Current Events > Random thought - how do we refer to transgender individuals before transition?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Legitimately curious - the thought just popped in my head.

I know that it is probably more socially acceptable to refer to them as their 'new' gender (male to female - referring to them as her/she), but historically, should we refer to them in the past before they transitioned as their 'pre-transition' gender?

Basically, if Joe became Jolene in 2008, but if we are talking about a story that happened in 2004, should we refer to Joe or Jolene?

I can think of a real example - Caitlyn Jenner. Did Bruce or Caitlyn compete in the Olympics?

---

I'd think it would be Caitlyn because that's who she was the entire time before it was more acceptable to society to transition. All of this generally confuses me though because it's not something I can relate to, and I don't have anyone in my life that has experienced this.

---

MabusIncarnate posted...

I'd think it would be Caitlyn because that's who she was the entire time before it was more acceptable to society to transition. All of this generally confuses me though because it's not something I can relate to, and I don't have anyone in my life that has experienced this.

I suppose so, but what if we are talking about someone through a historical context - Is it better to go with "A was born, A did this, A did that, A became B, B did this, B did that"?

---

I don't know. I say it's safe to respect the present instead of risking offense. I feel like others can weigh in more than I can here.

---

When a person transitions, it is because they knew from earlier on that they are not their gender assigned at birth. They were always the new gender, they just either didnt realize it at the time, or kept it hidden (for obvious reasons, given the world we live in), etc.

In fact, referring to them as a past name is called deadnaming, and referring to them by their past gender would simply be misgendering them.

---

parabola_master posted...

When a person transitions, it is because they knew from earlier on that they are not their gender assigned at birth. They were always the new gender, they just either didnt realize it at the time, or kept it hidden (for obvious reasons, given the world we live in), etc.

In fact, referring to them as a past name is called deadnaming, and referring to them by their past gender would simply be misgendering them.

So was I kind of right then?

---

Yes, and I like your phrasing of it, respect the present

A debate you might be interested in is whether Wikipedia articles should even list a trans persons name at birth, or if they should omit it. I honestly think its up to the trans person themself, and whether they feel comfortable with that other name or if they would prefer people not to use it. I am not a part of the trans community so I am not an expert by any means, but I do try to learn about their community in order to be as respectful to others as I can be

---

parabola_master posted...

Yes, and I like your phrasing of it, respect the present

A debate you might be interested in is whether Wikipedia articles should even list a trans persons name at birth, or if they should omit it. I honestly think its up to the trans person themself, and whether they feel comfortable with that other name or if they would prefer people not to use it. I am not a part of the trans community so I am not an expert by any means, but I do try to learn about their community in order to be as respectful to others as I can be

That is why I actually used Caitlyn Jenner as an example. They were an olympic athlete participating in male events - they were married to a woman and had children. It would seem very hard to identify them as a female in these situations, isn't it?

I guess, what I am wondering is if someone was to do a history report on Jenner (or any other 'famous' transgendered individual), how would they explain their lives? A history report would need to be factual - so is it wrong to identify the actions that Bruce did as Bruce's actions, and Caitlyn's as Caitlyn's?

---

A lot of Wikipedia articles Ive read use a persons current name, and typically mention their birth name in the opening of their early life.

Celebrity Y was born as Average Person X in Flushing, Queens...etc etc

Seems like a fine enough way to do things.

Specifically with the Bruce/Caitlin Jenner things, it may be useful, in the context of history/education, to have a quick aside. They participated as a male under their birth name, Bruce Jenner or something like that. If only to make it more easy/convenient to research/find contemporary sources that may not have had their meta-data updated. (Such as an old Olympic video that still refers to her as Bruce)

...

that all said, this isnt something Im especially invested in. So if historical writing etiquette moves to expunging their AGAB then Im not gonna lose any sleep.

---

AlisLandale posted...

A lot of Wikipedia articles Ive read use a persons current name, and typically mention their birth name in the opening of their early life.

Celebrity Y was born as Average Person X in Flushing, Queens...etc etc

Seems like a fine enough way to do things.

Specifically with the Bruce/Caitlin Jenner things, it may be useful, in the context of history/education, to have a quick aside. They participated as a male under their birth name, Bruce Jenner or something like that. If only to make it more easy/convenient to research/find contemporary sources that may not have had their meta-data updated. (Such as an old Olympic video that still refers to her as Bruce)

...

that all said, this isnt something Im especially invested in. So if historical writing etiquette moves to expunging their AGAB then Im not gonna lose any sleep.

That makes sense.


---

If I did a documentary about Caitlyn Jenner, then I would ask her if it was alright to call her Bruce for the things she did before the transition (or when she officially announced it) and Caitlyn for the things afterwards, because it make more sense from a storytelling perspective.

---