User talk:Bonze blayk: Difference between revisions

R

Do you have any idea how I could contact him for an interview? His name came up during an interview about the author James Robert Baker, and I have some questions I'd like to ask him. Thanks, Jeffpw 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the request to consider re wording of WP:SPS to have a more concise and simple definition. Could you please help with this?Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_is_worded_in_a_way_which_is_too_broad

Thanks --Hfarmer (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check this out as it relates to the above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science-related_articles) --Hfarmer (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

straw Poll on the merger proposals. Since you have shown some active interest in this recently I am notifying you of this. Sincerely, have a nice weekend. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, Template:Crossdressing had existed on Autogynephilia since the template was created. The template should be merged in with the rest of the Autogynephilia article.

A man experiencing sexual arousal at the thought of himself as a woman, and/or dressing like a woman for the purpose of sexual pleasure can absolutely be related (in some cases) to crossdressing. It would be useful for readers to be able to easily find other articles about cross-gender sexual behavior, via the Crossdressing template. Riverstones (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riverstone's edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autogynephilia&action=historysubmit&diff=380407293&oldid=379296963

Revision as of 23:46, 22 August 2010 (edit) (undo)

Riverstones (talk | contribs)

(Remove sexual orientation template (seems less related), add crossdressing template)

I'm reverting your addition of the Crossdressing template to the Autogynephilia page... again. It would just confuse people who check out the page by leading them to believe that "autogynephilia" was some variety of crossdressing behavior.

I believe you don't really understand the nature and implications of the theory of "autogynephilia"; in fact, it's all about sexual orientation, and it only tangentially relates to cross-dressing. Here's Ray Blanchard, who originally developed the concept:

Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Aug;34(4):439-46.

Early history of the concept of autogynephilia.

Blanchard R.

Law and Mental Health Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health-College Street Site, 250 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1R8, Canada. :::Ray_Blanchard@camh.net

Abstract at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16010466

"The definition of transvestism accepted by the end of the twentieth century, however, did not just fail to capture the wide range of erotically arousing cross-gender behaviors and fantasies in which women's garments per se play a small role or none at all; it actually directed attention away from them." [my italics] bonze blayk (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you're saying. I understand that the word "autogynephilia" holds this connotation that is directly linked to a (quite controversial) model of classifying trans people. But the fact remains that some people are sexually aroused by cross-gender fantasies, females and males alike. Some such people crossdress and engage in other such behavior for that reason. This phenomenon exists separate from Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence and their ideas. They do not "own" this behavior, people who feel this way or behave this way do not automatically become somehow linked to this theory. It would be good for there to be a place to describe this tendency and the associated behaviors, without having the discussion completely overtaken by this highly controversial theory (especially since many such people do not transition or even want to transition).

Currently Autogynephilia (paraphilia) and Autoandrophilia are the places, though sparse, that the tendency is discussed. Raven Kaldera's link at Autoandrophilia in particular goes into more detail than most other sources I have found. I highly recommend reading the article as it may shed some light on what I am trying to communicate. Do you have any sources? Any ideas on how to improve the articles? Thanks, Riverstones (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Trans woman has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia trans* edit wars!

