Talk:Janet Mock

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Campcrystallake1935, Shannonmullaley (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mlproffitt, Virginia.Marshall, Glazejasmyn, Keelimancino, Eavinson3.

#girlslikeus

Learning to edit to fix the mistake about #girlslikeus being created for women of color, as Janet's blog specifically says that it was intended to bring together trans-women of all backgrounds here. If I do anything wrong I'm hoping someone will fix it. This is my first Wikipedia edit ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.29.36 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity

One of the cite articles said she has a Native Hawaiian mother and African-American father. Therefore, I added her to the category LGBT African Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.246.5 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Deadnaming

Hey, I move that Janet Mock's male-assigned birth name be removed from the article. Disclosing the birth-assigned names of transgender persons (or "deadnaming") serves no educational or research purpose for the general Wikipedia user, and does little more than delegitimize the identities and intrude upon the privacy of transgender persons. Wikipedia's WP: Gender Identity advises on the issue of legal/birth names: "Legal names have little to no relevance to our naming policy. Nor is the state a neutral arbiter of these matters. If there is a difference between a person's gender expression and the gender assigned to them by the state, basic respect requires us to side with the individual. The status of transgender rights, for instance changing one's sex on a birth certificate, varies widely by jurisdiction. We also should avoid saying an article should be a particular way because of a basic opposition to the notion of changing one's public gender presentation." In fact, since Janet Mock is Mock's legal name, there is no need to use her birth name in this article at all. Pinko1977 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

If she is not known for the name then removing it should be no big deal. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree that the person was not notable, I also don't agree with this IP in general but in this case I think it was correct, WP:BIRTHNAME, among other policies, could certanly apply in this case. Declaring consensus after two people have commented is in poor taste. That said, if consensus goes the other way, the linked edit seems resonable.CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have little opinion as to whehter the birth name should be included or not, there are conflicting(or unclear) policies at play. I lean ever so slightly tward including the information, as more information is better in most cases in my opinion. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I lean towards removing her birth name, as it has no obvious relevance. She became notable well after she started using her current name. On the other hand, I believe that she has disclosed her birth name multiple times, so if we do keep the name we're not infringing on her privacy. My greatest concern is that we may be setting a bad precedent for articles about other people who choose not to publicise such information. Pburka (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

She seemed to think it was important enough to state it in the Marie Claire coming article about herself she wrote. It smacks of arrogance for us to say that in doing that she was doing little more than deligitimizing herself.--GRuban (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that article was contentious from Mock's perspective, if she insisted it be included then that's one thing, if they compelled the information, that would be another. Do we have evidence either way? Or do we have her telling her own story and talking about her former name? That might settle it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be her telling her own story. It's not an interview. --GRuban (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems as though this is a set policy already, but I don't think it's a good idea for an encyclopedia or historical document. If you look at our articles on people who have changed their name other than for gender-identity reasons, the original name is always given. Helps you find birth records, check out the history, etc. People who have changed their name for any reason may not be fond of their previous name(s) but WP should be about facts, not about tiptoeing on eggshells to avoid offending someone. 86.159.197.174 (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As per BOLD I've decided that its within policy to remove her deadname, as it is on many pages such as Laverne Cox, and Jamie Clayton. Also of note, the name was added (twice) long after the above discussion took place by IP 98.174.87.167 on 22:22, 30 June 2015. Then added to the infobox on 05:26, 12 August 2015‎ by ACase0000. To be honest this seems like intentional harassment and bias by the editor (formerly named Jesus Lover0000), but I'll leave my personal opinion out of it and just revert these.--Amantis (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• WP:BIRTHNAME applies to the first mention in the opening sentence, not the rest of the article. The name is widely known, unlike the former name of Laverne Cox, and can be easily found in sources.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Advocate or activist?

