User talk:Dysprosia/Archive (2)

Old talk in archive

Dysprosia,

Thanks for the formatting on Lagrange's four-square theorem - I was going to get the basics in and then look around for what my pretty-printing options are. But as you noticed and I didn't, &lt;sup&gt; is perfectly adequate here ;-)

I'm expecting to be around for a while. Wiki's one of the most worthwhile projects I've come across in a long time, as I expect most people around here will agree.

Cheers,

Onebyone.

The Donisthorpe chap
Moved to John Donisthorpe...? Was he more commonly known by that name than by the name Horace Donisthorpe? -- Oliver P. 00:41, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Oh I see, the addition confused me, I thought his name was John Kelly Donisthorpe, but that's his middle name. Sorry. Dysprosia 00:42, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Ah... Thanks for explaining. No problem. :) By the way, I think I tried to move the article at the same time that you did. My first page-moving conflict! Lucky we didn't crash the whole site. ;) Now, I think I'll write something about the village of Donisthorpe at Donisthorpe, if I can find anything about it... -- Oliver P. 00:52, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. In HTML tables, bold closures, , aren't needed, and I got into a bad habit. For some time I've had online a file showing a total order table with strike outs. But I can't find anything Wikki about strike. jonhays 14:38, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you've got to use for that, no nice markup syntax for that :) Dysprosia 14:55, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's HTML, but I wasn't sure it was recognized here. Thanks.jonhays 14:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How Come:
Say, Dysprosia,  How come I can't seem to post an image (pgsafjak4.jpg)? I resized it so it was smaller...


 * Have you uploaded it? It came up with an empty link for me. Dysprosia 03:03, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I was overhasty with Vertical blanking interval. Just a strange list of Dataline, Closed Captioning (line 21), Data Casting, Vertical Interval Time Code (VITC) made no sense to me. Thanks for fixing it. Angela 03:20, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No probs :) Dysprosia 03:23, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes.
Yes, I did. What seems to be the problem??


 * It was entered with lowercase .jpg instead of the uppercase which was probably required. Anyway, working now :) Dysprosia 03:58, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Requested articles
Guess which I will write next? --Kaihsu Tai 08:33, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Job design. ;) Dysprosia 08:34, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Multigrid, after Constitution of Greece and Official Secrets Act! --Kaihsu Tai 08:35, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Dang! Wondered what Multigrid was in context... Dysprosia 08:36, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- Hello, Dysprosia!

Michael Reiter here. Thanks a bunch! Really appreciate it. Thanks again. J. Michael Reiter jmr

I didn't compress it apart from removing the unnecessary seperating of each sentence into paragraphs and removing of the stub notice. I don't really like stub notices. Should I not do this anymore? LDan 15:11, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's important to keep the stubnotes, it's strongly suggested. It's also a nice idea to seperate things into paragraphs, however I agree the one sentence per paragraph thing was a bit excessive on first hit, but reading text that's logically split into paragraphs is much easier on the eye.

Thanks :) Dysprosia 15:15, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

About Australian Tree Hockey: Sorry about that bad placement -- from the comments I though it had been deleted already. Time to go to bed... -- Bcorr 06:05, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip
Hi Dysprosia,

Thanks for the tip about moving pages and the welcome!

Cheers

No problem :) Dysprosia 06:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Done. :) Thanks for the tip, btw. Evil saltine 10:44, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hancock's Razor isn't on google because it's not well known, not nonexistent.
 * (replied on user page)

Hey Dysprosia, I was just wondering, since I'm still a little fuzzy on what sysops do vs. developers...so, when you were going back and forth with that vandal (User:204.39.0.105) over the wavelength article before, aren't you allowed to block an IP for that? -- Paige 1จ7:14, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I thought I'd tend to do so as an absolutely last resort, usually these people get bored/tired and realise the futility of what they are doing (It's like when those people try and cut off a monster's head and it grows right back or soemthing :). I was right too, they stopped a few minutes after.
 * Maybe it wasn't the right strategy, I don't know. Dysprosia 23:31, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, I commend your strategy. I would never have the patience for it.  See, this is why you make a good sysop!  :)  Paige 01:16, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Aawww, thanks :) Dysprosia 01:18, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

--- Hey! That "loving Christian" was for Ed Poor to feel-good-about-removing! :) Now he'll probably do something else :(  Bunk 01:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Thanks for helping me with sociable number. I'll add some more soon... I just felt that it deserved a page separate from the perfect and amicable ones. I was going to add a list of small sociable numbers, but the smallest of order >2 are pretty big. 12496 is the smallest. I'm just now fixing a glaring mistake - you might want to take a look in 3-4 minutes...

