Query on trans author names

[Emy]

Zeyn Joukhadar
Jennifer Zeynab Joukhadar

This author's earlier works were published under the longer form of their name. Do we treat the form they originally used for publication as we would a standard pseudonym, and add the new form as Secondary author - where they clearly wish to claim the older works under their newer name.

Do we need to add anything to Policy to cover this sort of situation so that we are both clear and tactful?

My comment on tact is that in this situation the author is clearly republishing the original works with the new name.

Normally we would keep JZJ as primary on all editions here, and add ZJ on those which show that form, but it seems cruel/tactless to force them to have all copies under their dead name as a policy. Would it be acceptable in the case of trans authors who change names while transitioning to set the policy to have their new name first (where claimed) and the old "pseudonymous" name as second where on the cover?

Examples of the existing variations:
Un mapa de sal y estrellas
De kaart van zout en sterren

[lethe]

Emy wrote: "[Normally we would keep JZJ as primary on all editions here, and add ZJ on those which show that form, but it seems cruel/tactless to force them to have all copies under their dead name as a policy"

I'm afraid that is exactly how GR handles these cases.

I'll see if I can dig up the previous threads about this, but I'm currently on my iPad.

[annob [on hiatus]]

Good arguments, Emy.

If I could make a wish, it would be for a sub rule to the existing policy - if the author is trans an exception to the general policy on pen names could be made. An exception would mean there's no need for GRs to overhaul the entire policy (and the technological workings behind it), but showing they change with the world when it changes around them.

I do feel it's valuable for the reader that old and new editions are combined, but ideal if the deadname wasn't visible on the listing of later published editions.

[lethe]

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Personally, I feel the fewer exceptions a policy has, the better. No exceptions for classic authors and no exceptions for trans authors. All editions should have the latest name as primary in my view.

That it would be too much work is nonsense. Why would it be more work than what we have now? There are no technological workings to be overhauled with this policy change.

And it would make a lot of authors very happy, not just trans* ones, as I have pleaded in the now defunct Feedback group Policies & Practices: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

annob wrote: "Good arguments, Emy.

If I could make a wish, it would be for a sub rule to the existing policy - if the author is trans an exception to the general policy on pen names could be made. An exception..."

Why would we discriminate against non-trans authors? Wouldn’t it be discrimination to not let them use a new name/pseudonym while letting trans use a different name?

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Why would we discriminate against non-trans authors? Wouldn’t it be discrimination to not let them use a new name/pseudonym while letting trans use a different name? "

Snap! 😊

[Emy]

I am not proposing anything that would be discrimination against non-trans authors. This more about is acknowledging the legal side of transitioning with regards to names.

Another alternative, encompassing somewhat lethe's comments, would be that where a claimed name is known, that should be Primary, followed by cover variants, but where no claimed profile is involved we stick to current policy.

That would leave Classics authors well alone (although there are already exceptions there, e.g "a lady" or "Lord Byron"). And also those exceedlying prolific authors in certain genres who regularly republish the same content under a new pseudonym.

I suppose I'm seeing three questions:
1. Do we treat the dead name as a pseudonym?
This would put all older works on the page of the dead name rather than the one claimed by the author. This would work, IMO, if the author was using the other name as an intentional pseudonym.
2. Do we put the dead name or the legal name (per claimed profile) first?
Putting the legal name first would probably be less confusing for readers where the author is still producing works and those listed are not backlist. I feel this is only relevant where an author has claimed their profile under one name and is therefore implying that X is the name.
3. Do we make an exception to the current policy on name / cover variant for trans authors, in line with that for authors such as Lord Byron?
While I agree that multiple exceptions to policy are not helpful, this would line up with an existing exception, and furthermore wouldn't affect many authors so would not be an onerous task. It would also make keeping books combined easier in the longrun as new editions are published with the name in use.
4. Do we discuss a change to pseudonym policy?
Should pseudonyms always go first, or the variant in most use by the author. Execptions here would be where the author has a clear intention to separate their name (e.g. Nora Roberts / J.D. Robb).

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Emy wrote: "I am not proposing anything that would be discrimination against non-trans authors. This more about is acknowledging the legal side of transitioning with regards to names."

I think what is being proposed is exactly what discrimination looks like. It is treating one class of people differently than another class of people.

[Scott]

I don't see why they would be handled any differently from any other author who has changed their name.

(And the term is "birth name.")

[Emy]

Scott wrote: "I don't see why they would be handled any differently from any other author who has changed their name.

(And the term is "birth name.")"

Because if a non-trans person changes their name, it's just annoying if people use the old name, their whole backhistory doesn't change. When a trans person changes their name, it can backdate and include everything up to the birth certificate. It can also cause psychological damage as people intentionally use the incorrect name to hurt and dismiss.

No, "birth name" isn't exactly the same thing (e.g. many adoptees have birth names, and legal names, but not dead names).

