User talk:AlexR/Archive 1

Transsexual
Hi Alex,

You just said,


 * "since gender variant behaviour is seen by proponents or reparative therapy as an extreme form of homosexuality (a view that long has disappeared from scientific discourses)."

on the above page. It's most certainly a view which is rapidly losing favour but, as you know, it's one of the two views expounded by Bailey, Blanchard et. al. Now, I'm not a big fan of B&B (at all!!!) but stating what you did isn't totally NPOV. Unfortunately, scientific discourses are still propounding this stance - bogus as it may be.

Comments? - Pete C &#9997; 09:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One could include a "most" or even a "serious" or "widely accepted" there, if needed - one might also argue, though, that B&B are not exactly part of the scientific discourse - they don't really fit any definition of science I have ever heard ;-) -- AlexR 11:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * True, true :-) I'd say in the interests of broad factuality, maybe change it to 'most' or 'almost all'. There are BB&L fans out there that would probably jump on the chance to scream "POV", whereas I feel the point you made is very valid to the article and needs to be stated. Note also that HBIGDA as a whole don't seem to have a lot of time for reparative therapy - Pete C &#9997; 12:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and it should read "a view that has long since disappeared" (grammar) - Pete C &#9997; 12:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Notice the update - thanks, Alex! - Pete C &#9997; 16:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people
There's a discussion (here: Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 4) on changing the name of Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people to Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people. I know you've been active on a lot of the trans-related pages, and there's some concern over whether to use "transgender people" or "transgendered people" or some other variant. I'm sure you get sick of these sorts of issues, but if you're at all interested, I'd be grateful if you'd pop on by and give us some guidelines. -Seth Mahoney 21:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I encourage you to visit Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 7. (Wikipedia really needs a GLBT noticeboard for stuff like this.) Jonathunder 06:21, 2005 May 8 (UTC)


 * Inspired by Jonathunder's idea, I have created a LGBT noticeboard. Please take a look.  -- Samuel Wantman 07:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

User:AlexR/temp
...is currently poking into various main namespace categories. If this draft is no longer needed, should it be deleted? Either way, it should be removed from the categories it's currently in, to avoid self-references. -- Beland 03:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Günter Dörner
I assume you know who he is. What is his reputation in Germany these days? Among LGBT communities? I remember some articles from the gay community in the 70s or 80s lambasting his ideas and research. I assumed he was long-dead, but recently ran across a recent article [PMID 11781536]. Although he takes pains to disavow prejudice and intolerance, he seems to pretty clearly consider such variations as "transsexualism" a result of pathologic processes to a greater degree than anyone in North America has been willing to express in a scientific publication, attributing them to pernicious environmental influences such as endocrine disrupters like DDT or stress. On the other hand, to that same reference is appended his resolution to the WHO that "homosexuality not be regarded as a disease or a mental disorder." Since I gather his idea of a biological basis of LGBT conditions has found more favor in those communities than it used to, is he considered sympathetic or an ally despite his calls to "prevent" those? There is no hidden agenda in my question, just curiosity, and I assume this is a topic you are familiar with. He is the only German researcher in the area of sex hormones, brain biology, & sexual behavior that I have heard of, and he has been around forever. alteripse 19:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually had to do a google search for him - the name rang a bell, but not a loud one. To assess his current standing, you have to be aware that he was working in the GDR, not West Germany. Now, apparently, until the mid-1970s, his biological theories and proposed "cures" were well recieved in parts of West Germany, too, but back then biologistic theories and "cures" were all the rage, anyway. Since the mid-70s, though, LGB questions were considered far more from a social point of view, with those theories pretty much disappearing both from the public eye. (Trans* went a different path, staying until recently firmily in the hands of sexologists, and IS staying firmly in the hands of doctors.)
 * Now, actually, most of Western Europe has not taken anywhere as much interest in the "new" biological theories of the origin of sexual behaviour as the US has done; people regard the question as anything from mildly interesting to mildly amusing, nothing more. However, I did find some rather leftist LGB(TI) comments on him, apparently he got a medal of honor a few years ago, and they were mad about that - the left LGBTI most certainly does not see him as an ally. I have not found anything mainstream about him, but I would be very very very much surprised if anybody in the mainstream would consider anybody with his history and his views an ally - after all, that guy maintains that LGB(TI) has a simple reason, and could theoretically be cured in the womb. Actually, no biological theory is very much in favour, anybody proposing any biological theory would need to have very convincing evidence and a snow-white ethical standing to be even remotely considered as an ally. (Biologistical theories still have that faint - and in this case, not so faint - smell of the 3rd Reich about them in Europe, too.) And of course his theories do belong a) to a different time, and b) to a different society, so he just isn't much talked about at all among LGBTI circles. If he is talked about, though, it is hardly favourable.
 * As for T and I, well, I is known to have biological reasons, but everybody familiar with this knows it is a lot more complicated than that, and his theories on T don't exactly sound as if there was anything behind them, either. Certainly he is not discussed much there, either, although transgender people, especially transsexual people, are far more in favour of a biological explanation than LGB people. However, the focus there is on things like Gooren's (fe)male brain, not so much on how it became that way, but as the ultimate proof that one isn't "just a nutcase". With the move towards simply accepting it as it is instead of "curing" it, which was the previous focus on transgender people, even that becomes less important. So, all together, this guy is not very important to any current discourses, including, as far as I am aware of, most of the medical discourses regarding LGBTI people.
 * PS: And sorry, other answer is on the way. -- AlexR 12:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. It is exactly what I was wondering. alteripse 15:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