Thanks
thanks for the warm welcome Dysprosia, I only found this site today-what a gem! so it is a steep learning curve......


 * Thanks for the warm welcome too, Dysprosia. I am enjoying myself here. --Samber 17:15, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I just got in trouble, but don't know why. I called up "List of Inventors" and checked hyperlink for Garrett Morgan. I clicked "Discuss this page" and wrote in extensive praise of the article, closing with 4 tildes. The browser didn't put in my name but a code 66...., which hyperlinked to say I had invoked a page that didn't exist and was asked to initiate it. What happened?jonhays 02:55, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but, unfortunately I don't think it got saved; it's not showing up in your contributions list :/. Perhaps you should try again and see if the problem recurrs? Dysprosia 03:17, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits on the Albanian dishes. One thing though, I would like to maintain the name of the dish in Albanian. Is there a reason for removing them. regards, Dori 05:17, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey :) No problem. I didn't remove the name, however, just reworded the intro to incorporate the name. Dysprosia 05:20, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * So you did, my apologies, I don't know what I was looking at but I saw the names dissapear :) --Dori 05:45, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the TeX on Hereditarily finite sets, but I think you must have made a typo of some kind, because all I see is a "broken link"-style thing instead of the image of the text. Onebyone 11:43, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There's some kinda oddness with TeX going on at the moment, I asked about this at the Village pump about the issue, have a look if you're interested :) Dysprosia 11:44, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Regarding tip of viewing user edits: Yes, I know but it makes it easier for any one who wants to view a user's edit going forward to just make a simple edit of the as-yet-unedited page. B 14:25, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Mekons article was rather nonsensical, wasn't it? RickK 06:49, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * It seemed legitimate, had several links to it and such. I gave it a quick NPOV and format, with a bit more copyediting it should be fine... Dysprosia 06:51, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

newby stumbles in...
Thanks for the warm welcome! I guess someone IS watching, and I gather I'm in the company of folks that know the right buttons to push (compared my not knowing). Maybe if I keep noodling I'll learn my way around here. It's sort like falling through the roof of a stranger's house. I honestly can't recall how I found wikipedia but it seems like a great place to be! -Cheers! Manuel Override

Thanks for fixing my stubnote!2toise 08:54, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * No problem, I try and keep them all uniform :) Dysprosia 09:04, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the frac. calc. pages. It's nice to get some "visitors" once in a while.

I would have liked, however, if those changes were discused beforehand, as I'm not sure that they constitute an improvement. I don't remember hearing anything about this new roadmap formatting in WikiProject_Mathematics.

I also don't know if you're going through all the math pages and doing this. If you are, kudos! Many people have discussed making a roadmap for the math pages, but I've seen little progress on this. I was kinda expecting the regular editors of each page to be informed about this motive from the wikiproject page, and to insert a roadmap at the top. This way we'd have a lot of different roadmaps, but eventually people would integrate the advantages of the other roadmaps, and an optimal solution would emerge. Apparently, I've overestimated the general Wikipedian.

I was also using my roadmap format as an "example" of a possible roadmap format. Ofcourse, this prototype isn't available for discussion anymore.

In sum, I appreciate your pro-activeness, but I don't appreciate your imprudence.

