying some content in the article, but they do not address my concerns with the edit above nor a couple other statements—which use the documentary as a blanket reference—that I brought up at the beginning of this section, like She is honored as an LGBT rights pioneer, a veteran activist, a queen, and a survivor and Johnson is honored by them as saintly, as a deeply spiritual person who …. I think the phrasing "honored by them", in the latter, appropriately specifies the authority, but the former's use of "She is honored as an … pioneer …" should necessitate a strong, secondary or tertiary source that broadly describes the subject, which I don't think the documentary can even fulfill. Unless in the documentary there's a quote from a subject matter expert in the field of history or women/gender/queer studies that specifically acknowledges Johnson's role in advancing LGBT rights as "pioneering", for example? Rhinopias (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhinopias, the content you are removing is sourced by Pay it No Mind. It's actually the type of content that I don't think needs time stamps as it is reiterated, over and over, by multiple people interviewed in the film. If you think it's not sourced, did you even pay attention to the documentary? Each credible person who is supported by other credible reports is a source, as in the books that use the same method. Are you saying you want each individual cited with a time stamp? I think this is what you are asking for as you didn't cut the quote that cited one person from the doc by name and direct quote. You also dumbed-down the lede with explaining the "Mayor of Christopher Street" thing. I don't think that was an improvement, or needed in the lede, as it's explained sufficiently in the body text. WP is written to a higher level of reading comprehension. For you to say these edits were addressed on talk is also a bit misleading, as you were told that you didn't have consensus for much of what you wanted to do. The fact people don't want to engage doesn't mean you now have consensus for the changes no one was interested in debating with you months ago. And again, if you insist that this article has to have scholarly sourcing there won't be an article. Johnson was a subcultural figure and we have cited every bit of documentation there is. There are still more primary sources to be gathered, as many contemporaries of Johnson have not yet gone on record, but right now, this is the best we've got. - Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not altering text to "dumb down" anything, nor do I see where the quote "mayor of Christopher Street" is attributed to the subject anywhere else in the article outside of the lead and explained appropriately according to references. Your change of the sentence to Known for decades as a welcoming presence in the streets of Greenwich Village is fine, because that doesn't imply an authority beyond Greenwich Village. I don't like how you changed the second part to was known as because I made it has been called very deliberately. The source used for the quote has one friend calling her by the name and it does not explicitly say that the entire neighborhood called her that or any other elaboration. The reference uses the documentary for the quote:
 * “She was like the mayor of Christopher Street,” one friend said in “Pay It No Mind,” a documentary about Johnson’s life released last year. Another friend revered her as “a saint of gay life.” – NY Daily News
 * I don't understand why you're coming at this in this way. This has nothing to do with the sources available, but how they are used in the article to cite text. Though Johnson is honored by them in this sentence I removed is the appropriate authority per the documentary as a reference, the sentence is not good. If you want to say that she's religious, cite her attendance at religious institutions… but "saintly" and "spiritual"? If you want to say she gave away what little she had to the neighborhood, that can be said in an encyclopedic way (preferably with a timestamp to the documentary for verifiability, but that's not why I removed this), but what does who made Santeria-influenced offerings to the spirits of the waters that surround and run through New York City even mean? My issue with this sentence is the authority of the documentary. She is honored implies wide recognition unless it's clarified, e.g. "She was honored throughout New York City". As I have said twice, the lack of historians or subject matter experts in the documentary (or city officials for the example I just gave) who could substantiate the claim means this sort of claim is unsubstantiated. "She is honored by residents of Greenwich Village", or something similar, is how the sentence should be written because that's all that Pay It No Mind can provide. I wrote it's vague because of the use of "survivor", maybe also "veteran activist". How can she be "honored as" a queen when that's exactly what she identified as – does this mean to say that she had a significant influence on drag culture in Greenwich Village?
 * What? I don't need consensus to challenge unverifiable text. It's the contributor's WP:BURDEN to address my concerns about specific verifiability issues that are not directly supported by references—no matter the timeline, as silence is not necessarily consensus. Since you continue to assert that no other sources exist, it's not possible to address my concerns about the authority of these statements. I'm not removing information that can easily be sourced to Pay It No Mind, nor did I suggest in any way that every source used in this article has to be "scholarly". The NY Daily News article is a great reliable, secondary source. Rhinopias (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Reversion in performance section
not only did this edit restore original research, but it removed content that I added… the whole which has been compared to line is hilariously misleading because Hot Peaches is compared to The Cockettes in the documentary (at 27:15), if anything, in a negative light, and this sentence is clearly attempting to portray the comparison positively. The use of a primary source (the troupe's website) to describe itself (e.g. international) is sketchy. The use of famed is MOS:PUFFery and you removed a timestamp of the documentary at the end of the paragraph. Also, this edit was a reversion, not formatting or cleanup.

