Are you "queerphobic"?

[Bbb23sucks]

My essay would be called "WP:Demanding everyone's opinion on everything" and would be about a bit philosophical about wider society too. If I was being really spicy, I would go into how this is a western phenomenon that ultimately results from imperialism and idealism.

[gnngl]

Trans children are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.

You'd think a sociologist would be wiser to world history....

Pedophiles are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.
Goat fuckers are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.
People who own people are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.
Fascists are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.

.....or is that why they wrote the essay?

It will always be a truism that if living your life hurts others or creeps people the fuck out, you will be subjected to hate.

Congratulations. This is the most stupid thing you've written. Equating trans children to pedophiles, goat fuckers, slave owners, and fascists, in one sweep.

[Kraken]

Trans children are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.

You'd think a sociologist would be wiser to world history....

Pedophiles are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.
Goat fuckers are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.
People who own people are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.
Fascists are not a modern invention and deserve care and support.

.....or is that why they wrote the essay?

It will always be a truism that if living your life hurts others or creeps people the fuck out, you will be subjected to hate.

Congratulations. This is the most stupid thing you've written. Equating trans children to pedophiles, goat fuckers, slave owners, and fascists, in one sweep.

It won't become true with repetition, numbnuts.

It will only keep proving my point. I'm banned by Wikipediocracy, you're not. I won't be missed. You are valued.

The power of these statements will magnify every time you post something stupid.

You're stupid because you don't realise this.

Your stupid because you think I'm stupid.

You're so stupid, you must be from the goat fucking kiddie fiddling slave owning snazzy uniform loving branch of the Vigilant clan.



Say hi to Uncle Zoloft from the black sheep.

HE'LL KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.

[boredbird]

I have to admit it's kind of funny how this charming screed puts "historical accuracy" in scare quotes as if this concept is just a component of some cissupremacist dialog of oppression. Blame postmodernism I guess

Reminds me of this guy I used to know who would say "so-called" for no reason, as in "so you're sitting in this so-called chair" even though there wasn't anything so-called about it, it wasn't like just a rock or whatever. So here we are now with so-called "historical accuracy" and so-called "basic biology".

To observe that it demands a suspension of WP:NPOV really undersells its philosophical ambitions.

You'd think a sociologist would be wiser to world history....

The guy's like twenty years old. He's probably also secretly with the CIA, served in Afghanistan and has a black belt in ninjitsu.

[Kraken]

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 41#p350743

Tamzin's definition of hate.....

....Your edits to mainspace consist overwhelmingly of edits to Nazi history and POV-pushing consistent with a far-right POV on LGBT and communist topics. You really got right to it, too! Here we have you cleaning up that damn spot off the Wermacht; here you're edit-warring a German name into a Polish city's article.

Thus we encounter another of the reasons I wrote HATEDISRUPT, which is to emphasize that aligning oneself with a hate movement, even without saying the magic words on-wiki, is disruptive editing, because it by its very nature makes editors targeted by that hate movement feel unwelcome. Would a reasonable admin, viewing the totality of the evidence here, consider you to be a cryptofascist? ....

I guarantee nobody on Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy will ask the question, if all an LGBT editor does is immediately get involved to POV push in gender topics, rewrite trans history topics, whitewash the reputation of activists and edit war over deadnames, would anyone on Wikipedia bat an eyelid?

There's no Wikipedia page for trantifa yet.

Not hard to see how they would present it though.....

https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking- ... h-andy-ngo

Not sure I would be taking it as a joke if I was a woman and a trans MMA fighter was getting in my face on Twitter much less at an event.

[Kraken]

Comment. I think people need to ask where and how would this essay be used? Since it does have a Wikilink, are editors going to cite it in disputes when we already have a policy that covers personal attacks? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Asked and answered.....

Keep the essay (disclaimer: I saw this discussion in Special:RecentChanges after the sock mentioned on top was blocked). People are free to believe what they will as long as they do not act in a manner that is disruptive, but I'm not gonna fucking feel safe if people who want me dead are on Wikipedia, even if they don't edit gender stuff. Also, Tamzin brings out a great point: the anti-LGBTQ and neo-Nazi groups often overlap, so it could go either way, but to me I'm in the camp where an essay about how anti-LGBTQ editing is not compatible is necessary. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's going to be used by the trans activist editors to make the case that the feminists of Wikipedia are making them see feel unsafe. To make the case these crypto-femo-fascists must be blocked because their singular focus on women and girls rights is making Tamzin feel in literal fear for her life. Because behind every feminist editor is her neo-nazi husband.

It's pretty damn clear where this shit is going. Why these essays are considered logical extensions of NONAZIS.

Wikipediocracy better speak up soon.

Silence is complicity and all that.

Oh and she found this through recent changes did she? Fuck off with that bullshit.

[Kraken]

So - you believe transgender minors should be forced through an incongruent puberty? That's what happens when transgender youth are denied medical care - I'm not going to sugarcoat that as anything other than medical abuse.
....
I have never once met, read anything written by, or heard anything about any parent who believes their child is trans and denies them medical care.
....
It is 100% queerphobia

The author of this essay is most definitely no mere activist. They are deliberately, wilfully blind to reality.

The Cass Review exploded these views quite spectacularly.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home ... al-report/

While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.

The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.

The controversy surrounding the use of medical treatments has taken focus away from what the individualised care and treatment is intended to achieve for individuals seeking support from NHS gender services.

Gee, I wonder who could possibly have been misrepresenting and overstating the evidence?

Would it be the sort of people writing essays on Wikipedia to back their naked POV pushing?

[boredbird]

I asked ChatGPT and it's more opinionated than usual.


Patriarchal-dominant Greek and Roman societies invented the concept of so-called "objective reality" in order to justify their abuses of women and people of color, especially transwomen of color. This mindset, nurtured throughout the medieval period, and more infamously in Nazi Germany, still lives on in the darkest corners of society. And, inevitably, some of it manages to trickle its way onto Wikipedia.

When people claim to offer "evidence"' said to support the intellectual pillars of their dominance structure, there's a reason they do that. We need to be conscious of that reason and understand that the so-called "evidence' is a distraction from and a hindrance to the development and elaboration of an equitable and inclusive paradigm of dialog, which can only begin and end with the lived experiences of those who struggle within and against this dominance structure.

And when they appeal to so-called "history" and "biology", we must ask, who wrote these texts? Were they heterosexual cismales, from whom we've heard all too much already? Of course they were. Are we supposed to believe that's a coincidence? If someone has a 'theory" which they say somehow makes transwomen not women, that theory is simply wrong and we shouldn't be reluctant to say so.

Wikipedia requires neutrality. No one can honestly say that our society today is "neutral". To recapitulate its biases on Wikipedia is to perpetuate them. And make no mistake, little girls' lives are at stake. More and more commit suicide every year. Do we want to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?

[Bbb23sucks]

Time to lock this thread.

[boredbird]

Time to lock this thread.

Why?