--Kevin Baas


 * I'm really sorry about that; if I knew there was discussion on having such a "roadmap" I would have raised the issue at WikiProject Mathematics before making such changes. Feel free to remove the roadmap formattings for the time being, if you feel so inclined.
 * Dysprosia 05:22, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please check John Money, Gay, Straight, and In-Between, p. 94. I will revert the change you just made regarding "transvestite" on the basis of his definition. Patrick0Moran 06:00, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * One person may have a gender identity that is different from his or her external genitalia and may choose to wear clothing that is appropriate to his or her gender identity describes transsexualism, and, is such, not quite an atypical gender role. Transsexualism most accurately describes cross-dressing when the individual maintains a gender identity congruous with that individual's physiology. Dysprosia 06:11, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A transsexual is a person who has experienced gender dysphoria and has at least started the process of changing from one sex to the other, no?

Patrick0Moran 06:18, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not only; a transsexual has a gender identity that is different from his or her external genitalia. As a consequence of this, they may choose to wear clothing that is appropriate to his or her gender identity -- a transsexual is still a transsexual if they are unable to obtain sexual reassignment surgery. Dysprosia 06:21, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Regardless, a person who cross-dresses can do so for several motivations, and the gender roles they choose to portray may be different in some respects but they all involve cross-dressing, right?

Patrick0Moran 07:06, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, a person who cross-dresses (this is really a weird term anyway - is a transsexual woman cross dressing when she presents herself in male clothing?) can do so for several motivations, but describing all people who cross-dress as transvestites is somewhat inaccurate.
 * I don't see how gender roles in some circumstances of cross dressing depend on each other. A transvestic fetishist may have a completely "normal" male gender role, a transgendered woman may be a stay-at-home wife, &/c. Aren't these more modes of gender expression? By the way - should bisexual be removed from Atypical gender roles? Bisexualism is more a sexual orientation... Dysprosia 07:12, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think I see the problem, and it is the same one that has troubled lots of these discussions. John Money started talking about gender, gender identity, gender roles, etc., many years ago. Then other people jumped in and grabbed some of the buzz words without, perhaps, understanding what Money was talking about. They used the terms for their own purposes, and sometimes what they did tromped all over what Money was trying to do.

I agree, by the way, that lots of these terms and concepts get ridiculous. And the laws can be really insane. Somebody who is XX but has masculinized external genitals (no testicles, however) has sex with an XY person and violates CAN laws. Somebody who is XY and is surgically "reassigned" to XX has sex with an XY person and it's o.k. They can even get married.

Anyway, Money started with the difference between genitalia and "brain sex." Somebody is XY and has the standard set of male genitals. However his brain got a dose of the wrong mixture of hormones while it was forming, and the brain was feminized. So "he" has a clear inner awareness of being a girl and then of being a woman. Money started to call this broader idea of "who am I" the person's gender identity. The person's identity includes the problematical sex organs, but that is not all that is operative. When the person expresses who "she" is by the way she talks, by the way she tilts her pelvis forward instead of tucking it back (at least if she is not Japanese), by the clothing she wears, by the job she takes, etc., etc., that whole set of things is her gender role.

Everybody has a gender role of some kind (unless, perhaps, there are people who are totally oblivious to the whole idea, don't understand the words "boy," "girl," etc.). So a person who has male genitalia and yet feels "wrong" wearing guys' clothing and so wears women's clothing has a gender role too.

What I am trying to establish in that article is how a person who is motivated to dress in a way not in accord with his/her external genitalia may live out his/her life in such a way that the aforesaid motivation is not hidden away from the world.

By the way, "trans-vest-ite" just means "cross-dress-er". It's not a very good term because it includes people who sense a mis-match between their genitals and their brain sex, and people who have no sense of a mis-match but who cannot achieve sexual arousal without cross-dressing. Transexual seems to me not to be appropriate either because it does convey the idea of leaving one sex and going to another sex. (I think that is the way most people use it, too.) I tried to fix the article by paraphrasing Money and differentiating the various kinds of transvestite identities.

For some reason the system keeps logging me out today, even though my computer is not dropping its connection to the internet. Rats.

