Deadnames and transgender authors
TalkCommon Knowledge, WikiThing, HelpThing
Join LibraryThing to post.
1skript
I added more information to the Philip Garner's Katalog Schöner Leben : 52 absolut unverzichtbare Lebenshilfen für den modernen Menschen entry and found on Wikipedia that the author lives as a woman under the name Pippa Garner. What is the general rule with older books published under what is now a deadname? Is there a way to resolve it the elegant way Discogs does, e.g. Wendy Carlos: https://www.discogs.com/artist/16261-Wendy-Carlos ?
I did combine the author pages for Philip Garner and Pippa Garner, so in that sense it's resolved.
I did combine the author pages for Philip Garner and Pippa Garner, so in that sense it's resolved.
2lilithcat
>1 skript:
I did combine the author pages for Philip Garner and Pippa Garner, so in that sense it's resolved.
No, it's not, because there is more than one author named Philip Garner. Pippa needs to be separated, the Philip Garner page split, and the works under Pippa's dead name aliased to that page.
Okay, I've separated, split, and aliased.
I did combine the author pages for Philip Garner and Pippa Garner, so in that sense it's resolved.
No, it's not, because there is more than one author named Philip Garner. Pippa needs to be separated, the Philip Garner page split, and the works under Pippa's dead name aliased to that page.
Okay, I've separated, split, and aliased.
3waltzmn
>2 lilithcat:
I'm sure the original poster will thank you for straightening this out, but this doesn't answer the original question: "What is the general rule with older books published under what is now a deadname?" Is it just to keep both names and alias them? Ideally, I'd think we'd want to use the new name and say something like "Writing as so-and-so."
It's not likely to come up for me -- most of the authors I read are not only dead but were dead before the word "transgender" was coined -- but it would be good to enunciate the rule.
I'm sure the original poster will thank you for straightening this out, but this doesn't answer the original question: "What is the general rule with older books published under what is now a deadname?" Is it just to keep both names and alias them? Ideally, I'd think we'd want to use the new name and say something like "Writing as so-and-so."
It's not likely to come up for me -- most of the authors I read are not only dead but were dead before the word "transgender" was coined -- but it would be good to enunciate the rule.
4Nicole_VanK
>3 waltzmn: I happen to be transgender (and intersex). I don't deny that I have published under my old name. That's just how things happened. I will get upset when someone "corrects" my name on my author page though.
5lilithcat
>3 waltzmn:
"What is the general rule with older books published under what is now a deadname?"
Not sure there is one, and I'm also not sure what the OP is referring to (the Author page? how someone should catalogue the book?). As far as cataloguing, people are going to do whatever works for them. I use the name on the cover of my edition. So I have works by Jan Morris that she wrote under that name, but also from prior to her transition when works were written by James Morris, and that is how I catalogued the latter.
It just makes sense to me to either split and alias (if, as with James Morris, there's more than one author sharing a name) or combine (as with Deirdre McCloskey and Donald McCloskey).
I'd think we'd want to use the new name and say something like "Writing as so-and-so."
How would you do that? Set the canonical name at something like "Jan Morris writing as James Morris"? That would a) look weird, and b) not be true.
"What is the general rule with older books published under what is now a deadname?"
Not sure there is one, and I'm also not sure what the OP is referring to (the Author page? how someone should catalogue the book?). As far as cataloguing, people are going to do whatever works for them. I use the name on the cover of my edition. So I have works by Jan Morris that she wrote under that name, but also from prior to her transition when works were written by James Morris, and that is how I catalogued the latter.
It just makes sense to me to either split and alias (if, as with James Morris, there's more than one author sharing a name) or combine (as with Deirdre McCloskey and Donald McCloskey).
I'd think we'd want to use the new name and say something like "Writing as so-and-so."
How would you do that? Set the canonical name at something like "Jan Morris writing as James Morris"? That would a) look weird, and b) not be true.
6waltzmn
>5 lilithcat: How would you do that? Set the canonical name at something like "Jan Morris writing as James Morris"? That would a) look weird, and b) not be true.
I don't know how to do it with the LibraryThing database as it stands. I'm talking about the ideal, not the situation we have. :-) Being an autistic who knows lots of autistics (a significant number of whom are transgender -- estimates are that half the transgender community is autistic), this seems to me the solution they would like: Their name (in your example, "Jan Morris") is their name, and they want the books filed under that, but they have to acknowledge the dead name on the title page.