FAOC
Re your vote on styles. I understand and agree. But only casting one vote is effectively a vote against Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival. Ireland uses an electoral system called Proportional Representation using a Single Transferable Vote. It works on the same principle as the one being used (only less complicated! I never thought I would find a system more complicated than PR.STV!) What you do is give your bottom preference to the people you want to defeat, and spread your vote in a way that boosts the rivals of the alternative you do not want. So if for example, you find Alternative 3 the one you least like, give it your bottom vote so that opposition to it is recorded. And spread the other votes to ensure the weakest get votes ahead of it. If for example in Ireland I want to ensure candidate 'x' of Fianna Fáil is elected, and ensure candidate 'y' of Sinn Féin is defeated, and there are 15 candidates, I give my number 1 to 'x', my number '15' to 'y' and spread my other votes to ensure that all other candidates beat 'y'.

Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil voters famously used to practice a 'first and only choice' vote by just voting for their own preferred candidate and then stopping. They eventually realised that they were wasting their vote because they weren't using it to block those they were most opposed to, or to build up the rivals to the candidate they were opposed to. To stop Alternative 3 winning, if that is what you want, give it your fifth choice and give your second, third and fourth choices to the weakest options.

Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win. So if option 4 gets a lot of 2s, give it a 4. Doing a full vote right down the line will have the effect of strengthening Alternative 1 vis-a-vis 3 or whatever. Just voting for 1 and stopping actually weakens it against its rivals if everyone else votes down the line, because while their opposition to different alternatives is recorded, by stopping at 1 your's isn't. That is why though very popular Alternative 1 is being beaten. Remember the winner won't be decided by who has more votes for, but which faces the least opposition. Slán Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Resent newbie/vandalism
Hi,

You might want to have a look at the recent edits to transwoman -- somebody has been making sort of opinionated changes in many articles. I'm not sure whether they are good or bad. P0M 04:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Top Sekrit Cabalist Rollback Function
Hello Alex. It appears you sent me a message about this earlier, but due to some strange deficiency in my IRC software I only saw it when I disconnected. The helpful facility you are after is called godmode-light and is detailed here. I came across it because it was mentioned on the village pump some time ago. I don't think anyone there condemned its use, but it was said by some people that anyone using it should follow the rule for admin rollback which is to use it only to revert vandalism, and not in content disputes (it doesn't allow you to fill in an edit summary explaining the revert). To use it you just add  to your monobook.js, and rollback links will magically appear in the appropriate places. It is not brilliant by the way, and sometimes fails when the servers are running slowly, but overall I found it a helpful tool. I don't think it is actually secret, it's just not talked about too much so as to avoid broadcasting its existence to the hordes of marauding vandals. (But, of course, it doesn't really exist, and even if it did you wouldn't have heard about it from me.... This message will self-destruct in five seconds.) &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 09:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

re: all the Islamic articles
Thanks for the advice, I have been floundering a bit. Haiduc 10:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Patpong
There is nothing impolite about using standard English words for things. The standard word for transsexual is transsexual. You can't just rename things because you feel like it. I have never seen the word "cissexual" and nor has (hardly) anyone else. We can do without yet more euphemisms and neologisms at Wikipedia. Adam 07:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes I know this game of sexual politics more-politically-correct-than-thou. Every six months new and ever-more-esoteric words are invented for everything to do with sexuality and gender, and anyone who objects is a bigot homophobe hatemonger etc etc. OK darling have it your own way. This old fag has better things to do than argue with you. Happy gender confusion. Adam 07:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
Requests for arbitration/Njyoder has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Imposter
Please note that there has recently been a user trying to appear to be you, making edits as User:AIexR. 12:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with the tranny movie picture.
You admit that you can't tell if they're shemales, sex-change-men-to-women, or crossdressers. There are also four of them and you say you don't know for every one. Yet you're launching into an edit war with a ton of people, trying to claim they're one thing and not the other. Look, if you can prove they are this or that (even through logic) then fine, but don't just keep putting shemales because you like shemales better than sex-change-men-to-women or crossdressers. SnowConeYellow 15:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, you have been reverting for the sake of reverting. I reverted you once because you used invalid logic.  You edited it three times.  I then instead of going on an edit war against many people like you do, I went and talked to you.  Also the article's talk page is a red link, showing it has never been created.  You never added any proof.  You claim a google search, but let's show it.  The article where the picture is in has no talk page posts from you.  SnowConeYellow 19:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You still refuse to supply any links to me to prove that they are ALL this or that. The website doesn't say clearly if these are shemales or what.  SnowConeYellow 20:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That homosexuality intro
Hi, it seems that some users would be a lot happier if we could *not* have a list in the intro. I think I could take the content and render it as passable prose. Do you have any objections? Haiduc 02:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Raoul Alexander Michael Regh
Raoul Alexander Michael Regh, do you not think these Image:TGirlsMoviePoster.png are beautiful ladies? Shorthair 14:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Rollback and godmode-light
Hiya, AlexR, I noticed you use the godmode-light script. As you use an emulation of the rollback feature I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on a proposal I have which would grant the rollback feature to those who request it, similar to Requests for adminship, except with a lower threshold. The proposal is at Requests for rollback; your comments are welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback. Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

LGBTI vs "intersex", "trans", "gay", "lesbian" on Heteronormativity
To follow up to my reversion of your change to my edit on Heteronormativity:

I'm thinking of the reader who has not the foggiest idea what's going on. Rather than making them click on 5 links (yes, it's 5, you removed any reference to bi-sexuality twice now), seems harsh. Instead, the LGBTI article gives them a nice, short reference to everything they need to know, via a decent article and many citations to other articles. Everything you wanted to list is there plus much more. If you are really hung up on expanding the accronym, then please do so as such: Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI), which is the correct expansion, and would still point to the one article which has all of the appropriate info (note: if you're going to go that way, there's no need to reference the redirect at LGBTI, just go straight (er... well) to LGBT, since the name of the link doesn't show anyway). -Harmil


 * Reproducing your comment from my talk page: First of all, I would appreciate if you would sign your entries like the one on my talk page; that way, I don't have to go through the history to answer you. Second, I don't think that linking to LGBT is the way to go here, since lots of people probably won't know what that is - lots more people will at least recognise some of the expanded words, though. If you are really worried about bisexual people (who are nowhere else mentioned in the article) then add that word, and don't just revert to the acronym. Not to mention that the article that it links to references intersex people rather sparingly; they are rather important at this place, though. So kindly stop this mindless reverting, since it is nothing but ill thought-through reverting for reverting's sake by now. I may also add that I just restored the previous version, so if you want any changes, change it to something that makes sense at this point. -- AlexR 06:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, forgetting the signature was just an oversight, sorry. It seems that you didn't read what I actually wrote, above and are simply replying to the subject, since you conflate "linking to LGBT" with people knowing what the acronym means. To re-quote what I wrote: "If you are really hung up on expanding the accronym, then please do so as such: Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI), which is the correct expansion, and would still point to the one article which has all of the appropriate info". As for "reverting for reverting's sake", I was not. You changed my use of "LGBTI" to a less-complete collection of words, some of which ("intersex" and "transgender") would be just as unknown to the majority of readers, while removing the reference to bisexuality (I take personal offense at that one), and when I restored my change with a comment to indicate why, you again reverted it. Please, do not accuse me of "reverting for reverting's sake" when you are removing content and context from a page. -Harmil 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In response to your concerns about LGBT/LGBTI, I've made some extensive edits there. I'd very much appreciate your input on them. I really feel that these articles should be show-pieces which can reasonably be used as the "one-stop-shop" to introduce the topic of the LGBTI community whereever it is needed. -Harmil 19:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments at Talk:LGBT, which you might want to read over. I think the current wording is not broad enough, and while I understand your concerns with the old wording, I think we need to adapt it in some way to cover the middle-ground without unreasonably expanding what should be a short summary.... -Harmil 13:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please help me to understand
I think that we're talking past each other on Sexual characteristics. I specifically will assume that you are approaching this with the same degree of good faith that I am, and feel that you have explained yourself fully. I, on the other hand, do not understand your concerns fully yet. I see you get frustrated when I ask for details, and I suspect that this is just a difference in the way we approach problem solving. Please, assume that I honestly do not yet understand your concerns, and that your explanations have not made them clear to me (no fault there, just different ways of explaining one's self and learning). Please return to the discussion and help me to develop a clear understanding. -Harmil 17:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality in India
There is very little on the Internet or on Wikipedia about Homosexuality in non-Western cultures, including India. I was wondering if you would like to contribute towards creating a detailed article about Homosexuality in India, one that discusses historical, literary, cultural and religious attitudes towards homosexuality, as well as the current situation. I know for a fact that India has a significant LGBT community, though a lot of it is underground. I wrote the article Gay rights in India. Could you take a look at it and integrate it with a larger article on Homosexuality in India. --Notquiteauden 01:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Merovingian
Your edit has dropped out all special characters, as at Franks. I didn't revert it; would you fix it? --Wetman 12:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Just wanted to offer some advice for this. This kind of thing can happen when:
 * Your browser settings force a particular character set (e.g. iso-latin-1)
 * You do your editing in an external application which uses a non-UTF8 character set.


 * You can check your browser preferences ("options" in Windows parlance) for character encoding. In Firefox, I use View->Character Encoding and select "Unicode (UTF-8)".


 * Other applications that you may edit in probably have similar controls. -Harmil 15:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint - for some reason, jEdit, which I use with the WP plug-in, decided today that it didn't like special characters any more. I noticed a bit later, and I think I have corrected everything, but that is indeed annoying. I'll check for that in the next time, to be sure. -- AlexR 15:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Transgender
Thanks. Learn something every day. –Shoaler (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The archaic editor
Hi Alex, I generally do not stand on little particulars, but your modification of "warp and woof" gains nothing and, as it somewhat vague, loses the sense that the two loves were complementary and integral to male experience. I also am not sure that it is more encylopaedic to favor dry formulations over more expressive ones, within reason. As for the accuracy of the statement, it is not my opinion (alone) but the consensus of the classics. It stands out in the writings of many, if not all, such as Plutarch, Lucian, the poets (both Greek and Roman) and so forth. Oh yes, and in the mythology too. Can you please find an alternative formulation, or even better, leave mine. It is anything but archaic. Cheers, Haiduc 11:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Was I harsh? I speak more freely to friends, and I welcome it in return. Interesting, that "warp and woof" was not recognized. I'll second your edit based on that, I would have imagined that it is a phrase intelligible to anyone. Goes to show you that it is not good to be too much inside one's own head. Be well, Haiduc 00:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we stop this?
Somehow, you decided I was one of "them" (I'm really not even sure which "them") back when we tangled over heteronormativity, and you clearly carried the idea along to LGBT and Sexual characteristics. Your insults have been rather scathing ranging from calling me "stupid" to insulting my work to saying that I clearly had "too much time on my hands" (seems a counter-productive desire to want editors with less time available). I've tried several times to bury the hatchet, but you have had none of it.

