Talk:Chevalier d'Éon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Style Issues

This article needs significant work. The language needs tightening, the article is poorly organized, and the facts are bare bones. Hopefully someone will have the time to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.28.255 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 14 September 2005.

Fixed the pervasive tense issues and cleaned up a couple of the really bad lines, but this article still needs a lot of help--parts of it read like a bad fanfic. Also sorted comments on the talk page into appropriate topics. 161.45.124.191 (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The repeated use of "assigned male/female at birth" in this article reads very oddly. Whether or not d'Eon self-identified as male or female, was trans or not, I very much doubt doctors examining the body "discovered that the Chevalier was assigned male at birth"; that's not something you can learn simply from examining a corpse. I suspect this is intended as a euphemism for discovering that the Chevalier had (what the doctors of the time would consider to be) male genitalia. Surely we can come up with some better wording. 38.122.229.162 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a euphemism. See Sex assignment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I defy you to tell me how you can possibly determine what sex/gender an 82-year-old person was assigned at birth by examining that person's corpse, other than by observing that person's genitalia and making assumptions. Presumably the article implies the corpse had genitalia that would lead the doctor to assume the person was assigned male at birth; the only way to know what sex someone was assigned at birth would be testimony from a person who was present at the birth. It seems to me that the article is trying to say the doctors examining the corpse concluded that d'Eon was a man, regardless of the truth of that conclusion. There must be some way to say that without introducing a bizarre claim about the doctors' belief about d'Eon's gender assignment at birth. 38.122.229.162 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably doing this wrong, but I'm not sure exactly how to put this: I came to d'Eon's wikipedia page for information on the person as they are a character in fate/grand order, but I feel like I would have been better served going to the type-moon wiki for information on d'Eon as this is possibly the worst cluster fuck I have ever seen. This page is less coherent and conveys less information to me about the actual person than a fan-made wiki for a video game where in a fictionalized d'Eon is depicted. Please, for the love of God, quit interjecting your fucking politics into things and just present goddamned facts. 71.87.228.38 (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Pronouns

In keeping with Wikipedia's Manual of Style I suggest changing all references to use female pronouns. I will do it later if there isn't compelling reason not to, keeping with Wikipedia's policies. --Nachtrabe 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) would seem to say that the Chevalier should be referred to as "he" before 1777 and "she" after that date. Opera hat (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed gender to reflect how the Chevalier d'Eon identified herself, in line with other transgender articles. (unsigned, undated)

This is ridiculous. The 18th century is not the 21st century. Rules designed for dealing with transgender issues in modern times should not be used for an 18th century cross-dresser. john k (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really not. We're applying the same standard to all and making informed decisions when someone has lived their life as more then one gender identity. If it's clear they though of themselves as female or male then we respect that. Pronoun use does not confer a different standard but the same standard. applying a 21st Centerury standard would be to call them a trans woman without qualifying this is what she would be thought of in modern parlance. -- Banjeboi 20:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all clear that the Chevalier d'Eon thought of himself as a woman. He lived as a woman for part of his life. He also claimed, falsely, to be a biological woman. It was only on this basis of this false testimony that he was legally recognized as a woman by the government, and as such, that recognition was given under false pretences, and ought to be ignored. By using the female pronouns for Eon you are basically saying "The Chevalier d'Eon was transgendered in the modern sense, and viewed himself [herself?] as a woman, and as such we should respect his [her?] wishes and use female pronouns." But there is absolutely no evidence for this. john k (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My perspective - which I have used as a reason for keeping the pronouns as they were - was that after the court rulings (which were binding, even if mistaken) the Chevalier acted, and was construed, as a woman. By arguing for the Chevalier to be referred to as 'he' throughout, you're basically suggesting that our biological perspective, with the hindsight of the post-mortem examination, is more important than events and perceptions during the Chevalier's own life. It's also worth noting that the modern understanding of transsexualism begins with sexologists about 100 years ago examining the Chevalier's case -hence the term Eonism, as noted. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

100 years ago was not, however, the time of Eon. The modern understanding of transsexualism simply did not exist in the 18th century. Eon was treated as a woman because he was pretending to be a biological woman, not because he claimed that he was a woman trapped in a man's body, or whatever the preferred terminology is. However, I won't go further in this line. What I will suggest is that there is a recent academic book about the case, Kates's book. It seems to me that in a case like this, we ought to follow the usage of the most current reliable sources. I don't have Kates's book, but using Amazon to look at the opening pages, he seems to use male pronouns. "Why did the Chevalier d'Eon live the second half of his life as a woman?" "For over thirty-two years, from age forty-nine until his death at eighty-one, d'Eon succeeded in living every day as a woman among the same public that previously had known him as a male diplomat and military hero." "The Chevalier d'Eon, on the other hand, managed to switch genders when he was a pubic personality, and thus had to confront the many stories about him produced by the vitriolic eighteenth-century press." "While it is impossible for the historian to prove, the most likely conclusion, based on the documentation available, is that d'Eon remained a virgin throughout his life." And so on - Kates refers to d'Eon with male pronouns throughout his introduction. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources. We should follow Kates. john k (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we have this discussion before making sweeping changes to the page, please? I'm interested in the points you raise, but you're not helping by making the changes and then presenting your arguments. I'm unfamiliar with the source you cite, and not sure why it should be taken as definitive, but then you don't have a copy either, and are relying on Amazon. Let's pause for breath and try to take a proper consensus, rather than favouring the usage of a single source. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That said, I've just re-read, and I think there's room for manoeuvre here. For the time being, I've replaced 'his' in the lead, and shifted things around in the 'death' section to be gender-neutral. This seems appropriate for a section which deals directly with the question of ambiguous biological sex. I'd prefer to stick to she/her/hers for the sections about the portions of the Chevalier's life lived as a woman, though, as that still seems historically faithful. But I'll try to find some more source - I have a few at home - and see what I can turn up. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not going to revert again, and will only change if we get agreement. I generally find that a couple of reversions is useful for getting people's attention to a debate. Kates is cited in the article itself - his book is Monsieur D'Eon is a Woman: A Tale of Political Intrigue and Sexual Masquerade, published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2001. Kates is a Professor of History and Vice President for Academic Affairs (i.e. Provost?) at Pomona College. He is also one of the co-editors of The Maiden of Tonnerre, an English edition of D'Eon's memoirs. His book seems like virtually an ideal source on the subject - it is very recent, it is published by a well-respected academic press, it is by an author who is apparently an expert on the subject matter and who has impeccable academic credentials, it is a biography of the person whom we are discussing, and it is written in English. I'm not sure about the question of "ambiguous biological sex" - there was no ambiguity, the Chevalier was biologically male. john k (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough - I didn't connect the author's name with the source, as I was originally editing while at work. You're right; Kates is an important source (and one that I wish I owned!). The ambiguity of biological sex only arises if we can source the speculation about Kallmann's syndrome. I'll continue my investigations. But thank you for drawing my attention to the detail of this question - as I noted before, whilst I have specific views on some elements of the text, other bits (like the lead) are quite fairly rendered the way you suggested. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC on the pronoun issue would be in order, to gage a broader range of opinions? john k (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, he has been referred to as 'he' in sources such as Havelock-Ellis, and while he roughly translates to 'transgender' today, his living as a woman was seen in the context of his being a man. The problem is that if you want to change the gender references, you need to change the title - and that is the only title people would recognise. Knights are men, Dames are women, and Chevalier was a male title (Order of Saint-Louis), the French form of 'Knight' ('Sir'). To make sense of this the article would need to be renamed using d'Eon de Beaumont's female name; also, using formal titles in article titles is contrary to MoS for Biographies. Mish (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

