User talk:Sxologist/Archive 1

Cite page numbers
Cite page numbers when you add book sources. And, preferably, link to those page numbers. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Which citation is in question? Sxologist (talk) Sxologist (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You should be adding citations to all of the book sources you've added. For example, where are the page numbers for this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. I will get the page number now. It does have the entire pdf available in Google books from which I got the reference. Sxologist (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thesciencenewsonline
Are you this editor? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Sxologist (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you aren't new. I'm sure I'll figure it out eventually. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * And in the meantime, do try to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for medical/biomedical material. Part of this means avoiding primary sources. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is also clear about primary sources. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have made previous edits without an account but I just wanted to ensure I edited as a user going forward. Thank you for clarification regarding sources. Sxologist (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I checked edits made by that profile and they are seemingly anti-gay. I do not hold such a stance. Sxologist (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Previous editing
Sxologist, have you edited before under another username? Many of your edits show a familiarity with Wikipedia procedures and policies, and even some arcane essays (as in this edit summary) that would be very unusual for an editor whose first edit was less than two weeks ago. Can you disclose your previous editing history here? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have not had a prior username. I have edited without an account on small grammatical corrections in the past which are unrelated to the topics I have focused on now. I have tried to find the specific IP which links to corrections but have been unable to do so because it was probably 2 edits in 2019. Also, I had to be corrected by Flyer in terms of correct citations, but have since stuck to providing sources to meet standards. I think the fact I am a first time editor is apparent. When you say "arcane essays" do you mean to imply that the edit summary is not up to standard? If so I apologize and will adjust edit summaries accordingly. Is there documentation you can point me to on how an edit summary should be written? Thanks, Sxologist (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I also want to add on the topic of "not editing like a newbie". I have simply taken precaution to edit in a fashion similar to others with a long history of editing so that my edits will be constructive. This includes looking at other users contributions and checking what is appropriate, and googling the wikipedia policies when required. Flyer did point me in the right direction regarding these at the start so I have tried to stick to that, perhaps giving the image I am an experienced editor. It's simply me trying to be a good editor. It is apparent that I was too aggressive in some instances, and that is duly noted. Consensus is important. Thanks --Sxologist (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy attribution
Thanks for your contributions to Biology and sexual orientation. Thanks in particular, for your use of the edit summary in this edit to indicate that material was copied from Environment and sexual orientation. You have good instincts; that's exactly what we're supposed to do, when copying material from one Wikipedia article to another. In fact, it's obligatory (stronger than guideline or policy) based on Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Copying is explained at WP:Copying within Wikipedia, and although your edit summary covered the minimum requirement, if you'd like to follow the recommended text for use in your edit summaries, you'll find it there. Same thing if you happen to do translations from other Wikipedias; in that case, some suggested text is at WP:TFOLWP. For every edit in which you copy or translate material, just add the boilerplate to the edit summary; each and every time. If you ever do a copy, and forget to supply the copy attribution in the edit summary, you can still go back and add it later: see WP:RIA. Although not a requirement, it's considered a courtesy to also add a copied template on the article Talk page, for each unique source file from which you copied material. (There's also a translated template.) Hope this helps, and keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Sxologist (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your sandbox in the context of public space
Regarding this? Like I stated, it is public...just like this sandbox that is currently being worked on because of my and an editor's comments at Talk:Dissociative identity disorder is public. It is not against WP:Talk or any other guideline or policy to mention your sandbox there. It is against WP:Talk for you to remove my post like you did. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

