Talk:Rachel Levine

Criticism

She is constantly being criticized. Someone should add a criticism section in this article. 2A01:E0A:57D:48E0:B095:1B41:B30F:2A78 (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All content, regardless of whether it is positive or negative, must be supported by reliable sources. If there is enough content to merit a full section, then a full section can be included. Otherwise, it will likely just be added in as a single sentence (or two). Primefac (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac could you please explain further why you removed the information about Rachel Levine's reported attempts to remove the age limits for trans surgery? One of your objections is that "this seems like a non-story". I am confused. It was a story that was reported first in The New York Times, which is considered to be a generally reliable source per [[WP:NYT]]. It is also mentioned in The Economist, which is also listed at [[WP:RSPSS]] as generally reliable. Quote from The Economist: "Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. Dr Levine’s office has not commented." I believe that this information needs to be reflected in the article, as it received coverage in the sources that are known for fact checking and accuracy. I am also confused by your characterization as "speculation." The original edit (recapped below) captured a response to an allegation (vs. allegation alone), in an attempt to be thoughtfully balanced. Levine's office is not even saying it's speculation, instead they are providing a response explaining Rachel Levine's position to the New York Times.
Original edit: "With respect to allegations in 2024 that Rachel Levine pushed to remove age limits for trans surgery from World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) Standards of Care 8 (SOC8)[31], an H.H.S. spokesman said “Adm. Levine shared her view with her staff that publishing the proposed lower ages for gender transition surgeries was not supported by science or research, and could lead to an onslaught of attacks on the transgender community,”" Evathedutch (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An allegation was made, the allegation was clarified, end of story. That story is not particularly interesting nor did it have great impact on her career, and from what I read it sounds like the NYT heard of an issue and then got a clarification on that issue, which is exactly how journalism should work; it does not however mean we must include it, because we do not need to include every small detail of a person's life or career, regardless of whether that detail is positive or negative. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point that responding to allegations may not be significant enough to include. It made me reread her article to get a better sense of what topics are included.  I see that the article covers Levine’s concern that gender affirming care is politicized. Since the wikipedia article is including the topic of the politicization of GAC, it should do it in a balanced way and also include information from reliable sources on Rachel Levine participating in the politicization of GAC. Accordingly I’m making a revised edit with that rationale.  I have not included the quote below from Rachel Levine’s chief of staff in the edit, but I am including it here on the talk page as support that political concerns were a factor in the requested change to a GAC health guideline.  
“She is confident, based on the rhetoric she is hearing in D.C., and from what we have already seen, that these specific listings of ages, under 18, will result in devastating legislation for trans care. She wonders if the specific ages can be taken out.” (NYT) Evathedutch (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been shown in the Skrmetti case that Levine did indeed pressure WPATH, successfully, to remove age limits from their guidance. You won't find it on the page about the case or on this page because it doesn't fit the narrative. FieldOfWheat (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It'll appear on the page if it's covered by reliable sources, not as a baseless conspiracy among editors. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are required for something like this. Especially in a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article. Bill Heller (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on transition year

The article doesn't mention when Levine transitioned, although talk page archives suggest it formerly did. This should probably be readded, especially considering it mentions her same-sex marriage in 1988 without specifying that she transitioned afterwards. Jone425 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did we have a valid RS source for it? If so, I think it might be OK to add the date if it was done in a pretty minimal way. It should be no more than one short sentence and should not imply any narrative or connections other than to establish the chronology. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rachel-levine mentions that she completed her transition in 2011, and is already being used as a source in this article. I think something like "Levine fully transitioned in 2011." would be more than enough. Jone425 (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she wasn't notable by her prior name, then the date of her transition is similarly un-notable and should generally be omitted as it serves no encyclopedic value. Raladic (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Levine was notable both by birth name and by current name, and thus the article is tremendously confusing to any that care to understand the relatiohship between the first 40 years of this medical scholar's and educator's life, and the years since their transition. In seeking to be protective, we are being historically and intellectually opaque, and driving readers to other, likely generally less reliable, sources. And by maintaining protections of the article, we are ensuring its stagnation, as no professional with responsibility will twice visit to suggest edits, as we did earlier, below. ~2025-38509-63 (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below about Prince. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Erasure of History

