Talk:Michelle Kosilek/Archive 1

Pronouns
I changed the pronouns in the article; since this person is still a male both physically and legally, it doesn't seem to make sense to refer to him as a "she/her".


 * Actually there is not a legal definition of when male or female pronouns should be used. There are discussions in style guides that state pronouns should only be used to reflect gender, not sex.  They go on to state that gender is self-perceived and therefore should reflect the person's self-opinion.  Physical sex is not so clear--the guides vary.  To that end, female pronouns should be used.


 * Further, this subject's name has been legally changed to Michelle, and in fact the court filings referenced in the article have the name of Michelle on it as well. To that end, I will suggest this article be renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShellyA227 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have changed the pronouns back to she/her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.224.69 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've adopted what seems a simple compromise. He kills his wife. Then identifies as female and "she sues..." etc. The name Robert needs to be highlighted so that the redirect to this page from Robert Kosilek is less startling to the unaware searcher. 68.162.221.100 (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But I do believe the article itself should be renamed. 68.162.221.100 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, and came here to do that, but see Jenova has just beaten me to it. Thanks!  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 18:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It didn't appear controversial...beaten by a whisker Gareth =P ツ Je no va  20  (email) 18:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. Well done! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability as biography
The lede of the article reads "... who is best known for the controversy surrounding her attempts to obtain treatment for her gender identity disorder while in prison." Yet, only 5% of the article speaks to this. Had Kosilek not been in the news for her lawsuits, she certainly would not be notable; she'd just be another convicted murderer. The meat of this article are all the biographical details, details which don't make her notable. I wonder if this article is a pseudo biography. I wonder if it would be more appropriate to have an article which speaks to the notability of Kosilek's lawsuit and the result, but not Kosilek herself. The vast majority of sources talk about her efforts to obtain care for transsexualism, as opposed to being generally about her. I don't think she merits a biographical article. Thoughts? MsFionnuala T L C  01:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. While she is most notable for her various law suits concerning gender reassignment the background and details of her biography are no less relevant. I do however agree that it could use some editing on terms of the prose and going into extensive details . The wording of the article is at times repetitive (it says the line "were never prosecuted" at the end nearly every paragraph) to the point where it seems a little obnoxious and nauseating to read. Additionally, the pronouns are not consistent throughout the article. Perhaps the details of the lawsuits could be evened out better if the description of this biography which was seems to have unfortunately been subject a vast series of abuse could be summed up better in one section. As opposed to reading section after section detailing needlessly what ultimately has the same conclusion of "they were never prosecuted". Ariadavid (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are they "no less relevant?" What does that even mean? Relevant to what? There are millions of transsexual people who have suffered things like Kosilek has. It's not notable that a transsexual person has suffered some sort of abuse and/or discrimination; rather, it's typical. MsFionnuala T L C  14:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether it is "typical" of transsexuals or not it is still her biography. Your suggestion that it be omitted for this reason not only strikes me as unacademic but extremely transphobic. As I have stated before perhaps instead of an at length intimately detail of every incident of abuse perhaps a more summarized condensed description would be more agreeable.Ariadavid (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So, hello, I am the editor who contributed the bulk of the material to this article (compare before and after I contributed).

The main reason I expanded this article was that another article about Kosilek's attempts to get medical treatment in prison came up in a Boston newspaper, and I found myself thinking: "I keep hearing about this trans woman who murdered her wife, but I never hear anything about the circumstances surrounding the murder. Reporters never discuss the motive, or anything about Kosilek or her wife's personal history; it's all sensationalism over whether the taxpayers should have to pay for a murderer's 'sex change' surgery. What the heck happened here? Who is this person, and why did she kill her wife?" The article content is the result of my search for information.

The reason I included so much material about Kosilek's experiences of transphobic discrimination and violence is that that material makes up the bulk of the sparse biographical information that is available. Kosilek committed the murder nearly 23 years ago, in 1990. Kosilek was in her late 30s or early 40s at the time. The records of what was going on in Kosilek's life in the 70s and 80s are few and far between, and even the coverage of the murder in the 90s is wanting for background information. I did the best I could with what was available. I would certainly support expanding the biography with more details if they can be found (such as where Kosilek got her degree, where she worked, why she went to jail, etc).

I would absolutely be in favor of adding more information about the trial and sentencing; that is why I added the {expand} tag to the section. I found the written material related to the trial to be more difficult to sift through and interpret, as legal cases are not my area of expertise. If anyone with a legal background (or even a general interest in the topic) would be interested to review the court documents related to the case and expand the section on the trial, I encourage them to do so. Several of the court documents are linked in the References section.

I do disagree with the idea that Kosilek is non-notable. The case drew quite a bit of attention at the time, and, indeed, the case continues to receive news coverage today, as Kosilek's attempts to get medical treatment continue. Just Tidying Up (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I agree with this fully. The idea that this poster is trying to negate the biography by concluding that its "typical of transsexuals" is absurd. As someone who lives in Massachusetts and is apart of the LGBT community I've taken an interest in this case and ever since hearing about it I've wanted to understand the woman behind the name. I think the information that you provided not only gives a lot of needed answers to an inquisitive public but also adds depth to the biography. I checked this article several months ago and it was just a stub. Now it is a full length article. Again, thank you for your contribution and weighing on this issue.Ariadavid (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You are entirely welcome. I am glad you appreciate my contributions, as I really did put effort into improving the article to the best of my ability.
 * I did want to say that I interpreted MsFionnuala's comments a bit differently than you did. I thought this editor was actually being supportive of trans people in general, because this editor was pointing out that it is Kosilek's trans history that has brought the public's attention, rather than the murder itself. I took it to mean that many murders are committed in exactly the same fashion, and that were it not for Kosilek's trans status, she wouldn't be notable at all.
 * That said, it's not Wikipedia's place to comment on whether people should consider Kosilek to be notable. Even if some people are merely gawking at her, and at the situation, the legal implications with regards to trans health care for people in the criminal justice system bring an extra measure of notability. Just Tidying Up (talk) 03:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ariadavid, I am a transsexual woman. Transphobic? Not so much. But thanks for playing. Just Tidying Up does understand what my point was, even if (s)he (Sorry, don't know you) doesn't agree with it... that Kosliek in and of herself is not notable. I've suffered a few of the same things as Kosliek did; many of the things that she suffered are typical of transsexual people. There's nothing notable about a transsexual woman suffering abuse as a child. MsFionnuala T L C  00:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Who wrote this article?
Kosilek's defense attorney? Because it reads like a litany of excuses designed to illicit sympathy for a convicted murderer.

The victim blaming is particularly reprehensible. Cheryl McCaul forced Robert Kosilek act like a straight man and he killed her because she provoked him? That's spin, not facts.

Since when is it Wikipedia's policy to advocate for cold-blooded killers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.123.204 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you don't think the article is very good, why not contribute and *improve* the article? Just Tidying Up (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)