As for taking the matter to your talk page, it did not occur to me that you would be offended or uncomfortable by me mentioning your sandbox. Also, I am in the habit of discussing article matters on article talk pages. I wanted to go ahead and address that aspect in case you edited the section in question very soon. This means that I wouldn't have to address it after the fact (after it's already been added). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I responded here. Thanks. Sxologist (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Merging discussions
Hi there, just wondering if it's time to take the merge requests from Talk:Gina Rippon to WP:ANRFC? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * absolutely, but I have no idea how to do that. There are a lot of pages involved. Sxologist (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do... -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The other ones might not have had sufficient comments to be honest, so might be best to leave those for longer, but I'll see about the Gina Rippon one itself at least. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright
Regarding what happened here, I know I've pasted passages longer than that into talk pages, but I think the crucial difference is that when I did so it was in the context of quoting and attributing the quote to the source. You'll want to be careful to avoid doing that, even though copy and paste is so easy, and restate it your own words. This applies to all pages, even userspace, as I understand it. Not sure how they find about such things. Crossroads -talk- 01:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, lol oops ;) they must have an autotool. My bad I know WP is quite stringent re: copyright. Sxologist (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Twinkle
Hey, seeing this, I thought I'd introduce you to WP:Twinkle. It has a rollback-equivalent function. You simply enable it under Preferences > Gadgets. It has a lot of other useful features too. Crossroads -talk- 02:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahh – thanks Crossroads that's brilliant. Sxologist (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Barbara Bergmann bibliography
Hello Sxologist. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Barbara Bergmann bibliography, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page is not a disambiguation page, or disambiguates two or more extant pages. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I am puzzled why you moved Barbara Bergmann bibliography into Draftspace. Draftspace for new articles, and the bibliography article was started in April 2015. There may well be good reasons for the bibliography's draftication. Could you possibly set out what those reasons are? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, moving to draftspace is for new articles. If an article has been around for a while like this, your best options are WP:MERGE, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD. Crossroads -talk- 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

 * Support unblock. The totality of evidence is against them being the same person. The timing does not work out, as I said at the ANI thread started by an IP who is pro-fringe and may themselves be a sock. As also noted there and above, the POV does not line up at all. The ISP match is not sufficient evidence, since millions of people can share an ISP. Crossroads -talk- 22:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads -talk- 22:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum - if Sxologist is FKC, this would mean that FKC, months before he was ever taken to ANI and had no reason to think he would ever be blocked, created another account and then actively used it against his POV, used it to argue against himself directly, and then after FKC was blocked, then continued to use this other account against what FKC always stood for. This makes no sense. Having the same ISP is not sufficient evidence for a block when the behavioral evidence contradicts it so strongly. And as someone who edits the topic area and is familiar with both editors, I will testify that these are definitely different editors, with Sxologist being new and inexperienced. I've filed several SPI cases where the behavioral evidence actually was super compelling, and the accounts were SPAs, and still no block was given. Since this is a helpful editor who works within policies and guidelines, then we should be all the more cautious. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * could you please take a look, since you were the one who blocked me? I don't know if this means anything but Freeknowledgecreator used to have a New Zealand badge on their user page, and I am also from New Zealand. Sxologist (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote this up in case FKC appealed his block:

Arthur Janov
 * Skoojal: Special:Diff/227799419 alphabetizing categories
 * FKC: Special:Diff/566136004 alphabetizing categories

Frederick Crews
 * Skoojal: Special:Diff/215234798, Special:Diff/215235403 "tidy"
 * Taste of Tears: Special:Diff/248345002, Special:Diff/253314444 "tidy"
 * FKC: Special:Diff/753412622 "tidy"

Camille Paglia
 * Skoojal: Special:Diff/21880285 "shifting this sentence"
 * Devil Goddess: Special:Diff/250775816 "shift sentence"
 * FKC: Special:Diff/720331102 "shift sentence"

Sigmund Freud
 * Skoojal: Special:Diff/227773118 "alphabetical order", Special:Diff/227743752 "alphabetical order ... shifted", Special:Diff/227743362 "not a philosopher ... rearranging categories in alphabetical order"
 * Polisher of Cobwebs: Special:Diff/505059825 "shifted influences into alphabetical order"
 * ImprovingWiki: Special:Diff/636443577 "shift material"
 * FKC: Special:Diff/821640116, Special:Diff/746489992 "not a philosopher"

