Talk:Charles Hamilton (female husband)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Untitled

An interesting topic which could use expansion. Drutt (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duped?

I'm curious... is there any actual evidence, other than contemporary assumptions, that she "duped" her wife into marriage, as this article says? I mean, how long did the marriage end up lasting? It wouldn't surprise me if a lesbian couple of the time decided to try and pass unnoticed/unharrassed in society by one of them pretending to be a man. And what about the two other women she married, mentioned in this part of the lesbian article? Without mention of them, it doesn't make sense that the article calls her a bigamist. I'm not really sure how much I can add to the article, as I'm unfamiliar with the case. Xmoogle (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact vs conjecture

It is important for an encyclopedia to stick to known facts as much as is possible and note venture into asserting conjecture as fact. In the case of Hamilton, there does not seem to be any dispute that Hamilton's sex was female. Whether or not Hamilton was male or female by gender (or some other gender) is not clearly established and is a matter or conjecture. Hamilton might have been a transgender man or might have been a cisgender lesbian who chose to live as if she were a man to free her to pursue people she was attracted to without being limited by the strict social boundaries of her time. We really do not know. The article calls Hamilton a transvestite in the article name, implying that Hamilton was a woman who dressed in traditionally men's clothes, but the article also uses the male pronoun throughout, implying that Hamilton was a transgender man, and thus not a transvestite at all. The article as it stands, then, is inconsistent with itself on the question of Hamilton's gender. Barring a reliable quotation of something Hamilton actually said or wrote being available that clearly settles the matter one way or the other, it would be most accurate for the article to take neither position on the matter. If there are modern reliable sources that discuss Hamilton and the issue of gender and sexuality, they would certainly wouldbe a welcome addition to the article not because they might settle the matter but because they would allow the article to explain the issue and how the reality is really unknown. To some editors the question of whether Hamilton was a cisgender transvestite lesbian, a transgender man, or fit some other category might seem quite obvious, but we don't have clear facts here. 99.192.92.178 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transphobic

Taking the idea that Charles Hamilton was actually a woman and duped his wives into marriage at face value is transphobic, and the other female husbands section is pretty bad as well EdenoiRX (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a problem there.Nattes à chat (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't take things 'at face value', but we should follow what the sources say. Are there specific unsourced statements in the article that you are concerned about, or are there as-yet-uncited sources which challenge the historical accounts? MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bought two serious books on the subject, added references and these were reverted. I tried to address the above issue. The terms used are a little updated, and this person was known for years as "Charles Hamilton". As for the term "unsuspecting bride" why should one use non neutral terms in the lead and not try to remain factual? These terms are judgemental. @EdenoIRX:'s remark at not taking something as face value is valid IMO. I think modern sources do not use the derogatory terms anymore, no more than we use medieval sources to describe witch trials. Nattes à chat (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see this article being improved with the help of modern academic sources. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Do you think that the article ought to be moved to Mary Hamilton (cross-dresser)? MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelMaggs, I think Mary Hamilton (female husband) better reflects the well-sourced claim to notability in the lead, per WP:NCPDAB, e.g. The disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in their own right, at least pending further research and discussion about Charles Hamilton (female husband) as a title. I added a variety of sources, including from EBSCO and an Oxford database through The Wikipedia Library to the new Female Husbands: A Trans History article that may be helpful to review for considering the title. In the meantime, "transvestite" and "cross-dresser" do not appear to be well-supported by independent and reliable sources, and the term "transvestite" is also seen as outdated and derogatory according to several sources cited in the Cross-dressing article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And as a follow up, Jen Manion's article 'Female husbands': the secret lives of 18th-century transgender pioneers (HistoryExtra, 2021) offers support for Charles Hamilton (female husband) as the title. A review of Female Husbands: A Trans History in the Los Angeles Review of Books also adds support, with more than two paragraphs of discussion and commentary on Charles Hamilton, including, "they came to be known as "the female husband" — the first female-assigned person who had lived as a man and married a woman." A review in The Guardian also supports the notability of Charles Hamilton. Similarly, the review in History Today opens with a discussion of Charles Hamilton. Fielding wrote sensationalized fiction, which seems problematic to use as a source for helping determine the title for a biographical article. I am now more supportive of Charles Hamilton (female husband) as a title based on the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Also per WP:NICKNAME, The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not the person's "real" name [...] The page name uses preferably the most commonly used version of the name of that person; other variants should be redirects, and can also be mentioned in the article, as needed. The recent RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people still has a closing statement pending, but it may also help clarify this issue. Beccaynr (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, thanks for the analysis. I agree with you, and pending further evidence have boldly moved the article to Charles Hamilton (female husband). I've also added a new redirect for Mary Hamilton (female husband). Will work more on this page as soon as I can find some time. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the bold move and redirect, MichaelMaggs. I look forward to continuing to work with you, and I also plan to develop an article for Jen Manion, fyi. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]