User talk:Vrg2074

Vrg2074 (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC) (i.e. this is the beginning of my post) Hello and thanks for the message. I hope I'm posting in the right place, but I'm new to editing on Wikipedia. I received a message from Beccaynr, who ended by saying I was welcome to discuss this or any editing matter with them (or her/him). I hope, therefore, that I'm addressing Beccaynr, but this isn't the username that appears to have removed my edits. The reversion to the older (and incorrect) version of the article does not seem to have been punitive, and the message from Beccaynr states that I'm not being criticised for the changes I made.

However, the message still reads like a veiled warning, as if I need to tread more carefully than usual, when dealing with gender-identity issues, for fear of 'sanctions'. I hope I wasn't being given a friendly warning about changing the 'preferred pronouns' of a trans-identified person. I do not recognise preferred pronouns and neither should Wikipedia.

The edits I made were minimal. But they were not easy. I put a lot of thought into them. They were as gentle as I could make them. For example, I added only the word 'questionable' next to 'Women's rights' on the list of Shon Faye's Subjects. In fact, transgender rights amount to nothing less than an out-and-out assault on women's rights, and this is far from questionable. Notwithstanding my mild and cautious wording, this and all the other edits were removed/reverted in next to no time. What a surprise.

Did I spot a 'LOL'? What does this mean: '@19:32, 7 September 2021‎ -sche talk contribs‎ 11,271 bytes −6‎ lol. Undid revision 1042981759 by Vrg2074 (talk) - rvv undo Tag: Undo'?

My changes should not have been removed and this is not a matter of anger or wounded vanity. It is far more serious: Wikipedia is violating its own rules. And none of this is a matter of opinion.

Wikipedia states that contributors must not peddle ideology or attempt to recruit supporters to their cause, whatever it may be. Certainly not to cults; certainly not to dangerous fads. How does Wikipedia, then, justify the presence of Shon Faye's page, as it stands? Or that of Eddie Izzard? (I wanted to change the 'preferred' pronouns to the correct ones there, too, but a padlock has been put on to prevent editing.) Readers -- children, and many adults unversed in the confusing ways of gender ideology -- may read these articles and come away believing that Shon Faye is LITERALLY a woman; or that Eddie Izzard was only erroneously considered a cross-dresser, when he was actually, LITERALLY, female all along. Or not: female, in fact, when he decided he felt like it. (To be fair, Eddie Izzard is so butch-looking that it's fairly unlikely that everyone would think him a woman, but many would get very confused.) How can an ENCYCLOPEDIA collude in the wilful blurring of literal and figurative? For a trans-identified male -- often called a transwoman -- is, at best, only metaphorically a woman: a 'woman' as a loose, quirky way of talking. Just as a man who is an 'old queen' is not thereby admitted to the monarchy.

The transgender ideology is mean, aggressive and misogynistic. Please note that I will not say 'I think' or 'IMHO' before any of what I write. Again, this is not a matter of opinion. (I haven't got time or space to argue all of this, but there's evidence everywhere.) Sexual difference between male and female is not a matter of opinion. To maintain otherwise is ideological. Wikipedia is there to present facts. It may not always succeed. I do not always succeed. But accuracy is the handmaiden of truth and truth matters. I should not have to say this to Wikipedia, as you should know this already. You DO know it already: it's in your rules. Not in so many words, but it's all there, implicit.

And while I'm on the implicit: to go along with Shon Faye's preferred (i.e. inaccurate) pronouns is to purvey unacknowledged ideology. It is not a fact that Shon Faye is a woman. It is a fact that he calls himself one, or calls himself a transwoman, perhaps. To report this is accurate. But Wikipedia does not do so, and thus offers itself as a -- what? Mouthpiece? Sockpuppet? -- for transgender ideology. In so doing, Wikipedia falls short of its own standards.

Wikipedia is, therefore, obliged to reinstate my -- minimal -- edits, which were made in the interests of factual accuracy. Or let someone else do it better. There isn't really any room for debate about this, but I don't mind discussing it, if only because it's the trans-brigade who delight in refusing to debate about things. And you should publish an apology: not to me, but to all readers who may have been confused or misled by poor-quality information on your pages. You must not allow Wikipedia to be used as a vehicle for hidden agendas.

I have looked thousands of things up on Wikipedia, and have much to thank it for. And I have made donations just about every time you've asked me. How very sad that I should have to write to you like this. Thanks. (End.) Vrg2074 (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Vrg2074, thank you for your reply. I encourage you to review the Wikipedia Manual of Style for biographical articles, and specifically the MOS:GENDERID section, which includes, Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise. Per the current guideline, Wikipedia does recognize preferred pronouns, which is why your edits were properly reverted, and I apologize for not making this more clear with an additional note after posting the discretionary sanctions alert. Please also note there are forums on Wikipedia where this guideline could be further discussed, such as WP:VILLAGEPUMP, if you would like to more directly address the guideline with the Wikipedia community. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Vrg2074 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Replying to Beccaynr. Thanks for replying. No need to 'apologize for not making this more clear' -- 'this' being the fact that Wikipedia DOES recognise preferred pronouns. I was never really in the dark about this, and it was clear enough. Thank you for the 'VILLAGEPUMP' link. If I think a fruitful discussion might result, I may dsay more there. But it may not be worth it. Whatever the case, there's no need to reply. Yours etc. Vrg2074 (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)