D'Eon used the name/title 'La Chevaliere d'Eon', and the name 'Lia de Beaumont' while living as a woman. As the article is about d'Eon's entire life, and 'Chevalier d'Eon' was the name by which d'Eon was generally known overall, this article most certainly does not need to be renamed. Add redirects if you like, but the article title is a no-brainer. I'm advocating using female pronouns for the portion of the Chevalier's life lived as a woman - not otherwise. The case is different to a modern transgender person, but is arguably sui generis. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the title to the article is a clear instance of when we should ignore all rules. Any other title would be kind of silly, and if other guidelines or what not suggest that this title is wrong, that's a rule to ignore. As far as pronouns, do we have any recent sources which refer to him as "she" for any period of his life? The directive to use the female pronoun for the part of his life when he was living as a woman would make sense if we have different sources referring to him in different ways. But I think verifiability demands that there be some reliable source that uses female pronouns. john k (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

i tend to agree, that using 'she', etc. for the period of his/her life lived as a woman makes sense, but not for the period he/she lived as a man. This was the point about the title. If the pronoun is to be changed for the whole article, this would need to be reflected in the title, by dropping the male title (which contravenes MoS anyway). If the male pronoun stands, then I agree, given this is the most common reference, we should ignore all rules, but I can't see why we would pick-and-choose titles and pronouns to suit our whims - the title only makes sense if the article refers to a man, albeit a man who became a woman, and is referred to with female pronouns for the part of the article that deals with that part of his/her life. Mish (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why we should use the female pronouns at all if we can't find a reliable source that does so. john k (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So, it's been three weeks or so. Any reliable sources that refer to Eon with a female pronoun? If nobody can provide any, I'm going to switch to using male pronouns throughout within the next few days. john k (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? Where is the consensus for this change? Only you seem to be in favour of it. I've been busy, but I haven't forgotten my intention to try and find such sources. But I still don't think it's proper to force this change through simply because you feel strongly about it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I intend to change it not because I feel particularly strongly about it, but because wikipedia has to be based on what reliable sources say. If reliable sources don't refer to the Chevalier d'Eon with female pronouns, we shouldn't either. Consensus or not, claiming that d'Eon was a woman (which is, in effect, what we do when we use female pronouns) is a factual claim which needs to be supported with reference to reliable sources. If none of them use the female pronouns, on what possible basis can this article do so? You can have all the time in the world to find sources that refer to the man by female pronouns, but in the meanwhile, if you can't source it, we should follow what the reliable sources actually say. Another source which refers to him entirely with male pronouns is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - the only exception being when taking up Boswell's point-of-view from when he met Eon while he was pretending to be a woman. So we've got the ODNB, probably the best English language reference that would have an entry on Eon, referring to him with male pronouns. We've got d'Eon's own biographer, Gary Kates, doing the same. On the other side we have, what, some sort of Wikipedia manual of style guidelines? This is absurd. john k (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that this debate is old but I would to make some further changes by putting the pronouns in quotation marks: "her" and "she" with quotes. That way we can raise the point that although d'Eon wanted to be seen as a woman, "she" was in fact a man. Any views?--Marktreut (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not what quotation marks mean, though. It's a colloquialism to use quotation marks to imply that a claim is dubious. I also continue to maintain that there is insufficient reason to change the article from its current form. Perhaps an RfC might be appropriate; but I don't feel there is currently a consensus for change. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've read books in which quotation marks are used in such a way. The point is that referring to d'Eon as a she without them implies that the subject was a woman, which was far from the truth. Most biographies that I have read of D'Eon stick to he (without quotes) or "she" (with quotes) even in the parts that deal with his later life when he was consistently dressed as a woman. This strikes me as more of a PC issue than anything else.--Marktreut (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Frenchman and quite bemused by the apparent need to change this historical figure's gender. For those of you who can't read French, la version française uses masculine pronouns always. There's no factual basis that can ascertain how he viewed himself & much we think we know is from secondary sources only, often times unreliable. He used this ambiguity in his own epoch to confuse further the issue. All that seems certain is that he was a man for he was autopsied as such. That should be sufficient information to decide on which gender applies in this biography. Bringing 21st century would-be political correctness into this is in my opinion not only ludicrous but disrespectful to the readers who seek information, not bias. (Jirka Staffan Aubert (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC))

Judging by the comments on this talk page, most people seem to favor the use of male pronouns (although granted, those people would have more reason to leave comments); also, this would not be "forcing through a change" to the article text, as the original text itself was originally changed to use female pronouns instead of male pronouns. Considering the points that people have already made (1) d'Eon was already biologically male, 2) what gender he considered himself is inescapably speculative 3) published sources that discuss d'Eon generally use the male pronoun to refer to him), I shall make this change. JudahH (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Erm, go with male: this article from the Telegraph today about his transvestitism goes with male pronouns, and the British Museum uses them too. Unless other sources use female, it seems obvious that WP here is doing its own OR on the issue.
• Furthermore, the intro says: "Charles [...] was a French diplomat, spy, soldier and Freemason whose first 49 years were spent as a man, and whose last 33 years were spent as a woman." It should be: "whose first 49 years were spent dressed as a man, and whose last 33 years were spent dressed as a woman." No?Malick78 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree, male pronoun is more logical and seems to be used much more often in this case. GreyHood ^Talk 20:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't care if d'Eon is called "he" or "she". But, except for his stay in Russia, he wasn't officially called a woman before 1777. It feels weird to read something like "In 1763, after her successful negotiation..." In 1763 he was clearly identified as a man by everyone including himself. (Jalllllll (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

