Talk:Albert Cashier

Deadnaming

I removed every instance where Albert Cashier was deadnamed in the article, according to Wikipedia's rules about gender identity. There is still a lot of deadnaming in the sources, mainly because of the articles/books about him didn't care deadnaming at the time. What should be done about this ? Captaintorche (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Captaintorche, and welcome to Wikipedia! You did the right thing by starting this discussion. In controversial issues like this, on controversial topics, like this one, stepping carefully and following all Wikipedia policies and guidelines scrupulously is of the essence. I've reverted your edit at the article for the time being, until this discussion can play out. For starters, please read WP:CONSENSUS and MOS:GENDERID. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Captaintorche isn't wrong. This article is written with horrific tone that preferences questioning of the subject's own identity. It quite fully embraces the argument "trans people didn't exist until × time ago". The policy on deadnaming conveniently only applies to living people. Deadnaming someone who didn't attain prominence with that name is disgusting behaviour. That people erected a new gravestone in 1977 to give prominence to his deadname is an example of transphobia literally carved in stone! This article does give some detail on forced detransition due to his senility and transphobia of the 1910s. About the only thing it lacks is JK Rowling commenting on the necessity of using his 'biological name'! Deliriousandlost (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I did the same thing, and my edit got undone and I was accused of Wikipedia "vandalism." The person who undid my edit sent me a message claiming that the only notable thing about Albert Cashier is that he was assigned female at birth and apparently, I was "erasing history" by not using his deadname. Albert Cashier lived as a man for the majority of his life (before and after the Civil War) so there's no reason to deadname him. Not to mention, he is more commonly known as Albert Cashier than his deadname because he is a very important historical figure in transgender history. It's really frustrating to see people erase, undermine, or outright disrespect his gender identity. Elusiveenby (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

"Early Life" change?

Hi there,

I was reading over this section about Cashier, and wonder if the beginning sentence in the "Early Life" section would be better placed at the end of this section? Here's the sentence:

"Cashier was elderly and suffering from dementia when interviewed about immigrating to the United States and enlisting in the army, and had always been evasive about early life; therefore, the available narratives are often contradictory."

While it's understandable why it's at the beginning, acting as a sort of "keep this in mind as you read about him", it seems confusing because the section is about Cashier's Early Life and immediately talks about his later life and dementia diagnosis.

Would appreciate any sort of input. Thanks! SmartyMarty23 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME violations

The policy is pretty clear. There is zero notability prior to transition, so no reason that the previous name should be mentioned in the article at all. (t · c) buidhe 12:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Most of MOS:DEADNAME only applies to living people. Whether it should also apply to dead people is a different question. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It is acceptable for his deadname to be included per WP policy, but not at the start of the article. His deadname should only be in the early life section, and he should not be reffered to as "Hodgers" rather than "Cashier" in any part of the article. Kiwiisabirdok (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to disclose somebody's deadname to describe the events that happened during their early life. Doing so is unnecessary and disrespectful. Elusiveenby (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Pronouns

Considering this was last discussed 7 years ago, and the addition of pronouns to James Barry’s page, which is a situation extremely similar to this page’s, would it be unreasonable to change the guideline for avoiding pronoun usage on this page? There was a clear consensus to use he/him pronouns for Barry considering that is what he used in life, (while previously it had been decided to avoid using pronouns entirely,) and I would argue that it makes a lot of sense to do the same for Cashier per MOS:GENDERID and the arguments made in the discussion over Barry. ~2025-43686-62 (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I would support this - the "consistent and nearly lifelong (at least 53 years) commitment to a male identity" tells us all we need to know about self-identification, imo. Not really related but it would be nice if MOS:GENDERID actually addressed historical cases a little more clearly. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID is very clear on deadnames/birthnames, and this article in it's current state is a clear violation of that. You aren't supposed to start the article off with the deadname, you aren't supposed to retrospectively use the deadname, it should be mentioned once in the early life section, not in bold at the top of the page. This page is in dire need of updating, but I'm not sure what can be done until the 2018 RFC is overturned. Kiwiisabirdok (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID applies to living and recently deceased peoples, not historical people like Cashier. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: I don't see that stipulation for the entire MOS:GENDERID section. Where does it say that? It starts out with "Refer to people whose gender might be questioned using [...] the person's most recent expressed self-identification". This definitely applies to Cashier. His former name is another case however and the section currently uses that language ("Unless a living transgender or non-binary person was notable under a former name..."). Bridget (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no 'expressed self-identification' here to go off. There was an RfC regardless and if any change to this is desired a new RfC is needed. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

In the lead, we have sources attesting to his "consistent and nearly lifelong (at least 53 years) commitment to a male identity". I agree that we should have a new RfC. Bridget (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe this to be in the scope of MOS:GENDERID, which was clearly written for living/contemporary people in an age where it is very easy to make a public statement. Sources should be used to determine how to refer to Cashier. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Even if that were strictly true, it doesn't mean we can't also conform to those guidelines for people who lived lives we would recognise as being trans if they were alive now. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I support adding pronouns. This isn't a situation where the subject dressed as a man only in order to join the military; Cashier continued to live as a man afterwards. Even if we don't have proof of him explicitly saying his pronouns, I think it's pretty clear what his gender identity was. I wish there were better guidelines for this situation; I'm quite annoyed that the Chevaliere D'Eon's page doesn't use pronouns despite the fact that she actually did refer to herself with feminine pronouns... Sentimental Dork (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