In general
 * Skoojal: Special:Diff/222994664, "shifting material, tidying"
 * FKC: Special:Diff/780143023, Special:Diff/780143527 "shift material"
 * ImprovingWiki: Special:Diff/636443577 "shift material to a better location"
 * PoC: Special:Diff/407364261, Special:Diff/408846763 "shifted material"

Notice how the socks constantly "shift", "tidy", and "tweak" content? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's decent evidence against those accounts, but Sxologist isn't listed there at all, so it isn't evidence against him. Crossroads -talk- 22:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * NinjaRobotPirate, what does that have to do with my account? As Crossroads points out... I'm not listed anywhere? You have not reviewed the long history of Skoojal going after my edits. Here's two I just pulled from a single article. FKC undid edit here, and Crossroads corrected him. Another time FKC reverted my edit THREE MINUTES after I published it??? We come from polar opposite ends of the spectrum, he literally has povpushed conversion therapy through every single account, where as I have consistently edited along mainstream lines. When I have edited similar articles to him, its because 90% of the article will have been written exclusively by him and they are so badly skewed in one direction that I occasionally tried to remove a fringe statement. This is pretty bizarre since I actually quietly suggested somebody might be a FKC sock here on Flyers talk page. Further, judging by the comments on your talk page you also appear to say that it's something to do with my ISP. I live in New Zealand (where FKC was from, according to his old Wikipedia profile). We have a few major dominant ISP's, and in fact, most of the companies just feed their internet from a major ISP (Spark). Sxologist (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * More evidence that I'm not Skoojal/Freeknowledgecreator:
 * I had a long winded argument with Freeknowledgecreator about his POV pushing on a book promoting gay conversion therapy, where I accused him of quote mining and undue weight (keep in mind this is DURING his review where he attempted to achieve good article status).
 * I made a list of about 15 articles that FKC had made and asked to get them all merged for undue weight, POV and fringe views on "curing homosexuality". can attest to the fact that I am not FKC.
 * Freeknowledgecreator undoes my edit 3 mins after making it
 * FKC undoes another one of my edits here
 * I asked Flyer and Crossroads about somebody being a potential sock of FKC and we discuss why it won't be him.
 * I can get a lot more if you really want, but these should make my point pretty obvious... I also point to Crossroads addendum comment above. Sxologist (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ultimately I believe someone other than NinjaRobotPirate makes the decision to officially answer the unblock request. If you have any more cases where you argued against FKC, I'd encourage you to add them, even though this is probably enough. But still, the more the better. Crossroads -talk- 22:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * More evidence I am not Skoojal/FKC:
 * I restored old sections of the Simon LeVay article (a gay neuroscientist) whose article had significant portions previously deleted by FKC.
 * I made a comment to a user about how KFC had been blocked as a socky, and I note: "Freeknowledgecreator was just banned as a sock puppet, and his editing from his other socks is telling. I'm not impressed by a large write up implying I'm somehow 'angry' about the book - simply because I am familiar with the research on the (research of the) etiology of sexual orientation"
 * I reinstated a large section the George Rekers scandal on the NARTH article, which FKC had previously removed (albeit for citation problems). But FKC appeared to defend a lot of NARTH related articles, and created articles on the books of many of their key founders.
 * Freeknowledgecreator undid my edit to rearrange an article.
 * There are plenty more out there. He undid my edits sometimes minutes after I had made them. We had a volume of back and forth on talk pages, I consistently tagged other users to ask about whether or not his edits were fair or not, I criticized his edits during his reviews for good article status and so on. Simply having an interest in the same topics doesn't mean that I am him. FKC consistently pushed his freudian religious interpretation of sexuality – whereas mine is actually informed by *evidence*. I am glad Crossroads has said my edits were useful, and, quite rightly points out that I was an inexperienced editor when I started in March. This block makes no sense. Sxologist (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple more pieces of evidence:
 * Here, for example, we see that FKC had Twinkle. Sxologist did not until recently, and had to manually request rollback: I then introduced him to Twinkle:  A sock would have (re-)discovered Twinkle themselves.
 * Sxologist adds this material, to which FKC affixes a "fact" tag to the last portion. A sock would have had a ref note there from the start, or else not tagged their own material for problems. Crossroads -talk- 23:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know much about how Wikipedia identifies sockpuppets, but I can say that I have consistently found Sxologist to be a conscientious, thoughtful, and civil Wikipedian. Is there truly evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is actually Skoojal/FreeKnowledgeCreator? - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  23:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mark. Sxologist (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , best that you read the above in detail. CheckUser can detect ISP (internet company), IP address, and device details, as I understand it. Only the ISP has been stated to match. Tons of editors will naturally share ISPs. The behavioral evidence above shows that they are not the same person. Given your interactions with both users, you can speak as to whether you think they are the same person, and whether you support an unblock. Crossroads -talk- 23:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did read this entire page, and I've been trying to find the "evidence" that Sxologist = FKC = Skoojal, but I see no such evidence. So I do indeed support unblocking Sxologist.

