Talk:Brandon Teena

"anatomically female"

User @82.4.161.186: replaced "was anatomically female" with "had a vagina" with edit summary "To say that someone has female anatomy is transphobic. Teena was a man with a vagina". User @Philipnelson99: reverted with no explanation.

The IP user is correct that it is transphobic. I will add that terms like "anatomically female" or "biologically female" don't really make sense when applied to a trans body, and are needlessly vague when "had a vagina" is clear and concise. --Wickedterrier (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why the technically accurate term "anatomically female" would be considered transphobic. Can you point to a style guide or two to support that contention?- MrX 🖋 03:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is accurate though. People tend to have more than one piece of anatomy. Some people have boobs and a penis. Would such a person be "anatomically female" because they have boobs? Or "anatomically male" because they have a penis? "had a vagina" is completely unambiguous.

Here's a guide from HRC: https://www.hrc.org/resources/reporting-about-transgender-people-read-this

No. 7 mentions the term "biological" and "anatomical" is being used here in much the same way.

GLAAD mentions problems with the term too: https://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender --Wickedterrier (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@MrX and Philipnelson99: I have to agree with Wickedterrier and the IP on this one. There's really nothing about genitalia that's "female" or "male", and "had a vagina" is unambiguous. However, the source doesn't actually say anything about Teena's genitalia: Grabbing Brandon, they unfastened his pants and pulled them down, demanding that Lana have a look. They wanted her to just admit that Brandon was a girl. According to her account, she shielded her eyes. They insisted, so she looked but said nothing. Perhaps it would be better to reword the sentence to During a Christmas Eve party, Nissen and Lotter grabbed Teena and forced him to remove his pants to show Tisdel his genitalia or somesuch? GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I take your point GorillaWarfare and agree that your proposed wording would be an improvement.- MrX 🖋 19:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure HRC really applies for this. It wasn't really used to contrast trans with real men, only to the extent that mentioning being trans does. GLAAD only mentions anatomy as the way to determine sex, so in the meaning that there is a specific female anatomy.

It might be time to change it back after 5 years. 2A01:36D:118:C86F:61A7:135:644E:BBDF (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Name query

Note 1, right at the very beginning, says, "Other names may include his legal name, as well as 'Billy Brenson' and 'Teena Ray'", but under "other names" the infobox has "Billy Brinson". Presumably Brinson and Brenson are referring to the same name, but which spelling is correct? Alternatively, if both are, perhaps at least "Brinson" could be added to the note? Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Deadname

I object to this terminology in the article as I believe it needlessly pushes the discussion in a political direction. This will distract from the substance of the article and Teena's story. I edited to "pre-transition name" (with a link to the deadnaming article), but that appears to have been reverted and the page locked. Is there guidance from Wikipedia on this sort of thing? Alta-Snowbird (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, i reverted you primarily because (as i explained in the edit summary) your edit was poor grammar; you can't just pull out a noun ~ "deadname" ~ and replace it willy-nilly with an adjective ~ "pre-transition" ~ because they are different parts of speech and function differently in sentences. You could, i suppose, have written "pre-transition name", but that is very close to what we have as "deadname". The best place i can point you is to this guidance. As far as i can tell, from there and from our article, it is fairly regular and usual nowadays to use the word "deadname", which i think i what you are objecting to? It certainly is not a political statement, except to those who choose to make it so, which seem to be a close to circular Venn diagram with those who deny transition. If i have entirely misunderstood you, i apologise and ask you to re-explain just what you mean ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree entirely with Lindsay's reasoning. "Deadname" is a perfectly common and neutral term; if a reader does not understand what it means, there is an article about it that's linked from the word. --bonadea contributions talk 13:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Clearly my mistake on "pre-transition" rather than "pre-transition name". Thanks for catching.

I suppose I disagree about whether deadname is meant to be political. Seems intended to evoke emotion and add confrontation to someone's name. I think that is ultimately counterproductive, but this page is not the place to adjudicate that, so I won't revise further. Alta-Snowbird (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Call him Brandon. He is Brandon. To call him Teena is to disregard his identity and is an attempt to feminize him, surname or not. 174.116.61.180 (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

In an encyclopaedia we always refer to subjects by their surnames, except when we are giving their full name. We are not trying to avoid saying Brandon. It's just encyclopaedic tone. Have a look at a few articles about other people. You will see that we always do this. Yes, it is unfortunate that his surname is an uncommon surname that also sounds similar to a feminine forename. Unfortunately there is nothing we can do about that. If you look at articles about other people who have/had surnames that sound like gendered forenames you will see that it is the same there. If there are any places where we are using the name unnecessarily then those can be changed to "he" but I don't think there is anything else we can do about this. I'll have a look and see what I can find. Please just understand that this is how encyclopaedias do it for all biographies. We are not treating him differently because he was trans. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I was able to replace 17 uses of "Teena" and also expand one to "Brandon Teena". It's not easy because there are long narrative sections where other men are involved and often we can't replace with "he" without it becoming confusing as to who we are referring to. Anyway, I think it's better than it was. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Legal/birth name

I think many readers are going to find it confusing how the article talks about the subject's legal name / birth name, but appears to be unwilling to directly mention what it was:

Since "Brandon Teena" was never his legal name, it is uncertain the extent to which this name was used before his death. Stacey D'Erasmo of Out stated that Teena did not call himself "Brandon Teena". It is the name most commonly used by the press and other media. Other names may include his legal name, as well as "Billy Brenson" and "Teena Ray."