Her website says she is an advocate but doesn't mention activist. Is there a difference? Should it match? --DHeyward (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think they are largely interchangeable. An activist, from my understanding, is presumed to be a part of the community for which one advocates, whereas an advocate is more of an ally. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

transexual woman or trans woman

It's my understanding that "trans woman" is a broad term for persons that were assigned a non-female gender at birth but identify as female. A "transexual woman" is for persons that were assigned a non-female gender at birth and have started and/or completed a physical transformation to realign their physical bodies to their gender identity. Her original interview identifies her as a "transexual woman" and post-SRS (with hormones starting at 15 from a friend). The reason I ask is that some transexual women are offended to be lumped in with trans women that have not undergone any type of transition (i.e. those identifying as "Harry Benjamin Syndrome" are more likely to distinguish their "transexual" experience from what they label as cross-dressers or transvestites and the broader "trans" umbrella) and are adamant that they be addressed as a "woman" or "transexual woman" but not the broader category of "trans woman" as they don't identify with the broader categories. I thought it would be least offensive to use "transexual woman" for someone that is post-SRS but may be offensive to some to use "trans woman" (and not just for the subject, but others that have gone through the same physical transformation). In other words, this subject may not have a preference given her interviews and advocacy, the larger trans community probably wouldn't have an issue with "transexual woman" but a smaller post-SRS subset has an issue with "trans woman." Too nuanced? --DHeyward (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that trans woman is preferred, if the subject is even brought up, which it obviously is in this case. One solution may be to not if she specifically addresses herself in a term, then we can cite that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I found her own words where she identifies specifically as a trans woman, I added the source with a quote. Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Misgendered"

Neither of the sources use the term "misgendered" (one does, but in the magazine "namespace", not the article). When talking about the concept using the term is okay, but to use it as a verb in writing should be avoided per MOS:NEO, especially when the sources don't use the term.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's in the Oxford, it's not a neologism. You've been told that and the dictionary link has been provided. Now your intent seems focused on either reverting me or intentionally disruptively editing multiple transgender-related articles. That's not cool. Discuss, don't revert. The status quo holds until you show a consensus for change. Skyerise (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because it is included in some dictionaries doesn't disqualify it from being a neologism. I'm adding a "tag" to the article, not changing the text.

Update: That aside the source(s) don't use the term, so it is original research.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a current academic source, preferably in the field of linguistics, that describes the word as a neologism. We are source-based, not personal-opionion-based. Unless you have a source, it's unjustified tagging. Skyerise (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

We paraphrase sources all the times. Everybody know what it means, unless they want to play dumb to harass the editors of articles on transgender subjects. Skyerise (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if we could keep the discussion civil, and avoid personal attacks.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with referring to the concept using the word, I just don't think it should be used as a verb per MOS:NEO. Sort of along the lines of the Use–mention distinction. This article and Death of Leelah Alcorn are the only two that use the word in this way as a verb.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Requesting a third opinion.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

Whether misgendering can truly be defined as a neologism is debatable; at any rate, I think it is suitable for it to not be considered original research. There are better sources for the term at Transphobia#Misgendering and exclusion; some (if not all) of said sources should be added to this article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Needs more sources

The article needs more sources. I have added some inline tags.SunCrow (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Birth name

@Rab V: This source was added to the article and is based on an interview with Janet Mock where she says:

“ I was once a big dreamer who happened to be born a boy named Charles. I hope my story resonates with other big dreamers, lets them know that no matter how huge, how insane, how unreasonable or unreachable your goals may seem, nothing — not even your own body — can hold you back if you are certain and fearless and, yes, even a little ballsy in your quest. ”

She specifically stated her birth name as an inspiration to other transgenders therefore her name should be included. Omnipedia (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up in the talk page. Janet Mock later wrote about not agreeing with how that article referred to her in childhood, see [1]. Beyond that, in prior conversation on this talk page there was disagreement about how relevant her name is to the article, WP:DUE, since it is rarely discussed and never used in a professional context. There was also concern about WP:BIO issues since bringing up a transgender person's former name when it's not relevant can also be used to disparage or harass. On a separate note, in RS and common use 'transgenders' is not used since transgender is an adjective. This guide mostly accurately describe terminology related to this topic [2]. Hope its helpful.Rab V (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Rab's assessment. There seems to be no benefit to including Mock's prior name, and multiple reasons not to. Cassie Evenstar (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia article, not a gender-affirming essay. In other contexts, biographical information a subject dislikes is not excluded. I raise this point to see what people think, not to enforce a conclusion. Zaslav (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)