What does People can judge for themselves in your edit summary mean? That readers can judge whether or not the line In 1973, Johnson performed the role of "The Gypsy Queen" in the Angels' production, "The Enchanted Miracle", about the Comet Kohoutek is useful and relevant information? Because that seems to be the only content you restored to preserve valuable oral history, while taking out that Johnson performed in London, from a specific page of the Hot Peaches' website. Is "The Gypsy Queen" a lead role, or why is this production significant to the Angels? If we could write "Johnson starred in # performances with the Angels" that'd be great information.

I commented out the book source because, without a page number, I don't trust that it is citing any information. We could use the YouTube video that you're contesting removal of to simply cite that Johnson was a member of the Angels of Light, which would be useful, but can we provide some context for the resume-like inclusion of the one production? I say I lack trust because, after combing through a good amount of the article, I've found multiple instances of the documentary's blanket reference to include OR and inaccuracies/wrong quotes (e.g. here, here). Rhinopias (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * My primary concern is that you removed the video. Rumi is notable, as is Randy Wicker, both are valuable sources on this topic, and the video briefly but concisely provides valuable background on several areas covered in this article. We are lucky that it's available online. The brief text with detail about the Angels of Light play that Marsha was in is worth including as it contextualizes the type of performance work done by these troupes, as well as the feel and style of the era. While this is an encyclopedia article, it doesn't have to be completely dry and colorless. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 22:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the article has to be dry and colorless, and I don't believe my copyediting so far has caused it to become dry and colorless. I don't see how the sentence contextualizes anything. Is this play an original or a reproduction? It gives no context what kind of play it is, just that it's about a comet. Does that mean it's a comedy, or about a dystopian future? After reading the sentence I have absolutely no insight into the type of work done by the group besides that they perform plays, or at least have performed one.
 * A subject's notability status who speaks in a YouTube video doesn't mean the source is reliable. The documentary is more reliable as a source because, while still hosted on YouTube, it's a published work. I simply questioned the reliability of the video, but removed it because I also removed the only text it was used to cite. If you're interested in providing valuable historical background to the reader (and not just editors) it'd be more helpful to list it in the external links section, but there are already three video links there (in addition to other media) and Wikipedia isn't a collection of links. I didn't remove the video from YouTube… people can still watch it. Rhinopias (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

NYT unreliable?
you're saying the NYT source, which is written by a news editor and quotes an expert in gender and women's studies, is an unreliable source for citing Johnson's birth name, date, place, and date of death? Where does the obituary say she was a "woman"? It doesn't say preferred, it says The term transgender was not in wide use in Johnson’s lifetime; she usually used female pronouns for herself, but also referred to herself as gay, as a transvestite or simply as a queen which obviously the article agrees with, as it also uses female pronouns... and the subject matter expert says black, queer, gender-nonconforming, poor, not "woman"... Rhinopias (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The NYTimes article's headline is "15 Remarkable Women We Overlooked in Our Obituaries" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:ef0d:c000:40d3:11cc:ad95:d388 (talk) (same as and logged-out editor disclosed here:)


 * Compared to the content of the piece itself, perhaps the call on the headline and who all to include was made by a different editor? Clearly not everyone defines all these terms and categories the same way (understatement) :) My issue was also with the removal of the photo of Johnson's birth certificate and Social Security records - it's always good to have multiple sources, and there is more detail in those records than in the NYT piece. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 04:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, the 15 Remarkable Women they overlooked were given retroactive and revisionist obits. Is this what's passing for reliable these days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:8488:8A00:911:D2D9:C95D:38EF (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point of the Overlooked project (also see ). The subjects didn't get an obit the first time around, so new ones are being written to appropriately represent their achievements in life. I don't see how that makes the source unreliable, especially if the information in it can be verified. Also, if you think revisionism (if that's even the case here) is necessarily a bad thing, you might want to read up on historical revisionism. clpo13(talk) 20:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

