Category talk:Female wartime cross-dressers

Discussion from withdrawn CfR

Category:Female wartime crossdressers'

Propose renaming Category:Female wartime crossdressers to Category:Women who crossdressed during wartime Nominator's rationale: Grouping articles in this category by the individual's biological sex rather than the individual's gender identity is causing confusion and has a potential for abuse. Recently, I removed this category from the Albert Cashier article, because Albert Cashier lived his entire life as a man. Cashier was not "crossdressing"; he was wearing his clothes. Almost immediately, another editor reinstated the category, claiming that since Cashier was biologically female, he belonged in the category. MOS:ID makes it clear that articles are to be written in respect to a person's chosen gender identity, and to use pronouns which relate to their most recent gendered self-identification. Some people do not agree that a person can choose a gender identity, as we see in the media with transmen being referred to as "women".

The problem with using the word "female" in this category name is that "female" can refer to biological sex. In this instance, this was used to justify referring to a man as a "female crossdresser". This is entirely inappropriate. The use of a gendered term is necessary in this instance: we must state that the people who were wearing men's clothes during war were women, not men as Cashier was. This will make a clear statement that what is important is an individual's self-identity, not their biological sex, and help to clear up any confusion. This applies to the subcategory as well. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I disagree. The article on cross-dressing states: states: The term cross-dressing denotes an action or a behavior without attributing or proposing causes for that behavior. Some people automatically connect cross-dressing behavior to transgender identity or sexual, fetishist, and homosexual behavior, but the term cross-dressing itself does not imply any motives. I would thus argue that the category title is a neutral one, it merely indicates people who were biologically female who presented themselves as men, it does not neccessarily imply that they were mentally female. Futhermore, Cashier is relevant to the category because he passed undetected as biologically female the way the female-identified soliders did, and thus his experience is relevant to the greater subject of female wartime crossdressing as whole. Finally, I would like to point that simply because Cashier lived as male outside of the context of war doesn't neccessarily mean that he truly self-identified as male. He may have simply valued his independence so much that he was willing to live as male regardless of whatever his true gender identity was. If you find that improbable, I would like to direct your attention the article on sworn virgins of the Balkans. These were women who willingly gave up marriage to live and work as men, either out of circumstance or for sake of personal independence. I have seen interviews with these sworn virgins, and although they live, dress, and work as men, they stated that they took the role because they valued their freedom, not out of self-identification as males. It is for these reasons that I do not believe that this category should be changed. Asarelah (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, Asarelah? I can really see your point. We shouldn't be making any assumptions about anyone's gender identity, particularly when the social climate was so different. If all we have is evidence of gender expression, we should tread cautiously. Whistling42 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Women who cross-dressed for temporary, undeniably socially-based reasons (such as to be able to fight in a war) and then revert back to their normal lives as women afterward are a very different category from biologically female individuals who live as men for issues of internal, identity-based reasons, whether these individuals happen to fight in a war at some point in their life or not. "Cross-dresser" may sound like a factual, neutral term, and the article on it may not currently fully address the nuances of when it is accurate to use and when it would be considered disrespectful, but to apply it to someone wearing the appropriate clothing for their long-term life and identity is one of those instances where it is disrespectful. Change the definition in the cross-dressing article to accurately represent its use, don't disrespect a person (however unintentionally) based on an incomplete definition. Cashier's experience is relevant, but that does not make this categorization fully accurate. Finally, both MOS:IDENTITY and WP:OR make it clear that such rampant complete speculation as to what may or may not have been this one person's motivation should be given no weight. What other people have said and done in their lives doesn't support or negate anything about this person. For this one person, we can only consider the evidence present for this one person's life. This discussion is about the category, not Cashier, but clearly the current name of the category raises this sort of dispute for individuals. Re-naming it would make it much clearer as to the actual scope of the category. If a broader umbrella category is required, it can be created with a truly neutral name and used for articles such as this. Either way, the current category should be re-named as suggested. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion How about this instead...rather than removing all mention of Cashier and the other two individuals (Enrique Favez and James Barry (surgeon)) who lived as men from the category and its articles entirely, we instead put mentions of them into the article Crossdressing during wartime, in seperate section listing them as transmen who happened to serve and emphasizing that they were different from the other individuals in that they were male-identified and lived as men outside of the circumstances of war. Does this sound like a reasonable compromise? Asarelah (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that people who presented themselves consistently as male should be included in a category or article for "crossdressing". It implies that the person is simply trying on a gender expression, and therefore is disrespectful of people who consistently express(ed) themselves that way. Whistling42 (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. I believe that they are still quite relevant to the subject of crossdressing in wartime itself, as they were able to pass in a wartime situation despite being biologically female. I believe I will list this discussion in requests for comment, as we seem to have reached a bit of a deadlock. Asarelah (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

We have reached a deadlock on the issue of whether or not transmen should be included in this category or the main category article. See above for further details. Asarelah (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Passing as a requirement