But I would defer to, for instance, Nicole_VanK in this particular case.
I don't know how to do it with the LibraryThing database as it stands. I'm talking about the ideal, not the situation we have. :-) Being an autistic who knows lots of autistics (a significant number of whom are transgender -- estimates are that half the transgender community is autistic), this seems to me the solution they would like: Their name (in your example, "Jan Morris") is their name, and they want the books filed under that, but they have to acknowledge the dead name on the title page.
But I would defer to, for instance, Nicole_VanK in this particular case.
7MarthaJeanne
In my opinion, the author page should have the current name.
Former names can be entered in CK as 'Other Names'. You can also add a disambiguation note if you think it helpful, or put a note in the short biography.
On my entry I would stick with the name on the title page.
Former names can be entered in CK as 'Other Names'. You can also add a disambiguation note if you think it helpful, or put a note in the short biography.
On my entry I would stick with the name on the title page.
8lilithcat
>6 waltzmn:
I don't know how to do it with the LibraryThing database as it stands. I
I'm not asking how you would do it technically. I'm asking if that is what you want the Author page to look like.
this seems to me the solution they would like
I wouldn't assume that all transgender authors would like the same thing, and, of course, even if you asked, you can't ask people like Morris, who are no longer alive.
I don't know how to do it with the LibraryThing database as it stands. I
I'm not asking how you would do it technically. I'm asking if that is what you want the Author page to look like.
this seems to me the solution they would like
I wouldn't assume that all transgender authors would like the same thing, and, of course, even if you asked, you can't ask people like Morris, who are no longer alive.
9waltzmn
>8 lilithcat: I'm not asking how you would do it technically. I'm asking if that is what you want the Author page to look like.
Yes, personally, that's what I would like, because it best explains things and it seems to meet the desires of the people I know. Who are, of course, not the whole community, and none of them are authors (that I know of).
I wouldn't assume that all transgender authors would like the same thing.
Agreed, and ideally we would let them make their own choice. But one can suggest a format.
Yes, personally, that's what I would like, because it best explains things and it seems to meet the desires of the people I know. Who are, of course, not the whole community, and none of them are authors (that I know of).
I wouldn't assume that all transgender authors would like the same thing.
Agreed, and ideally we would let them make their own choice. But one can suggest a format.
10AndreasJ
Is there a reason to treat this differently from authors who change their name when they marry, change their religion, or whatever?
Anyway, I’d think books should be credited to the name printed in them, works to the commonest name among LT copies, and authors to the name they’re best known under, or their preferred name for living authors.
Anyway, I’d think books should be credited to the name printed in them, works to the commonest name among LT copies, and authors to the name they’re best known under, or their preferred name for living authors.
11waltzmn
>10 AndreasJ: Is there a reason to treat this differently from authors who change their name when they marry, change their religion, or whatever?
From a social standpoint, yes. There is a reason we call them deadnames: to use the old name of a transgender person is, at best, unkind, and at worst, harassment. Many have not simply changed their names, they have rejected them.
That's why I suggested what I suggested. It does not claim the deadname was ever legitimate. It is not at all rare to see an author who wrote under multiple pseudonyms succeed with one of them and then rebrand the books. I know Robert Jordan and Harry Turtledove have done so (the one I saw was by "Harry Turtledove writing as H. N. Turtletaub"; I've forgotten the Jordan pseudonym), and the popular singer "Vernon Dalhart" put out a bunch of stuff under the name "Al Craver" to let him record on multiple labels, and it's now labelled as "Dalhart recording as Al Craver." The old books exist under the old name, so we need the alias -- but the name is dead.
From a social standpoint, yes. There is a reason we call them deadnames: to use the old name of a transgender person is, at best, unkind, and at worst, harassment. Many have not simply changed their names, they have rejected them.
That's why I suggested what I suggested. It does not claim the deadname was ever legitimate. It is not at all rare to see an author who wrote under multiple pseudonyms succeed with one of them and then rebrand the books. I know Robert Jordan and Harry Turtledove have done so (the one I saw was by "Harry Turtledove writing as H. N. Turtletaub"; I've forgotten the Jordan pseudonym), and the popular singer "Vernon Dalhart" put out a bunch of stuff under the name "Al Craver" to let him record on multiple labels, and it's now labelled as "Dalhart recording as Al Craver." The old books exist under the old name, so we need the alias -- but the name is dead.
