User talk:Doogemu

June 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm ULPS. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Women's Liberation Front have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ULPS (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not constructive? I think the original wording is quite obfuscatory. Doogemu (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Women's Liberation Front. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Specifically, see MOS:GID for the guideline on how Wikipedia refers to transgender people in articles. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, if "able to produce sperm" is the only definition of male gender identity that you consider valid, then how would we categorise infertile men? What happens if a man, through an accident, loses the ability to produce viable sperm? Do they become a woman on the spot?

I'm not asking this to be provocative, what I'm trying to say is that there is a reason Wikipedia guidelines are the way they are. Most physiology-based definitions of gender fall apart quite quickly once you consider how many factors can affect physiology, that's why they're not the definitions that Wikipedia uses.

If you have questions about this guideline, or about editing on Wikipedia in general, feel free to ask by replying to this message. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in that guide does it discuss usage of the terms "female" and "male." I suppose it is on me to navigate the proper channels to clarify that in the rules before I make my edits, so I understand and accept the block that was placed on my account.

I wonder if my edit presents a grey area, one yet to be seriously and openly discussed by Wikipedia editors. There are more than enough intelligent people (far more intelligent than myself) who believe that human sex reflects a binary mode of reproduction. I think the subject deserves a fair and open discussion before we collectively decide that "male" and "female" are no longer considered innate in human beings. Wikipedia is an incredible resource for curious individuals worldwide; what is written on this website has worlds of importance. So you understand why when I see an article misusing a term on what I believe to be a fundamental level, I want to edit it to the benefit of the reader.

When referring to "male" and "female" in human biology (or mammalian biology in general), I am not referring to two classes that are one hundred percent distinct and have zero percent variation within them. I'm referring to the two distinct reproductive strategies in humans. There is no third sex because there is no third reproductive strategy or gamete for human beings. In fact, this is true for all species.

When I say "male," I am describing something that is innate and unchangeable in human beings; "male" is not a state that can be obtained by current medicine, societal acceptance, or some combination thereof.

So yes, a male who has an accident and loses the ability to produce sperm is still a male; that was determined in utero, and could never change. A male who loses his internal and external reproductive organs is still a male, by virtue of being distinctly un-female. He will never be able to menstruate, to produce an egg, to carry a child to term, to produce estrogen on his own, or to do anything else that is distinctly female.

But does that mean every female must do all those things in order to be female? Absolutely not. A female can have a hysterectomy, or even be born without a uterus, and she will still be female, by virtue of not being male. She will never be able to produce semen or to father a child.

None of that is to say that people with intersex traits do not exist. They do, and they reflect variations within the binary rather than outside of it. The majority of people with intersex conditions (1 out of 1,500 births) are not born with ambiguous genitalia. Those who are born with ambiguous genitalia might show a mix of other female and male traits as well, and I do not discount the unique challenges that they may face throughout their life. However, the existence of people with these rare conditions is not evidence that sex is changeable, nor is it evidence that sex is arbitrary or unimportant. The Intersex Society of North America has actually spoken out against being included in discussions about trans identity, for what it's worth.

All that being said, I don't have "physiology-based definitions of gender" (???). I believe gender is a social and historical construct that was developed thousands of years ago, and is based on the two sexes, or the two modes of human reproduction: male and female. Thus, "a transgender man/boy" is appropriate in the article I was editing because "man" or "boy" can be reasonably argued to denote gender. "A transgender male" is not appropriate because it in fact obfuscates the truth of the matter: this person is transgender and identifies as a man, but that does not mean they are now a male, because maleness is not something a person who was "assigned female at birth" can attain.

Unless this Gavin Grimm person is intersex (in which case "transgender intersex person" would be appropriate if we must indicate sex, which I am wondering why we need to do that in the first place?), their pathway of fetal development has excluded them from ever producing male gametes, from developing testes and/or a prostate, from developing male external genitalia, and from participating in the male mode of reproduction. No combination of surgery and exogenous hormones, at least not in contemporary medicine, can change this, nor can it change the DNA of this person, DNA which was coded to develop a female from the very beginning.

I am not arguing my point with any regard to gender (which I understand to be social, learned, and not biological or innate). The classifiers "male" and "female" are used to describe phenotypes that are biologically determined before birth, and remain useful in contexts ranging far beyond the present hype around "gender identity. Unless you are going to propose new terms for the two reproductive strategies present in human beings, I suggest we stick to the terms we have at present, because sex is still very much real and relevant.

Doogemu (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for formatting fail, TL;DR: anyone who developed, in utero, any or all traits necessary to the male mode of reproduction can be described as "male." Anyone else can not be described that way. Male and female are exclusive terms, and even if a select few people are included in both definitions, many more people are excluded from one or the other, and they are excluded before birth. Doogemu (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree that sex is a biological characteristic more so than a social one, I see what you mean. However, right now, the relevant guideline doesn't include this kind of nuanced differentiation between sex and gender. If you think that it should, that would be a discussion to have on the talk page of the relevant Manual of Style page, maybe even with an RfC if you think that is warranted. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster: This looks like a WP:INVOLVED block to me. [1] Sweet6970 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a comment: The policy stipulates that "obvious administrator action" is permissible in "straightforward cases" even from involved admins. 4 reverts in rapid succession, especially in a case where the edits in question arguably directly contradict existing guidelines, is a straightforward case. A 24h block is a very common first remedy for edit warring (WP:3R), so I think this is fine. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC); edited 14:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that I deserved the block for edit warring, but my edits do not, in fact, directly contradict the existing guidelines, as I explained to you in detail above. "Male" and "female" are very specific terms, and are not mentioned in the Manual of Style section regarding gender identity. Doogemu (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That's another debate to be had, I wanted to mention it but I don't think it's a deciding factor here. Edit warring is in most cases very easily "measured" by the number of reverts (notwithstanding certain debates on exemptions), and the policy specifically states that excessive constructive reverts are still considered edit warring. The admin action is, in my opinion, "obvious" and "straightforward" no matter the nature of the edits in question, as long as they don't fall under the 3RR exemptions. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The example given in WP:INVOLVED is ‘blatant vandalism’. The edit which Discospinster reverted was not vandalism – and the edit summary 'hence transgender’ shows that Discospinster is engaging in a dispute with Doogemu. Furthermore, Doogemu is a new editor, and no-one warned them that edit warring is not permitted. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to Doogemu: I am glad that you realise that edit-warring is not permitted. But I am concerned about the impropriety of an admin making an ‘involved’ block – this is a basic matter of the actions which are permitted by admins, and has repercussions well beyond this particular block. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be vandalism specifically for involved admin action to be permissible. I'm not contesting that Discospinster was involved, that's quite clear here. My point is that the admin action that he took was obvious and straightforward, as set out by the WP:INVOLVED policy.

It's always good to point new editors to specific policies or guidelines when there's a dispute, and it would have been nice to do that here, but that (in my opinion) does not change the fact that a 24h block is a generally uncontroversial remedy to address edit warring. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to Actualcpscm: This is from WP:INVOLVED: Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. I don’t think that it supports your view. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you that it would have been better to get an uninvolved admin to look at this. But I don't think this admin action was prohibited under WP:INVOLVED, just not recommended or best practice. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user for edit warring, which they were doing (and continue to do), whether or not I was involved. ... discospinster _talk 15:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answering on your Talk page Sweet6970 (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have started a discussion about the wording of the article on the Talk page of the article, at 'Transgender male student’ and edits 13 June 2023. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]