Talk:Trace Lysette

Gender
The article misses information about her gender at birth, the biography cannot be understood without that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.137.96.17 (talk • contribs)
 * Disagree, enough information is there, our readers are smart enough. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This article actually made me hunt down the most current Wiki best practices on this topic, which I hadn't done for a few years, and the two points I found most relevant from MOS:GIDINFO are:


 * 1. We should try to respect how each subject would prefer to be addressed or named in their articles.
 * 2. Unless there is a good (i.e. encyclopedic) reason to mention things like the name and/or gender a person was assigned at birth, why would we?


 * And "the biography cannot be understood without that" is not an encyclopedic response to "why would we." This individual has gone by the name Trace Lysette since well before she was a notable figure, and the Early Life section is not significantly impacted by failing to include that information. A 400 page biography might benefit from such details, a brief encyclopedic entry does not. CleverTitania (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely sure what the original commenter is wanting: that the article mention she was once both a man and therefore assigned as male or merely that she is trans-female. If the former, I don't think that meaningfully contributes to, or clarifies, the article. However, I do believe it should be explicitly mentioned at some point that she is trans—perhaps in the introductory section for ease of reference, but alternatively in the Early Life section or the Personal section being acceptable as well. I believe I can provide an satisfactory answer to (2) and an alternative framing to (1) that clarifies the question's intent.
 * Regarding (2): I initially looked this actress up after hearing about her film "Monica" and wanting to know whether the film's lead (the actress in question) was trans herself. I wanted to know this because (as a personal viewpoint) I generally feel that trans characters should these days be played by trans actors/actresses. I found it unreasonably difficult and onerous to perform a perfunctory verification that if this person was trans actress. The critical word here is perfunctory, which, much more often than not, is what many average users use Wikipedia for: quick verification checks and time-efficient extractions for information. We should not be making the Wikiepdia user "work" for it by only having indirect or implicit mentions like her gender transition buried in the middle of a section. I skipped over the Early Life section initially and went to Personal. Lack of explication goes against the spirit of the Wikipedia best practices and mission.
 * Regarding (1): I certainly agree with you if the original commenter's claim was about mentioning her assigned gender at one point being male. However, mis-gendering an individual or using that individual's former name is completely unrelated to mentioning that an individual is trans-(fe)male or cis-(fe)male. Unless there is documented or recorded evidence that she said she strongly prefers that she not be mentioned as a trans person, then stating that a trans actress is trans doesn't seem to be at all contentious, especially since it's an underrepresented group in the profession. 2601:4C0:8001:2870:B49E:4F8C:A731:C168 (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)