NYTimes, and the renewed discussion on how MPJ should be referred to in the Wikipedia article
change "Marsha P. Johnson (August 24, 1945 – July 6, 1992) was an African American gay liberation[4][5] activist and self-identified drag queen.[6]" to "Marsha P. Johnson (August 24, 1945 – July 6, 1992) was an African American gay liberation[4][5] activist and pioneering transgender woman.[6]"

change "Johnson's dark side sometimes emerged under Johnson's "male persona as Malcolm",[34] often resulting in Johnson being hospitalized and sedated.[25]" to "Johnson's dark side sometimes emerged when she had mental breakdowns,[34] often resulting in her being hospitalized and sedated.[25]"


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I believe that in light of this new NYT article there should be a discussion on this issue regarding how MPJ should be referred to in the article. Other editors are encouraged to add to this discussion.      Spintendo       05:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on labels
This page is locked because of years of warring over the fact that certain well-meaning editors do not wish to identify Marsha P. Johnson as a "transgender woman", insisting over and over again that she was a "gay man" and reiterating that she was a "drag queen" just like Rupaul. "Drag queens" as they are understood today are performers, not self-declared transvestite activists or homeless, crossdressed sex workers with bullets lodged in their spines from violence endured on the stroll.

Anyway, today THE NEW YORK TIMES refers to Marsha P. Johnson as one of "15 Remarkable Women We Overlooked in Our Obituaries" (emphasis added!) on the front page of today's edition.

Surely this will finally put to certain editors' gentle insistence that Marsha P Johnson was not in fact a "woman", unless of course those editors' assessments are more astute than the research of the New York Times. And if we are now dismissing the NYTimes as a source, we are in trouble.

Those editors have also insisted on quoting an outdated, transphobic source to justify the assessment that Marsha was darkly, pathologically "male" when she was having breakdowns, contradicting the modern psychiatric consensus that transgenderism is no longer considered a pathological condition, titilatingly challenged by mental breakdowns. Marsha P.Johnson's interaction with public health services were all conducting under her birth name, because she was poor and did not have access to lawyers or advocacy for such luxuries as correct pronouns on her ID. It is unfortunate that the editors in question have cherry picked this secondary source material to bolster their suggestion that Marsha was a "gay man". It's just terrifically offensive and should at last be struck from wiki.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/obituaries/overlooked.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fobituaries&action=click&contentCollection=obituaries&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

a further editor @CorbieVreccan insists on quoting every line from the youtube documentary on Johnson EXCEPT the one in which she states that she has "lived [her] life as a woman". @CorbieVreccan claims that others have tried to manipulate the truth in stating that Johnsons, the founder for Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries, was transgender. The reality is that articulation of Johnson's trans identity has been almost entirely struck from the record.

And lastly, rereading @justthefacts notes above, I am honestly amazed that he not only breaks my wiki anonymity, but he also flippantly misgenders me. if you are such a brilliant sleuth in determining who it is that i am, then surely you are also aware that I am documented in every media source of any note around the world as having a female name and using female pronouns... or are you now insidiously insisting that I too am a "gay man"? It's disappointing and reveals an underlying bias on the whole subject of who is transgender and who is not.

"(I see no good reason to pretend I'm not talking about a particular person) was more dedicated to fighting over the contents of the article than I was. Now that his account is gone (?)..." etc