James Cantor, who has recused himself from editing other trans-related articles as of February 2009 (User:James_Cantor#A_pledge) due to a MAJOR COI, shows up editing the Trans woman article, promoting the same worldview as he did on the other pages, with a quotation from a non-notable source dedicated to self-promotion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_J._Novic,_M.D.)... one who is committed to the exact same explanation for almost all transgendered behavior in males as NOT transgendered but a self-directed sexuality they designate "autogynephilia". See related articles, edit histories, etc., etc. bonze blayk (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving Feminine essence concept of transsexuality by adding this information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment at Talk:Femininity. That whole issue has been very frustrating, and it was good to find out I wasn't the only one who had objections to some of the logic being used. --Aronoel (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninterested in working on this, however, a section which has the heading "To Family Members" is simply not encyclopedic. The rest of the article is not bad...but that section is deplorable. If you want to work on the ostracism aspect of the article, I have no problem with it, indeed it must be included. But, at the very least, the heading needs to go, and the rest of it looks like copy from a 3-fold pamphlet. Trying to avoid an edit war here.Oberonfitch (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Oberonfitch, I'm perfectly happy with the edit that you wound up doing on the Transgender#Coming Out section, so thank you! bonze blayk (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and have a pleasant afternoon. Battle averted. (Ah, if every edit were so simple.) Oberonfitch (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had what I feel is just cause for deleting the cited content you have reinstated under the articles Causes of Transsexualism ("Causes") and Gender Identity Disorder ("GID"): 1.) The citation does not state that gender dysphoria is "closely related to transsexualism" and the question of it (or transsexualism; it's not made clear) being a mental disorder is irrelevant to Causes. 2.) The source, which claims "gender dysphoria ... is not a mental illness." is misused in the article GID to say "GID is not medically classified as a mental illness." Some additional notes: 3.) Gender dysphoria as a term is not interchangeable with either transsexualism or GID 4.) If the NHS does not classify GID as a mental disorder then it contends with sources such as the DSM-IV (cited in GID) an the ICD-9 (not cited). It should not be represented to discuss all classification of GID. 5.) The statement "GID is not medically classified..." in the GID article is absurd when a large part of the article is dedicated to discussing the movement to remove GID as a mental disorder.

I thank you for your consideration on this matter, and would much appreciate if you make corrections to those articles with the above in mind. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also for your deletion of my summary of the Controversy section be very clear that all material formerly removed was redundant to the article, including both citations listed later. I don't see how a summary constitutes original research but I do know that original research includes the compiling of scientific evidence to assert an argument that is not made by any cited authority -- what was done by Windupbird525 before me. If my statement is too "ungrammatical" to salvage then I suggest removing the entire paragraph. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about the complaint you're making above about conflicts in the usage of the terms "mental illness" and "mental disorder" etc, which makes sense... but is very difficult to address quickly, because it's noting a real controversy, with real confusion as to terminology in the Real World.

Discussion and understanding of Trans* issues is beset by problems in terminology. FWIW.

On the other hand: User:Theinactivist, your "summary" of the Controversy section was an intrinsically bad edit. See the record of your edit, and it's obvious why if you look further down in the text in the References section, where the BOLD RED text proclaims the presence of a "Cite error": you have deleted the citations for TWO scientific references used later in the text:

Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named newscientist.com; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named endojournals.org; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

So: the text you deleted was NOT "redundant".

Moreover, you're complaining about this edit by User:Windupbird525... I'll quote again from the linked publication, which is distributed with the imprint of the UK's National Health Service (WP:RS? Absolutely):

"This causes a feeling of discomfort that is sometimes described as gender dysphoria (dysphoria means unhappiness). However, this is not a mental illness. Gender dysphoria is a recognised condition for which medical treatment is appropriate in some cases." - Italics mine. And note: "Gender dysphoria" and "Gender Identity Disorder" are largely commensurate terms, to the extent that the proposed name for GID in the DSM-5 is now... "Gender Dysphoria".

Windupbird525's edit is properly sourced: the phrasing could be improved; it is not WP:OR. I checked the citation when the edit was posted, because I'm fed up with bogus citations getting insinuated into Wikipedia, and it checked out largely OK.

And with respect to your edit being "ungrammatical", perhaps I should have used "this edit was not properly proofread" — "raising issue with the the problem" is wrong, right? — but there are limits on how long an Edit summary can go on!

Thanks, -- bonze blayk (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I didn't realize I actually deleted both citations; I've never worked with Wiki's modular referencing before. It should be obvious that had I seen the bold red warning text I would have changed my edit. I sincerely apologize.

And I guess I can't comment on "gender dysphoria" until I figure out whether you're referring to the disorder, the "not a disorder" psychiatric categorization, or the psychiatric symptom which may be of a disorder or not. The NHS pamphlet seemed to me to suggest the last definition of those, but I'll assume your interpretation is correct. I understand my errors and I will try again later.

I will have to ask a favor however: find me the quotation that supports declassifying GID as a mental disorder because of the neural correlates of gender identification. I've looked for it in all the citations from the GID article in which I'd expect to find it, but I can't (of course I could have missed it, some like the HBIGDASOC are very long). The closest any comes to saying this is the NHS patient information pamphlet (which I did not say was "unreliable") which places the two ideas in proximity but does not actually link them. Thanks. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, Theinactivist! (I find Wikipedia's editing and edit-history system... clumsy... myself. Besides the servers sometimes running sloooow ;-)

About finding "the quotation that supports declassifying GID as a mental disorder because of the neural correlates", there are many WP:SPS self-published sources out on the internet... maybe the psychologist Kelley Winters takes that position? (offhand, I'm not sure!) ?