The anonymous IP person on the other hand sure looks like a troublemaker. - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  23:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  23:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked
Thank you for unblocking me NinjaRobotPirate. I do want to respond to "I find it a bit strange that you would edit the same topics, from the same ISP, and use similar edit summaries". It's not strange that gay men might edit in articles related to sexual orientation (albeit, I work in a field related to this area, whereas FKC appears to read a lot of freud). I also did go through some of their edit history and checked several articles (and made tweaks) because they did so much pov pushing (although I have mostly left their freud type articles alone because not many people care about freud). As for edit summaries, I think using the word 'shifting' and 'tidying' is not a match. I actually accused another person of being a sock of Skoojal/FKC [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flyer22_Frozen#Potential_sock? here] because they also used the phrase " Thank you, but..." every time they reverted an edit – which is a much more unique identifier (albeit, I was probably being a sockophobe). Thanks to Crossroads and Mark for coming to my defense. Every time someone makes a sketchy edit to such articles I sometimes get suspicious they are FKC, so it was a real shock to wake up and be blocked as a potential sock of freeknowledgecreator lol. I do see that Skoojal did take on personalities, but they were often so blatant and poorly done, for example, usernames like "reparative therapy survivor" and "born gay" but they'd then go make a bunch of edits to pov-push that reparative therapy might actually be a good thing. Also, we may have the same ISP but it's likely that Flyer22 Frozen would also have the same ISP because they too, are from New Zealand. I am surprised so many people who edit these articles are from New Zealand – but coincidences do happen. Sxologist (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yay! :O)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  00:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Glad to have you back. And I appreciate that NinjaRobotPirate reconsidered the situation. Maybe people in New Zealand say "tidy" more or something. I know of one case where an editor was blocked for socking because a family member in their household was messing around, resulting in a CheckUser match, but they did get unblocked. So you're not the only one to get caught up in something like this. Wikipedians can sometimes be on edge about sockpuppetry because it is such a time consuming issue the way POV pushers and trolls will often keep coming back. Side note: I'm not aware of anywhere that Flyer22 Frozen has said she is from New Zealand. Crossroads -talk- 00:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand being unjustly blocked. Sorry that happened to you. I'm not from New Zealand, though. I was born in one area (as we all are, LOL), traveled and lived in other parts of the world, and am currently back where I was born (been back for years now). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol oops, Flyer and Crossroads – I see where I messed up. I saw this comment on your talk page once (here) and must've misread it to mean "we in New Zealand" – but you were talking about typing NZ. And yes Crossroads, I think 'tidy' is quite a common word here, much like referring to something as 'wee' when it is small or brief in nature. Thanks for your comments! Sxologist (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

