User talk:Dresnick95

Welcome!
Hello, Dresnick95, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Transfeminism edits
Hi Dresnick,, and ,

I noticed that your edits were getting reverted and wanted to give a bit of info as to why this may have happened. I'll also tag the editors who made the reversions so that they can give their input as well. 

Dresnick, it looks like your additions here was reverted over concerns of neutrality and whether or not it immediately applied to transfeminism. I think that the issue here is that this section is too general. The issue of bathroom equality isn't inherently a transfeminism issue, as it's generally seen as something that falls into the more general issue of transgender rights since it has an impact on both transgender men and women, as opposed to only transgender women. The section didn't show how this specifically impacted transgender women in a way that would fall under the banner of transfeminism in specific. It's too general of an issue - you need to be more specific. You also need to avoid terms like "revolutionary" since those are seen as opinion words in most situations and as such, can cause the content appear non-neutral and biased. Even if most readers would agree that the laws are revolutionary, groundbreaking, and a step in the right direction, the content would still need to be neutrally written to avoid the bias. There are also some other phrases in there that are a little sneaky, like "Regardless of their physical appearance". This isn't something you need to absolutely avoid, but it should be phrased in a way that makes it seem less like the writer is reacting to the topic matter.
 * Dresnick

, your additions here were reverted because Mathglot was concerned that the sourcing itself did not mention transfeminism. When writing content we can only summarize what has already been stated in the source material - we can't create new conclusions and data, as this is considered to be original research. The source has to explicitly back up what you add into the article. An example I like to use is that someone can describe something that sounds an awful lot like a cat, however we cannot actually say that this is what they're describing or cite their work as an example of cat descriptions. As such, to connect Crenshaw's work to transfeminism you would need a reliable source that specifically talks about her work as it relates to transfeminism. Something to be careful about when looking for a source along these lines is that the source must mention transfeminism, as a work about transgender women and intersectionality is not automatically about transfeminism. Basically, not everything that deals with transgender women is a transfeminist work and making a connection to transfeminism that isn't explicitly spelled out in the source is seen as original research.
 * Ebrault

, your content was removed here and here. It looks like the main concern here was that one addition gave off the impression that it was an absolute statement - in other words, it made it seem like it was something that would apply to every right-wing feminist and transgendered woman in this situation. Avoid blanket statements whenever possible and make sure that the content is neutral. You should also avoid phrases like "in other words", as that's a fairly casual tone. A possible better way to re-write this could be this:
 * Kaitlin 121


 * Transfeminists struggle to be accepted by mainstream feminism, noting that their representation threatens the very foundation or goals of cisgendered women. According to Graham Mayeda, women who identify as right-wing feel that issues of equality and female importance becomes less significant when the biology of trans people, specifically, male-to-female transsexuals come into play. He noted that these feminists feel that the biological nature of trans-females confuse "women only" boundaries and could contradict or disrupt feminist goals of establishing a voice in a patriarchal world.

I re-worded it to attribute the claim to the author, as well as to clarify who he claims is espousing this viewpoint. I think that your addition is a good idea, just that it needed to be clarified a bit.

With the information about Kimberly Nixon, it looks like it was removed because it was already in another section and isn't really about acceptance into mainstream feminism. By this I believe that Mathglot meant that the work she was trying to do would be automatically feminist. While assisting rape survivors and trying to raise awareness is something that is often paired with feminism, it's not automatically so.

I hope that this helps some - none of this is meant to come across as harsh. I think that there is some excellent information here - it's just that it needs some work, such as re-writes, re-focusing, and/or new sourcing. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)