Patrick0Moran 07:57, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Transvestite is an inappropriate word to use as it is loaded with notions of transvestic fetishism as well.
 * However, do you see the inaccuracy here in relating this term to transsexuals? Does a cross dresser wear clothes of the opposite sex or of the opposite gender? If it is to mean wearing clothes of the opposite gender then non/pre operative transsexuals are not crossdressers by this definition.
 * Transsexualism encompasses a lot of detail; a transsexual endeavours to wear the correct clothes (not the "opposite" clothes) take on some other characteristics appropriate to their gender identity, as well as to endeavor to have sexual reassignment surgery.
 * Do you see what I'm trying to say here? I'm not always so eloquent and can expound everything precisely. Dysprosia 08:07, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think law and language both say that a transvestite wears clothes that do not match the external genitalia. It's basically a truth in advertising issue. A guy does not want to wine and dine a gal and then discover in the hotel room that he can't do with "her" what he would like to do. But, anyway, what is a better term? The fact is that there are people with genitalia of the male sort that go out on dates, etc., wearing clothing "reserved" for people with female genitalia. They are not doing it to get sexually aroused (directly, anyway). What is their gender identity to be called and what is their gender role to be called?

(And why am I still up at 4:30 a.m.?)

Patrick0Moran 08:29, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Not all laws say that these people are transvestites.

I did not wish to imply that all laws say they are. Most laws do not even mention transvestites, and some may be enlightened enough to differentiate among various forms of transvestites.
 * A person that wears clothes appropriate to their own gender identity which is incongrouous to their sex implies that person is a transsexual.

I am not sure what you mean by "implies". If the person's gender identity is incongruous with respect to that person's external genitalia then that person is a transsexual anyway (on your definitions, which look o.k. to me). The fact that that person's gender role includes clothing that are incongruous with thap's external genitalia is evidence that the person is a transsexual to anybody who know about both the feminine attire and the external genitalia. Perhaps you mean "reveals" instead of "implies."
 * A person with gender id. congrouous to their sex and wears clothes of the opposite sex implies that person is a transvestite. People who break gender role/identity/whatever norms can be described as transgendered.

"Transgendered" is a useful term, and I am pretty sure that there are a fair number of people around who gain satisfaction from breaking norms. I rather doubt, however, that people seek legal or other retribution against people like Milton Berle who do these things to be funny, or as part of a Halloween get-up, or things of that kind. Would people call William Shatner "transgendered" because he once played a Captain Kirk whose body was taken over by an extremely bitchy female? It was a wonderful performance, but it was transient. Are there supposedly people around who wear drag 24/7 but engage in sex in the most socio-normal way (no clothes on and male genitalia meeting female genitalia)?
 * A transsexual woman's gender identity is female, and their gender role could be varied (just like any other woman). A transsexual man's gender identity is male, and their gender role could be varied (just like any other man).

Varied to the point that s/he wears clothing inappropriate to her/his gender identity?
 * Have I referred you to looking at the relationship of queer theory and gender roles as well? It may be of an aside interest. Dysprosia 08:40, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Here is what John Money has to say on this subject. I've paraphrased to avoid any copyright questions:

A transvestite is a person who cross dresses. A gynemimetic transvestite is a woman with a penis who constantly maintains a feminine gender role, and has intercourse only with male partners. An andromimetic transvestite is a man with a vagina who constantly maintains a masculine gender role, and has intercourse only with female partners. A paraphilic transvestite is someone who is capable of achieving sexual arousal only when wearing the clothing of the opposite sex. It is more common for paraphilic transvestite to engage in heterosexual intercourse, but homosexual intercourse also occurs. (See John Money, The Lovemap Guidebook, p. 70 and page 72f.)

I still don't have a term that will unproblematically specify people whose have a gender role that includes as a regular feature the wearing of clothing that is incongruous with their external genitalia. "Gynemimetic transvestite" and "andromimetic transvestite" sound awfully clinical, but maybe those are the best choices.

I think I've been logged out again. 67.30.211.95 15:16, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC) Patrick0Moran

I had a look at the queer theory article. I could not understand the first couple of sentences and decided to wait until what appears to be a logical contradiction is dealt with somehow.