At the of this writing the article is using female pronouns which I believe is confusing to readers looking for facts about a person who is stated in the article to be anatomically male. The choice of pronouns appears to be based solely on personal bias. I therefore read the talk page to discover why it was decided to use the female pronouns. In doing so, I saw that the majority of the discussion is in favor of using male pronouns, and that the sources use male pronouns when referring to the historical figure. The edit that changed the pronouns to female was made anonymously, had no summary of the changes, and gave no sources that validated the edit. I am reverting the changes made by the anonymous IP 207.243.120.126 (01:55 25 January 2012, 01:59 25 January 2012, 02:01 25 January 2012‎) to reflect this finding. (Kaiomai (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

Thank you, that was wise. In fact, it is proper grammer to refer to something with an unknown gender as "he". To add to the discussion, my grandfather, a Frenchman, always told me that Chevalier was a spy, and that he dressed as a woman in order to sneak into Russia. Afterwards he was caught, and needed to keep up the act. Thus I never considered his transgenderness to be of choice but rather political necessity, and therefore I think the usage of "she" is inappropriate since my ancestor did not intend to make a political statement regarding gender when he dressed as a woman.TopazStar (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed another anonymous editor's additions of "she" and "her" back to "he" and "him" as the consensus above seems to be that he was born male and died male, and therefore the male pronouns are appropriate. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, D'Eon died legally female according to the law of France and of Great Britain, and was only discovered to have been biologically male post mortem. Moreover, TopazStar's claim that 'it is proper grammer to refer to something with an unknown gender as "he"' is simply false in English. It is also highly misleading to suggest that essential feature of transgender identity is 'intent to make a political statement'; most transpeople intend nothing of the sort. I have no idea whether D'Eon did or not, but it's irrelevant. My personal feeling is that the article should reflect the contemporary legal situation, but I'd rather discuss that here than get into an edit war. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style is very clear on this question:

"...An exception to this is made for terms relating to gender. In such cases we favor self-designation, even when source usage would indicate otherwise. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and " [sic]" may be used where necessary)." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity

This is specifically about gender, and it is a newer policy. This individual identified as a woman at the time of her death and wanted to be referred to as one, so it is most appropriate to use female pronouns. I will wait a day so those disputing this are able to see this post, and then I will change the pronouns in this article to female. Singlewordedpoem (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why you would immediately think to do that. The current consensus from the editors above takes your arguments into account, so it doesn't seem like anything has changed. I think it's a bit bizarre to overlay modern transgender ideas onto this person who may or may not have cared what pronouns were used, it's not the same as it is today. I'm not really sure that it's even appropriate to change all the pronouns, as some of the sentences come out strange if you change them, for example:

Despite d'Éon habitually wearing a dragoon's uniform, there were rumours that he was actually a woman, and a betting pool was started on the London Stock Exchange about his true sex.

Does not make sense if you change it to "there were rumours that she was actually a woman". Not sure that one should be changed. There are others where she is presenting very clearly as male where it seems like "he" would be appropriate. It seems like it would be preferable if anything to switch to "she" when she starts living as a woman, but that can be a bit confusing for consistency in the article, I think I'd have to see how it was executed. Perhaps the second paragraph of "Life as a woman" could start with a transitional sentence introducing openly-female D'Eon (note that D'Eon actively denied being female prior to this). I'm happy with whatever's not confusing, but I think you should give it more than "a day or so" before you revert away from the consensus version. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating sex and gender. Gender is how one identifies internally and sex is one's biology. The debate in the quote in question is about sex not gender. So the sentence you quoted above can be changed to "Despite d'Éon habitually wearing a dragoon's uniform, there were rumours that she, who was presenting male at the time, was actually female, and a betting pool was started on the London Stock Exchange about her true sex" or "about d'Eon's true sex."

While you might think that it is confusing or historically inaccurate to superimpose our modern conceptions of gender onto this character, the introduction of the article states the d'Eon is the first openly transvestite or transgender person, terms that were not in use at that time. Similarly, historians use terms such as "gay," "lesbian" and "depressed" to describe individuals who lived before those terms were coined. More relevantly, Wikipedia has pages on dozens of transgender people whose lives predated our modern concept of transgenderism. All of them use the pronouns that person used at the end of their life. Here are a few: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Cashier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Lind, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Tipton. So your concerns about how to discuss the d'Eon's transitioned can easily be addressed by the usage in many other wikipedia articles that have faced the same dilema. Here is Wikipedia's list of transgender people throughout history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transgender_people. You will find that nearly all of them conform to these guidelines. So far, the exceptions I have found concern who cross-dressed for short and temporary periods in life, or for another purpose, such as to be able to travel or go into battle. In contrast, d'Eon claimed to be female for over three decades of her life, and certainly the end of it. You may be able to find some other examples of biology-based pronouns on that list, but they are the exceptions.

Regarding your desire to only switch the pronouns when the d'Eon begins living openly as a woman, wikipedia's policy clearly states to use pronouns that "reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life." Regardless of how D'eon identified earlier in life, she identified as female at the time of death. Again, that is the convention used by the articles cited above, including some that applied to people who, like d'Eon, used understandings of their identities that do not perfectly line up with our modern conception of transgender. Earl Lind, for example, used the term " androgyne" to describe her identity.

Finally, you have stated that male pronouns have been the "consensus" on this talk page. This is true. However, the majority of that discussion happened 3-5 years ago or more. I wonder if more recent sources of the d'Eon would still use male pronouns. Much of the discussion on this page conflates sex and gender, stating that since d'Eon had a male body, male pronouns are appropriate. However, Wikipedia's policy is based on identity not biology, and its treatment of transgender subjects has changed vastly since these discussions took place. I'm glad this discussion has been taking place here, but it seems that it needs to be revisited. Singlewordedpoem (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, it's a bit unfair of you to characterize me as "confusing sex and gender", of which there is no evidence. That particular sentence sounded wrong to me and I imagine would sound wrong to many people. Dramatically changing the wording of the sentence to a less-concise but more-precise version obviates the problem and addresses my concern in that regard that a "wholesale change of pronouns" would be confusing. There is no need to patronize me about modern gender theory.