Here's a link I found to after a brief search on Winters' website to an article posted by Rebecca Allison, MD, supporting non-pathologizing treatment on the grounds that... it works to improve patients' lives: ALIGNING BODIES WITH MINDS: THE CASE FOR MEDICAL AND SURGICAL TREATMENT OF GENDER DYSPHORIA . It's seems (to me) that she believes there are neural correlates, but that's not the basis for her argument here...

thanks! -- bonze blayk (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Bonze blayk, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Bonze blayk. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Androphilia and gynephilia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Androphilia and gynephilia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

You reverted a cleanup edit I made on John Money article. The portion I edited has been tagged has containing repetition for 10 month without significative edits. The portion i removed was in part a content similar to that of the previous 4 paragraphs, and in part details about the David Reimer case which is detailed in the corresponding article.

I did so to have an article that more or less correspond to the standard of quality required by wikipedia - existing article, with two competing versions of the same Sex reassignment controversy—David Reimer subtitle, being clearly not an acceptable article. I also tried to keep all relevant information, either in J Money or in Reimer articles. If you wish to make a more subtle edit, leading to a better quality article, i'd be glad, but returning to previous state of the article is in my mind not a good option. --Dwarfpower (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work on trans-related articles. I had just checked the history for Transsexualism to see if I made any oops-es that had to be corrected and noticed all your edits (including reverting vandalism---it is a sad state of society that people sling around the word "transsexual" as an insult, or any other LGBT term for that matter---maybe I should start using "cis-gendered" and "heteronormative" as insults! *g*). Again, your work is deeply appreciated.["A+++++ WIKIPEDIAER, WOULD READ FROM AGAIN!!!!"] os (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, os , for your kind words!

But… bummer: I can no longer claim that editing Wikipedia is a "thankless" task, for momentarily I have basked in the sunshine of your love (for my revert-prone nature .-).

It's hard to believe that I'm functioning mostly as if a school-crossing guard? "Hey! Lookit this shiny whistle they gave me!" - "Huh. I got one too!" - (malaise ensues ;-).

Note… if you don't follow certain websites dealing with, ah, sexual orientation - I don't, but occasionally follow friends' links to them? - you will find that some folks already regard "cis-gendered" as a form of insult!

Thanks again, and have a great New Year! -- bonze blayk (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bonze blayk. Will you weigh in on the above linked discussion to help us come to a new consensus? Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly... but it will take me a bit of time to assess it? (mega-busy IRL!) - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and AFAIK Brig. Nikolić fails entirely to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability (WP:N) - thank you!
To which I would respond: "Your knowledge is inadequate".
If I got off my bum, I could unambiguously establish his notability, with heaps of WP:RS in less than an hour. But, given that it's late in the evening, getting a good night's sleep is more important. And if I can do it, then you yourself are more than capable of doing it too. Given that you are making your claims based on ignorance, perhaps you should inform yourself and do something productive, rather than sitting back and doing nothing and being destructive? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Who-the-F*** is Anthony McAuliffe, (rhetorical question), and why should I care? As it happens, I do know who he is, I don't care, and I see NO link with what it has to do with Australian general officers. (About which, presumably, you don't care.) So pull your head in and keep your parochial opinions to yourself. As I'm sure you would be the first to say, they are unencyclopaedic. (Though I'm also sure you would spell it differently.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see one WP:RS cite in the entire article, other than regarding a recent controversy, which IMO is not notable; it reads like a resume; it's been edited largely through IP addresses. "AFAIK" means "As far as I know", so I am presuming nothing; the article could use (no, it requires) further citations from reliable sources to establish notability.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of general officers - Australian or otherwise; and tagging an article which goes into inordinate detail as needing improvement (and moreover lacks adequate citations) is not "destructive". -- thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of what you say is completely true, and completely irrelevant.

It's as though you paid absolutely no attention to what I wrote. Certainly what you wrote pays no attention to what I wrote.