Is it possible that you would accept that: Sadly, there's not much I can do to contribute to Wikipedia in areas where my every edit will be reverted, and given the speed with which you and I could have put together Sexual characteristics if we could work together... well, it's even more sad.
 * I don't hold a grudge against you (my comment about "personal offense" was ill considered, and was not intended to convey a sense that I was upset with you, only with being a member of a group which is so easily discounted).
 * I agree with you in many things, though I think you feel more strongly than I do in many cases.
 * I'm not trying to inject a POV into anything on WP, rather quite the opposite.
 * While I don't agree with your doctor friend on the nature of modern medicine and science, I do agree with the assessment that heteronormative structures present a difficult hurdle for LGBTI people, and that's unfortunate.

I hope that in the future you will bear these things in mind and perhaps cut me a bit more slack, as I have tried to do for you (and will continue to do so).

Thank you for your time. -Harmil 18:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

what do you want to bet we're next?
WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency Have a look. -NickGorton 06:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

what do you want to bet we're next?
WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency Have a look. -NickGorton 06:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Atypical gender identity article
Hi, Alex,

I have been monitoring the article on Atypical gender identity. There is some pressure to either improve it or to merge it elsewhere. I believe it was originally spun off from the gender identity and gender role areas because some people were uncomfortable with depicting G-I/Rs that were not the vanilla varieties. Probably that was a wise decision since the original articles contained absurdities on even the vanilla stuff and it was more important to fight those fights and put the even harder to get clear on somewhere else. (Boys naturally prefer blue, they claimed. I naturally preferred green as a child and I naturally prefer orange as an adult, so what does that make me? No, don't answer that. ;-)

As I have time, I'm going to put a brief description of Hijra and any other examples I can find where there are clear "mixed elements" in the clothing and behavior. I figure you probably have lots more examples in mind just reading this note.

One of the strange (to me) requests was that there be section headings -- despite the fact that the article is now very short. So I will put in a major section marker for "Examples" and minor ones for Hijra, Xanith, etc. Since there are major articles already, all these sections need to do is refer readers to the other articles and then give a paragraph or so in which we highlight the specific social signals that go along with the and announce the gender identities or that would create the false impression of a gender identity if someone accidentally used the wrong clothing, e.g., picking up a jacket that buttoned on the wrong side, work boots of the "wrong" color, etc.

Since the title involves identity rather than role, it's going to be a little tricky to get a correct characterization of what it feels like to be a xanith. What makes a person recognize e is a xanith? Have xaniths written about their experience of self? Or do we have to depend on some anthropologist's account?

I think this article could really be useful to people trying to understand "the other."

&#37329; (Kim) 17:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you play Volleyball?
If so, bump, set, spike. I can never bring myself to just remove them. ;) -NickGorton 23:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi! I saw that you've reverted at one point the Jodie Foster article. Unfortunately it was all in vain. You are not the only one who's done it. There is a very persistent anonymous person who is inserting many personal views (mainly negative ones) in the article, especially some regarding Foster's commercials in Japan. Because of this situation, on the talk page of Jodie Foster's article there is a Final vote about including/not including the advertising info. If you have the time, please state your opinion there. Best regards! Tavilis 18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voting and supporting us against the anon. user- and also just wanted to say that I liked your page on stupid edits. =D --PatadyBag 22:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Civility
Your comment on Queer Studies included this edit summary:
 * ...stick to articles you know something about

Please don't make comments like that to me. Uncle Ed 12:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I asked why you didn't do that - which is quite different. Intentionally misquoting is not exactly good behaviour in my book, Ed. -- AlexR 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you, good friend! At least you understand what I'm aiming at! Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship 13:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I formation
You flagged this article for yesterday, think it's safe to remove that notice now? &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Transgendered
About your recent statement, "transgenderED is still not a word". Here are some references: I think it's safe to say that transgendered is a word, though not as commonly used as "transgender". Debating over the appropriateness of its use I could see, but that's another matter.
 * Answers.com from the HMC dictionary
 * The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
 * Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
 * The Encyclopædia Britannica uses the word in two articles: "Baptist Churches" and "gay rights movement"

Hope this helps. -Harmil 13:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That still does not make this abdomination a word. -- AlexR 14:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What, then, is a word? I thought that common usage and citation in reference works were considered sufficient. Should we go by the fact that 477 Wikipedia pages use the word (135 if you don't count talk pages or lists)? The fact that the U.S. Military has a special rule for "Transgendered Beneficiaries" ? The fact that "Transgendered Network International" (TGNI) has been around since 1992 ? The fact that there is an "American Library Association Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Round Table" ? -Harmil 18:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You will find an awful lot of misspellings, some of them even more common than the proper spelling. So your point was?
 * Transgender was from the beginning used as both an adjective and a noun. Only a few years ago this abomination of "transgendered" turned up, without any reason for its existance but pseudo-grammar like "thou shall not split thy infinitive". It is not only unnecessary, it also sounds like a passive - whenever I hear that somebody is transgendered it makes me want to ask who did that to that poor fellow. Which is the reason that no matter how many actual usages of the word you turn up, as far as I am concerned, this is not a word, but an abomination. So you might wish to turn your attention to other matters now. -- AlexR 08:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)== Youve got mail! ==

For letting me know how to upload multiple images I here by ward you the WikiThanks unit.