I take significant issue with the idea that this was the first "openly transgendered person", as D'Eon was in no way openly transgendered and in fact cultivated the false impression that she was a cis-gendered woman. This is a perfect example of how imposing our modern notions of gender onto the past are not always appropriate. Another confounding factor is the fact that D'Eon was a spy who was known to use her feminine appearance as a mechanism for evading capture, and there likely would have been significant consequences if she were to confirm that she was anatomically male. It's not my place to speculate on that front, but it's just another example of how D'Eon doesn't fit neatly into the category of "trans-woman", and as such the self-identification test may not be appropriate. My point is that this is not a straightforward application of the policy, and if anything it's worth generating some discussion on it rather than setting an arbitrary deadline of "a few days".

Regarding the last point - I apologize that I misread the timestamps, I thought some of the discussion was more recent. I think an RfC on the matter is in order. I suspect that it will come out in your favor, but I worry a bit about how modern gender politics may hold undue influence. Respecting peoples' stated preferences for pronouns is one thing, but in a case like this one it seems like the waters are muddy enough (and deliberately so, on the part of D'Eon, it seems) that it's worthwhile to try and get a consensus on first whether D'Eon's presenting as a woman was an implicit acknowledgement of her preferred pronouns, whether the article can be refactored in such a way that consistently using female pronouns throughout can be done without confusion and finally a balancing between the answers to the first two questions. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW 'The History of Masculinity' by R. W. Connell uses the pronoun 'her' ("...rest of her life" page 249 The Masculinity Studies Reader, 2002) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.184.175 (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not going to get into this (of which I was totally unaware - maybe you need to put a secret message in the edit boxes), but it certainly yields atrocious English. Awien (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, why not we should try to call D'eon with They/Them pronouns? Thephantomseeker (talk) 5:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is STILL in violation of the standards of how to refer to transgender persons. She identified as a woman for the last 40 years of her life. The article needs to be updated with female pronouns. I'm going to do that barring a really compelling reason being offered as to why we should violate the manual of style guidance that has been in place for a dozen years regarding transgender persons and how to refer to them.Cavegirlsmash (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

There is still no movement on these pronouns despite being in violation of the MOS for the past 15 years. Here is the MOS text: "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." By any interpretation of the MOS, the pronouns in this article MUST be she/her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:6F00:2DC1:0:0:0:2D (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

There are still no reliable sources that state d'Eon preferred she/her pronouns. If d'Eon self-referred in that way, then please add a citation stating so, as you have stated above: "reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources." ... discospinster _talk 15:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

It is in her own autobiographical materials, including her own documents. She died as a woman, this is not in dispute. As a woman, female pronouns were used for her from 1777 until her death in 1810. 2603:6081:6F00:2DC1:0:0:0:2D (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, please provide a reliable source that this is the case. ... discospinster _talk 14:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Death Mask

As seen in a woodcut made after D'Eon's death, his beard had not grown in as it should have if he had spent several days in a coma before his death. Although it is possible that someone shaved d'Eon's face after his death, most likely this was not so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glammazon (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is normal to clean a body before burial. More importantly, however, there has been speculation that Chevalier d'Eon had a genetic disease where he did not physically mature past adolesence. This would account for how he could pretend to be a woman for so long and confuse just about everybody. A perfect trait for a spy, don't you think?TopazStar (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC) How could she pretend to be a woman? She lived her life everyday as such. Our modern understanding of gender is different then it was 300 years ago but that ignorance doesn't make trans peoples genders any less real. She was a woman. The part of her life post transition should reflect that. Female pronouns.

Cleaned & Cited

Found & used citations in English as well as merged information from the French Wiki. Cleaned the references, checked many online & added ISBN numbers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Freemason?

The wikipedia article states that d'Eon was a Freemason, but does not offer any proof. I always thought he was Roman Catholic. Can anyone provide conclusive textual evidence for either position? TopazStar (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The categories 'Roman Catholic' and 'Freemason' are not mutually exclusive, much though the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchy these days might wish it. I think D'Eon was both, but I also would like some sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It is exclusive, not the Catholic Church's hierarchy of these days, since the excommunication in 1189 (Rouen concile), a time again in 1326 (Avignon concile), and many other excommunications afterwards. You can be freemason and christian but you can't freemason and catholics, that's a fact, unless you hide it. (source: masonic.ch) About Eon, I found many claim he was freemason on almost eveyry masonic site I visited. This article (French) form a masonic site, suggest the creation of a Chevalier d'Eon lodge and talk about the book "Knight of Eon, freemason and spy"

http://www.hiram.be/Le-chevalier-d-Eon-Franc-Macon-et-espionne_a6382.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.168.223.232 (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Freemasonry did not exist in 1189, or 1326, so I have no idea what you're talking about. But as it is a secret society, of course members can go on being practicing Catholics as long as no-one with an interest in excommunicating them finds out. Many prominent Catholics have been freemasons, including the Emperor Joseph II, so your claim is easily disproved. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If freemsonry didn't exist at that time, freemasons are liars. Do you want me to quote how many books by freemasons claim that it existed in antiquity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:49F6:384C:EA95:F5F1 (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

