User talk:Ideator 2.0

Welcome!

Hello, Ideator 2.0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ruby Murray 21:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist views on transgender topics

Hi, I'll reply to this, about my edit, here.

Regarding point 1: you added that to a section about second-wave feminism, and cited sources that don't bear a connection to feminism-and-transgender-topics (Laquer, Nature News). I also am not aware that Roughgarden has ever claimed that sex (not gender) is not a binary, and while she is probably a feminist in the sense that she supports feminism, I haven't heard that she is some sort of prominent thought-leader in feminist circles the way Dworkin etc. are.

More generally, the idea that sex is a social construct and that there are more than two sexes - not just genders, which are distinct from sex, but actual reproductive types - is not accurate and hence should not be presented in the article as though this were somehow mainstream biology. Laquer's interpretation of history has been criticized, and even if accurate, that in no way implies that sex is a social construct any more than people's past belief in a flat Earth means the shape of the Earth is a social construct. The way that that non-peer-reviewed Nature News article frames intersex conditions is not in accord with the peer-reviewed biology literature, and its author clarified that she did not mean to imply there are more than two sexes. This 2021 Endocrine Society review article, which discusses transgender matters and intersex conditions, still notes that The terms sex and gender should not be used interchangeably. Sex is dichotomous, with sex determination in the fertilized zygote stemming from unequal expression of sex chromosomal genes. By contrast, gender includes perception of the individual as male, female, or other, both by the individual and by society; both humans and animals have sex, but only humans have gender. Both sexes produce estrogens, androgens, and progestins;...Sex is a biological concept. Asexual reproduction (cloning) is routine in microorganisms and some plants, but most vertebrates and all mammals have 2 distinct sexes. Etc. (Emphasis added.) All the biological peer-reviewed literature agrees on this point. Variation in certain traits, whether from gender transition or otherwise, is a distinct matter from how many sexes there are.

Note that the general attributed perspective of what you were adding is already covered by secondary sources at Sex and gender distinction#Feminist theorists.

In short: Any further additions to feminist views on transgender topics need to be cited to sources that specifically discuss that topic, and should be WP:Secondary sources rather than citing feminists directly and hence picking and choosing which comments are significant and in engaging in WP:OR interpretation. They should also not be making claims about scientific matters outside the focus of the article.

Regarding point 2: It's not a matter of what we think is true or not, but a matter of encyclopedic tone. According to WP:LABEL, Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter,...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Such attributed criticism about Janice Raymond's book is already present. Additionally, this BLP noticeboard discussion found consensus for requiring in-text attribution (WP:INTEXT) for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". WP:Editorializing and WP:BLP are relevant issues as well. On Wikipedia we prefer to describe people's views and let that speak for itself rather than pile on negative adjectives like an editorial opinion article.

Thanks for understanding, Crossroads ^-talk- 01:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Even accepting all that you say, the relevance of Fausto-Sterling (who has very influentially [at least within gender studies and feminist theory] supported the view that there are more than two sexes, therefore expanding Dworkin's point on the issue) and Butler (whose claim in Gender Trouble that sex, as a binary, is always already culturally mediated, socially constructed and inseparable from gender has been hugely influential within feminist theory and feminist theorizing of trans and intersex realities) is to me clear in this context. I can indeed easily add secondary sources that support this (as well as incorporate it to the Sex and gender distinction section that you mention), even if simply stating the main point (or one of the main points) for which these influential works are mainly known does not really seem to be an "interpretation" or original research.

As for the section on Spain, following what you comment I will indeed avoid the qualification of these stances as "blatantly transphobic", and instead may do in-text attribution by stating that the harsh criticism that they receive was precisely for being deemed "transphobic", rather than for their opposition to the law. This is already supported by all the references, and I can add an additional one from an academic journal which explicitly names them when surveying trans-exclusionary feminism in Spain.

Thank you and hope that you are OK with these ammendments. Ideator 2.0 (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revising. With regard to point 1, we still of course want those secondary sources to prove the meaning is accurate and to demonstrate significance even if we personally feel sure about the interpretation. Do you think you could here show what exactly you would like to add? And for the Spain section, yes, in-text attribution of the views expressed in the sources is good. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings @Ideator 2.0

Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Came across your user profile (from article history Gayle Rubin) .

Requesting your visit to Gender power gap and help expand the topic areas if you find topic interesting. Wish you very happy Wikipedia editing.

Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]