rebisrebis 2604:2000:EF0D:C000:40D3:11CC:AD95:D388 (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that the argument that terms which were used for MPJ at the time of their life and death should be used now is not persuasive. There are lots of terms which we no longer use that would no longer be used in articles either. Just because someone has died doesn't mean our labels for that person die as well. If there is evidence that MPJ referred to herself using terms which crossed genders, whether is be hard evidence or anecdotal evidence, then that is how she should be referred to. The New York Times apparently feels the same way, describing MPJ as transgender. Even though this would not have been the terminology that the Times would have used at the time of MPJ's death, they altered their terminology to suit contemporary concerns. The Wikipedia article should do the same.      Spintendo       05:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't find where in the Pay It No Mind documentary she says "lived [her] life as a woman" but I faintly remember it. Rebismusic, can you point out around what time that occurs?
 * I think this is getting fairly ridiculous, and a RfC is a reasonable option soon if this discussion doesn't lead to anything. In light of the NYT article, which very clearly points out The term transgender was not in wide use in Johnson’s lifetime; she usually used female pronouns for herself, but also referred to herself as gay, as a transvestite or simply as a queen and describes her as queer, gender-nonconforming, we need a sentence or two in the lead (or in the performance section and change the title to "Identity and performance work", since it ties in with her name) that summarizes the discussion surrounding her identity. It's unfortunate that some editors here (who supposedly know more about the subject than the NYT and an academic specializing in women & gender studies) object to statements in reliable sources, but that's not how this works. It doesn't make sense for us to be arguing that she didn't like female pronouns when the article itself uses female pronouns – is that solely based on her identity as a drag queen?
 * Reliable sources refer to Johnson with female pronouns and that seems to be what she used. We don't need to say that "she lived [her] life as a woman" or that "she identified as a woman" in order to summarize the NYT article! It perfectly says transgender "was not in wide use in Johnson's lifetime" but still does not ascribe it to her. Having an article open with "Johnson identified as a self-identified drag queen" is vague. Opening with "Johnson identified as a transvestite" without explaining the context is misleading to readers of the article in the year 2018, and failing to represent the apparent confusion within reliable sources isn't WP:BALANCED. We can't just say "oh, well, we know the subject didn't really like this, so we'll avoid using sources that use it". This is probably the most reliable secondary/tertiary source I've seen yet, because it's a reliable outlet, it focuses on her, and it quotes a subject matter expert on top of the subject's own statements and statements from friends. Rhinopias (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just noting here, after finally parsing the many IP edits, that I don't think we need an RfC for so few people. Given the many edits, and editing patterns, the IP editor from two different IPs/Rebismusic/and the musician who has edited the article to add mentions of themself, who signed one of the edits and who is now accusing you of outing and misgendering them, are all the same user. We might need to deal with this with WP:SOCK, unfortunately. since you have an account, it's probably best if you stay logged in. It's also best if you don't continually edit your comments. A quick edit to clarify or correct a mistake, if no one has yet responded is OK, but after that, stop editing as it is confusing for other readers. Thank you. -  <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 20:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The point about pronouns is that there has been a massive cultural change since the 1960s - 1990s era during which Marsha and our contemporaries lived, till the present day. No one in that era stated "preferred pronouns". It just wasn't a thing in the queer community. If you watch all the the documentary footage from the era, you will see that many femme gay men used she/her for everyone they spoke about. It was a cultural, linguistic marker of in-group status, that I included in the earlier version of this page that linked to the Lavender linguistics material. Marsha honestly did not care, and went with whatever pronouns fit with how Marsha was presenting that day (or moment). During the time I knew Marsha in the eighties, Marsha more often used he/him, and was often going by Mikey or Marshall. I do not agree that Marsha's "dark moods" were associated with that gendered presentation. That is something that got falsely conflated. I think the assumption that Marsha preferred she/her is based on the editing of the documentaries, combined with the wholly well-meaning modern convention of not wanting to offend someone by misgendering. But this has led to false assumptions about Marsha, and historical revisionism, based on the sensibilities of readers, not those of Marsha P. Johnson. I've seen raw footage of people with valuable things to say, left out solely because they used he/him; and they spoke that way not out of disrespect, but because they actually spent time with Marsha in person (unlike so many who want to write about Marsha now).

It's hard for younger people, or people who were not out in the 60s/70s/80s/90s to understand, but the type of drag Marsha did was not the "high drag" of RuPaul and company. This has also been misrepresented in the article, and text I put in to clarify this was cut by more recent editors. Despite doing some singing and acting with Hot Peaches and Angels, Marsha was not a stage queen. Marsha dressed up for fun, for style, for sex work (because it got more clients and money), and to get into bars that hadn't previously let Marsha in when dressed as "a butch makeup queen." (Marsha says all of this in Pay it No Mind - which is a full documentary, full of Marsha speaking candidly, that is now available online, not just a YouTube video.)