BRD and Pronouns

Anonymous IPs have consistently been changing the pronouns to "she" with no discussion. The previous consensus, which may change following a discussion was that masculine pronouns are less confusing. I am aware that the current manual of style is to use the pronouns of the gender the person identified as, but I think in this case the waters are muddied by the fact that d'Eon lived in a time before "transsexual" was really an option in that society. Given her life as a spy and the fact that she likely faced serious consequences from revealing herself to be a man, I really don't think d'Eon's presenting as a woman can necessarily be taken on its face as an expression of preference, in a similar way that I don't think Radovan Karadžić's disguise necessarily was an expression of preference that he deep down always wanted to be a bearded herbal medicine doctor. Obviously there are different fact patterns here, but the fact of the matter remains that it's not necessarily appropriate to overlay modern sensibilities about gender onto the past like that. For now, I will continue to revert the changes to the most recent consensus until support is gathered for a change, per BRD. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy and does not empower anyone to act as a gatekeeper for edits to the article. For example, should more than one other editor feel that a new pronoun is a better fit to the article then it would not be right to use BRD as a reason to keep on reverting. The previous discussion has a history over 5 years, which does not all reflect more recent changes to how the English Wikipedia handles these cases. In the past year there were only a handful of opinions and it seems sensible to consider a RFC to make a more solid consensus for this case and encourage a range of viewpoints. Would you consider putting one forward? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that I act as a gatekeeper, just that there has consistently been edits from anonymous IPs changing the pronouns with no discussion. Since I happen to be the one who's been reverting them, I put forth my reasoning here, per BRD. If we get into a discussion that's another situation, and I see this as a grey area between edit warring and vandalism, where there have been numerous invitations to dialog that have not been taken up by the person or persons consistently changing the article. Regarding an RfC, we can certainly get one going, but I think the stage before RfC is attempting to build a consensus among the local editors. Last time we discussed it I suggested an RfC and there didn't seem to be much interest in that from the "change to feminine pronouns" camp, and the people who are most actively trying to change it don't seem interested in a discussion, either. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think an RFC would be a smart move, it would firm up the prior discussion and draw attention to this historic BDP case. There has been plenty of oxygen given to modern cases of celebrities, I suspect a lack of engagement here is due to this not being a highly watched article that has been in the news, yet if advertised in a 30-day long RFC, we would probably see a larger total number taking part that has happened to notice the article otherwise. I'm not of any strong opinion on outcome, but this would probably help ensure that future editors can see this has been well considered and draw comfort even if they hold a different point of view. To be honest, with the unpleasantness that some have experienced around pronouns from trans related BLPs, it is no surprise that someone wanting to make a point would do so from an anon IP address, so I would not judge anyone too harshly for doing this by choice. --Fæ (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like to go forward with an RfC I'm perfectly fine with that. Regarding anonymous IPs, I have no problems with anonymity, I was more concerned with the fact that they are not coming in to discuss it. It seems like it's either a low-level edit war from someone utilizing anonymous IPs to avoid discussion, or (more likely) people are randomly stumbling upon this article and decide that the pronouns are inappropriate, then change them and don't look back. This happens frequently enough where a consensus is in conflict with some sort of political identity, so I don't think there's anything sinister about it, just that it's indicative of the fact that it's not necessarily an implementation of some sort of thought-out consensus.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see the changes being made without discussion, so I'll create a neutral RFC below shortly and we can consider if Requests for page protection is then needed while it runs. --Fæ (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is now protected so that only named accounts can make changes whilst the RfC is running (i.e. one month). Hopefully this will encourage those with concerns to take part in the RfC rather than reverting. --Fæ (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the historic figure of the Chevalier d'Éon be referred to as a man or a woman?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Chevalier d'Éon, was an 18th century French diplomat, spy and soldier, whose first 49 years were spent as a man, and whose last 33 years were spent as a woman. Were the article to be covered by Biographies of living persons then the personal pronoun "she" would be appropriate, however for historic figures the choice is unclear and this has been subject to discussion and change in the article for the last 5 years. Should the article use "he" or "she" throughout, or a mixed approach? --Fæ (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I think we should go for a mixed approach, where d'Eon is 'he' while legally male and 'she' while legally female. I would normally advocate 'she' all the way, but the Chevalier's situation is sufficiently unclear that I think the mixed approach would be clearer for readers. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Dead or alive, the logic of WP:IDENTITY and WP:Gender identity applies. If their gender identity changes, it's assumed they always identified that way unless the person expresses otherwise. Use feminine pronouns throughout. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Even though though she may have always been a woman, if she represented as a man, and was recognized as a man it would follow she received benefits and opportunities that would not be bestowed to a woman, no? So it should be made clear who saw her as a man, or even that it was unclear who saw her as a man, a woman, or wasn't sure. User:Pinehurstovia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinehurstovia (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Simple: the person has a primary notability currently for being an example of a "multi-gender" person, and any article which tries to assign any single gender here is actually misleading the reader. I see no reason why we should be so presumptuous as t assign a specific single gender here. And certainly "use feminine pronouns throughout" would mislead and puzzle readers. I suggest we make this clear in the lead and then use the pronouns appropriate to the person's public presentation of gender where such use would benefit readers. The person is quite fascinating no matter which pronouns are used, and trying to use "all-encompassing neologisms" would have amused that person vastly. As for defining "legally male" and "legally female" where a person was not clearly a specific gender for much of (his/her/their) life is simply an impossible task.Collect (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not impossible to talk about the legalities at all. The Chevalier was the first person (to the best of my knowledge) to have their gender settled in adulthood by legal proceedings. The details are in the article. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That does not appear to be the question posed - nor does it appear the "legal proceedings" were of the same nature as a "change of official gender" in current law. Rather it appears to have been settled on the basis of a claim as to actual birth gender made by the person, and not as a matter of choice differing from birth gender. Cheers - but I fear you misapprehend the actual circumstances involved. Collect (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

*Posting notice of this RfC on WP:LGBT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was hoping that we could get the notice adjusted before people started commenting, but I think that time might be passed. I think that the main question here has nothing to do with WP:BLP, but rather with the manual of style guide to identity, which indicates that whatever the subject's latest 'expression' of gender-identity is what should be used throughout the article. Generally, RfCs address only one question, and I think the current formulation covers two questions, whether d'Eon's life as a woman can be considered an expression of gender identity per WP:MOS#Identity, and what approach we should use for pronouns. I would think that the best thing to do is to focus on the first of these questions, as the second portion is moot without it.

Regarding the actual question, I think that in this particular case, d'Eon's life as a woman should not be taken as any sort of expression of gender identity for a few reasons (as I've mentioned in earlier sections on this topic). The first is that d'Eon lived before you could express a gender identity, and I don't think it would have been meaningful in 18th century France to declare that you were a woman; consider that d'Eon was not presenting as a trans-woman but rather represented herself as a cis-woman, so it's hard to say that this is an expression of gender identity. The more compelling reason, however, is that in this particular case, d'Eon was a spy who avoided punishments by claiming to be a (cis woman), and in general used her gender fluidity to her advantage. Note that in her life as a woman, she was ordered to wear female clothing, and it seems likely to me that there would have been serious repercussions if she were to reveal that she was anatomically male. Certainly she seems to have been at least comfortable with gender fluidity, but I think the fact that her life as a woman was essentially lived under duress makes it hard for me to argue that this was definitively a conscious expression of gender identity.

I would say that given the particular (possibly unique) details of d'Eon's life, I think that she does not fit neatly into the category specified in WP:MOS#Identity, and as such we should default to whatever is likely to maximize clarity in the article. As per my suggestion above, I think this is a separate question, so I'll avoid discussing that in this particular RfC until that becomes the focus of the discussion (I don't have a strong position on the matter at this point anyway). 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have placed neutral notices at Wikiproject Military History, Wikiproject France, Wikiproject History and Wikiproject Biography.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

All this energy devoted to third person pronouns. Yes, I know they are important, particularly for the individuals involved, but let us remember that the subject has been dead these 200 and more years so BLP is completely irrelevant.