Transsexual
Hi Alex,

You just said,


 * "since gender variant behaviour is seen by proponents or reparative therapy as an extreme form of homosexuality (a view that long has disappeared from scientific discourses)."

on the above page. It's most certainly a view which is rapidly losing favour but, as you know, it's one of the two views expounded by Bailey, Blanchard et. al. Now, I'm not a big fan of B&B (at all!!!) but stating what you did isn't totally NPOV. Unfortunately, scientific discourses are still propounding this stance - bogus as it may be.

Comments? - Pete C &#9997; 09:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One could include a "most" or even a "serious" or "widely accepted" there, if needed - one might also argue, though, that B&B are not exactly part of the scientific discourse - they don't really fit any definition of science I have ever heard ;-) -- AlexR 11:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * True, true :-) I'd say in the interests of broad factuality, maybe change it to 'most' or 'almost all'. There are BB&L fans out there that would probably jump on the chance to scream "POV", whereas I feel the point you made is very valid to the article and needs to be stated. Note also that HBIGDA as a whole don't seem to have a lot of time for reparative therapy - Pete C &#9997; 12:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and it should read "a view that has long since disappeared" (grammar) - Pete C &#9997; 12:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Notice the update - thanks, Alex! - Pete C &#9997; 16:56, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people
There's a discussion (here: Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 4) on changing the name of Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people to Category:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender people. I know you've been active on a lot of the trans-related pages, and there's some concern over whether to use "transgender people" or "transgendered people" or some other variant. I'm sure you get sick of these sorts of issues, but if you're at all interested, I'd be grateful if you'd pop on by and give us some guidelines. -Seth Mahoney 21:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I encourage you to visit Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 7. (Wikipedia really needs a GLBT noticeboard for stuff like this.) Jonathunder 06:21, 2005 May 8 (UTC)


 * Inspired by Jonathunder's idea, I have created a LGBT noticeboard. Please take a look.  -- Samuel Wantman 07:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

User:AlexR/temp
...is currently poking into various main namespace categories. If this draft is no longer needed, should it be deleted? Either way, it should be removed from the categories it's currently in, to avoid self-references. -- Beland 03:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Günter Dörner
I assume you know who he is. What is his reputation in Germany these days? Among LGBT communities? I remember some articles from the gay community in the 70s or 80s lambasting his ideas and research. I assumed he was long-dead, but recently ran across a recent article [PMID 11781536]. Although he takes pains to disavow prejudice and intolerance, he seems to pretty clearly consider such variations as "transsexualism" a result of pathologic processes to a greater degree than anyone in North America has been willing to express in a scientific publication, attributing them to pernicious environmental influences such as endocrine disrupters like DDT or stress. On the other hand, to that same reference is appended his resolution to the WHO that "homosexuality not be regarded as a disease or a mental disorder." Since I gather his idea of a biological basis of LGBT conditions has found more favor in those communities than it used to, is he considered sympathetic or an ally despite his calls to "prevent" those? There is no hidden agenda in my question, just curiosity, and I assume this is a topic you are familiar with. He is the only German researcher in the area of sex hormones, brain biology, & sexual behavior that I have heard of, and he has been around forever. alteripse 19:36, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually had to do a google search for him - the name rang a bell, but not a loud one. To assess his current standing, you have to be aware that he was working in the GDR, not West Germany. Now, apparently, until the mid-1970s, his biological theories and proposed "cures" were well recieved in parts of West Germany, too, but back then biologistic theories and "cures" were all the rage, anyway. Since the mid-70s, though, LGB questions were considered far more from a social point of view, with those theories pretty much disappearing both from the public eye. (Trans* went a different path, staying until recently firmily in the hands of sexologists, and IS staying firmly in the hands of doctors.)
 * Now, actually, most of Western Europe has not taken anywhere as much interest in the "new" biological theories of the origin of sexual behaviour as the US has done; people regard the question as anything from mildly interesting to mildly amusing, nothing more. However, I did find some rather leftist LGB(TI) comments on him, apparently he got a medal of honor a few years ago, and they were mad about that - the left LGBTI most certainly does not see him as an ally. I have not found anything mainstream about him, but I would be very very very much surprised if anybody in the mainstream would consider anybody with his history and his views an ally - after all, that guy maintains that LGB(TI) has a simple reason, and could theoretically be cured in the womb. Actually, no biological theory is very much in favour, anybody proposing any biological theory would need to have very convincing evidence and a snow-white ethical standing to be even remotely considered as an ally. (Biologistical theories still have that faint - and in this case, not so faint - smell of the 3rd Reich about them in Europe, too.) And of course his theories do belong a) to a different time, and b) to a different society, so he just isn't much talked about at all among LGBTI circles. If he is talked about, though, it is hardly favourable.
 * As for T and I, well, I is known to have biological reasons, but everybody familiar with this knows it is a lot more complicated than that, and his theories on T don't exactly sound as if there was anything behind them, either. Certainly he is not discussed much there, either, although transgender people, especially transsexual people, are far more in favour of a biological explanation than LGB people. However, the focus there is on things like Gooren's (fe)male brain, not so much on how it became that way, but as the ultimate proof that one isn't "just a nutcase". With the move towards simply accepting it as it is instead of "curing" it, which was the previous focus on transgender people, even that becomes less important. So, all together, this guy is not very important to any current discourses, including, as far as I am aware of, most of the medical discourses regarding LGBTI people.
 * PS: And sorry, other answer is on the way. -- AlexR 12:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. It is exactly what I was wondering. alteripse 15:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

FAOC
Re your vote on styles. I understand and agree. But only casting one vote is effectively a vote against Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival. Ireland uses an electoral system called Proportional Representation using a Single Transferable Vote. It works on the same principle as the one being used (only less complicated! I never thought I would find a system more complicated than PR.STV!) What you do is give your bottom preference to the people you want to defeat, and spread your vote in a way that boosts the rivals of the alternative you do not want. So if for example, you find Alternative 3 the one you least like, give it your bottom vote so that opposition to it is recorded. And spread the other votes to ensure the weakest get votes ahead of it. If for example in Ireland I want to ensure candidate 'x' of Fianna Fáil is elected, and ensure candidate 'y' of Sinn Féin is defeated, and there are 15 candidates, I give my number 1 to 'x', my number '15' to 'y' and spread my other votes to ensure that all other candidates beat 'y'.

Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil voters famously used to practice a 'first and only choice' vote by just voting for their own preferred candidate and then stopping. They eventually realised that they were wasting their vote because they weren't using it to block those they were most opposed to, or to build up the rivals to the candidate they were opposed to. To stop Alternative 3 winning, if that is what you want, give it your fifth choice and give your second, third and fourth choices to the weakest options.

Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win. So if option 4 gets a lot of 2s, give it a 4. Doing a full vote right down the line will have the effect of strengthening Alternative 1 vis-a-vis 3 or whatever. Just voting for 1 and stopping actually weakens it against its rivals if everyone else votes down the line, because while their opposition to different alternatives is recorded, by stopping at 1 your's isn't. That is why though very popular Alternative 1 is being beaten. Remember the winner won't be decided by who has more votes for, but which faces the least opposition. Slán Fear ÉIREANN (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Resent newbie/vandalism
Hi,

You might want to have a look at the recent edits to transwoman -- somebody has been making sort of opinionated changes in many articles. I'm not sure whether they are good or bad. P0M 04:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Top Sekrit Cabalist Rollback Function
Hello Alex. It appears you sent me a message about this earlier, but due to some strange deficiency in my IRC software I only saw it when I disconnected. The helpful facility you are after is called godmode-light and is detailed here. I came across it because it was mentioned on the village pump some time ago. I don't think anyone there condemned its use, but it was said by some people that anyone using it should follow the rule for admin rollback which is to use it only to revert vandalism, and not in content disputes (it doesn't allow you to fill in an edit summary explaining the revert). To use it you just add  to your monobook.js, and rollback links will magically appear in the appropriate places. It is not brilliant by the way, and sometimes fails when the servers are running slowly, but overall I found it a helpful tool. I don't think it is actually secret, it's just not talked about too much so as to avoid broadcasting its existence to the hordes of marauding vandals. (But, of course, it doesn't really exist, and even if it did you wouldn't have heard about it from me.... This message will self-destruct in five seconds.) &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 09:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

re: all the Islamic articles
Thanks for the advice, I have been floundering a bit. Haiduc 10:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Patpong
There is nothing impolite about using standard English words for things. The standard word for transsexual is transsexual. You can't just rename things because you feel like it. I have never seen the word "cissexual" and nor has (hardly) anyone else. We can do without yet more euphemisms and neologisms at Wikipedia. Adam 07:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes I know this game of sexual politics more-politically-correct-than-thou. Every six months new and ever-more-esoteric words are invented for everything to do with sexuality and gender, and anyone who objects is a bigot homophobe hatemonger etc etc. OK darling have it your own way. This old fag has better things to do than argue with you. Happy gender confusion. Adam 07:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
Requests for arbitration/Njyoder has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Requests for arbitration/Njyoder/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Imposter
Please note that there has recently been a user trying to appear to be you, making edits as User:AIexR. 12:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with the tranny movie picture.
You admit that you can't tell if they're shemales, sex-change-men-to-women, or crossdressers. There are also four of them and you say you don't know for every one. Yet you're launching into an edit war with a ton of people, trying to claim they're one thing and not the other. Look, if you can prove they are this or that (even through logic) then fine, but don't just keep putting shemales because you like shemales better than sex-change-men-to-women or crossdressers. SnowConeYellow 15:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, you have been reverting for the sake of reverting. I reverted you once because you used invalid logic.  You edited it three times.  I then instead of going on an edit war against many people like you do, I went and talked to you.  Also the article's talk page is a red link, showing it has never been created.  You never added any proof.  You claim a google search, but let's show it.  The article where the picture is in has no talk page posts from you.  SnowConeYellow 19:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You still refuse to supply any links to me to prove that they are ALL this or that. The website doesn't say clearly if these are shemales or what.  SnowConeYellow 20:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That homosexuality intro
Hi, it seems that some users would be a lot happier if we could *not* have a list in the intro. I think I could take the content and render it as passable prose. Do you have any objections? Haiduc 02:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Raoul Alexander Michael Regh
Raoul Alexander Michael Regh, do you not think these Image:TGirlsMoviePoster.png are beautiful ladies? Shorthair 14:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Rollback and godmode-light
Hiya, AlexR, I noticed you use the godmode-light script. As you use an emulation of the rollback feature I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on a proposal I have which would grant the rollback feature to those who request it, similar to Requests for adminship, except with a lower threshold. The proposal is at Requests for rollback; your comments are welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback. Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 17:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

LGBTI vs "intersex", "trans", "gay", "lesbian" on Heteronormativity
To follow up to my reversion of your change to my edit on Heteronormativity:

I'm thinking of the reader who has not the foggiest idea what's going on. Rather than making them click on 5 links (yes, it's 5, you removed any reference to bi-sexuality twice now), seems harsh. Instead, the LGBTI article gives them a nice, short reference to everything they need to know, via a decent article and many citations to other articles. Everything you wanted to list is there plus much more. If you are really hung up on expanding the accronym, then please do so as such: Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI), which is the correct expansion, and would still point to the one article which has all of the appropriate info (note: if you're going to go that way, there's no need to reference the redirect at LGBTI, just go straight (er... well) to LGBT, since the name of the link doesn't show anyway). -Harmil


 * Reproducing your comment from my talk page: First of all, I would appreciate if you would sign your entries like the one on my talk page; that way, I don't have to go through the history to answer you. Second, I don't think that linking to LGBT is the way to go here, since lots of people probably won't know what that is - lots more people will at least recognise some of the expanded words, though. If you are really worried about bisexual people (who are nowhere else mentioned in the article) then add that word, and don't just revert to the acronym. Not to mention that the article that it links to references intersex people rather sparingly; they are rather important at this place, though. So kindly stop this mindless reverting, since it is nothing but ill thought-through reverting for reverting's sake by now. I may also add that I just restored the previous version, so if you want any changes, change it to something that makes sense at this point. -- AlexR 06:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously, forgetting the signature was just an oversight, sorry. It seems that you didn't read what I actually wrote, above and are simply replying to the subject, since you conflate "linking to LGBT" with people knowing what the acronym means. To re-quote what I wrote: "If you are really hung up on expanding the accronym, then please do so as such: Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex (LGBTI), which is the correct expansion, and would still point to the one article which has all of the appropriate info". As for "reverting for reverting's sake", I was not. You changed my use of "LGBTI" to a less-complete collection of words, some of which ("intersex" and "transgender") would be just as unknown to the majority of readers, while removing the reference to bisexuality (I take personal offense at that one), and when I restored my change with a comment to indicate why, you again reverted it. Please, do not accuse me of "reverting for reverting's sake" when you are removing content and context from a page. -Harmil 10:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

In response to your concerns about LGBT/LGBTI, I've made some extensive edits there. I'd very much appreciate your input on them. I really feel that these articles should be show-pieces which can reasonably be used as the "one-stop-shop" to introduce the topic of the LGBTI community whereever it is needed. -Harmil 19:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've left some comments at Talk:LGBT, which you might want to read over. I think the current wording is not broad enough, and while I understand your concerns with the old wording, I think we need to adapt it in some way to cover the middle-ground without unreasonably expanding what should be a short summary.... -Harmil 13:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please help me to understand
I think that we're talking past each other on Sexual characteristics. I specifically will assume that you are approaching this with the same degree of good faith that I am, and feel that you have explained yourself fully. I, on the other hand, do not understand your concerns fully yet. I see you get frustrated when I ask for details, and I suspect that this is just a difference in the way we approach problem solving. Please, assume that I honestly do not yet understand your concerns, and that your explanations have not made them clear to me (no fault there, just different ways of explaining one's self and learning). Please return to the discussion and help me to develop a clear understanding. -Harmil 17:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Homosexuality in India
There is very little on the Internet or on Wikipedia about Homosexuality in non-Western cultures, including India. I was wondering if you would like to contribute towards creating a detailed article about Homosexuality in India, one that discusses historical, literary, cultural and religious attitudes towards homosexuality, as well as the current situation. I know for a fact that India has a significant LGBT community, though a lot of it is underground. I wrote the article Gay rights in India. Could you take a look at it and integrate it with a larger article on Homosexuality in India. --Notquiteauden 01:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Merovingian
Your edit has dropped out all special characters, as at Franks. I didn't revert it; would you fix it? --Wetman 12:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Just wanted to offer some advice for this. This kind of thing can happen when:
 * Your browser settings force a particular character set (e.g. iso-latin-1)
 * You do your editing in an external application which uses a non-UTF8 character set.


 * You can check your browser preferences ("options" in Windows parlance) for character encoding. In Firefox, I use View->Character Encoding and select "Unicode (UTF-8)".


 * Other applications that you may edit in probably have similar controls. -Harmil 15:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint - for some reason, jEdit, which I use with the WP plug-in, decided today that it didn't like special characters any more. I noticed a bit later, and I think I have corrected everything, but that is indeed annoying. I'll check for that in the next time, to be sure. -- AlexR 15:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Transgender
Thanks. Learn something every day. –Shoaler (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The archaic editor
Hi Alex, I generally do not stand on little particulars, but your modification of "warp and woof" gains nothing and, as it somewhat vague, loses the sense that the two loves were complementary and integral to male experience. I also am not sure that it is more encylopaedic to favor dry formulations over more expressive ones, within reason. As for the accuracy of the statement, it is not my opinion (alone) but the consensus of the classics. It stands out in the writings of many, if not all, such as Plutarch, Lucian, the poets (both Greek and Roman) and so forth. Oh yes, and in the mythology too. Can you please find an alternative formulation, or even better, leave mine. It is anything but archaic. Cheers, Haiduc 11:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Was I harsh? I speak more freely to friends, and I welcome it in return. Interesting, that "warp and woof" was not recognized. I'll second your edit based on that, I would have imagined that it is a phrase intelligible to anyone. Goes to show you that it is not good to be too much inside one's own head. Be well, Haiduc 00:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we stop this?
Somehow, you decided I was one of "them" (I'm really not even sure which "them") back when we tangled over heteronormativity, and you clearly carried the idea along to LGBT and Sexual characteristics. Your insults have been rather scathing ranging from calling me "stupid" to insulting my work to saying that I clearly had "too much time on my hands" (seems a counter-productive desire to want editors with less time available). I've tried several times to bury the hatchet, but you have had none of it.

