User talk:Maxxx12345

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Gender
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! ~ Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 23:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You made an edit, without addressing the points raised in the talk section, and did so because "because I believe the article was better before you made that change"? That's inappropriate. The two sentences blatantly contradict each other. I'm sorry, but if you prefer that contradiction, well, too bad. "Gender identity is the gender a person self-identifies as." and "Categorizing males and females into social roles creates a problem, because individuals feel they have to be at one end of a linear spectrum and must identify themselves as man or woman, rather than being allowed to choose a section in between.[24] " I'm changing it back because the choice is actually an important aspect as the paragraph goes on to note. Was this some sort of advocacy?Maxxx12345 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Boomur was right to revert you, and now I've reverted you for the reason noted in that edit summary. For the vast majority of people, gender identity is not a choice; various research supports that. The topics of gender binary and genderqueer do not stop the fact that people usually identify with a gender by age three of four; it is not a conscious choice at that age, but rather what that person feels internally is their gender. For that sentence, I will apply sources used in the Gender identity article, and those sources don't use the word choice for what gender identity is. Perhaps it is your edit, not Boomur's, that speaks of advocacy. And if you start WP:Edit warring over this matter, it will do you no favors. And do beware that I usually instantly know when an editor is not new to editing Wikipedia. You don't come across to me as new to editing Wikipedia. If you want to discuss this gender identity matter further, then take it to Talk:Gender. Do not bring this matter to my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was Trankuility who reverted you; see here. So I struck part of my post above. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, instead of using the sources from the Gender identity article for when gender identity is usually formed and it usually being very difficult to change after that point, I will add other WP:Reliable sources, and then update the Gender identity article with those sources. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that is false. There are contradictions in the article, and I noted it on the edit page. That is not a matter of advocacy by the way, Fly22, it's called fixing an inconsistency. We'll try this again.

"Categorizing males and females into social roles creates a problem, because individuals feel they have to be at one end of a linear spectrum and must identify themselves as man or woman, rather than being allowed to choose a section in between.[24]" See the word choose? It can't be both, Fly22. Choice can't be not present in the first sentence, but then present in the first sentence of the next paragraph. I'm not sure why you're having a problem seeing the contradiction here, it's quite straight forward.

Also, the Butler material would have to go too, clearly. For Butler, gender identity is more of a verb than noun. She's of course famous for her position that there is a choice that exists in gaps in regulatory norms. And I quote " Freedom, possibility, agency do not have an abstract or presocial status, but are always negotiated within a matrix of power." This is exactly WHY she can't just construct her gender willy-nilly. This is all detailed in citation, Gender Trouble.

If you don't want choice in the section, that's up to you, but then you have to take it out. Out goes the problem of limiting choice due to categorizing males and females into social roles. Out goes Butler's stance of choice and how it's limited by regulatory norms.

That's not advocacy, Fly22, that's pointing out a blatant contradiction. And by the way, I DID mention this on the Gender talk page and did NOT bring it to your page. You were the one that brought it to mine. Apparently this needs to be brought to someone else's attention because the obvious inconsistency in the section should be fixed.Maxxx12345 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Different beliefs among people about what gender identity is should be in the Gender article. We include different definitions and views of biological sex, gender and gender identity in the Gender article, just like we include different definitions and views of domestic violence in the Domestic violence article. We include WP:Notable definitions and views in articles that have more than one definition or view for a topic. You have once again cited the topic of gender binary, as if that changes the fact that people usually identify with a gender by age three of four; in the usual case, it is not a conscious choice at that age (except for natural gender variance aspects that can happen as a child is exploring what it means to be a boy or a girl), but rather what that person feels internally is their gender. You act like not including the words choice or chooses to for the sentence you challenged means that we are stating that people are born with a gender identity; it's not a matter of "you are born this way or you are raised this way"; it is a complex combination of biology and environment, just like sexual orientation is. You want to call gender identity a choice, when it is, in fact, not a choice for the vast majority of people. That is the problem with your edit. Leaving the words "chooses to" out of describing gender identity is not a problem; stating "Gender identity is the gender a person identifies as." is neutral, and does not speak of whether gender identity is a choice or not. Stating "Gender identity is the gender a person chooses to self-identifies as." is not neutral. And has a grammar problem with the word self-identifies; should be self-identify.


 * And as for why I told you to not bring this matter to my talk page: You took the matter to Boomur's talk page. Article matters should ideally be dealt with at the article talk page. I prefer to keep talk page discussions centralized; see WP:TALKCENT. Further, stating or implying that editors are engaging in WP:Advocacy with regard to this gender identity topic, as you have done above and here, should stop. My user page is very clear that I do not tolerate WP:Advocacy. I am going by what the overwhelming majority of research states of gender identity; WP:Due weight and all that. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that there should be an inclusion of differing views on the subject within the section, that's not the problem. The problem is that the section is inconsistent in trying to describe WHAT the subject matter is in fact. Nothing I've addressed limited this in any way, even though the section is clearly not developed to such a point. In defining the section, X, there are clearly predicates of c and ~c, and that of course is a problem. In no way did I cite gender binary: choice regarding self identification in no way entails a binary or mutually exclusive disjunct. In fact, I stated just the opposite, several times, in noting the sentence detailing how societal roles deny choice, which as the sentences illustrates can take place on a continuum. (Which by the way is how I self identify so do NOT tell me I supporting or advocating for an opposing view.) Again, I added choice because that's how the section defines the subject. And AGAIN, if you do not wish that to be the case, you need to remove much of the section. I keep noting this problem, but for some reason it seems to be ignored, as if that somehow solves the inconsistency problem. One hardly need be an expert in first order predicate logic to illustrate the problems in the section, they are in fact quite obvious.