Notwithstanding the modern gender politics (and gender identity politics), we should be slow to impose our modern views or understanding on the past, which is (as they say) a foreign country, where they do things differently. We will struggle to pigeonhole d'Éon, whether as transgendered or transvestite or something else, or indeed as male or female or possibly intersex. We can't ask d'Éon to explain their views. All we have is what the sources say, which is that they lived as a man for nearly five decades, including a period when they disguised themselves as a woman while working as a spy, and then they lived as a woman for over three decades; that they said they were born anatomically female at one stage but (it seems, if the post-mortem reports are to be believed) were actually anatomically male and still wanted to wear men's military clothes too; that they were involved in complicated political machinations and state secrets so it may have served Louis XVI for d'Éon to be taken out of the picture, and indeed for d'Éon to agree even though they might still consider themselves male.

So, to the sources. D'Éon has been described "Britain's first openly transvestite male" (see NPG and Guardian). Indeed, the term "eonism" was used to describe transvestism until the middle of the 20th century (see for example, Burrows).

But historian Gary Kates has written that:

D'Eon was then neither a transvestite, nor a transsexual, nor for that matter was he a "homosexual" any more than he was a "heterosexual", or even a "man" or a "woman". The fact is that contemporary theorists of gender identity cannot help us to understand d'Eon because d'Eon does not fit into any of the categories used by modern psychology. (quoted here)

And Clare Barlow, Assistant Curator at the NPG, says:

We simply don’t know whether D’Eon would have chosen to be transvestite, transsexual or something else entirely if those options had been available. [1])

We could speculate why d'Éon lived the second half of his life as a woman: did d'Éon have gender dysphoria? Would d'Éon have preferred to live as a man, but was forced to live as a woman and wear women's clothing by Louis XVI? Or was it just a rational intellectual decision to deliberately adopt the clothing of the female gender, as the best thing to do in the circumstances? Again, we are not going to get inside d'Éon's head, so we are unlikely to be able to answer these questions definitively, and we have to be very careful about the sources.

We should not invent terminology, but simply reflect what the sources say. That will include discussion of the contemporaneous sources, and modern reinterpretation. It would be helpful if those providing an opinion here also engage with this subject and read some of the sources (or find new ones) in an attempt to improve the content of this article. But rather than doing that, let's talk about the all-important pronouns. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography uses male pronouns throughout, as does the National Portrait Gallery (see above) and the British Museum (see [2][3]), and so does History Today and (I believe) so does Burrows et al. There is quite a long discussion in Kates as to why he uses male pronouns. But if our Manual of Style guidelines trump the sources, another approach might be to use male pronouns for the first part of d'Éon's life, and then to switch to female pronouns for the last part. Or more radically, to use singular they rather than he or she, or avoid third person pronouns altogether and use "d'Éon" repeatedly instead. And if we decide that female pronouns should be used throughout, then what about the article title: Chevalière d'Éon?

Complicated people do not fit into neat boxes, and we should not be obsessed with a Procrustean endeavour to force them into one. -- Ferma (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC) (edited 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC) to correct references, and add Barlow quote)

I second Ferma's statement that we use singular they rather than he or she, or avoid third person pronouns altogether and use "d'Éon" repeatedly instead. It's a decent compromise for a rather difficult case that occurred in an era where "heterosexuality" wasn't even a thing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that in general use of singular they will likely be somewhat more confusing than gendered pronouns, due to the ambiguity, but this is a very unusual case where, no matter what we choose, there's going to be some ambiguity, because the standard form of our language uses gendered pronouns more or less exclusively. If we decide to go this way (or possibly no matter what we decide), we may want to consider a small notice about pronoun use on the page - something like, "This article uses the singular they when referring to the subject, for more information on this decision, see -link-to-archived-version-of-this-RfC-." or something like that. I don't know how much we want to expose the "sausage-making" process in the main namespace, but it seems like we'd be in good company, if historians (Kates?) are known to include lengthy discussions on their use of pronouns. The current direction this RfC seems to be heading in is that WP:MOS#Identity does not provide adequate guidance to cover this situation (i.e. this is an edge case), in which case my position is that we should focus on maximizing article clarity. At the moment, I'm not sure which choice (all male, all female, mixed approach or singular they) will be least ambiguous and most natural. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the singular they and a note at the top, as you suggest. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Eschew third person pronouns altogether and use "d'Éon" repeatedly, at least until the man-role part of the chronology is complete. After that "she" is appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reasonable suggestion, it would seem remarkably unnatural. Also, why not just use "d'Eon" all the way through rather than starting to use "she" halfway through the article? As in my previous posts, I think the question that really needs to be addressed, before we address the actual pronouns to use, is what we're going for here. It seems like most people don't believe WP:MOS#Identity applies in this case, in which case I think we need to consider the criteria by which we're going to make the decision about pronouns. Are we going to go by the sources? Are we just going to make a decision about what seems most natural and clear? Some combination of these two strategies? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to "neutralise" the pronouns as much as possible, as a trial. The effect is not ideal, but perhaps an acceptable compromise? Do revert the changes if anyone objects. -- Ferma (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your substitution of their in place of his or her is the worst possible solution. You should provide examples of your trials here in the discussion. BTW, masculine pronouns for 49 years and then female pronouns works for me. Reflects reality. Aids readability. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, WP:Gender identity is very against the mixed use of gendered pronouns. What's wrong with singular they? It's grammatically sound. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Though people seem to be avoiding directly addressing the issue, despite my repeated attempts to guide the discussion in that direction, I think the core question of this is whether WP:MOS#Identity (and by extension WP:Gender identity) is a relevant guide, or whether d'Eon is an edge case. The reason that the gender identity guidelines is against mixed use is based on expressed preferences (e.g. "I was always a woman, even though I was presenting as a man."), and does not seem to address the issue of whether, independent of identity issues, the choice of consistent pronouns is preferred generally (though I think, by analogy to the consistent use of a married name throughout other articles, even when referring to periods of life before the subject was married, it is likely generally preferred).0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, so that was not entirely a success :) The problem with providing examples on talk is that it is more difficult to get a view of the article as a whole, and in this case it may not be just a simple issue of swapping pronouns but also are more complicated case of rephrasing. I find I have to try a change out to properly see its effect. The advantage of a wiki is that any changes can quickly be reverted. So let's try again.

