User talk:Bluegreen

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ragib 5 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Progesterone
Thanks for trying to get the use of "progesterone" correct in Wikipedia articles. What do you think about the term progestogen? --JWSchmidt 5 July 2005 06:25 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for noticing and commenting. There is more to do. I think the word is fine for when progesterone is meant to be included. But so often there is a distinction that needs to be noticed. Not being given the right progestogen (:-)) had a pretty devastating effect on me, and on several others I know. We have a doctor on here saying it's "common usage" to use progesterone for everything so it's OK, even in medical articles, and reverts corrections. The Women's Health Initiative study with Provera keeps being misreported as involving progesterone (but not here). The MS research on potential benefits (because progesterone halts deterioration during pregnancy) is being done with a progestin, but at least it isn't MPA. Even some top cancer researchers don't seem to know, and don't seem to want to know, the difference, which seems like it could hinder their work somewhat, it tending to be regulatory.


 * We might have some overlapping interests, from what is on your website. My interest is primarily in aspects of the biological basis of varied identities, and its ramifications in life and society. I hope we find ourselves in agreement frequently.--Bluegreen 07:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Gender transitioning
You wrote: Rename railroaded ''I see, after a rapid pair of discussions, the last [1] extremely superficial, with one lone response, it is now a done deal that this gets renamed Gender Transitioning, despite the fact that it isn't our gender identity (commonly abbreviated to simply Gender) that changes, but instead our sexual phenotype (in the case of transsexualism), or at the least some aspect of Gender Role, in other cases. Did that simply get overlooked, or is this just another little victory for those who think its all just about messing with gender? Bluegreen''

I happened to cast the only vote on the rename issue for the CfR. Well, I think you can reasonably assume the nominator voted the same. I was disappointed that other editors like yourself did not choose to participate in the CfR request too. I do think the renaming was the best (or at least a quite good) choice, but would certainly rather have been joined by other editors in voting. The notice requesting votes was prominently displayed on the category page for a couple weeks (as well as listed in the regular administrative pages with other CfRs).


 * Two weeks is too little notice for such a reclassification. The failure of all but yourself to comment in the second instance, compared to the larger number in the first seems likely to indicate that the rapid second CfR was not noticed in time by others too. Surely a RfC of name of a sensitive category should be advertised at all the pages of that category? If it had been then I would have noticed, and participated.--Bluegreen 16:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

But the CfR followed an earlier CfR suggesting "->Transexual transitioning". There was unanimous consensus that the "Topics related..." verbal form is wrong for WP categories. So the fact that it should be renamed to something was obvious. But a number of voters in that first CfR proposed several different options. Several editors there felt that "transexual" was overly narrow in excluding non-op (or even pre-op) transgender folks. "Gender transitioning" was not endorsed by the clear consensus of voters (partially because proposals were made throughout the voting period), but it was the phrase that seemed to have the widest support.


 * It doesn't make it suitable though, as my remarks you copied in above indicate.

It's really insulting to complain of "railroading" because you chose not to vote on a very public CfR.


 * "insulting"? Two people with no obvious connections with, and in one case admitted ignorance of the subjects decide how the category shall be renamed, in the apparent abence of others with better knowledge who thought differently? I would suggest that you, finding yourself the lone participant, should at least have expressed anxiety that perhaps the vote was too limited, perhaps that it should be extended and more widely publicised.--Bluegreen 16:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear what you would propose for the category name in the affirmative (rather than just sniping at the name found by working editors). But I generally think that your comments do not represent a full understanding of the facets involved in the concept "gender". Whatever your understanding though, I don't know how you think WP admins and editors are supposed to read your mind about it if you don't bother stating it in the vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a crucial difference between not knowing about a vote and failing/not bothering to participate.


 * Transitioning gender roles would be one more suitable name, because all the pages do deal with that, although several also go further and deal with changing sexual phenotype, and, whether or not people's own experience is that their gender identity had always been that which they bring the rest of their life to match, at some point we, who have had that dysphoria, do transition the gender roles, to a greater or less extent. The distinction is actually a remarkably sensitive one, involving the widely significant issue of whether mental gender is inborn, changeable, or acquired. To plump for Gender Transitioning is to come down, inadvertently or not, on the side that says it is not inborn, and so fails, incidentally, to be NPOV.--Bluegreen 16:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Survey
Hi Bluegreen!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)