I don't see one WP:RS cite in the entire article - Yeah. So what? Your complaint was (is?) about WP:N, not about WP:RS. If you bother to read what I wrote, by saying it was not hard to find WP:RS, I was implying that there weren't enough of them. The absence of WP:RS says nothing about his notability - it just emphasises that nobody got off their bum and looked for them. So please explain the relevance of your statement.

it reads like a resume;' - Yeah. So what? That's got nothing to do with WP:N either.

it's been edited largely through IP addresses.' - So what?

"AFAIK" means "As far as I know", - Yeah. That's effing obvious. What do you think "Your knowledge is inadequate" means and refers to?

so I am presuming nothing; - Huh? What are you talking about?

the article could use (no, it requires) further citations from reliable sources to establish notability. - Again: Yeah, so what? That's exactly what I said. What point are you trying to make?

Wikipedia blah blah blah ... - Indeed. I agree that ' ... blah blah blah is not "destructive".' I didn't say that ' ... blah blah blah ...' was destructive.

I have a suggestion. Why don't you read what I wrote and respond to what I wrote?

Pdfpdf (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Sexual identity? Both articles are a mess, and the way "sexual identity" is being used is WP:OR (somewhat anyway). Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, conceptually, I think "gender identity" itself has become a mess? (LOL, and I'm pretty sure that John Money knew what he intended.-)

Is this surprising? It is a cultural warzone, after all... "I have (alternately, "do not have") a gender identity, myself; hence, I am an expert on this issue!" - more lol

I've read a lot on gender issues, and frankly, I have no idea what "Sexual identity" is supposed to mean w/r/t WP:RS; I have never seen the term used before!

But anyway... I was completely unaware of the existence of the Sexual identity article, and did not even come across it when I attempted to list exhaustively every article relating to gender in July 2011 at

Talk:Transgender

This Sexual identity article appears to be an orphan.  ??? It's pretty much an unreferenced stub... OOPS! User:0x2020 has just decided to embark on a massive revision of the article, inserting statements about body dysphoria in transsexuals! FACEPALM

Oh, damn. See User:0x2020's new edits in Gender binary, featuring WP:SPS sourcing - "Close the School of the Americas" is now an expert source on gender identities? Who knew!

I was likewise unaware of the "Gender and sexual identities" portal title, which incorporates a link to the Sexual identity article! The linkage was introduced at:

Template:Gender and sexual identities Revision as of 18:46, 16 February 2009 (edit) (undo)

Wikignome0529 (talk | contribs)

(mv portals area to bottom bar, rm LGBT portal (navbox is not LGBT specific) , replace with Gender studies portal & Sexuality portal)

Well, one thing is for certain: all of these articles are a mess, especially viewed as component parts of what one hopes might be an "encyclopedic" work.

BTW, Flyer22, I intend to respond to your comment in Talk:Gender Identity Disorder... but it's a complex issue that will take some thought to address properly, and I have some pretty good reasons for selecting that phrasing. Well, pretty good? You see, I am a Benjamin Type V "True Transsexual" Geek - no kidding! - and therefore ... lol ensues.

And meanwhile... it just sank in on me this morning that the new introductory line in Gender really is a trainwreck:

"Gender is a range of characteristics of femininity, masculinity and others described as third gender"

... a "range" between... three different things? What? Oh dear. This really makes no sense at all!

thank you! - bonzie anne - bonze blayk (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you hadn't seen the term "Sexual identity" until now. It is definitely used by scholars, which is why it's included in the Sexual orientation, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. 0x2020 explained why he or she made the edits. The editor was unaware of any other definitions. Do you mind briefly commenting there and letting the editor know what is wrong with the article and the type of sources he or she is adding? Or would you prefer that I direct the user here to this section of your talk page?

Yes, all of these articles are a mess, and it's a shame that we don't have more editors helping out with them. I see that Sexual orientation identity also exists, when it should be covered by the Sexual identity article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to "Sexual Identity" as being somehow related to gender identity, rather than as a term related to sexual orientation?

I've seen the term many times as what appears to be a variation of the term "sexual orientation", where it's asserted or just assumed that sexual orientation is founded upon a person's core identity (as opposed to mere caprice?).