First, some diffs:

• my trial changes - [4]
• the article after my changes compared to the current article (before Auntieruth55's recent edits]]) - [5]
• the article before my changes compared to the current article (before Auntieruth55's recent edits]]) - [6]

I think most of my trial changes work. For example:

• rephrasing or using "d'Éon" rather than a gendered pronoun in most cases;
• typo corrections ("D'Éon" at the start of a sentence, and "d'Éon" otherwise);
• "men's clothes" rather than "masculine clothes" (Male/female and masculine/feminine and man/woman are not exactly aligned. Many men traditionally wore gowns or skirts such as kilts, and they are clearly men's clothes, but are they "masculine"? Women often wore similar clothes. Are they "feminine"? Traditionally, few men wore dresses, and they are clearly "women's clothes" yet a certain cuts of dress can be "masculine" even though they are worn almost exclusively by women. );
• "Doctors who examined the body after d'Éon's death discovered that it was anatomically male." - the body can be an "it" separate from the gender that d'Éon might have felt;
• the changes on French titles in the second paragraph in the lead which were added by an IP about 10 days ago.[7]

Is there any objection to putting any of these back? If so, which and why?

On singular they, it is grammatical, but often somewhat jarring to read. My edit avoided "they" entirely by being liberal with "d'Éon" or rephrasing instead, but I found it hard to avoid four instances of "their" as "D'Éon's" does not always work well. It does grate somewhat to have "their father" and "their mother" so early. Would "D'Éon's father" and "D'Éon's mother" be better? The other two were "their former rank" and "their ministerial pension". Perhaps someone can suggest some more elegant rephrases of those sentences?

On the addition of a "see also" link to Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon, the Earl died 5 years before d'Eon was born, so I am not sure what relevance that article has to this one, particularly as (as far as I am aware) the Earl did not "present" as a woman. Are we planning to add "see also" links for a variety of historical people who had male anatomy (or presented as men) but who wore dresses? How about people with female anatomy who presented as men, such as James Barry?

Finally, on article title, should it be Chevalier d'Éon with an accent?

I fear I have said too much already in this RFC so I'll shut up for a while to let others comment. -- Ferma (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the above discussion is correct in its conclusion that avoiding pronouns altogether is the most appropriate approach here. That can sometimes lead to awkward text, but your version was quite well written. I'd also agree that "men's clothes" and "women's clothes" is both clearer and more accurate than the alternative phrasing that has been proposed.--Trystan (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nearly a week later and, given the comments so far are largely in favour of my proposed approach, I am trying again. Comments? -- Ferma (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel that the discussion here has been too disjointed to really assess a consensus. Are we trying to avoid personal pronouns to avoid the question (which just pushes this discussion off until the next round when someone actually wants to make a decision, or when the avoidance becomes unwieldy), or is it because we think this will maximize the clarity, or is it because we think that d'Eon's gender identity was deliberately ambiguous and thus pronouns should be deliberately ambiguous in the "spirit" of WP:MOS#Identity? It seems to me that most of the support for singular they is based on #1, which I think is an inappropriate way to edit an encyclopedia. If we are agreed on #1, though, then presumably it doesn't matter how it looks or how awkward it sounds, because we're not aiming for clarity we're aiming for conflict-avoidance. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, look, feel free to revert (again) if you object, but it would be good to get some of the more egregious errors corrected ("the the" and the like).

As you will notice, the more recent (improved!) version avoids singular they/their entirely, in favour of a more liberal use of "d'Éon" or "d'Éon's". It is a pragmatic suggestion, accepting that a case could be made either way, and that we should be respectful of what were (or at least what we can reasonably conclude might have been) d'Éon's own gender identification.

For maximum clarity, as things currently stand, I would probably prefer using male pronouns until 1777 and female afterwards. I think that would be clearer to the reader. However, I am given to understand that our style guidelines prohibit the sort of gender fluidity that d'Éon appears to have embraced. As some of the quotations above suggest, trying to fit d'Éon into a male/female dichotomy may be doomed to failure anyway. -- Ferma (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Does the gender identity section of WP:MOS#Identity apply here?

As I have stated above, I think the question of whether Chevalier d'Eon's life as a woman can be considered a self-expression of gender identity, or whether this is an edge case to which WP:MOS#Identity provides little guidance, is the first of two questions that this RfC needs to answer. So that we don't end up talking in circles around one another, I think we should first assess whether there is any controversy in this area. I know that people generally like to !vote "oppose" or "support", so let's say the assertion is that this is an edge case, and "support" means WP:MOS#Identity does not apply.

• Support/Edge Case - As per my reasoning above, which is mostly in line with Ferma's possibly more eloquent description of it, I believe that it is not necessarily appropriate to try and jam d'Eon into the box of "transgender", and that her life as a woman does not seem that it should be taken as an affirmative expression of her gender identity. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Mild oppose as I would rather stick with WP:Gender identity, but would be totally okay with using singular they or surname instead of first-person pronouns. However, if we have any sources that say d'Eon identified as a man earlier in life (e.g., something after her transition), then I'd be perfectly fine with using both masculine and feminine pronouns depending on the time period. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning is unclear here. This straw poll is not related to the question of which pronouns to use. The question is whether, due to the unusual fact pattern here, WP:MOS#Identity (and, by extension, WP:Gender identity, which is an essay laying out the reasoning behind the manual of style consensus on gender identity) actually applies, since the entire basis of that policy (guideline?) is respect for expressions of gender identity, and it's not clear that 1.) this is a meaningful concept when applied in the 18th century and 2.) even if it could be inferred from one's actions at that time, d'Eon was a spy who used her cross-dressing to her political and tactical advantage, and so in this specific case it seems difficult to take her assertion that she was a (cis) woman as a self-expression of gender identity.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mild Support per same arguments made by EvergreenFir - Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yes and no. WP:MOS#Identity is a guideline, not a straitjacket; nonetheless, I think we can respect the spirit of the guideline by avoiding the issue. -- Ferma (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we can "avoid the issue" in that WP:MOS#Identity makes an unambiguous recommendation if it applies in this situation - we would use throughout the entire article, whichever gender d'Eon most recently self-identified as, unless they have specifically provided a contrary guide to pronoun use when referring to themselves. We must decide that WP:MOS#Identity does not apply if we want to use singular they in this case, since that would be contrary to its recommendation, even though, as you mention, it may be in keeping with the spirit. That said, I've taken a look at the "singular they" version and I found it very confusing and difficult to read, so I'm not sure I'm really in favor of its use even if the identity guidelines don't apply here.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, hadn't spotted these most recent comments when I made my last edit. What do you find confusing about the gender neutral version?