John Colapinto
Hi. How are you? I wanted to ask you why the modification should be reversed? The Money thing was not an experiment, it was a treatment. Since it was not the first time he did it, he had several treatments successfully, only in this case it failed. An error that he surely made by taking a patient with eight months of primary socialization as a patient, among other things. A greeting. Aristidetorchia1666 (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Performed several successful treatments * Aristidetorchia1666 (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * can you please cite these successful treatments by John Money, of surgically assigning natal males with regular genitalia into females, prior to the Reimer case? Considering Reimer was only informed he really was born male during his teenage years, it seems Money would have needed a very long time to assess the "success" of wherever these cases are, prior to the experiment on David. Sxologist (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Por supuesto. En el libro "Errores Sexuales del Cuerpo y Síndromes Relacionados" John Money describe varios de estos casos en los que tuvo éxito, especialmente con personas hermafroditas, o con microfalosomía. Aún así, es verdad que esto esta prácticamente inédito; por lo que se dificulta su verificación y es comprensible que usted me corrija o revierta la edición. Además, también se suma el problema de que no hay referencias en internet a todos los libros de Money en los que se ve esto. De todas formas, pronto voy a sacar un artículo junto con una sexologa muy prestigiosa que conoció en persona durante años a Money. Ni bien este terminado, trataré de avisarle, así tal vez pueda servir de referencias; ya que recientemente descubrí que se les da mucha importancia; lo que me parece excelente, porque hace a este sitio bastante más confiable. Un saludo y muchas gracias por responderme. PS: Esto lo escribí en español porque no se absolutamente nada de inglés. Espero que internet se lo traduzca automáticamente, ya que, sería terrible escribir algo así en vano... Aristidetorchia1666 (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Casi me olvidó. El hospital Johns Hopkins, fue uno de los lugares en los que más trabajos con éxito realizó. Aristidetorchia1666 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello thank you for clarifying. I am aware of John Money’s work on hermaphrodites. Please note that Money’s work involving intersex is not the same as a reassignment of a boy who did not have intersex condition. Reimer’s genitalia were in regular condition at birth. Intersex conditions are linked to different receptivity and exposure to testosterone in utero, meaning they are not comparable – and thus the David Reimer case was considered an experiment, especially because it had a co-twin for control measures. I also want to note that John Money’s work involving Intersex people is hugely controversial, and the practise of reassigning intersex people is not considered medically sound anymore – in fact, it had many poor outcomes – and intersex people struggle with infections in their surgically created vaginas, confusion about who they are, the insistence that they are one sex and not the other. I really don’t think you are aware of the malpractice that Money engaged in to “prove” it was a success. He did not report accurately on the outcomes. And quite ironically, in the 1950’s Money wrote his PhD dissertation in which he followed intersex people who did not have sex-reassignment surgeries. Money reports on how they had perfectly good outcomes, how they were happy and how they certainly seemed well adjusted to the world. That was the same dissertation that got him hired at Johns Hopkins, and clearly, he changed his mind (it is thought he did so for ideological reasons). Money was very attached to his experiment and defended it, lied about it, and mislead others – for a variety of reasons for which we can only speculate (my bet is on the fame he garnered). I am wondering if this other sexologist you are referring to is Ken Zucker, and his micropenis cases? They’re nearly all attracted to women, but many have stayed in the female identity. Why? It might have something to do with the fact that a micropenis is associated with irregular testosterone exposure in the womb. For the men who did have normal testosterone exposure, but had botched circumcisions and malformed penises, you can see a table here which shows the outcomes of sex-reassignment. Given our language differences, I will not be surprised if something I have written is translated incorrectly. I hope I clarified why it is considered an experiment, not a treatment. To reiterate: it’s an experiment because it was the first medically reported case to have regular intact genitalia (and thus correct brain testosterone exposure), and it had an identical twin control.  