In short, I'm questioning whether we should enforce a policy that can cause actual damage to a living person. And if so, how.

All that said, if an author has legally changed their name and is now republishing their backlist with the new name form, I see no reason why Goodreads should not adapt to that. I started with trans people because a) I don't like to actively do harm, and therefore I wanted to discuss the best way to manage these name changes, and b) this would cover a very small section of our authors.

[Emy]

I do feel that this is a very different question to asking what happens when an author starts to use a new pseudonym.

Perhaps trying to apply the pseudonym rule was midguided? Is this actually something which is more about "use forms" vs "legal forms" with regards to names.

Earlier I referred to Lord Byron, who obviously was known as that in his lifetime, and was legally able to use that name. The name he was given at birth is a) not the form we use as Primary on Goodreads, and b) was not the form which he habitually used in public during the majority of his lifetime.

This is about cases where:
1. The author did use the first name form we have recorded in a day-to-day context
2. The author now no longer uses that name in any context
and
3. The author is seeking to re-publish / re-issue all possible works* with the new name listed.

If we ignore point 3, it would also bring in a number of female academics who have published under maiden names, and then a variation post marriage/divorce.

This is (or should be seen as) very different from "churn" publishing pseudonyms, or intentional use of a different name to mask a legal name (whether the pseudonym is used before initial publication or later). Neither a generic trans person nor Lord Byron were or are seeking to conceal their identity by using a pseudonym, the works are/were published under the name legally used at the time of the publication.

* Acknowledging that sometimes an author doesn't have the rights to re-release older work, and the rights holder is uninterested in a re-release, so the desire and intention is there but not the legal ability.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

I think a librarian should not have to inquire into an author’s private life to figure out what name should be primary. I shouldn’t have to know if a name change is on a whim or a legal change nor why. It’s actually none of my business. The originally published name should be sufficient.

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I think a librarian should not have to inquire into an author’s private life to figure out what name should be primary. I shouldn’t have to know if a name change is on a whim or a legal change nor why."

+1

(I don't agree with the last sentence of your comment, though :) )

[lethe]

I think Lord Byron is an exception to the "no titles" rule, just as Mrs. Oliphant et al., and is not to be considered a pseudonym.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

The “it’s none of my business” part or the “should be sufficient” part? If the sufficient, I meant knowing not that a secondary name shouldn’t be on editions.

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "The “it’s none of my business” part or the “should be sufficient” part? If the sufficient, I meant knowing not that a secondary name shouldn’t be on editions."

The "sufficient" part. I don't understand your clarification (probably reading it wrong), but I am in favour of a policy change for *all* authors who change the name they publish under, no matter the reason.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Ok then, yes we disagree.

[Toviel]

I hope I'm not the only trans person who's commented so far, but it's GR, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think this is the sort of thing where the author (or their publisher, social media handler, etc.) should reach out to GR support to determine how their dead name should be handled. Having a blanket policy when there could be a number of variables in play (whether they're republishing some/all of their older works, how different their new legal name is, etc.) seems like it would make a lot more work for librarians who disagree on policy and political standards.

Furthermore, letting GR enforce a dead name policy without trans input doesn't seem right. I'm sure if they reached out to a professional trans/LGBT association (or if such an organization contacted GR), a better policy could be negotiated without comprising GR's current standards.

(Treating a new legal name as a pseudonym, or a fake name, by default to begin with is... yikes. Yikes.)

[lethe]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Ok then, yes we disagree."

At the moment an exception is made for classic authors though, so why are they treated differently?

[lethe]

Toviel, I think 'pseudonym' is being used as a catch-all for all instances in which an author publishes/has published under two (or more) different names.

They do not have to be real pseudonyms. F.e. a woman who used her maiden name but after marriage starts using her married name, or a divorced woman who stops using her married name would also fall under this policy.

I'm sure no offence was ever intended and I'm sorry it comes across that way.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Andrew wrote: "What if "Deadname" were put in as the Author Role to provide clarity wherever applicable?"

This term is so offensive I’m hard pressed to describe it.

[Emily]

There are quite a few cases of people whose first name is one or two letters, like "Z" or "CJ," where Support has made an exception to the rule of having periods in the initials.
(ETA, whether or not it is their legal name)

If an author would like an exception to the rule about the previously published author name, then they can ask. However, if it were an actual policy, there are so many authors who would want to take advantage of it for branding purposes, that I don't know that it should be a policy rather than an exception unless it is decided to make the preferred name the primary one.

I agree with lethe that to please the most people and make it easier for lots of readers, the latest name could be primary. That said, I'm sure that a lot of this has been discussed before. It might be a good idea for anyone interested to post thoughts in Goodreads Help. It would then get the attention of Goodreads staff and others in the community.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

I think if staff is interested in soliciting input, they'll ask. I cannot see the possibility of their changing current policy, but I've been gobsmacked before.