User talk:AlexR/Archive 10 2004

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work with the transgender article. Cheers! --maveric149

Have you seen androgyny? I'd quite like a second opinion... :)

Might I suggest you move User:AlexR/Article series boxes to Wikipedia:Article series boxes policy (proposed). I've added the proposal to Wikipedia:Policy thinktank. Nohat 18:12, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

forgotten something? :) colovaginoplasty Dysprosia 22:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooooops ... indeed ...

Hey Alex. Nice work on transgender. Could you explain the statement that In the past it had always been assumed that there were considerably more transwomen than transmen. However, the ratio is approaching 1:1? I've never heard that before. -- Kimiko 14:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of my answer from Kimiko's page; having all those questions on my userpage and no answers looks funny, somehow:
I can't find at the moment that nice list of statistics, it is I believe somewhere in the IJT. Anyway, it started with a ration of about 1:100, and then went down something like 1:80, 1:50, 1:10, 1:5.x, 1:3.x, 1:2.x and the latest I found already said 1:1.x. I don't think you need a degree in statistics to see where that is leading. Also, other counts are already up at 1:1 or even have a light overhang of transmen, now that many non-transsexual transmen realise there are options open to them. Those are currently counts from self-help groups or councelers, estimates from judges handling name changes etc. Already the first "scientific" papers estimate that it is 1:1 after all, too.
Also, compare gender variance among female-bodied individuals tends to be relatively invisible to the culture, particularly to mental health professionals and scientists. from the current HBIGDA-SoCs, II. Epidemiological Considerations.
Greetings AlexR 15:04, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Why did you start your user info with something so horrible?

By the way, I think you're right regarding the MtF/FtM ratio. --Eequor 15:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible? Not quite so horrible as it sounds - polymorph perverted is classical Freud, simply meaning that sexual preferences are not quite fixed (yet), and Trannyfag means the basic directions they are at the moment - it's also a quite common self-description among gay transmen. Also, I like the face people usually make when I say that. And given that on both the English and the German Wikipedia I am a mayor contributor to these articles, I think it's quite appropriate to mention it on my user page - discreetly of course, as always ;-) -- AlexR 19:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am growing tired of this stupid conflict. I have never personally attacked you, yet you continue to attack me. I am demanding you cease personally attacking me. If you do not comply, I will request mediation --JulieADriver 21:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

mediation[edit]

Hi. There is request for mediation I would like to help you and Eequor with. I have scanned the material I think is at the center of the dispute; and have some hope I can help you two, especially as both of you seem to be very nice people. I think we could start like this:

You send me E-mail to address (jheiskan "at" welho "dot" com) and include:

A listing of pages you feel I should have read for context for your dispute (just to be sure).
Stuff you think Eequor may have misunderstood about your position or behaviour and you would like Eequor to understand better.
Stuff you have trouble understanding about Eequors views or ways of acting.

I may ask for more later, but let's get started on this.

-- Cimon 19:19, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just noted in one of your edit comments that you consider the term "sex change surgery" as prejudicial and infamous. The article on sex reassignment surgery lists "sex change surgery" as an alternative term, without mentioning that some people consider it offensive, and why. Maybe you should add that bit of information, since the term seems to be quite commonly used. Cheers, AxelBoldt 10:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done. I wrote the article sex change a while ago, and it never occured to me to add a link to it elsewhere; I have done so now. Also, the prejudices I mentionend in the comment was refering to other minor things like what was said about western transgendered people, or those neat little quotes around "female" at one point, and similar stuff. -- AlexR 11:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Trans people and pronouns[edit]

Hi. You might be interesting in the discussion at Talk:Patrick Califia about what pronouns to use for him when referring to pre-transition events. Morwen - Talk 13:14, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transitioning[edit]

psst... I moved transitioning (transgender) to transitioning since there was no need for the disam bracket ;) Dysprosia 11:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, and I will move it back, because [1] gives several more meanings for this word. Even if the disambiguation page for "Transition" point out these meanings, you can be certain that links will appear to this one day which have nothing whatever to do with transgender people. Snowspinner already complained about the "exclusive" usage of Transitioning; even if his comments are not exactly unbiased, I see no reason to have a questionable name for an article when this can be solved so easily. -- AlexR 11:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should "pre-disambiguate" until absolutely necessary (ie when someone wants to disam it they shoud do it then). But it's not that big a deal, and if you think it's best, I won't complain :) Dysprosia 11:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given the fact that there are already pretty transphobic people in the WP whom we have to deal with occationally, I opt for giving them as little opportunitiy for attack as possible, when this is possible without sacrifying facts, NPOV and respect. And since I don't think that this particular change is in any way significant, why not being as correctly as possible? Apart from that, though, right now I am wading through internal searches of "transgender" (and will let others follow) so we can make sure no relevant article is missing from the List or my attention. Also, the article von Kate Bronstein seems to be in dire need of attention, among other things, I am not sure at all that it is quite correct to label her as "transsexual". Neverending work here :-)

BTW, I would not have made a second revert either, it is indeed not that important (yet). -- AlexR 12:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Transgender/transgenderism[edit]

I noticed your edit on the closet regarding the preferred use of transgender over transgenderism, and had a couple questions:

I was thinking about reworking that whole sentence (actually, I'm thinking about reworking the whole article), so that it would read something like "homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered persons" - it doesn't have quite the same meaning, as a lot of people will claim that it isn't the people they have a problem with (though I think they're full of it), but it avoids the whole issue of having nouns that aren't quite the same type (like homosexuality and transgender). What do you think?
are you a member of, or would you like to join, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality?

-Seth Mahoney 18:26, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

Re 1. - I was thinking about doing the same thing, but I made the edit while I was busy completing the List of Transgender-related topics with articles I had not yet seen. It is probably the best solution, it reads, even without the trans problem, a bit odd to me. Although actually I have seen "transgender" being used as a noun that way, too. But I do think reworking the article will very much improve it, anyway.

Great. Well, I'll do the edit tomorrow and let you know if you don't get to it first.

Re 2. - No, I am not, and I don't intend to. Both Sam Spade and Snowspinner are members of that project, and I have seen enough of both for a lifetime. (Although I fear I have not seen the last of them. *sigh*) Have a look at herteronormativity and its history, then you know what I mean. But thank you for the invitation, if there are any questions regarding trans* or trans*-people I am perfectly willing to help out. -- AlexR 21:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It sucks that other members have lessened your interest in the project - I think you'd be a valuable contributor, but I understand, and I'm sure you'll make contributions whether or not you're a member. I've seen the talk page for heteronormativity, and participated a little, and I have to admit I'm a little afraid to go back.

Yes, it does suck. But after several months of edit war in heteronormativity I think it is understandabel. I fully understand that you are afraid to go back there, I still breath a sigh of relief when I update my watchlist and don't see this article ;-) And you are right, that is where I saw your name before. Anyway, as I said, I'll help out when I am needed. I keep an eye on all articles regarding trans* anyway; should I miss something, or something new comes up, just let me know. -- AlexR 10:51, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

personal pages and external links[edit]

"Reverted to remove personal pages - did not seem to serve any purpose, there is a list of t*-people already".

Alex can you point me to the aforementioned list.--Blago2k 09:36, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a category: [2] and there is the List of transgendered people. -- AlexR 16:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. I apologize for the misapprehension, but I could not find the right page. If I new, I wouldn't try alter the inappropriate sections.--Blago2k 17:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)