Patrick0Moran 04:31, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * John Money's terms aren't very specific, and are incompatible with today's terminology. What he describes as a gynemimetic transvestite sounds a lot like a heterosexual transsexual woman, but what to describe a lesbian transsexual woman? Ditto for the andromimetic.
 * Anyway, to get to the kernel of things, we're looking for a name for people of one physiological sex who wear the clothing of the opposite sex and that these people have a gender identity incongrouous to their sex -- but is one specific gender role? The gender role article says that "gender roles [name] the behaviors and responsibilities prescribed for each gender by a society.", but these people are living their desired gender - so their gender role prescribes they wear the clothes of their desired gender.
 * In any case, you probably want either the more modern term of a transgendered person, or to be awfully precise a non-operative transsexual person
 * Queer theory, in a few words, says that the whole idea of "sex" is just as socially constructed as "gender" is. Chromosomes, hormones, physiology, of many individuals suggest that the two boxes "male" and "female" aren't enough and are inaccurate. The first sentence makes sense, based on the links, but I'll try and go and reword it so it sounds a little better. Dysprosia 04:43, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Follow up: Oh wait, you said more than that! Sorry...
 * You misunderstand transgenderism - transgenderism isn't about being funny or "wearing drag" as a joke - this sort of "recreational cross-dressing" isn't transgenderism; some transgendered people do this as a way of life and they reject these boundaries of gender. These transgendered people probably do have sex in a "socio-normal" way. Dysprosia 10:47, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Uh, no... You said, "People who break gender role/identity/whatever norms can be described as transgendered," not I. You just didn't eliminate Milton Berle, et al., in the way you formulated your statement. I guess I suspected you didn't mean to include them, but it wasn't clear to me.

By the way, are you familiar with the Daoist (Taoist if you're a traditionalist and stick to the Wade-Giles missionary position on transliteration) critique of meaning? I think it gets at the "fuzzing out" of language better than the people who have trailed in the wake of Husserl. Unfortunately the exposition in the second chapter of the Zhuang Zi (Chuang Tzu) (and pronounced more-or-less like "jwong-dz", for what it's worth) didn't make it through translation very well. I think I have my own translation of the debatable parts of that chapter around somewhere if you are interested.

Patrick0Moran 14:43, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not the most eloquent person in the world, Patrick. Allow me to try and clarify what I am trying to say. Transgender behavior includes any persistent moves to break with society's norms re gender and gender roles. So some guy who goes to a Halloween party dressed as Barbie for the night isn't really transgendered, but someone who may wear androgynous clothing persistently may be; but correctly identifying someone who is transgendered is a tricky business indeed - this keys in with Queer theory in that it's not always so easy to compartmentalize everyone - you can't really say that an ordinary heteronormative female who's into cars is transgendered because this is only one part of her identity, transgenderism is generally a presence of many behaviours &/c that transcend gender. I hope this is a bit clearer than my efforts at textual hand-waving :)

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the Daoist critique of meaning either.... Dysprosia 22:34, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with what you are saying, now that I am clear on it. The Queer Theory idea I agree with in general, or maybe it would be better to say that I have been struggling with the issues that it tries to deal with. A simple word like "man" is a trap because for some people it means "human with male external genitalia" and for others it means "some person with a masculine gender-role/id. Actually, if I am not careful I get to using it both ways in the same paragraph sometimes.

The Daoist critique appears to have started as a counter-Confucian critique of values, much like the critique that some (most, actually, I guess) Native Americans level against the values of the dominant culture. I was reading something on the winkte last night. Up to the 50s the Lakota were very much of a frame of mind to let everybody do his/her own thing on the theory that you can only use so many plumbers in a society and once in a while you may need a clown or a tightrope walker. Then the attitudes of the dominant culture started to seep in, and negative feelings toward these people started to be express, more or less in line with homophobia. At some point in a situation like this somebody needs to ask, "What makes this set of values good and that set of values bad? Did we have it better when we did things the old way?" The Daoists appear to have been asking what made the Confucian values valid. Once they started to realize that the values depended on human subjectivity, they were led to doubt the objective validity of ordinary words. An American example would be, "What is the ontological status of witches? Are they really creatures that we need to burn at the stake?" A more recent example would be a lot of things like the racial stereotypes.

