User:Desiree Nunes/sandbox

05/01 Add to An Article

Transgenderism[edit]

Transgender may be considered relating to a person whose personal identity of gender does not correspond with their assigned sex at birth.

Transgender politics is relatively new to public discourse, but research has shown that evangelical Christians rate the human value of transgender individuals at a lower level than their nonreligious counterparts do, largely due to religious fundamentalism. The Church in general has a reputation for intransigence on questions of gender and sexuality. However, research from different denominations around the world suggests a growing momentum for change among Christians. A growing number of denominations around the world, particularly within Protestant traditions, have begun softening their stance on transgenderism, and even embracing trans people as congregants and ministers.

04/24 Choose an Article

Christianity and sexual orientation

I chose the article "Christianity and sexual orientation" for this assignment because I would like to focus my final project on how religious attitudes and beliefs affect LGBTQ attitudes. The article goes over beliefs and mythology, as well as attitudes towards specific sexual orientations. The main critique I have of this article is the emphasis on the Western viewpoint. I would have liked to see more information of how Christians across the globe have varying attitudes towards sexual minorities. I also found it interesting that the article did not include attitudes towards transgender people, a major point missing from the article. I also think it would be worth mentioning in the article how these attitudes have changed over time, and any new stances that the church has taken on these issues.

04/17 Article Evaluation

I. Introduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_gender_nonconformity

I am evaluating the article about Childhood Gender Nonconformity. I chose this article because it may relate heavily to my topic for my final research project. Additionally, gender norms and their socially constructed development is a topic that has always interested me. I think that this is a topic that is important to understand because gender norms and roles are a problematic concept, and nonconformity to these roles must be more normalized in order to provide equity for the LGBTQ+ community. Overall, my impression of the article was that it was easy to follow, touched on a lot of different aspects of the topic, and was informative. The article did an excellent job of discussing examples, theories of gender, and the controversial nature of the response to gender nonconformity within the therapeutic community.

II. Lead Section

The lead section of the article is very thorough and well developed. In the first sentence, the author explains the definition of childhood gender nonconformity in an extremely tone-neutral way. The author then cites some examples of the typical behavior of gender nonconformists. I thought that this paragraph was well taken, but slightly underdeveloped. I would have liked to see more about the socially constructed nature of the CGN phenomenon within the first paragraph. There was an interesting line at the end of the lead section, reading, “some studies suggest that gender nonconformity is heritable.” I thought that this was an odd way to end the lead section, as I am unsure what evidence there is to support this claim. I think it would be better suited later in the article. Even so, the lead section is concise, to the point, and provides a clear pathway for the rest of the article. Furthermore, the table of contents is clear and touches on exactly what is going to be in the article, nothing more or less.

III. Content

Overall, I thought that the content of the article was thorough and easy to follow. It includes a list of the various ways that gender nonconformity is reflected in childhood, the social and developmental theories of gender, as well as some influences of androgens. The article did a fantastic job of going through these influences of androgens, explaining case studies such as toy preference studies, playmate preferences, adult traits, and measures of anxiety. As far as I could tell, the content seems up to date and modern, because the sources provided are relatively new or from scholarly journals and articles. While the article does do a great job of explaining these phenomena, I thought that some of the article’s sections were more developed than others. For example, the toy preference study is explained in great detail, but the peer reaction section is barely a paragraph and I think could be explained much further, as it is discussing the challenges that boys and girls who are more “tomboy” or “sensitive” end up facing, something that I think could directly correlate to the topic of CGN, and that the author could do a better job of tying together. Because the article refers to the LGBTQ community and what challenges they may have faced in childhood, this article is a solid attempt to account for equity and bridge the gap.

IV. Tone and Balance

The article does a great job of keeping a neutral tone, even when it delves into controversial topics. However, the neutral tone never strays the author from providing full context and being thorough. I did not notice many biased or charged terms, steering the reader one way or another. I enjoyed how the author discussed controversial topics in a neutral manner, such as behavior modification therapy. The article was entirely informative, not at all persuasive or argumentative. However, I do think that it could benefit from further developing some of the sections within it, in order to make the entirety of the article as thorough as some of the specific sections are already.

V. Sources and References

The author did a great job of accurately and thoroughly citing the article, for the most part. I did notice some claims within the article that were marked as “citation needed.” That being said, the quality of citations that the author did provide is well-taken, they all seem to be from scholarly journals or articles and do not seem to utilize any majorly biased sources. Additionally, the article provides multiple perspectives, particularly in the approaches to gender-nonconforming children. The journals and sources that the author did sight are from a wide range of authors, focusing on psychology and LGBTQ journals.

VI. Organization and Writing Quality

I thought that the writing quality of this article was concise yet thorough, clear, and very easy to follow. Even though there are points where the sentences could be slightly cleaner, overall, the author sticks straight to the point and doesn’t waver too much from the topic at hand. I did not notice any major grammatical or spelling errors either. In terms of organizations, I thought that the way the article was sectioned made perfect sense and was well executed.

VII. Images and Media

The article utilizes one picture, is a picture of a monkey. The reason this picture is included is to suggest that “studies with young rhesus macaques suggest that some gender-typical preferences may not only be caused by human socialization.” The article also discusses this study within the “Toy Preferences Studies” section. While I did think that this was effective, I think the article could benefit from a little more imagery and media to highlight the main points. I’m not sure if the study with the monkeys was a central focus. Though the picture was very cute, I question its relevancy, especially when other pictures demonstrating the larger concepts could have been included to better enhance the page.

VIII. Talk Page Discussion

The main point raised in the discussion was the title of the section: “Reparative Therapy.” This has since been edited to read as “Behavior Modification Therapy.” The comment raised concern about the charged nature of the term reparative therapy, and also mentioned how the study conducted by Ken Zucker about reparative therapy wasn’t aiming to intervene or repair childhood gender nonconformity. I could definitely see terms such as these as damaging, as they are misleading and very emotionally charged in nature, but the author (or someone else) ultimately did edit the page to fix this.

IX. Overall Impressions

Overall, I found this article to be informative, thorough, clean, and well-written. The biggest critique I would have is better-developed sections all throughout, not just for specific case studies or concepts. The author could benefit from going back to the less developed sections and making them just as thorough as the ones they focused on more. I would give this article an 8 out of 10 because it was thorough, but I do think that additional sourcing and better development of certain concepts would make the topic easier to understand and leave the reader better informed. This is a strong article, and I do think that it is extremely informative and necessary to the LGBT movement and better understanding LGBT childhood.