Fimbria Controversies (draft)

From Ancient Ways

Current revision as of 02:14, 9 September 2007

(This is a draft of the article I am currently putting together on the Gender Wars for the Nova Roma Wiki.)

Background

Template:1998

An individual with long-time gender identity questions, who had been known in Roman circles for over seven years as Lucius Marius Fimbria, became interested in Nova Roma. This individual, after some indecision (chiefly religious), applied for and was granted citizenship as "Lucia Maria Fimbria", as this person was a woman in appearance, and wanted to avoid any awkwardness in the event of a face-to-face meeting. This citizen otherwise functioned as a male, both within and without Nova Roma. All of this citizen's written contributions were as Lucius Marius Fimbria. This citizen was referred to by fellow-cives in the masculine.

Template:1999

By his second year, Lucius Marius Fimbria had come to realise that he was in fact transgendered. He approached consul suffectus and longtime ally L Cornelius Sulla Felix about having his registered Roman name changed to reflect this more developed understanding of his being. He regarded his condition in Roman terms as his having been born with a genius rather than a iuno for a guiding spirit, and had come to feel that it was less important for his Roman name to be consistent with outward appearances than for it to be true to his soul. He wished to reconcile his entry in the Album Civium with the rest of his Roman life and Nova Roman experience. Lucius Marius regarded this action as a simple request for correction of records. Lucius Cornelius had no objection to Marius' request.

It was agreed to have Flavius Vedius Germanicus, then censor suffectus, meet with Marius "live" in the Nova Roma chatroom in order to gain a better understanding of the latter's request. The other censor, Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus, was also present and presided over the encounter. What followed was later described by Marius as "one of the more tactless, brutal and embarrassing 'outings' in the annals of the transgender condition" (personal correspondence, 18 Iun 2005). The conservative Germanicus expressed hostility to the whole idea of transgenderism. The debate soured into a discussion of Marius' physical configuration; for the conservative wing from then on, this became the only relevant concern. Former censor Germanicus' adverse opinion, though it was not a formal ruling and was never documented in any form, was nevertheless taken as Nova Roman legal precedent on the subject of transgender name switches.

Template:2000

Newly-elected censor L Cornelius Sulla Felix had expressed support for Marius' name-change before he took office. However, his colleague, Flavius Vedius Germanicus, had resigned his own censorship shortly after Sulla's accession. Now without a colleague and wishing to avoid the appearance of favoritism towards a friend, Lucius Cornelius felt the need to consult [the Senate on the issue. This took at least some senatores by surprise, as the matter lay squarely within a censor's imperium, but they agreed to consider it.

The issue was not well-stated. Many senators were under the impression that Marius wanted to legally become his (male) chatroom persona, nothing more. It was thought that allowing him to do so could potentially foster the perception that Nova Roma was nothing more than an online role-playing game. This was a common concern at the time, as the Republic was young and still striving for respectability in the Roman world at large. Allowing a citizen to change official gender on little more than his or her say-so was seen as detrimental to this effort.]

[The section in brackets is being revised as further research clarifies the sequence of events. Still to come:]

• The Gender Edict; "gender wars"; Lex Cornelia et Maria de mutandis nominibus
• Marius' first departure
• The nota hearing; conditions placed on Marius' readmission; his apology and Reprimand
• Marius as a campaign prop
• Marius' resignation

Template:2007

Censors M. Octavius Gracchus and C. Fabius Buteo Modianus issued the following edict:

EDICTUM CENSORUM DE NOTA IN LUCIUM MARIUM FIMBRIAM [1]

EDICTUM CENSORUM NOVAE ROMAE

We, the Censores of Nova Roma, do hereby withdraw any Nota issued against the former citizen Lucius Marius Fimbria, who was then called a name distasteful to him, who is now known as Aldus Marius Peregrinus, and who is a thoroughly Roman person, though not presently a citizen of Nova Roma.

We condemn this misuse of a Nota to punish a citizen for a harmless prank that would have otherwise been swiftly forgotten. We condemn this Nota as an act which led to the fragmentation of the community of Rome.

The Nota is withdrawn, cancelled, annulled, voided, repudiated and despised by us. The former citizen Lucius Marius Fimbria is declared cleared of all wrongdoing, as far as this is within the power of the Censores to accomplish, and invited to return with a clean and unspoiled record.

We hereby issue an official apology to Lucius Marius Fimbria on behalf of the Office of the Censores of Nova Roma.

Having now revoked the Nota issued in MMDCCLIII, we, the Censores, now ask the Senate to officially revoke the reprimand against the former citizen Lucius Marius Fimbria.

M. OCTAVIUS GRACCHUS, CENSOR.

C. FABIUS BUTEO MODIANUS, CENSOR.

pridie Kal. Februarias MMDCCLX a.u.c.

Aldus Marius Peregrinus replied in a likewise reconciliatory manner. (vide message on SVR Forum) [2]

References

Policy on Sources (by A Apollonius Cordus)

Article on the rixa Fimbriana

An interesting question. I'm almost certain that we have no policy. In my view there is no reason at all why you shouldn't use any material which is in your possession. That view stands on four legs.

First, I hold it as a general principle that a person who doesn't want it known that he has said something shouldn't say it in the first place.

Secondly, to give someone a veto over any attempt to quote words which he himself has said, even many years ago, would be totally inimical to a well-informed public, to a thriving academic life, and to a free press.

Thirdly, secrecy is essentially alien to the political and social culture of the ancient Roman republic, which was characterized by probably the most transparent government the world has ever known.

Fourthly, most modern legal systems of which I am aware, not to mention the ancient Roman legal system, place minimal restrictions on the publication of private correspondence, limited only to cases in which the correspondents have a right to expect privacy and there is a strong public interest in upholding that right, for example in confidential communications between lawyer and client or between doctor and patient.

So I say go for it.

(This does, however, raise an interesting practical point about whether, and to what extent, we should be publishing primary sources on the website itself. So far the tendency has been to link to primary sources off-site, except for the texts of leges and other documents which essentially belong to the people because the people, or the people's officers, made them in the first place. But now we're talking about primary sources which aren't available on other websites, and I can't see any reason why we shouldn't house them on this website, at least as an experiment. We may have to play around with how much quotation of primary sources we have in main articles and how much we keep on separate pages. Come to think of it, photographs are also primary sources of a kind, and we have quite a few of those on here already.)

- Cordus 00:05, 14 August 2007 (CEST)