Yes, the NYT obit has some errors, due to these factors stated above. The author clearly doesn't understand these cultural shifts, and made mistakes. This also happened with the NYT obit of Dennis Banks, which had some bizarre, racist content, that also misunderstood and misrepresented the subject's cultural milieu, background and era, and which is not a respectful or reliable source for writing about Banks. If readers and editors have followed this article and discussion they will know why I have at various points argued for keeping more of Marsha's identity and the cultural milieu explained, and why it got phased out (as WP:COATRACK - which normally I would agree with, but here I believe it is necessary), but I will go with the consensus here.

This is the Gender section as it was basically stable for a while. I apologize for mistakenly including the word "man", as the actual word Marsha used to self-describe is "boy". As I said above, I was already concerned about people's infantilizing attitudes towards Marsha, and I don't think of adults by words used for children. So I mistakenly used the adult version of the word. My mistake. Again, all of this is in Marsha's own words. Marsha is the only authority here.

As an older editor, who lived through a lot of these changes, some of them in the same community with Marsha, it's been difficult so see so much of this history misunderstood and misrepresented. As someone who knew Marsha, I have at times stood back from editing, weighing whether or not it is COI for me to edit here. I believe rab has COI, as rab has stated they have worked on the films, and therefore they have a professional, vested interest and COI. As for those of us who are Marsha's contemporaries, if you were part of the Village scene, at some point, you at least met Marsha. I don't believe I have sufficient COI to stay out of this, as I have respected consensus here, even when consensus has, unfortunately, not been historically accurate.

It is also my very strong opinion, from where and when various sources have been found online, and how they are worded, that this article served as the NYT writer's primary source. Why they, or an editor, then chose to categorize the article they way they did... ? - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In the last interview, one of Marsha's last stated wishes was to be remembered as "A Legendary Drag Queen." Given that, and the fact that we can take the entire article to explain what Marsha meant by that, and encourage people to watch the documentaries where Marsha explains that for readers, it would be rather mean to remove this wish and this statement. Marsha was a proud, in your face queen. It's not Marsha's fault that mainstream people only know about RuPaul's version of that. Let's help them learn some history. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 20:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * regarding to your last statement about Marsha's wishes and your various statements about identity / her identity, I understand that you feel her wish to be remembered as a legendary drag queen is the most important point in crafting this article, but mentioning her wish would naturally lead to this exact discussion, and a discussion of her identity in the article (which you have seemed to vehemently oppose up until now). We should absolutely discuss her explicitly stated preferences, and any elaboration from a secondary or tertiary source should be held as questionable if it does not agree until the discussion is resolved. However, I do not believe you have justified your claim that the NYT source contradicts her statements made during interviews and therefore could make it unreliable regarding her identity. The subject matter experts states, in current language, that she was gender-nonconforming. We do not need to say that's how she identified. We would say "she was gender-nonconforming but, at separate times, identified as gay, a boy, a transvestite, and a drag queen", and then have a sentence or two about the historical context, which the NYT source basically does for us. It doesn't matter that Marsha never uttered the word gender-nonconforming; what matters is that the subject matter expert used it to describe her in current language, and that's a secondary source for us to utilize – the professor is the secondary, synthesizing primary material (Marsha). (Though I have doubts there isn't sneaky OR in there based on this article's current condition, the Gender section you linked to looks rather well done to me…) Whether or not there are inaccuracies in the obituary in light of your personal knowledge about Marsha, you cannot discredit the entire source as inaccurate. WP:RSN could... but I really don't think we need to bring this article there. Or, we could ask the international news editor at The New York Times if he copied his global publication from a Wikipedia article. I think this is the first time I'm writing "lol" on wiki. This reputable source corroborates other sources: the documentaries, the books, the accounts from friends, the self-published videos and articles… I just don't understand why you're discrediting it. All of these documentaries and random excerpts in books are great, but this is an incredibly high profile and detailed, summarizing piece. You want to include "She was a cultural fixture in Greenwich Village" in the article? Well, now you probably can and it can be sourced appropriately, because The New York Times said she was for nearly three decades, a fixture of street life in Greenwich Village.
 * I'm less interested in this discussion about explicitly stating Marsha's (apparently) complicated identity than I am in continuing to verify that all the content in this article is appropriately sourced. Unfortunately, I can't access some of these book sources, but if you'll take a look at #Early life as it is right now, you'll see I've completed a thorough review of the content/sourcing and added some details. The documentary tags always have timestamps, the NYT article is easily searchable or the tag has a quote, and the Carter book (I don't have access to page #s) only features her in a few places. I've very carefully examined the section to remove original research, assure neutrality, and make it easily verifiable. In light of your declaration of an actual COI based on your relationship with the article's subject, I don't believe you have approached my attempts to verify the content of the article suitably – quick to comprehensively revert my much less biased edits (not separating out your concerns) while, at the same time, not fully engaging me in discussion on talk. I imagined you had a bias, but a relationship with the subject? Accurately reflecting (to reliable sources) the content we add to articles requires us to set aside our knowledge of the subject. We all have to do it when we edit in the areas we're passionate about, but a personal relationship with the subject may be making that not possible for you. Rhinopias (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify - I'm not saying I knew Marsha extremely well, or that we "had a relationship". I don't think I knew Marsha well enough for me to have COI here. I don't have that kind of investment. It's just that, as Marsha was so prominent in the community, it was impossible to have been around in those years, to have been an activist in those years, and have not at least met Marsha, been at some of the same events, known the same people, etc. The queer community is a rather small pond. I know the COI rules very well and I have not broken them. I have used my knowledge of the period and the subject to vet sources and add background here on talk, as we do when we work on articles where we have an extensive background in the field.
 * You claim I have "vehemently" opposed the gender section. I created and wrote the initial gender section, because so many people only seem to care about how Marsha "identified", not what Marsha accomplished. Yet as soon as it was integrated into the entire body of the article, which I initially protested, the problems began again. I discussed it here, and eventually went with the consensus of other editors to not recreate it. I'm very concerned that you don't seem to carefully read what other editors write here, Rhinopias. You appear to only skim what other editors write, and then you complain that we don't continually rehash the same discussions, when the discussion is right there in front of you.