12MarthaJeanne
If you want to use that in your entries, you can, and it can be combined into the author page. However, it should not be entered as canonical name to change the author page, because it is WRONG for any works published under the current name.
If you try to change the work page author, you will set off an editing war. Most people will want to go with the name on the title page. The person who wrote the book and had it published did so under that name.
If you try to change the work page author, you will set off an editing war. Most people will want to go with the name on the title page. The person who wrote the book and had it published did so under that name.
13AndreasJ
>11 waltzmn:
If the name being rejected rather than merely changed is the difference, oughtn't the criterion be the rejection itself rather than the reason for it? I'm willing to bet there are transgender people who don't consider themselves to have rejected their old name, and cisgender people who do.
I am, anyway, not sure quite what your suggestion is. Should members use "Jane Doe writing as John Doe" in the author field on their individual book records? Maybe that's a good idea, but LT isn't going to be enforcing it, member data being sacrosanct and whatnot. Or should it be set at work level?
If the name being rejected rather than merely changed is the difference, oughtn't the criterion be the rejection itself rather than the reason for it? I'm willing to bet there are transgender people who don't consider themselves to have rejected their old name, and cisgender people who do.
I am, anyway, not sure quite what your suggestion is. Should members use "Jane Doe writing as John Doe" in the author field on their individual book records? Maybe that's a good idea, but LT isn't going to be enforcing it, member data being sacrosanct and whatnot. Or should it be set at work level?
14waltzmn
>13 AndreasJ: I am, anyway, not sure quite what your suggestion is. Should members use "Jane Doe writing as John Doe" in the author field on their individual book records? Maybe that's a good idea, but LT isn't going to be enforcing it, member data being sacrosanct and whatnot. Or should it be set at work level?
If you look back, you'll note that this is what I said was probably optimal (with the note that it will depend on the author), not that it was possible. I do not believe LT has a mechanism to do this, so the only way to do it will be for individual members to set it themselves. Thus I don't have an answer, only a suggestion.
I do think that it is something that will have to be addressed eventually. Some surveys find that up to 20% of people under 25 do not identify as male or female -- which is probably why it is becoming a culture war issue. One way or another, this is likely to become something that will have to be settled.
If you look back, you'll note that this is what I said was probably optimal (with the note that it will depend on the author), not that it was possible. I do not believe LT has a mechanism to do this, so the only way to do it will be for individual members to set it themselves. Thus I don't have an answer, only a suggestion.
I do think that it is something that will have to be addressed eventually. Some surveys find that up to 20% of people under 25 do not identify as male or female -- which is probably why it is becoming a culture war issue. One way or another, this is likely to become something that will have to be settled.
15AndreasJ
Adding a mechanism probably wouldn't be hard if the Tim were convinced it was a good idea. (Actually, couldn't you already achieve this via Other Authors?) But then I take it that you think the optimal solution would be setting it at the work level?
16waltzmn
>15 AndreasJ: But then I take it that you think the optimal solution would be setting it at the work level?
I think so. If it isn't done at the work level, it doesn't accomplish the goal of allowing the author to use the new name while acknowledging books which use the deadname -- without claiming the deadname as the person's actual name. (Treating the deadname as a pseudonym rather than a former name is the only way I can think of not acknowledging the deadname.)
But I am not the one who decides. It's my best suggestion, but there may be something I haven't thought of. And... I'm not transgender. (What I might have done if, at age ten or so, I had been told I could be a girl is an interesting question -- but I wasn't told.) I know transgender people, and I know a lot of autistics (a group with a very high overlap), but I don't personally know any transgender authors. (I don't think.) Probably someone (ALA?) should take a survey and try to figure it out.
I think so. If it isn't done at the work level, it doesn't accomplish the goal of allowing the author to use the new name while acknowledging books which use the deadname -- without claiming the deadname as the person's actual name. (Treating the deadname as a pseudonym rather than a former name is the only way I can think of not acknowledging the deadname.)