Is it possible that you would accept that: Sadly, there's not much I can do to contribute to Wikipedia in areas where my every edit will be reverted, and given the speed with which you and I could have put together Sexual characteristics if we could work together... well, it's even more sad.
 * I don't hold a grudge against you (my comment about "personal offense" was ill considered, and was not intended to convey a sense that I was upset with you, only with being a member of a group which is so easily discounted).
 * I agree with you in many things, though I think you feel more strongly than I do in many cases.
 * I'm not trying to inject a POV into anything on WP, rather quite the opposite.
 * While I don't agree with your doctor friend on the nature of modern medicine and science, I do agree with the assessment that heteronormative structures present a difficult hurdle for LGBTI people, and that's unfortunate.

I hope that in the future you will bear these things in mind and perhaps cut me a bit more slack, as I have tried to do for you (and will continue to do so).

Thank you for your time. -Harmil 18:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

what do you want to bet we're next?
WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency Have a look. -NickGorton 06:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

what do you want to bet we're next?
WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency Have a look. -NickGorton 06:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Atypical gender identity article
Hi, Alex,

I have been monitoring the article on Atypical gender identity. There is some pressure to either improve it or to merge it elsewhere. I believe it was originally spun off from the gender identity and gender role areas because some people were uncomfortable with depicting G-I/Rs that were not the vanilla varieties. Probably that was a wise decision since the original articles contained absurdities on even the vanilla stuff and it was more important to fight those fights and put the even harder to get clear on somewhere else. (Boys naturally prefer blue, they claimed. I naturally preferred green as a child and I naturally prefer orange as an adult, so what does that make me? No, don't answer that. ;-)

As I have time, I'm going to put a brief description of Hijra and any other examples I can find where there are clear "mixed elements" in the clothing and behavior. I figure you probably have lots more examples in mind just reading this note.

One of the strange (to me) requests was that there be section headings -- despite the fact that the article is now very short. So I will put in a major section marker for "Examples" and minor ones for Hijra, Xanith, etc. Since there are major articles already, all these sections need to do is refer readers to the other articles and then give a paragraph or so in which we highlight the specific social signals that go along with the and announce the gender identities or that would create the false impression of a gender identity if someone accidentally used the wrong clothing, e.g., picking up a jacket that buttoned on the wrong side, work boots of the "wrong" color, etc.

Since the title involves identity rather than role, it's going to be a little tricky to get a correct characterization of what it feels like to be a xanith. What makes a person recognize e is a xanith? Have xaniths written about their experience of self? Or do we have to depend on some anthropologist's account?

I think this article could really be useful to people trying to understand "the other."

&#37329; (Kim) 17:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you play Volleyball?
If so, bump, set, spike. I can never bring myself to just remove them. ;) -NickGorton 23:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi! I saw that you've reverted at one point the Jodie Foster article. Unfortunately it was all in vain. You are not the only one who's done it. There is a very persistent anonymous person who is inserting many personal views (mainly negative ones) in the article, especially some regarding Foster's commercials in Japan. Because of this situation, on the talk page of Jodie Foster's article there is a Final vote about including/not including the advertising info. If you have the time, please state your opinion there. Best regards! Tavilis 18:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voting and supporting us against the anon. user- and also just wanted to say that I liked your page on stupid edits. =D --PatadyBag 22:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Civility
Your comment on Queer Studies included this edit summary:
 * ...stick to articles you know something about

Please don't make comments like that to me. Uncle Ed 12:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I asked why you didn't do that - which is quite different. Intentionally misquoting is not exactly good behaviour in my book, Ed. -- AlexR 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you, good friend! At least you understand what I'm aiming at! Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship 13:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I formation
You flagged this article for yesterday, think it's safe to remove that notice now? &mdash; Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Transgendered
About your recent statement, "transgenderED is still not a word". Here are some references: I think it's safe to say that transgendered is a word, though not as commonly used as "transgender". Debating over the appropriateness of its use I could see, but that's another matter.
 * Answers.com from the HMC dictionary
 * The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
 * Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
 * The Encyclopædia Britannica uses the word in two articles: "Baptist Churches" and "gay rights movement"

Hope this helps. -Harmil 13:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That still does not make this abdomination a word. -- AlexR 14:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What, then, is a word? I thought that common usage and citation in reference works were considered sufficient. Should we go by the fact that 477 Wikipedia pages use the word (135 if you don't count talk pages or lists)? The fact that the U.S. Military has a special rule for "Transgendered Beneficiaries" ? The fact that "Transgendered Network International" (TGNI) has been around since 1992 ? The fact that there is an "American Library Association Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Round Table" ? -Harmil 18:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You will find an awful lot of misspellings, some of them even more common than the proper spelling. So your point was?
 * Transgender was from the beginning used as both an adjective and a noun. Only a few years ago this abomination of "transgendered" turned up, without any reason for its existance but pseudo-grammar like "thou shall not split thy infinitive". It is not only unnecessary, it also sounds like a passive - whenever I hear that somebody is transgendered it makes me want to ask who did that to that poor fellow. Which is the reason that no matter how many actual usages of the word you turn up, as far as I am concerned, this is not a word, but an abomination. So you might wish to turn your attention to other matters now. -- AlexR 08:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)== Youve got mail! ==

For letting me know how to upload multiple images I here by ward you the WikiThanks unit.