 * Additionally, if you think I'm saying her wish to be remembered as a legendary drag queen is the most important point in crafting this article, you once again have not read what I'm saying. Or any of the discussions the writers of this article have had here. None of us have never said that. Pointing out that Marsha talked about being remembered as a "Legendary Queen" is not saying the focus of the article should be changed. The productive writers here have always wanted the focus to be on Marsha's activism and work in the community. I wish we lived in a world where we didn't need the gender section. But since the sad fact is that's all most people who come to this article seem to care about, I support re-instating it. Assuming it's accurate. But I'll go with whatever the consensus is. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 05:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You state that i am "accusing" another editor of misgendering me, as if it were not a simple fact. Pathetic. Your very statement that it's a "sad fact" that people care so much about Marsha's gender identity, when Johnson is hailed globally as one of the founders of the modern trans rights movement as a founder of STAR, underscores the reality that you are fundamentally not qualified to edit this page. In the context of today's semantics, Marsha P. Johnson was transgender, and she was a woman, as now confirmed by the New York Times. Anyone still trying to negate that looks increasingly petty and self serving. - Rebisrebis — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by 68.173.142.159 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This page is for improving the article. If you have a personal issue with someone, take it up on user talk. I hadn't noticed who used a gendered term with you, or what it was. How is anyone supposed to know, or keep track of, the gender of an anonymous screen name or string of numbers? WP isn't about any of us as anonymous contributors. It's about the 'pedia. Sign in to your account and be accountable, Reb. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestion that a different editor at the NYTimes may have titled the front page article "15 Remarkable Women We Overlooked in Our Obituaries" without being sufficiently researched preposterously implies that the New York Times' actual decision to include Marsha P. Johnson under that banner was a mistake. Perhaps you imagine that the NY Times actually meant to publish a group of obituaries for "14 Remarkable Women and One Gay Man"? Your reasoning and lines of defense are unconvincing, culminating in your assertion that you, who claim to have known Johnson personally but apparently not personally enough to have a COI, are a more credible source than the NY Times. It is an unfortunate fact that there is a very outspoken older gay man from the community you say you were/are a part of named Jim Fourratt, (how has his own page here on Wiki), who has campaigned over the years in insidiously ways against the trans rights movement and the semantics of transgenderism ever since it's inception. Your approach and self-description in this section suggest that you at least sympathize with this POV. Regardless, it is important to reiterate that this may be the context for the seemingly endless cycle of negation of a transgendered woman of color's identity that sadly continues to rear its ugly head here.  - Rebisrebis  — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by 68.173.142.159 (talk) 07:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary added to article
I added a summary of Johnson's gender identity as discussed in the NYT article with this edit. The language should be appropriately attributed to either her own identity (via the article / Kasino), pronouns used by her friends (whether or not she identifies with them), or the subject matter expert quoted in the article, including the mention of "transgender" as it's part of the same sentence that leads with "According to Susan Stryker".

