Talk:The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes

Novel and contentious claims in the book should be caveated
It should be made clear that the speculation eg. that physical evidence was forged and that the testicular samples were fraudulently obtained is just speculation.

Playdon's assertions that trans people were able to change their birth certificate on demand should be caveated as assertions by the author. This assertion is contrary to the established law which was that birth certificates could only be changed in the event of an actual error. On page 213 Playdon claims: "that self-declaration of their ‘psychological sex’ was the only valid criteria for deciding trans people’s legal sex". This is in contrast to the opinion of Lord Hunter which is the exact opposite: "I am far from saying, to take an example, that a finding that the psychological sex of an individual was male would ever justify a conclusion that a person was legally a male". Hence, Forbes changed his birth certificate to correct it on the grounds of an unidentified intersex condition, and provided physical evidence to that fact when it was brought into dispute. Void if removed (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article already notes that "Prior to that decade, trans individuals were considered a subset of intersex conditions, but psychiatrists pushed in the 1960s for being transgender to be labeled as a mental illness.". And, sorry, but no, there's no indication in the sources that Forbes was a non-trans intersex person. As the sources discuss, they only had secondary male sex characteristics from the usage of hormone therapy. And the doctors found no evidence of testicular tissue existing on Forbes and the collection of the tissue was done entirely on his own without anyone else involved. As the sources note. And Playdon specifically goes into detail that when not involved in major legal cases, the changing of one's birth certificate at the time wasn't something that was disputed, hence why it could be done on one's own. But once called into legal question, such as by the cousin, then the change had to be physically done. You are using unrelated opinion and SYNTH to push your claims on actual past events. The book goes over all of this in extreme detail. Silver  seren C 18:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved lede discussion to separate section. Void if removed (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The lede should not state the case was about "being transgender"
The phrasing of the lede is inappropriate. Whatever Playdon's interpretation of events, at the time there was no question that the case was about "being transgender". The case was about Ewan Forbes' change of sex on his birth certificate and whether he really was male or actually female. Ewan won on the grounds of being considered intersex, not transsexual, and that his original birth certificate was truly in error. The wording should be changed from "the 1968 legal case he was involved in regarding being transgender" to "the 1968 legal dispute over a change of sex on his birth certificate", or alternatively it could be worded "the 1968 legal dispute which called into question his sex". Void if removed (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Another alternative: "the 1968 legal dispute which called into question his sex and consequent eligibility to inherit his baronet title" Void if removed (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Another suggested alternative: "the 1968 legal dispute which called into question his sex and consequent eligibility to inherit his baronet title. Zoë Playdon calls into question the previous determination that Forbes was intersex, and advances the alternative theory that Forbes was in reality transsexual." This makes it clear what the book is about, using the language of the book itself. Void if removed (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that "transgender" is the term sourced in The Hidden Case, and that the the alternatives presented here are based on an editor's interpretation of primary sources. Are there any WP:RS supporting alternative language? Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Transgender" does not appear in the book until chapter 11. By contrast, the first description of the case in the introduction, on page 9 states it is about "the correction of his birth certificate in 1952", "a legal wrangle about him inheriting his primogeniture baronetcy", and that "On the face of it, Ewan was 'intersex' [...] not what was then called 'transsexual'". Void if removed (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (It's literally the subtitle of the book: The Transgender Trial that Threatened to Upend the British Establishment) Silver  seren C 20:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Depends on the edition - an alternative subtitle is "And the Unwritten History of the Trans Experience". Void if removed (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, both subtitles are in the lede, the point is not to repeat them, but to describe the contents clearly. The actual text establishes the nature of the trial early on in the terms I have described and they are more explanatory than reiterating the subtitle. Void if removed (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)