But I am not the one who decides. It's my best suggestion, but there may be something I haven't thought of. And... I'm not transgender. (What I might have done if, at age ten or so, I had been told I could be a girl is an interesting question -- but I wasn't told.) I know transgender people, and I know a lot of autistics (a group with a very high overlap), but I don't personally know any transgender authors. (I don't think.) Probably someone (ALA?) should take a survey and try to figure it out.
17MarthaJeanne
The book this started as being about has recently been republished in facsimile as Philip Garner's Better Living Catalog by Pippa Garner. From that I assume that she has no problem with being associated with both names.
Note: I have not combined the English and German editions, as the English subtitle speaks of 62 items, and the German of 52.
Note: I have not combined the English and German editions, as the English subtitle speaks of 62 items, and the German of 52.
18skript
Thanks for helping out everyone and apologies for not replying earlier. I fully agree with post 10; it seems to be the most logical and elegant (and non-offensive) method.
19wester
This is all very complicated and I think it may differ a lot between authors.
There are people like Maxim Februari, who was a writer when he still had a female body, and who still has very similar views. At the same time, he has written about his transition as well. I think his author page looks fine, with a disambiguation note that links to a magazine article about his coming out. I don't know if the author picture when he was still female is OK and if anything could/should be done about it - the main author picture is good.
There are also people like Émile Torres, who identifies as non-binary, but who also now completely rejects anything they did when they were still Phil Torres. It seems to me that in this case it would be better to keep the author pages separate, although a disambiguation note might be in order, if only to stop the pages from being combined.
There are people like Maxim Februari, who was a writer when he still had a female body, and who still has very similar views. At the same time, he has written about his transition as well. I think his author page looks fine, with a disambiguation note that links to a magazine article about his coming out. I don't know if the author picture when he was still female is OK and if anything could/should be done about it - the main author picture is good.
There are also people like Émile Torres, who identifies as non-binary, but who also now completely rejects anything they did when they were still Phil Torres. It seems to me that in this case it would be better to keep the author pages separate, although a disambiguation note might be in order, if only to stop the pages from being combined.
20.mau.
>19 wester: I can agree that the page of Émile Torres shouldn't have the works of Phil Torres listed. But I think that CK for Émile should have a reference to their deadname. And I am quite sure that the CK for Phil must have a reference to Émile.
21wester
>20 .mau.: I'm trying to contact Émile with pretty much those questions. I do agree that a reference to Émile on Phils page seems necessary, but I am in doubt about a reference to Phil on Émiles page.
Also, where in the CK? Other names? Disambiguation?
Also, where in the CK? Other names? Disambiguation?
22.mau.
>21 wester: Certainly not Disambiguation, and Other Names goes against the very logic behind a deadname even in the connection Phil --> Émile. I would stick to a simple explanation in Notes, at least for Phil; in the CK for Émile, maybe a note with just something like "they had a deadname" could be sufficient, if they don't want to be associated with anything with that name.
23lilithcat
>19 wester:, >20 .mau.:, >21 wester:, >22 .mau.:
I think you are both avoiding an important issue: who is the Author Page for? Unlike many other sites, on LT it is not for the author. It is for the user. And the fact that Emile Torres doesn't want to be associated with Phil Torres does not negate the fact that Emile wrote those books as Phil, something that matters to readers and researchers. a note with just something like "they had a deadname" is not useful.
I have no problem keeping the two pages separate, but I do have a problem with ignoring the connection on Emile's author page.
I think you are both avoiding an important issue: who is the Author Page for? Unlike many other sites, on LT it is not for the author. It is for the user. And the fact that Emile Torres doesn't want to be associated with Phil Torres does not negate the fact that Emile wrote those books as Phil, something that matters to readers and researchers. a note with just something like "they had a deadname" is not useful.
I have no problem keeping the two pages separate, but I do have a problem with ignoring the connection on Emile's author page.
24MarthaJeanne
I'm also not sure what you mean by "Notes". Also, if Emile really wanted no connection to Phil, why did the family name stay the same?
25JacobHolt
>23 lilithcat: Agreed--the author pages here exist for the sake of readers and researchers. There are certainly other contexts where authors have disavowed earlier published works, but we would still include those works on author pages. I'm not familiar with this author's work, so I won't weigh in on how to handle this specific case, but I would generally think that all works by a particular author should be included on the author page (involving splits and aliasing as needed)--again, for the sake of readers and researchers.