There is no policy against the article including the subject's birth/legal name – WP:DEADNAME doesn't apply here, both because it only applies to living individuals, and also because the subject is notable under his legal/birth name – a lot of reporting on the case used his legal/birth name, indeed the article even cites six separate references which use that name in their title. So why don't we just add the legal/birth name to the article? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree that posthumous deadnaming means a subject was notable under that name, but I do agree the name is relevant and should be included. The article talks about the name several times: "Other names may include his legal name, as well as "Billy Brenson" and "Teena Ray."; "Teena's arrest was posted in the local paper under his birth name…"; "His headstone is inscribed with his deadname and the epitaph daughter, sister, & friend." Discussing a name without giving it runs afoul of WP:NOTCENSORED; the name is relevant and should be included even if objectionable or offensive. Not giving the name also obfuscates the origins of the names "Brandon Teena" and "Teena Ray".--Trystan (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a misconception on MOS:DEADNAME which actually says the opposite of what you are purporting.

For a start, it does indeed apply to the non living. It also calls us to do what is already the status quo.

The portion which is explicitly discussing living people is making the exception for when to write out their deadname:

Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name, the former name should not appear in any page (including questions, lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even if reliable sourcing exists.

I am reverting the edit in compliance with this policy. Brandon Teena was not notable under their deadname during their life. Relm (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The MOS:DEADNAME guideline has a couple parts to it. The first paragraph says to refer to an individual using the names and pronouns that reflect their gender identity. That applies to both living and dead people. The second and third paragraphs advise against even mentioning the deadname of a living person, outside of certain circumstances; that guidance is grounded in WP:BLP and does not apply to biographies of dead people. Proposals to extend the second and third paragraphs to apply to bios of dead people have not gained consensus, nor has any other specific guidance. In the absence of an applicable guideline to exclude, the information should be included where it is verifiable, well-sourced, due, and relevant.--Trystan (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The last major discussion I found was 2023 . Apologies for how long it took to reply.

With around a hundred editors responding across these RFCs taking place at VPP, it is obvious that there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS. One of the concerns in some of the supports for the stricter wordings was that leaving it open would lead to long, sometimes unproductive discussions, and this is likely to happen. However, that is a normal situation when dealing with contentious topics on Wikipedia, and it's nothing we all haven't seen before. Hopefully, this broader statement summarizing the entire discussion is helpful.

I also suggest reading the conclusion for the second topic specifically which notes the concensus falling somewhere between option 2 (only when it is a clear majority of sources/PLA) and option 3 (never and to strike 'living' from the policy). This is hard to apply when it comes to this page due to it over-relying on primary sources and sources which are severely outdated (hell the most cited one is an article called 'death of a deciever' from 1995 which uses the deadname in the title and throughout only quotes those around Brandon referring to them as a man, by that name, and with he/him pronouns. This is not uncommon amongst the outdated articles) but even then I would say that the highest quality, recent sources all refer to Brandon as Brandon Teena, a transgender man, with he/him pronouns and that per the prior discussion on how to apply MOS:GENDERID that the name ought to be avoided - especially given the article's lengthy history of the deadname getting brought up ad nauseam. Hope this clarifies my position. Relm (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:ID

When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.

Relm (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a use-mention distinction built into MOS:DEADNAME. It isn't being contested here that we should use anything other than male names and pronouns to refer to the subject in Wikipedia's voice. The issue is whether we should minimally mention what the deadname was, since it is brought up several times without explicitly being given. When a name is repeatedly talked about, it is of encyclopedic interest. A fact that is verifiable, well-sourced, due, and relevant is of encyclopedic interest. The only plausible reason not to mention it is that it is offensive, but per WP:NOTCENSORED, relevant information should be included even if objectionable or offensive.

As for sourcing, I only see a couple of primary sources in the citations (the legal cases). The deadname can be found in multiple high quality journalistic and academic sources from the past 20 years.--Trystan (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I am referring to the second portion of the 2023 rfc which is directly applicable to our situation not the first which I think you're mistakenly confusing it with. I am also not contesting that it can be found in several, just that the highest quality and most recent sources have almost entirely stuck to Brandon Teena and that per where the 2023 rfc concensus was, that this would suggest not including the dead name at all. I have no issue with calling for another rfc on this page for the specifics of this page or attempting to reach a new concensus on the policy (per the recent trans healthcare case, it was suggested to revisit some recent RFC's and this may even fall under that suggestion). Relm (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

(same person who reverted it the last time) While the RFC from '23 did agree that it should have a higher standard than merely existing, two following RFCs (1, 2) tried and failed to come up with a specific standard. "Encyclopedic" is obviously extremely vague, but this isn't a situation where someone dug out a single primary source listing an otherwise obscure birth name-- it's mentioned in multiple independent secondary sources. It clearly passes the vague standard of "higher than mere verifiability" 06:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC) ~2026-23726-4 (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Where did the name "Brandon Teena" come from?

Since the article notes that "Brandon Teena" was not actually the name he used when he was alive, I think it would be useful to try and include where that name comes from if it's not one he ever used. I know it's his birth name with the first and last names swapped around (which admittedly might cause some MOS:DEADNAME issues), but what I mean is, how did people and newspapers come to start calling him that, when he didn't call himself that? Unfortunately I can't find any sources that go into this: does anyone have any ideas? Tulzscha (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)