User talk:Mx. Butterscotch

Your edit at International Non-Binary People's Day
Hi there, I just wanted to explain why I reverted your edit at International Non-Binary People's Day. My reasoning was:
 * replacing "those who do not identify with the traditional gender binary" with "those who don't fit in the flawed gender binary framework",
 * does not comply with Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. See WP:NEUTRAL.
 * replaces a valid link with a red link.
 * uses a contraction which is generally discouraged. See WP:CONTRACTIONS.


 * replacing "who do not exclusively identify as a man or a woman, or who may identify as both a man and a woman, or may identify outside of these categories altogether" with "those who are not exclusively a man or a woman, may be both a man and a woman, a combination of two or more genders, no gender, and/or all genders. One or more genders may be static or fluid (where the frequency may vary or be consistent) in intensity and/or may change partially or completely with or without one or more causes outside of conscious control",
 * is not fully supported by the existing reference. See WP:VERIFY.
 * is overly technical, wheras the existing text is a succinct, neutral summary.
 * may be based on original research. See WP:OR.

This should not discourage you from making further edits to Wikipedia, but please take this feedback on board and particularly take into account the Wikipedia policies I have linked above. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 19:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand on the latter part, but "traditional" is not neutral, it's biased against gender-diverse people. Mx. Butterscotch (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in part. "Traditional" can be considered non-neutral in some contexts. But in this context, I feel it is certainly less biased than "flawed" and in the past most societies have considered there to be only two genders. It would be accurate to say, for example, "traditionally, there are only two genders"; in this context I am talking about society's historic view of gender, but I am not saying that viewpoint is correct (for information, while I consider myself a cisgender man my partner is non-binary and this is a subject which is important to me). I am trying to think of a synonym which would be more neutral, but none seem particularly better. "Conventional", "established" and "classical" all came to mind, but could be considered similarly loaded. Perhaps you can think of a better, more neutral word? Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 21:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Funny enough, I'm nonbinary too. I'm glad you are compassionate when it comes to stuff like this. There needs to be more people like you.
 * I disagree with you, neutral language isn't really neutral, especially when it comes to the language used to describe marginalized communities, which is usually biased against them. Inclusive language is equitable language that shifts that imbalance that is deeply ingrained in all aspects of language to compensate for inequity, therefore making inclusive language neutral language. I am convinced inclusive language is one of the most important aspects of social justice and advancements to equity. It shifts people's beliefs and understandings of the world and especially to those who are in one or more marginalized communities and cause a trickle effect leading all the way to advancing human rights. It can turn a "historically marginalized community fighting for human rights" to "dangerous minorities seeking special rights to indoctrinate children" and vice versa. This form of logic also applies to institutions, systems of government, politics, society, etc given the clear evidence of the disparities in all aspects of life for marginalized communities under an "equal" system.
 * I have been doing research on the nonbinary community and inclusive language practices related to the SROGIEPC+ (LGBTQIA2S+) community as well as other marginalized communities. I can give you some other suggested edits on this page and other pages if you have any others unrelated to this one if you'd like.
 * "Flawed" acknowledges that the gender binary is pseudoscientific system that more based on social customs than actual science.
 * "Traditional" implies that gender-diverse people are somehow "new" and "trendy," invalidating and implying inferiority of genders that don't fit in the gender binary. It's also a dog whistle (e.g. "traditional" family values) often used by discriminatory SROGIEPC+ (LGBTQIA2S+) hate groups, often christian-based and far-right, that often denigrate, dehumanize, and invalidate the SROGIEPC+ community.
 * The alternative words suggested also imply a similar message.
 * Historically, gender identities outside of explicitly man and woman have been around since the beginning of humanity. They have been erased and marginalized during the era of Europe, beginning in the late 15th century with the Age of Exploration and still continues into the 20th century, attempting to dominate the world through colonization and genocide fueled by imperialism, eurocentrism, and other forms of bigotry which are still deeply ingrained in all aspects of the world.
 * Therefore, it would be more accurate and inclusive to phrase it as, "historically, genders have been reduced to two." Mx. Butterscotch (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, while Wikipedia policy does encourage inclusivity Wikipedia is not censored and content must be supported by reliable (preferably secondary or tertiary) sources. The fact that content may offend some readers is not in itself grounds for its removal or change if it is supported by reliable references. To use an extreme example, much of the content at the article nigger is likely to offend a large number of people but it is permitted as an encyclopedic article. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 22:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, while Wikipedia policy does encourage inclusivity Wikipedia is not censored and content must be supported by reliable (preferably secondary or tertiary) sources. The fact that content may offend some readers is not in itself grounds for its removal or change if it is supported by reliable references. To use an extreme example, much of the content at the article nigger is likely to offend a large number of people but it is permitted as an encyclopedic article. Adam Black talk &bull; contributions 22:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)