Why should passing for male be a requirement for inclusion in this category? It is not evident in the title of the category. And as is stated at the list of wartime crossdressers, Joan of Arc is the most famous among them. Seems a shame to disqualify the greatest among the female wartime crossdressers from the category. -- AvatarMN (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It says on the article that Joan did sometimes wear male clothes in order to disguise herself as a page, so she would still qualify on that account. However, the vast majority of women who cross-dressed for military purposes did so because a known woman could never be hired as a soldier or sailor, which is simply not the same as Joan of Arc's usual situation... AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The women in question crossdressed because women weren't allowed to serve. Only as men were they able to serve. Kingturtle (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're both right. However... Joan was still a "female wartime crossdresser" even though she was different from most of them in one respect. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So, that's it,then? Despite the fact that Joan of Arc is the most famous female wartime crossdresser in history and fits the actual title of the category, which says nothing about passing, we're just going to continue to have that pretty arbitrary requirement written at the top of the cat? -- AvatarMN (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Gender-specific attire is culture-driven. Scottish soldiers wore kilts but they were not crossdressing. Technically one could argue that all women today are crossdressers because skirts and dresses aren't worn on the battlefield, but this category isn't for technicalities. For this category, crossdressing refers to deception and passing. If you can think of a better way to phrase Female wartime crossdressers please do. Female soldiers in drag? Drag king soldiers? Kingturtle (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This catagory apparently is for technicalities, when it is defined as something that the title does not indicate. Who says that for this category, crossdressing refers to passing? Articles and cats are kind of expected to have titles that accurately reflect the subject. "Female soldiers who passed as males". -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Drag" would be even more of a red-herring than "crossdresser" for the purpose of the category, since the focus should NOT be on the clothing that they wore, but on the fact that they were functional male impersonators for a very serious and practical purpose. Bringing in terminology which has strong associations with kinkiness or campiness would be a step backwards... AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, more than the percieved kinkiness or campiness of drag, it's a fact is that drag is is performance art and entertainment. That's why it'd be even more innapropriate for the title of this cat than "crossdressers". I'm just saying it's really silly that the title says "crossdressers", and then someone writes at the top of the article "by female crossdressers we mean women who passed as men" and everyone enforces this contradiction. -- AvatarMN (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

When I made this category, I expressly intended it to be ONLY for females who presented themselves as men in order to serve in the military, and that is what I wrote in the category description at the top of the page. This is why I excluded Joan of Arc, as she did not present herself as a male when she was in the military. Furthermore, not everyone who attempted to pass as a man actually did, quite a few were discovered, some right away. Asarelah (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you don't WP:OWN this category just because you started it, and it remains bad form to need to explain a cat beyond what is self-evident by it's specific title. If you want it to be about women who passed or attempted to pass as male, that needs to be the title. Or it may stay as it is, and Joan and others who didn't attempt to pass must be eligible. -- AvatarMN (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever -- the original creator of a category can't unilaterally decree the exact scope of the category for all time, but on the other hand I don't see any reason whatsoever why original intent and maximum usefulness for Wikipedia can't be taken into account in determining its purpose (as opposed to literalistic word-definition parsing only). Since you're so quick to invoke policies, why not look at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering... AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you are definitely correct. There is no ownership of articles - but there is consensus. And although I see your point on a technical level, I think I side on what the intent is of the category. I don't see Joan as a crossdresser. Female soldiers who passed as males may be more descriptive, but it is clunky. Kingturtle (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if it sounded like I was trying to own the category. I realize now I should have phrased my earlier statement better. I was merely stating my intentions when I made it, I wasn't trying to act unilaterally or shoot down discussion. Please accept my apologies. I'm open to renaming it as long as the title isn't too clunky. Anyway, I'm reluctant to include women who didn't attempt to pass as men in this category, as that would make people like Amelia Bloomer into crossdressers, since she wore pants at a time when only men did and incited controversy because of it. Given that Joan was likely only wearing men's clothes for practical purposes and not as an attempt to disguise her sex for her military career, I still don't think she belongs in the category. Furthermore, if you look through the categories for women in war, particularly those in pre-modern times, you will find that many women adopted male clothing like Joan did for practical purposes without actually trying to pass, only they weren't vilified for it. We would have to put a great deal more people into to this category if we put Joan in. Asarelah (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the intent of the category can only be absolutely defined by the title of it. Any other definition is indiduals' intention, which fringes on ownership and POV. I don't see why it'd be such a burden to rename the category, I for one wouldn't find "female soldiers who passed as male" clunky. Not clunky enough to prefer an innaccurate title, for I haven't yet seen any other categories that need an explanation for why it's intent is not precisely what it says it is. I'm also unconvinced that it would make the category unuseful to open it up to a few more entrants that fit according to the category's title. And AnonMoos... if you're really accusing me of wikilawyering, I'd like to hear in what way I'm misinterpereting or innapropriately using guidelines in a way to override or violate principles. -- AvatarMN (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)