I've posted for another editor to review the section and address the clear contradictions in defining the section. With all due respect, you're either intentionally not addressing some straight forward contradictions, or just failing to see them (which could be my failing also for not describing them clearly enough). We'll simply have another professional philosophy, there are many here, view the contradictions for themselves, they're not hard to spot.Maxxx12345 (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You cited the gender binary aspect by citing the "Categorizing males and females into social roles creates a problem, because individuals feel they have to be at one end of a linear spectrum and must identify themselves as man or woman, rather than being allowed to choose a section in between.[24]" line. I'm not sure what your point is, but you should copy and paste your latest reply there at the Gender talk page, like I did, and keep the discussion there instead of at different places. Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see the problem. I'm not citing the binary paradigm as a position, Fly22. Instead my impression is that's something you assumed because that was part of the topic of that sentence, which with all due respect intended, does raise a bit of a red flag. What I noted was that the as the sentence states, one of the problems with that position is that it limits (some would argue eliminates) choice. It's explaining what the problem with that approach is: it limits (or eliminates) CHOICE. The same holds with the Butler material, as I've stated a few times now. These positions are explaining HOW choice is involved, WHY it is involved, and even as this sentence we're discussing, the PROBLEM of limiting CHOICE.

Think of this way, Fly22. The opening sentence does not include choice in definition, yet much of the rest of the section goes on to explain how choice is involved, why choice is import, how it's limited and a with the binary paradigm how a PROBLEM with the model is that it limits choice. This is, clearly, contradictory and is in NO way whatsoever advocating for any position.

You are, certainly, advocating a specific view, which is fine. In fact, I'd MUCH prefer to see various approaches included in the section. The problem is though you want your position to be included in the opening sentence, but then not applying that position through the rest of the section that actually goes on to expand the opening sentence in detail.

Again, there are just problems of consistency in this article. I'm sorry you do not seem them, but they are fact somewhat stark: the opening sentence, according to your edit, does not include choice even though the rest of the article goes on to expand on the inclusion of choice, and in some detail.

So, as noted, let's just let another philosophy with training in logic examine how the opening sentence, the thesis, does not include choice in a section which goes on to give a somewhat detailed examination of the inclusion of choice.Maxxx12345 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Almost forgot, what I posted on the talk page is still there, it's just that you, and others, have simply not responded.Maxxx12345 (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Maxxx12345, I'm not advocating anything, at least in the sense of WP:Advocacy. It would also be best if you not take a condescending approach. I reiterate that leaving the words "chooses to" out of describing gender identity for the first sentence in that section is not a problem; it is neutral because it is not speaking of whether gender identity is a choice or not. It's simply noting that gender identity is the gender a person self-identifies as; that is correct and neutral. When "chooses to" is included, it is stating that gender identity is a choice, which is not neutral. That section is making a point about how the gender binary plays a part in forming gender identity; the gender binary does play a part in that. That it plays a part in it does not make gender identity purely a choice; I've been clear about that above. Gender identity, except for in the case of genderqueer (when an adolescent or an adult selects one of the fairly new gender identities of today), is a complex combination of biology and environment. Whatever "choice" is made by age three or four regarding gender identity, it is not a conscious/deliberate choice like the topic of genderqueer is. The David Reimer case is a clear-cut example of that. It's similar with the topic of third gender, except that the cultures in those cases have more than two standard gender identities that they might identify with, and stick with, from a very early age.


 * Like I stated above, this discussion should continue at the Gender talk page if it is to continue; I won't discuss it in two different places. I don't think that I'll be discussing this topic with you much more beyond this, though. I'm going to leave a note at the Gender talk page that you keep replying at your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

After recent events, I'm going to request you stop contacting me, including following me on Wikipedia and making personal comments about me. This matter has been brought to the attention of others via the proper channels. Maxxx12345 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously, so now you have taken the matter to WP:ANI? That is completely inappropriate, and I will let others handle that matter by telling you so or ignoring you. When you are commenting on matters about an editor, especially an editor as familiar with Wikipedia as I am, then expect that editor to comment on those matters as well, including defending their name when you call them an advocate as you did here. Leave you alone? Gladly. But do be aware that I am involved with a lot of areas on Wikipedia and have a lot of topics, Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and other Wikipedia pages on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Look over Objectification
Hi, Could you possibly take a look the the Objectification Article I've done most of the work to get it where it is and you seem knowligeable enough to give insight

--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I completely forgot to do that, but will try to help. Maxxx12345 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)