I don't believe this needs its own section, as I think the NYT article seems to be the only source which summarizes these details (and has the SME) so it wouldn't be appropriately weighted to place discussions about her identity on their own. Though it's not really in a "timeline", placing it after the description of her name—which relates to her gender variance, including the WP article title and its use of pronouns—seemed most logical to me. Rhinopias (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

referring to Lavender linguistics, if the sentence about pronouns isn't relevant to her gender expression because her friends' use of female pronouns isn't a conscious decision based on her identity (but simply her belonging), then it makes sense to exclude that. Rhinopias (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Your edit should finally end this debate imho I'm sure it would still be debated though. Though maybe it's debatable with people like Diana Prince and Christine Jourgensen that the term "transgender" was in use (though I forget what they did use for back then), it's clear that Marsha would fit in the GNC category, in retrospect though her presence definitely was inspirational to the transgender community as well. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it'd be great if we had reliable sources that discussed this more, but I think that in time more will pop up. Rhinopias (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * BrothaTimothy The swapping in of "gender" for "sex", in cases where it's not accurate but just "sounds more polite" has taken place gradually over the past thirty? or forty(?) years or so, and now rapidly since the 2000s. Jourgensen and others who did medical transition were always simply called transsexuals. I recall "transgender" mostly coming in in a few scattered place in  the early '90s, but it was still mostly used for those who considered themselves transsexual, and wanted medical transition, but just couldn't have the surgery for medical or financial reasons. I think it was only in the mid '90s or, for more people, well into the '00s, that it took on a broader meaning. I'd have to dig out mailings and check the dates because I think Marsha was still alive when the word was coming into usage on the East Coast, and in communities Marsha was in, but I'm really not certain. If there was overlap it wasn't by more than a few years. I recall a conference/retreat to be held in the early '90s, to discuss what this new word meant to us. I was planning to go but couldn't make it. Not sure how it went. I don't know if Marsha was there. -  <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 18:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that is real interesting. That could explain how Sylvia Rivera began to refer to herself as transsexual before her death. We do know Marsha had been thinking of transitioning in Europe but she didn't go. But yeah, I have noticed that over the years. But still, Marsha always identified as a transvestite (man dressed up in women's clothing) even by the time transgender began to gain some mainstream attention. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 22:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of Sylvia ever self-id-ing as "transsexual." (ETA: I'm not saying what is and isn't TS vs TG here, or how these things should be defined, just what I've known of what words Sylvia used to self-id.) Sylvia did hormones near the very end of life (Rivera died in 2002, ten years after Johnson), but never sought surgical transition that I am aware of. For most of Johnson's activist years (July 1972* - July 1992)[eta: oops, '73. see note at end], Rivera was living upstate. Rivera only moved back to NYC after Johnson's death. As "transgender" came into the nomenclature, it was added to some signs at demos and position papers shortly before Sylvia died, but Sylvia went on record saying, specifically, in Queens in Exile, "I don't even like the label transgender." In looking through what we have for sourcing on how Sylvia self-id'ed, it was also "drag queen" and "transvestite" up till the end, for the most part, except when the newly-coined "transgender" was the preferred term of the group Rivera was speaking to or organizing with (I think the only time I've heard Rivera say it was at the event in Italy). In Rivera's last biographical statements, Rivera used "gay, queen, transvestite, and transgender" all interchangeably; like Feinberg's definitions in the early '00s, transgender was still in the process of being defined then, and was being used with somewhat different meanings by different populations. We seem to have actually come full circle with that now, with people often arguing for definitions that are, in some ways, almost polar opposites. Which is why I think we need to be as precise as we can be with quoting people's actual words about themselves. Best, - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 19:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Clar: It was after the '73 Liberation Day rally that Sylvia moved upstate. I was thinking '72 for some reason. Probably because of having to type '92. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 20:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)