Birth name and the date of transition should be included. Pronouns used before the date of transition should be "He/Him". Seki1949 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this section of our article on Prince, we don't refer to him as "The artist formerly known as Prince" or his symbol; his name is what we use because that's his name. We are not "erasing history" by not giving someone's birth name. Primefac (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a common mistake. The language of "transition" encourages us to think of a person having one gender before and a different one after and so we might expect their former pronouns to apply up until the point of transition, even in retrospect. That was my first guess before I learned a bit more about how it really works. This is to misunderstand what is transitioning. The person is not transitioning from one gender to another. They are transitioning how they live to reflect the gender they are and probably always were, even if it took them a while to realise it. It's like coming out as gay. We would not say, in retrospect, that a person was straight up until the day they came out as gay. They were gay all along. It's just that we only found out when they came out. I think it is a fair thing to ask about but putting it under such an inflammatory title was a big mistake. It can attract trolls and that doesn't help anybody. In this case, Levine's previous name is not a notable part of her history for us to document. Including it would be gratuitous. It is different with people who were genuinely notable under their former names. MOS:GENDERID does permit limited inclusion of their previous names in such cases. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review

...the citations appearing in the Personal life section, that are suggested (errantly) to support statements about the title subject's marriage, divorce, and children.

We have done such a review. The citations used are to an individual, which simply supports their existance, sans clearly established and relevant relationships; hence, it does not support the specific sentence claims being made about the title subject's relationships or the dates stated about them. (One source cited, the resume, makes no claim at all regarding a marriage in 1988, so it is useless herein as a source; the blog post on divorce, posted in 2013, establishes that the blogger divorced in that year, but—despite sharing a last Dr RL's last name—does not state or otherwise establish that the divorce involved Dr RL.)

As such, unsupported by citation are that Dr RL was married to the individual stated, the marriage occurring in 1988, had children with them, and divorced in 2013—these specifics are not currently supported by the citations provided. ~2025-38509-63 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statements removed for failing verification. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fully familiar with the censorship policies around transgender issues here, but if your concerns are just about sourcing verification as mentioned above, the National Women's History Museum includes Levine's family info in her official bio.
www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/rachel-levine
"Levine graduated from Harvard College in 1979 and enrolled at Tulane University School of Medicine. There she discovered a passion for pediatrics, specifically adolescent medicine, as she found teenagers both challenging and stimulating. While at Tulane, she married fellow medical student (name redacted for possible wikipedia policies), with whom she later had a son and daughter. (The couple divorced in 2013.)"
Fx6893 (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Primefac (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling correction needed

Under “Personal Life” first paragraph, Tulane (Univ.) is misspelled as “Tuslane”. Ireadthedictionaryforfun (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and added "University" for clarity EvergreenFir (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadnaming by Current Administration

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-admin-deadnames-biden-transgender-191858265.html

So far it seems that all they've done is change the name plate on an official portrait; whether Rachel will henceforth be referred to as (BLP violation removed) by the HHS and other government agencies... I feel that is a likely possibility.