If pressed, I think I would say that this is a hard case where we might find it difficult to apply a strict rule, due to lack of evidence either way. For example, I believe the only information about d'Éon's service in Russia comes from his own account, which most modern commentators accept is embroidered if not made up, and I have seen, for example, an arguement that d'Éon could have been intersex.

So, when, specificially, did d'Éon unambiguously and freely identify themselves as female, in a situation when that choice was not required by political or financial considerations? I would suggest (again) that before we make any decision, the participants in this discussion need to engage properly with the sources. -- Ferma (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mild no - D'Eon's is such a unique case that any attempt to rely on a mere rule is going to be Procrustean in outcome. MOS#Identity is just too narrow to apply here. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see that the case to put aside MOS#Identity has been made in a clear or credible way (by the way, the assertion we are voting for is oddly negative, it may have been better to vote to support a current policy as applying rather than the reverse - I note that Orangemike appears to have !voted in the opposite sense to their comment). D'Eon declared themselves a woman for the decades towards the end of their life, this falls neatly under the Identity guidance and there is no caveat that long dead people are exempt. As for other sources, this is a question of style, and the English Wikipedia has chosen this way of writing about transsexuals (I believe transvestite is the wrong word to apply for the latter part of their life, as the contemporary records seems to show that d'Eon defined themselves as a woman and lived publicly as a woman, rather than a man dressing as a woman). Many of the sources quoted reflect the language of the historical record. It is the norm for Wikipedians to write articles from the modern point of view, for example we would no longer consider it appropriate to write an article about homosexuality that jumps from an early 20th C. point of view that uses terms such as uranianism to describe an illness, to the modern point of view that describes same-sex marriage and gay culture (even if both points of view and associated terminology were described in an article). --Fæ (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the voting. As is appropriate for this decision, neither "support" nor "oppose" seemed particularly appropriate for either option, so I treated it as a proposal that MOS#Identity doesn't apply here. I realize now that if you support the proposition, your answer to the question posed in the lead is "no", which is very confusing.

As for the substance of your argument, I think you misunderstand what I've written here. For one thing, it has nothing to do with d'Eon being dead other than the fact that, were d'Eon alive, she would likely have clarified the situation by now. The point was that d'Eon was a spy who used cross-dressing tactically, and (from my reading of the history) would have been severely punished if revealed to be anatomically male. Consider that she was legally required to dress as a woman in the later years of her life. This is not a neat and clean case of a person declaring their preferred gender when the pressure is off, and as such I think it's not clearly an expression of gender preference. I see this as an edge case with very little application beyond this particular set of facts. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the background story does make this an arguable edge case. I have not read up on all the sources referenced, so I do not feel secure enough to make a solid argument, I'm only giving my feedback from superficial knowledge. If good quality academic sources provide specific evidence that we can believe that d'Eon was living as a woman towards the end of their life because they were legally bound to do so, rather than because they identified as a woman, it would be good to have some direct quotes.

Though "bad cases make bad law", such tricky cases are useful as part of project guidelines, for example on Wikimedia Commons using a reference case book is a pragmatic way of illuminating guidelines without making them tediously long, as one can just consider a similar best practice case to make a determination. It would be a nice improvement from this discussion if MOS#Identity could be extended to provide guidance for historic articles if only to highlight the issues and reference a few cases where discussion has occurred and may help to make consensus building easier in the future. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support/Edge Case - I argue it is not appropriate to push d'Eon into the box of "transgender", and that his/her life as a woman does not appear to be an affirmative expression of his/her gender identity. Fraulein451 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

mild edit etc.

This appeared on the WP:MILHIST request for assessment. I've gone through this and done a mild edit. I'm not sure there is consensus about how we should refer to D'Eon. It may not be politically correct to call D'Eon a man/he/male, but we have to pick one. I object to going back and forth depending on how he was dressing at the moment. I'm willing to do more, but I'm not willing to get involved in a gender battle. auntieruth (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind not pre-empting an ongoing RfC? I don't much care what your individual preference for d'Eon's pronouns are, and I don't consider it self-evident that 'we have to pick one'. I'm not going to get sucked into an edit war, but I think you've acted in a way which is not obviously in line with consensus. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

+1 as it is considered good practice to avoid editing or improving text that is currently subject to a consensus building discussion unless there is reasonable agreement to do so (often for factual errors or other basic corrections). I requested semi-protection for this article while the RfC is running and I think that is sufficient to avoid anything that looks like edit-warring. --Fæ (talk) 07:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move? Note re pronouns?

The article uses the French spelling of d'Éon's name, with the accent, throughout. Shouldn't the article be moved to that spelling?

Also, the consensus decision to avoid gendered pronouns by repeating the name instead makes for text that initially reads very strangely. My first impression was that it was an awkwardness due to poor translation, which is why I tried to fix it. So now that I understand the reasoning, I would suggest placing a note at the top, equivalent to the "This article uses British English …" message, explaining the decision. Otherwise, I suspect that others will come along and do what I did. Maybe something along the lines of "Due to the unique circumstances of d'Éon's life, this article avoids the use of gendered pronouns by repeating the name instead (see talk page)"?

Amicalement, Awien (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why can't I get out of the box?? This is a new section. Awien (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(adds) To repeat, I am not adding to the closed discussion. This is a new section that gets placed in the purple box for some reason that I don't understand. I am making two suggestions that I consider non-controversial, but for which I am seeking feedback: 1) move the article to Chevalier dÉon, and 2) place a note about avoiding pronouns at the top (or in the edit box). Anybody? Awien (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Awien, The previous section's close did not include the Template:archive bottom tag; which indicates where to stop the "archive" box. I have now added it. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, Ryk72.

And in the absence of objections, I'm going ahead. Revert if you don't like it. Awien (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Or not - "don't have permission blablabla" and impenetrable obstacles to making the request. Awien (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I know it's been over a year since the discussion, but I'm just chiming in to note that I've done the requested move, as I think it was a correct and proper suggestion. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chevalier d'Éon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121203094009/http://www.beaumontsociety.org.uk/about_us/Chevalier.htm to http://www.beaumontsociety.org.uk/about_us/Chevalier.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chevalier d'Éon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927132529/http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/famous-trannies-in-early-modern-times.htm to http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/famous-trannies-in-early-modern-times.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)