He lived as a man before joining the military too. Elusiveenby (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I did it, I started the RfC; please feel free to add your various comments below. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Request for Comment about Pronoun Usage (2026 ver.)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Snow close in favour of Yes, consensus is clear, as it was in the previous informal discussion; and given that James Barry's article was changed to use male pronouns, there's no reason this one shouldn't. I will note that I might be considered 'involved' here as I did previously edit this article to use male pronouns when I saw the previous non-RfC discussion about it, but I think anyone sensible would agree with my close here. It would make no sense for this RfC to close any other way without also relitigating the James Barry RfC. Athanelar (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

---

Should Albert Cashier's page be changed from 'no pronouns' to male pronouns? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Options:

• Yes - the article should be changed to refer to Cashier as he/him
• No - the article should remain pronoun-free
• Something else - an alternative suggestion not covered by the above

• Yes - The "consistent and nearly lifelong (at least 53 years) commitment to a male identity" (with multiple sources) clearly gels with MOS:GENDERID's direction to Refer to people whose gender might be questioned using the name and gendered words (man, woman, person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification. As an additional note, the RfC in 2018 closed with a consensus to avoid pronouns altogether, with James Barry (surgeon) noted specifically as an appropriate prototype for the language. In 2025, a new RfC determined that the consensus had changed to refer to Barry with male pronouns, and the article was updated accordingly. Seeing as that article's language was used as a prototype for this one's, the gendered update is even more sensical. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Yes - nominator has outlined well the policy-level reason. At the article level, the article would benefit from insertion of pronouns, as it currently reads awkwardly. Cashier also lived with a male identity outside of just deceiving the military, so GENDERID applies even though he didn't outright state his gender. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 17:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, for the reasons well described by NekoKatsun and Octopusplushie — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

No MOS:GENDERID, although it does not explicitly state it is clearly used in reference to contemporary not historical figures. We should go with what reliable sources say and the nominator has failed to provide any sources to back up his position. The Routledge History of Irish America (2024, p208) refers to Cashier as a woman and uses 'her' to refer to Cashier. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Yes: As I mentioned in the most recent discussion above, we currently have sources in the lead about Cashier's "consistent and nearly lifelong (at least 53 years) commitment to a male identity" (contrary to what Traumnovelle says above). MOS:GENDERBIO clearly applies; the section advises to "Refer to people whose gender might be questioned using [...] the person's most recent expressed self-identification [...] even if it does not match what is most common in sources". That part of the MOS doesn't omit historical figures, and I don't see any doubt around his self-expressed pronouns and identity in RS that would lead us to not respect Cashier's identity with respect to MOS:GENDERBIO. Best, Bridget (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, per above, but specifically in reference to "consistent and nearly lifelong (at least 53 years) commitment to a male identity."L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. As I said previously, this isn't a situation where the subject dressed as a man only in order to join the military; Cashier continued to live as a man afterwards. Even if we don't have proof of him explicitly saying his pronouns, I think it's pretty clear what his gender identity was. Sentimental Dork (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Yes per MOS:GENDERBIO the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 13:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. In principle I agree with Traumnovelle, but this seems to be the main reason for this person's notability. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It has been 9 days and 9 people have voted: 8 yes, 1 no. I'm new-ish to editing Wikipedia, so I'm unsure if this comment is helpful or not, but I'm trying. I read all of the wiki pages on RfCs and consensus, and this discussion will automatically close after 30 days unless it's decided earlier that there's a clear consensus. I don't think 30 days is necessary, based on the large majority currently agreeing. Can we put a specific time frame on how much longer until we make a decision? I say we give it three days and then make the change if there aren't any more objections.

Here's the current vote count.

Yes:

@NekoKatsun

@Octopusplushie

@OwenBlacker

@Bridget

@L1A1 FAL

@Sentimental Dork

@DOUGDOUGFOOD

@Coffeeurbanite

No:

@Traumnovelle

If anyone else has thoughts they would like to share supporting either side, now is the time. Sentimental Dork (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like clear consensus for the affirmative side. Please do note though that consensus is not voting, and this kind of vote tallying won’t be very helpful in more closely contested issues. We ideally should have someone who isn’t involved in the discussion close it. Or, if all the participants agree to end it without further discussion. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 21:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for telling me! How do we get someone to close it? Sentimental Dork (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I have formally requested closure for this RfC. Sentimental Dork (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this step for us. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 19:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date of death

Hey Flaxmoore, I'm looking at image 24 at the archives.gov link you provided in your edit and don't see a date of death from a hospital superintendent. You didn't add a citation with this link and the article body cites a source that provides the original date, not the one you changed it to. Also could you clarify why you removed this sentence about his enlistment? Bridget (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Not the person you pinged, but I had a look at image 24 and the text in gray ink at the bottom states Albert D. J. Cashier died October 11th, 1915, at 2:20 A. M.; cause of death "Exhaustion of Senile Dementia." I missed it on my first readthrough - got too focused on the blue. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I have seen many sources that list Cashier's death date as 1915-10-10. To assume that this one is correct seems undue. Yeah, verifiability, not truth is relevant here. Peaceray (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The "many sources" listing Cashier's death date as 10/10/15 all circle back to the Rock Island county death record (Death Records A-G. (n.d.). [Dataset]. Rock Island County Clerk’s Office. https://www.rockislandcountyil.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2826/Death-A_G--Webpage-plus-2004-and-2005-1?bidId=) but as we can see in the file the most contemporary death date we have (dated October 20, 1915) says clearly the 11th with the source being the Superintendent of the Watertown Hospital. As for the other sentence deleted, it honestly seemed superfluous, but I can be flexible on that one. Flaxmoore (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Further, image 10 shows him as dropped from the pension rolls due to death occurring on 10/11/15. Flaxmoore (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)