Sxologist (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Claro, tiene sentido. Es verdad que fue el primer caso, en más de un sentido. También se le suma la edad de David, que es de 8 meses y podría haber tenido una suficiente socialización con sus significantes para desarrollar el género. Con el tema del hermano, también concuerdo, además pudo haber tenido conductas de imitación y sentir atracción por ser igual a él. Creo que otro factor relevante es el alcoholismo de la madre, pero eso ya no estaba en manos de Money, lo escribo nada más para poder entender por qué no resultó. Con respecto a sus operaciones, por supuesto, yo no estoy de acuerdo con el, pienso que cada ser humano es libre de decidir que quiere hacer con su cuerpo; pero entiendo que Money vivió una época en la que la religión, la falta de consideración del niño como sujeto de derecho, y el acoso hacia las personas con anomalías o diferentes a los demás; influirán a tal nivel que Money habrá pensado que estaba haciendo lo mejor por sus pacientes, hablo solo de los que eran intersexuales. En cierta forma, si uno piensa en la psicología en general, no muchos de los representantes de cada escuela fueron del todo éticos. Tenemos a Watson y el caso de Alberto de 11 meses; tenemos a Piaget y a sus hijos; y están los investigadores que realizaron los experimentos acerca del sueño paradójico y el sueño lento. Creo que no se me ocurren más ejemplos. Personalmente, creo que erramos al criticar a una persona con nuestra mirada actual, ya que todo fue diferente en ese momento y además, de cierta forma, es parte de la vida de todo ser humano equivocarse. Creo que Freud una vez dijo, hablando de Breuer, que a pesar de que el hubiera tenido lagunas en su teoría, no se lo debía criticar; pues si uno alguna vez encuentra una teoría sin errores es más probable que sea fruto de la especulación, que una teoría fiable. Por otro lado, quiero aclarar, que yo no busco justificar los tratamientos de Money; yo lo que quiero es que la gente entienda que Money no se equivocaba al hablar del género como una construcción social. Y le explicó la razón por la cual me aventuró con vehemencia hacía esto. Hoy en día, los opositores de la identidad de genero como construcción social (es decir, las personas que lo ven como disforia o enfermedad); utilizan el caso Raimer, como argumento en contra de esta. Ya que, resulta de gran conveniencia hablar del mismo creador de la teoría de la identidad de genero y de que falló en su experimento. Entiende la complicación? Por eso siento que no debemos centrarnos en criticar los tratamientos, que los podemos considerar antieticos, sino que debemos centrarnos en defender la teoría que varios fanáticos religiosos y conservadores utilizan como argumento en contra de LGBT+. Esto me lo estoy tomando personal a pesar de ser heterosexual, porque odio que los transexuales sufran tanto acoso y bullying. Un saludo, y gracias por leerme. Aristidetorchia1666 (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Saying that "gender is a social construct" is a belief, not a statement of fact. You write: "Ya que, resulta de gran conveniencia hablar del mismo creador de la teoría de la identidad de genero y de que falló en su experimento. Entiende la complicación? Por eso siento que no debemos centrarnos en criticar los tratamientos, que los podemos considerar antieticos, sino que debemos centrarnos en defender la teoría que varios fanáticos religiosos y conservadores utilizan como argumento en contra de LGBT+. Esto me lo estoy tomando personal a pesar de ser heterosexual, porque odio que los transexuales sufran tanto acoso y bullying. Un saludo, y gracias por leerme" – I don't agree. Wikipedia is supposed to just reflect reliable secondary sources and not be about your own opinion. I don't know why you would want to defend John Money. A lot of trans people don't like him. If somebody uses the David Reimer case as evidence against people being able to transition, they are stupid. Money forcibly transitioned a male boy. It's a bit different if a boy feels like a female on his own accord, and wants to transition. Sxologist (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Pero es que, yo no estoy justificando el experimento. A mí me interesa la teoría, que es la que se defiende hoy en día como una construcción social. No es un hecho, por usted ya sabe, me imagino, que las ciencias sociales pueden crear leyes, pero al no complot los requisitos epistemológicos de repetitividad y objetividad; no pueden hacerse hechos, como en el caso de las ciencias naturales. Money es secundario, yo lo que trato de defender es la construcción de la identidad, a través de Money, que es su creador; ahora, si hizo cosas antieticas, eso es algo en lo que no me centro. Si la discusión estuviera de esa parte, por supuesto que pensaría que no fue el mejor proceder. En cuento a lo que dije, de centrarnos en defender la teoría, no pretendía escribir eso en Wikipedia, era una aclaración general; ya que veo muchas personas que se centran en criticarlo y no en ver lo que si hizo bien. Pero en absoluto pensaba escribirlo en Wikipedia. Lo usan el caso, y lo peor es que cada vez que alguna persona trata de argumentar en contra, siempre pierde el debate. Algo que posiblemente no fallaría si esto fuera un hecho, pero como no lo es, es necesario tomar todo lo que tengamos al alcancé para defender el argumento. El tema de que afirme al genero como una construcción social, es porque hoy en día, la mayoría de los profesionales lo consideran así. Aristidetorchia1666 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Al no cumplir los requisitos epistemológicos* Aristidetorchia1666 (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Church Militant (website)
The talk page section is. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 03:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

