The Friend did not proclaim genderlessness once, as you claim here. The Friend did not answer to the name you use so obtusely here, ever after a "rebirth." That historians such as Susan Juster (the publication ca. 2000) would disrespect the Friend's wishes as you do here, insisting on a name and gender that had been disavowed, is little surprise. There is a long history of erasure of LGBT identities, which Juster continues. However, she makes an effort towards an honest history, at least, in representing what the Friend wanted despite the disrespect she pays. You don't even try that hard, because the narrative doesn't fit your agenda. It wasn't until 2015 that another historian revisited Public Universal Friend and found the language that had previously been used to be discordant with the content of that same history. Language evolves, and Public Universal Friend was a frontrunner of this particular linguistic evolution: we now have words to describe people who do not find a place within the gender binary. And so, Wikipedia reflects the history of that evolution in its own edit history. Thank you for sharing that, anyway.
> The Friend did not answer to the name you use so obtusely here, ever after a "rebirth." That historians such as Susan Juster (the publication ca. 2000) would disrespect the Friend's wishes as you do here, insisting on a name and gender that had been disavowed, is little surprise.
That's not true, she uses both names on her last will and testament (and uses "her" there as well). And I'd caution against pretending to speak on behalf of someone who's no longer around. Many who do so have little interest in the deceased beyond them being a tool for their own ends.
To this day, you will find transgender people using a deadname on legal documents because they cannot legally change their names, or because it is a legal necessity to list all previous names. A lawyer wrote that document according to the legal strictures of the time. It isn't the evidence you portray it to be.