Again, I have never seen the term used in the ways User:0x2020 is using it - as relating to body dysphoria associated with transsexuality. For another view on this... "sexual identity" is not included among these definitions offered by the American Psychological Association. It's mentioned once, glancingly and with no definition, in the WPATH SOC v6, and not at all in the SOC v7...

Flyer22? I really do not have time for the aggravation of arguments over what does or does not make sense in the context of edits in hyper-controversial areas with minimal (if any) WP:RS support, and definitely not with anonymous editors whose WP:COI (and almost all editors in trans-related topics have a COI!) is unclear! ... there is an on-going struggle between various "communities" over the gender topics, often involving inordinate degrees of venom; thus, I regard massive substantial modifications to standing articles on these topics without prior discussion with a wary eye, since it takes a lot of time to figure out just what's been deleted, what's added, what's insinuated, etc. In general, 0x2020's edits don't look truly bad to me, but all the WP:SPS citations sie provides are pretty poor, when I check them out.

thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. And I did point out to 0x2020 the sourcing issue and the way that the American Psychological Association defines the term gender identity. As for you getting involved, I was also asking if you wouldn't mind me linking to your opinion on the matter there on the project talk page. But if you mind, no worries, I won't refer to you by name there or link this discussion there. And I more than understand not wanting to get involved in Wikipedia drama, although 0x2020 seems like a pleasant editor. He or she certainly has no problem admitting when he or she is wrong and trying to correct the issue. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to start a deletion review of Category:Gay Wikipedians, and by association; also Category:Transexual Wikipedians. Please consider weighing in on the discussion. Thank you. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I request a source for your statement that the gender binary discriminates against binary (mtf and ftm) transgender people. I go to the Ingersoll gender center and have never heard of the gender binary concept ever discriminating against binary people. I want a source that says it affects binary transgender/transsexual people.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, read Julia Serano's Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. Julia identified as a genderqueer crossdresser for a long time, before realizing that she was transsexual. She's still "queer", at least in that even though she's passable, she dresses more like a butch lesbian than a femme woman? Here's another article of Serano's that might be relevant: "Bisexuality does not reinforce the gender binary".

Even for the most closely binary-identified trans persons, enforcement of the binary as a sex-based system poses severe threats to their social standing, because besides the difficulties of passing, it's a major challenge maintaining stealth, without which discrimination is almost automatic… try looking up the story of Nikki Araguz, whose legal transition to female status and completely persuasive social functioning and unquestioned acceptance as a born woman was wholly ignored in court proceedings.

This is typical of the way out(ed) binary post-operative transsexuals are treated, OK? Typical.

Please don't delete information from Wikipedia articles just because "you've never heard of it"; if you think a statement is dubious, flag it with a ^{[citation needed]} Citation needed tag, OK?

thanks, - bonze blayk (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources state exclusively that binary trans people are being discriminated against by the gender binary.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can only make that statement if you are completely ignoring what those sources state, Rainbowofpeace.

Do you expect me to believe that you just acquired and read all of "Whipping Girl", and given Serano's arguments serious consideration, over the hour that has elapsed since I made that post?

Do you think those are the only sources out there? We're talking about a social truth that is almost universal: out binary-identified trans women and men face serious discrimination.

You're yanking my chain, and I don't like it. - Sincerely - bonze blayk (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I never claimed that trans men and trans women (binary or otherwise) did not face discrimination. I will never deny the existance of transphobia. I said that you need to find a source that says that binary transgender people face discrimination due to the gender binary. That is a very different statement than binary trans people face (or don't face discrimination). I know binary people even who arn't trans face discrimination (misandry and misogyny). So now I will state very clearly my request: Find a source that says that binary transgender people are discriminated against because of the gender binary.-01:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this: cease your edit warring, and come up with sources for any of the other assertions in the Gender binary article you are so eager to deface.

That article has none, not one, not even one single citation in support of any of its statements.

You haven't read Serano, have you? She discusses this. Look it up.

You're not responding in earnest to my attempts to explain these matters to you, and actualy examine the sources I've provided. If you continue edit warring, I will report you. Got that?