En qué queda la cuestión?
Realmente no se que podría haberle molestado de lo que le expliqué. A parte de pensar que estoy siendo subjetivo en cuanto a mi opinión de John Money, lo que no necesariamente implicaba que yo quisiera escribir algo de mi propia opinion en Wikipedia. Aún así, antes de que borrara nuestra conversación, le hable de los requisitos epistemológicos, que en el fondo cometen todos los psicólogos porque es parte de la ciencia en si misma. Incluso, aunque no lo crea, usted a hablado desde su subjetividad de John Money; con algún que otro comentario no carente de ironía (o al menos de comillas, para que se interprete mejor). Pero en ese momento nosotros realmente estábamos debatiendo un poco sobre nuestra opinión, yo sinceramente sentía que estábamos compartiendo conocimientos, dejando algo de lado lo de la edición. Por eso le comenté sobre Watson, porque de alguna manera, cuando un psicólogo comete un error siempre se lo detractar de antietico, y eso es subjetivo. Lo que realmente sucedió en el debate, hablamos sobre la cuestión de que no correspondía a una persona decidir el futuro de un intersexual. Yo coincido con usted, por supuesto, a mí me parece que la libertad es lo primero. Pero eso no significa que eso que hayamos dicho no fuera subjetivo, ya que, realmente lo era. Lo objetivo habria sido no criticar las acciones de Money, así hubiera provocado el peor de los errores. Un saludo, y espero que no se enojé, sentí que en sus últimas respuestas había un deje de cólera; y, realmente, lo lamento mucho, ya que quería hablar con usted de buen grado. Aristidetorchia1666 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello I am not angry, I just presumed the conversation was over since I didn't have much else to say and there's nothing I can really do. Our conversation was archived, not deleted. You can see it here. I hope that helps :) Sxologist (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Está bien, gracias. Solo quería dejar en claro, que mi intención no era vandalizar la página, sino escribir lo que yo conocía de la información. Pero es verdad que el tema del idioma afecta bastante lo que se puede entender. Un saludo y muchas gracias. Aristidetorchia1666 (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Your addition to Gregory Cochran has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

So you removed it because Crain republished the Out article, which he wrote, on his own site? That has nothing to do with me, I quoted it correctly. The citation could have been easily changed to simply say Out magazine? Sxologist (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) no you did not literally quote it all. (2) I removed it because it's a copyright violation. It's okay to use short quotations, but it's not okay to copy the surrounding prose. (3) It's not okay to use a copyvio as a citation. see WP:ELNEVER: "Policy: material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation." You can cite the original article, but don't offer a link to the copy hosted at steamthing.com. Out Magazine owns the copyright to the article.— Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. And to be clear, I did tweak my inclusion of the content to remove most of the remaining prose before it was removed. Sxologist (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)