So I was thinking perhaps there should be a redirect here from (BLP violation removed) or perhaps it would make better sense to simply add a link to this article in the existing disambiguation page for (BLP violation removed)? OwlParty (talk) 04:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levine was never notable under her deadname, and a petty act of harassment by her former employer seems unlikely to change this. I think it is very unlikely that any readers would be served by such a redirect, nor that Trump's HHS will publish anything substantive about her going forward. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a redirect page is not the best solution; if only for the reason that there are several different "(BLP violation removed)"s, and such a redirect would be navigationally problematic. OwlParty (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that adding this article to the disambiguation page for "(BLP violation removed)" may be useful. My only intention is to help potential readers find the article they are looking for. Certain sources, including certain "News" media outlets may refer to her as "(BLP violation removed)", .
A link to her article (under the name Rachel Levine) was previously included on that disambiguation page, until some transphobic editor decided to vandalize it. I have no desire to cause a repeat of that drama, and no expectation that it will be repeated, as the disambiguation page is now protected, and the offending editor banned. OwlParty (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the WP:deadnaming. BLP policy applies to talk pages as well as article space. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry, I will try harder to respect the guidelines in regard to Wikipedia:Deadnaming
I'm not sure if you understand my purpose in this topic? Or why I brought it up?
Did you at least glance at the news article I'd mentioned: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-admin-deadnames-biden-transgender-191858265.html ? Or the rest of what I've said here?
I'm not trying to deadname anyone; but to provide navigation to this article for people who may have only encountered references to her by that name. It seems from a couple of comments elsewhere on this page that she may have had /some/ notability under that name. Whether or not that notability reaches a level worth mentioning here, I could not say, and will not argue; my only point is that it /may/ be enough that there could be folks searching for an article about her under that name. OwlParty (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but I don’t agree. I agree with DanielRigal’s comment below.
Since you’ve already made seven, increasingly lengthy comments just under this subhead, I also want to suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"nor that Trump's HHS will publish anything substantive about..."
I'm not sure whether you intended definition #1 or #3:
substantive /sŭb′stən-tĭv/
adjective
1. Substantial; considerable.
2. Independent in existence or function; not subordinate.
3. Not imaginary; actual; real.
As per definition #3, I would question whether the Trump administration in general (not just the HHS) is likely to publish anything truly "substantive" on any particular topic.
If I could assume that this one petty act of harassment would be the end of it, as an isolated incident, I would agree with you. But repeated petty acts, misrepresentation of facts, deliberate efforts at revising history, and erasing from the historical record all signs of gender identity which do not conform to their own alleged "values" seems to be the norm. Which leads me to believe that the Trump administration may very well take further steps in attempting to de-legitimize and effectively negate this person's true identity in the public consciousness. Meanwhile certain "News" media outlets will continue to repeat and amplify whatever this administration has to say, substantive or not.
Perhaps I am overreacting, but I see the "winners" re-writing history right now, right in front of us. Today it's just a name plate on a portrait. Yesterday it was this: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/19/nx-s1-5317567/federal-websites-lgbtq-diversity-erased . Who knows what tomorrow will bring?
While I certainly have strong political opinions, my cause here is only ensure that the information is more easily accessible to those who may not necessarily know the current name of the person, depending on where they may have heard of them, as our current government seems determined to obscure/erase that name. OwlParty (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support including Levine's original first name in the article, with appropriate weight (i.e. in the infobox and early life sections). Most of her academic career was conducted under that name which appears in plenty of pre-transition media sources and other publications. Post-transition, her original name is frequently mentioned in biographical pieces, e.g. Philly Inquirer, Washington Post, even her profile as an LGBT History Month "Icon". I T B F 📢 06:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this issue is discussed above under "Edit request on transition year", and "The Erasure of History". I think you've made some valid points, which merit discussion in those conversations. My focus here is on navigation; making sure that readers find what they are looking for, whether they may or may not know the current vs. deadname of the subject. OwlParty (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on Wikipedia (see MOS:GENDERID and the links from there) is that trans people who were not notable under their former name should not have that name appear, because we consider it not to be relevant — and indeed for it to be a privacy violation.
Of course we should mention that the Trump administration have changed the label on her portrait in order to deadname her. But we don't need to deadname Admiral Dr Levine ourselves in order to describe that. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not debating whether she was notable under her former name. And I am not suggesting that her former name should appear in this article. If you believe that a mention about the Trump administration deadnaming her by changing the label on her portrait is worth including in this article, then I support that; but it's not really why I posted this here.
My intention was simply to improve navigation to this article, by adding a link to it in the (deadname) disambiguation page, for any poor confused soul who might potentially come searching for "deadname" instead of "Rachel Levine" through simple ignorance regarding her current name. Perhaps the chance of that happening is slim, but I fear an increasing likelihood of that possibility as this administration continues trying to erase the identity of transgendered people.
If adding a link to the Rachel Levine article to the (deadname)disambiguation page is considered 'deadnaming' her, and or a violation of her privacy, well that certainly was not my intention.
Really I should have probably had this whole discussion on the talk page of that disambiguation page in the first place. I'm sure I would have likely gotten a similar response there, but maybe without distractions as to what should go into this article itself. OwlParty (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the scenario where that poor confused soul finds their way to searching Wikipedia for the deadname? I don't see it. It's not like Wendy Carlos where you could imagine some lucky crate diver finding an old pressing of one of her early albums in a thrift store, buying it out of curiosity, being impressed and wanting to know more about her. Who knows Levine's deadname but not her real name? A former classmate from school? Yeah, but who turns to Wikipedia to look up old acquaintances? Wikipedia is not Facebook. Somebody who has seen the mislabelled portrait but doesn't know the backstory? I just don't see that as a possibility. Some people delight in throwing the deadname around but they make damn sure to tell you what they are doing and who is being targetted. Nobody is going to hear the deadname and think that it is the name of some other guy. If there was plausibly a type of person that a redirect would be helpful to then there would be a nuanced decision to be made but I don't see it. DanielRigal (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've EC protected this talk page for one day, with regret

With four DEADNAME redactions in the last 72 hours, I've chosen to briefly EC protect this talk under CTOP/BLP. After expiration the protection should revert back to indefinite semi-protection previously applied. BusterD (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rachel_Levine