Sincerely - bonze blayk (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.com/books?id=VhfrmAM5WbYC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=%22Whipping+Girl%22+Binary&source=bl&ots=GjVlWzN3Uv&sig=T6Og14brtJS1dxHdzc5XyBcM810&hl=en#v=onepage&q=gender%20binary&f=false Okay now that should prove to you that I searched the book that you requested me to search. NO WHERE in this book does it say that the gender binary causes discrimination against binary (masculine trans men or feminine trans women) transgender people. It does talk about how it affects intersex, non-binary gender identities and androgynous gender expressions which are all NON-BINARY. However I will give you 24 hours to find a source before I revert again.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEARCHING A BOOK USING GOOGLE BOOKS IS NOT READING IT.

Good god/dess, that's mostly what the book is about: discrimination against trans women, which she dubbed "trans misogyny", because the pseudo-genderfree culture just enforces a gender binary in which femininity and particularly transfemininity is looked down upon.

Julia Serano identifies as a trans woman. She's a femme-identified binary person. She's sick and tired of seeing trans women being shat on. READ IT.

Cease the edit warring. You have no business making peremptory assertions requiring a response within 24 hours. I WILL REPORT YOU.

Believe it. You are going over the line into inappropriate editing here. - Seriously, bonze blayk (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try once again to explain this. I have never claimed that trans-misogyny did not exist. Of course trans-misogyny exist. But discrimination based on the gender binary can by definition only apply to be who are not on the gender binary. We are not talking about Patriarchy here which is what I think you are thinking about. We are talking about the gender binary. Patriarchy by definition places men above women. The gender binary by definition places binary genders (trans or otherwise) above non-binary genders. Again find a source.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. el3ctr0nika here. I was wondering where all the discussion went. Hope I'm not intruding.

Rainbowofpeace: I really feel that your thinking is much too narrow/black and white here. You state on your user page that you have high-functioning autism, so I would imagine that that is why you seem to be having such difficulty "thinking outside of the box" in this case (not trying to offend). Don't get me wrong, I can and do empathize — I lean towards the autistic spectrum myself (to the extent that I was diagnosed with PDD-NOS when I was younger) and have had difficulty with black and white thinking as well — but please do at least attempt to make an effort to break out of it as best you can and to try to see where we're coming from on the matter.

Anyway, here's my attempt at explaining bonze's and I's point: "Binarism" (as you define it) relates to external gender expression just as much as it does to internal gender identity, if not much more so. In other words, binarism has more to do with the expression of gender variance rather than with how a person identifies internally. As an example, which scenario do you think would provoke more binarist discrimination: a) a large, masculine guy putting on a frilly pink dress; or b) the same guy stating that he feels more like a girl inside? The answer should be pretty obvious. Anyway, my point is this: because binarism is provoked mainly by gender variance rather than identity necessarily, it unquestionably has the potential to affect binary-identified individuals as well. In fact, since non-binary identities make up such a small portion of the population, I would imagine that, as a whole/purely in terms of amount, binarism affects gender variant binary-identified people much more in comparison. As a result, I feel that it is common sense that binarism does not apply solely to non-binary-identified people, and hence, I do not think a source that definitively states that "binarism may affect transgender and/or cisgender people as well" is at all necessary.

Also, recall that there are more attributes to gender than simply identity. The binarism article formerly listed the following attributes: gender/sexual identity, sexual preference/orientation, gender presentation/expression, gender/sex role, chromosome type, and genital morphology (also secondary sexual characteristics). Variation in any one of these can potentially result in a given individual falling outside of the gender binary to some degree. As an example, binary-identified/cisgender lesbians technically do not fall entirely into the gender binary on account of their non-binary sexual orientation, and many also display varying degrees of variance in gender expression (e.g., butch lesbians), which is another non-binary characteristic. As another example, binary-identified transsexuals as a rule have non-binary chromosome types, and there is the potential for them to display some degree of non-binary variation in virtually every one of the attributes listed above (e.g., non-ops in regards to genital morphology, variation in secondary sexual characteristics (since hormones simply can't reverse all of the effects of puberty of course), homosexual/bisexual sexual preferences, gender variance in behavioral expression (e.g., tomboyism in MTFs, which is relatively common I believe), etc). As a result of all this, I think that it's fairly obvious that transsexual and even cissexual individuals can be affected by binarism; indeed, I feel that transsexual people by definition are affected by it; and if you still feel compelled to pursue the matter, I would have to ask you to provide a citation that states that binarism only applies solely to gender identity and not to any of these other attributes of sex and gender as well.