Zhuang Zi compares words to the twittering of birds, suggesting that they don't really mean anything, and then he turns around and says that they are not merely expulsions of breath either. In another place he compares words to a kind of tippy wine goblet that had a hemispherical base that was heavy enough that you could fill the goblet about half way without causing problems, but if you tried to fill the goblet all the way it would exhibit its very unstable equilibrium by dumping the entire volume of wine.

In homlier language, generalizations can have a great deal of utility as long as you don't take them too seriously. It's one thing to say that people whose skin is very lightly pigmented are at higher risk for getting skin cancer than people whose skin if more heavily pigmented. That's true and suggests useful safeguards. It's quite another thing to say that all such people are sure to get skin cancer.

Back to gender roles, everybody's gender identity is different. Everybody's gender role is different. But everybody knows what the general expectations are in their own culture. Again, there is some degree of fuzz because not everybody in the culture figures things out the same way. But you wouldn't have a culture if things didn't hang together fairly well for most everybody. So a "lady with a penis" knows fairly well how to behave like a lady.

There is no problem with having a fairly consistent and reliable way for people to let each other know what their sex is without getting naked together. It saves people a lot of trouble chasing the wrong thing. (Imagine a world in which you wouldn't know whether something was an onion or an apple until you bit into it.) The problem comes when a society argues from "most are more-or-less" to "all ought to be exactly."

I mentioned Zhuang Zi because he not only was clear on this kind of thing, but also was aware that there is a methodology for putting aside ingrained preconceptions, prejudices, etc. that harm ourselves and harm other people.

Anyway, I think that I should just remove mention of "transvestites" since the main idea is not to be inclusive but to give people some clear examples of how individuals live out their sexuality by creating and/or adopting a variety of gender roles.


 * Removal of mention of transvestites sits fine with me. However I still don't understand why mention of homosexuality/butch lesbianism/bisexualism has to do with gender identity or gender roles - these are sexual orientation matters?
 * As an aside, I happen to disagree with you on the "chasing the wrong thing" matter (what is the wrong thing?), but that's not really relevant to this discussion :) Dysprosia 01:40, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The wrong thing is when you didn't like what you finally caught, I guess.

I think there is a certain amount of slippage in the meaning of gender role, and that difference fits in with the kind of thing that the gender-queer people seem to criticize. You start out with individuals with their own identities, and the way they live out their identities (as related to their myriad gender identities) is called their gender roles. So you have a myriad gender roles. Some guys chase gals, some guys chase everything, some guys chase guys, etc., etc. Then somebody comes along and says, "That's not a proper way to be. You've got to chase only what [normal] people chase. You've got to have intercourse with only what [normal] people have intercourse with." So they set up very narrow "normative" gender roles. What a man does in his life to express his gender identity is a man's gender role, what a woman does in her life to express her gender identity is a woman's gender role, and you cannot exclude sexual activity from "what they do in life".

I'm beginning to wonder whether you think one's sexual orientation is independent of one's gender identity and gender role.

Patrick0Moran 00:22, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I do: I think that one's sexual orientation is related to one's gender role, however they are not linked directly: a simple example - not all gay men are effeminate or follow the same sort of career pathways yada yada yada...
 * However I do believe that sexual orientation is completely independant of gender identity - consider (again ?) a lesbian transsexual woman and a heterosexual transsexual woman - same gender identity, different sexual orientations. Dysprosia 12:10, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Snobol's Chance in Wikihell
Thanks for the merge of Snobol and SNOBOL. Don't know if you read my plan at Talk:SNOBOL; i'm trying to decide whether to think i wasted my time writing it in such detail, or just regard it as an investment to be amortized by turning it into boilerplate & used in the probable other places where there are similar situations. It was a satisfying experiment in any case, esp'ly since your response was so quick!

I did see your plan, however, most of it is pretty normal Wikipedia procedure to merge stuff, I believe. Did I forget something?

In any case, some merging is really painful and some aren't so bad; this looked like a pretty simple case so I thought I'd do it :) Dysprosia 12:02, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)