Talk:Chase Strangio

This is not a notable entry and appears to be an attempt to create a LinkedIn profile for a relatively unknown lawyer.

Chase Strangio appears to be a fairly unremarkable attorney working at the ACLU. Strangio's career is not particularly noteworthy. Strangio is simply just one of hundreds of staff attorneys at the ACLU.

Without making any comment on Strangio's competencies as a lawyer, nothing about this article justifies inclusion on Wikipedia. As described by the article and some brief research online, Strangio's career involves a few appearances on television that do not merit a breakaway Wikipedia article. If Chase Strangio satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability, then virtually any lawyer who has practiced for over ten years and has been interviewed about their professions is going to satisfy Wikipedia. That is a vast number of individuals; for example, many corporate lawyers routinely make headlines by virtue of their name appearing on the docket of a prominent matter. Most do not have entries on Wikipedia, and that is good policy. First, Wikipedia would be actively hurt by the appearance of every lawyer attempting to create a biography for themselves on Wikipedia. It would needlessly commercialize the platform by allowing individuals to attempt to coopt Wikipedia's reputation for noteworthiness for themselves. Indeed, countless doctors, researchers, businesspersons, government employees and other people working in and in front of the public eye do not have articles, and should not, because Wikipedia is not LinkedIn and should remain that way.

In short, this is not a platform to advance the parochial interests of legal practitioners. Strangio's article dilutes Wikipedia and should be removed in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.243.219 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I've replied to this identical comment in the deletion discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Birth name

Any public information from reliable sources about his birth name? --2604:2000:1280:4288:2849:CD8E:80F8:DACA (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

As Strangio did not become notable before his transition, his birth name is not relevant to include in this article. Funcrunch (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If it is mentioned anywhere in reliable sources it can belong in the article too. --2604:2000:1280:4288:2849:CD8E:80F8:DACA (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just because something is mentioned in a reliable source doesn't mean we need to include it. Adding Strangio's birth name (deadname) would add nothing of importance to this article. Deadnaming is harmful to trans people and should be avoided whenever possible. Funcrunch (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If Strangio is transgender, that is an essential bit of information about him that should be included in the article. It is part of what makes Strangio notable. If the influence of trans people is causing Wikipedia to leave out such information, then that makes Wikipedia more useless than it already is. Trans people may want to erase their "dead" selves, but the "dead" selves of notable persons is part of history that should be included in encyclopedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I hear your opinion, but we should follow the MOS:GIDINFO, which says: " Aaronbrick (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It says to exclude pre-notability deadnames . That is all. Aaronbrick (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Adding onto this. MOS:GIDINFO says:

• "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists."
• "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name."
• "If a transgender subject's former or legal name is not well known or widely reported, don't include it, even if it appears in a few reliable sources."

(Emphasis in original text)

Strangio was not notable before he came out as trans, unlike, say, Caitlyn Jenner and Elliot Page. Being transgender is part of what makes him notable, yes, but his deadname has nothing to do with his notability. Kravk (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Remarks on Shrier book

(Tried and failed to do this with a dummy edit and edit summary, figured it's better being on the talk page anyway.)

Regarding these recent edits: FWIW, the protected status of Strangio's Twitter account is very recent, and may be temporary. Funcrunch (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Checking the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, it appears Strangio protected his Twitter account sometime between June 23 and June 26 (i.e., this week). Funcrunch (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"Controversy and criticism" section

I removed this section for now. It was added by @Spotcorrector as follows:

Strangio has been widely criticized for using his position at the ACLU to engage in personally-motivated activism, including calling for the suppression of speech he considers "anti-transgender." After her book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters was called to be removed from circulation by Strangio on Twitter, where he wrote "stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on," Abigail Shrier responded in the Wall Street Journal that "The notion that civil society required a marketplace of ideas was something liberals once believed—especially those who worked at the ACLU." Strangio later deleted his tweet. The New York Times subsequently reported that Strangio's tweet had "startled traditional backers [of the ACLU], who remembered its many fights against book censorship and banning." Strangio has also been criticized for centering his own experience as a transgender man in his fight against legislation preventing gender-questioning youth from accessing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. He has frequently argued in legal settings and in the media that gender-affirming care "saved my life," speaking of his own transition in his early 20s, as a justification for medicalizing gender-questioning youth. Just before the Skrmetti case was argued, Strangio wrote in the New York Times that his transition as an adult cured his "self-doubt....My only regret was how long it took for me to get that medical care and how many years I suffered without it."

There are multiple issues here:

• The tone is argumentative and non-encyclopedic (NPOV)
• The material added is irrelevant or duplicative (e.g., the New York Times op-ed is already mentioned elsewhere)
• @Spotcorrector deleted other text and references from the article to make this edit look smaller than it really was.

LegalSkeptic (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC) LegalSkeptic (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spotcorrector's edit reads to me as biased and politically motivated, especially taking into account some of their references (The Daily Caller?? Seriously?) IXequilibrium (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the quality/bias of the references is definitely an issue. Other references are misinterpreted (Law Dork, which was praising, not criticizing, Strangio and other trans people for centering themselves in the Skrmetti oral arguments at the Supreme Court). Thank you for weighing in. I tend to make technical improvements to legal articles and don't often weigh in on controversial topics, so I second-guess myself when I revert an edit like this. Spotcorrector un-reverted my edit and then I re-reverted the article back to the status quo and left a note on their talk page inviting them to discuss the edits here to avoid an edit war. LegalSkeptic (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

References