I've gotta go for now, but I'll be back later tonight.

— el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Rainbowofpeace: I've left you a couple messages in different places but you've yet to respond to either of them. I was just wondering if you are you planning on doing so? — el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't been on in a while. I want you all to know that there is a difference between transphobia and binarism. Transphobia is discrimination by a non-match of sex, gender identity or gender expression. Therefore what you are talking about specifically fits in that. However only the androgynous gender expression would completely fit outside the gender binary. Therefore intersex, various forms of non-binary gender identity and androgynous gender expression would be what binarism would target. Please try and remember this is not synonmous with transphobia. I'-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. That is your personal (and rather narrow I might add) definition of the term "binarism". As I said again, if you want to prove that that term means what you claim it means, you'll have to provide valid citations from published material. Otherwise, you can assert your own definition of that term all day, but it won't get you anywhere. Sorry. Anyway, out of the shower and leaving for serious now. Bye. — el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And second of all I'm getting tired of this stop ignoring other non-binary identites thing. I put "non-binary transgender people." I DID NOT put "genderqueer trans people." If you want to throw in binary cis or trans people that is fine but I will continue to demand a source which I have the right to do according to wikipedias policies.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]

-

Beg pardon, el3ctr0nika and Rainbowofpeace, I strongly prefer that you conduct your dialog somewhere other than my Talk page?

Also, I've updated the Gender binary with a citation of "Whipping Girl" to support the claim that Rainbowofpeace has disputed. And here's more food for thought for you, Rainbowofpeace, if you care to persist in your remarkable claim that binary-identified transgender or transsexual persons do not suffer from discrimination due the strict enforcement of the gender binary - which involves not just "gender identity", but concordance between sex and gender, where those who identify as cross-gendered are subjected to harsh treatment - well, death, actually, in all too many cases. THE TRANS WOMEN'S ANTI-VIOLENCE PROJECT - this is a self-published blog on tumblr, but the cases discussed here are pretty bloody awful, and are typically based on WP:RS news sources. Thank you… - bonze blayk (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bonze. We'll get off your talk page. Rainbowofpeace, let's continue over at yours. – el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I need to tell you that I acknowledge the discrimination against binary trans people (its called Transphobia). But I'm saying there is a clear difference between transphobia and binarism. Much like there is a difference between racism and antisemitism. Sure binarism is a form of transphobia just like antisemitism is a form of racism but binarism is a specific form that is about a particular group of people. Now I will tell you exactly what I am looking for. I want you to find me an article in which it says that a form of discrimination against a binary identified trans person was caused due to the gender binary. Not just something on transphobia, not just something on attacks against trans people. Now do you get it. Not all Transphobia is Binarism. Thank you.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbowofpeace, I find your arguments almost incomprehensible. Please read the article on Transphobia: the term is used as a label for discrimination against all persons who are included in "The Transgender Umbrella", not just transsexuals, or "transgenderists" who are binary-identified, but all persons lumped under the label Transgender.

Again, please read "Whipping Girl", and tell me it's not about discrimination against binary-identified trans women… discrimination motivated by misogyny, which is rooted in a strong belief in the gender binary - and the inferiority of femininity to masculinity. It just is. Denying this makes you appear obtuse… or possibly motivated more in your arguments by ideology than by the clear and obvious facts of the matter?

Watch this YouTube video of Julia Serano performing her five minute long spoken-word piece "cocky" - here's the text of "cocky". This is "art", not "WP:RS prosody quoting other prosodists and inventors of great gobs of theory and zero practice"; I don't believe she uses the phrase "the gender binary": but that's what it's all about: it's about Julia Serano, and her life. Oh, my life too, FWIW?

bonze blayk (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, answer one question What line in the whipping girl specifically says that misogyny is caused by the gender binary. if you can find that then I will back off. As I said I'm not just looking for discrimination against trans women. I'm looking for discrimination based on the gender binary. There is a reason why binarism is different from transphobia although technically binarism is one form of transphobia along with trans-misogyny and trans-misandry.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in commenting in this discussion. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]