Talk:Transphobia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Both "Transphobia" and "homophobia" have appalling etymology

I thsould really be said that both "Transphobia" and "homophobia" have appalling etymology, on a par with the infamous "television" ("a bastard word", my linguistics teacher used to say: it's half Greek, half Latin). From its roots, "homophobia" should mean "fear of what is the same"... -- Tarquin 02:49, 3 August 2002

There's no such thing as "appalling etymology". homo- from homosexual, -phobia meaning fear. trans- from transgendered, -phobia meaning fear. That's not appalling. - montréalais 09:03, 13 August 2002

Quite so, but for someone knowledgeable in linguistics something combining Latin and Greek would likely be an Abomination. --Kizor 06:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

I don't know if anyone monitors this article, but I am considering marking it for deletion. See No Original Research; this page appears to be entirely original research. I see no citations, no sources, no medical opinions that such a disorder even exists. At best it should be merged with and redirected to homophobia as a special sub-case. At worst, it may be a complete POV fabrication. I'm honestly not sure which at this point. It certainly can't continue in its present form without sourcing. -Kasreyn 17:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To suggest that transphobia is a "complete POV fabrication" is nonsense. A quick Google search reveals "Results 1 - 30 of about 62,800 for transphobia -wikipedia. (0.49 seconds) ". Following the external link describes some of the cases mentioned in the article. Dysprosia 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but can it be sourced with references that qualify under Wikipedia policies re: reliable sources? I'm worried that the fact that no one has sourced it yet might mean that in fact it can't actually be sourced.

As for Google, that's not a reliable source for this sort of information. Try searching with the single word "jew" someday and see what you get. First result is an anti-semitic hate site. Popularity does not equal reliability. -Kasreyn 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Google thing was a simple refutation that the idea of transphobia is not a "fabrication". I am confident that a large proportion of the incidents described on the page can be sourced; see the external links. I'll formulate a more comprehensive reply to this later. Dysprosia 12:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying so politely and not jumping down my throat.  :) Please don't take my comments the wrong way; I'm all in favor of wikipedia reporting on the phenomena and behaviors being described here. My concern is over more of a procedural and categorical issue: is the subject being addressed well, and is it being organized under the proper heading?

You've replied to my concerns over sourcing, but I'm still wondering whether the issue of transphobia is large enough to merit a sub-page, or whether it could be better considered a special case of homophobia. Note that the important distinction here is not the self-identification of transgendered and homosexual people, but their (often mistaken) identification by homophobics / transphobics. Whether transphobia is a subclass of homophobia therefore has nothing to do with whether transgendered persons consider themselves homosexual; it depends on how they are seen by those who are said to be transphobic.

Example: a person with apiphobia (fear of bees), such as myself, doesn't make distinctions between honey bees and yellow jackets, they run from them all. It doesn't matter that the yellowjacket might argue that it's more closely related to ants than to bees, which is true - but the fear is based on perceived similarity. Likewise, I doubt that there are many homophobics who have no problem with transgendered people - they probably see them as another species of homosexual. And how likely is it that a transphobic would be perfectly accepting of homosexuals? I have a hard time seeing a real distinction here in the minds of the phobics themselves. Respectfully, Kasreyn 10:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still very concerned over the unsourced nature of this article. I'm adding the "unsourced" tag to the top of the article to reflect this concern. Remember, it's very important that Wikipedia avoid any appearance of engaging in original research. If the things being said in this article are facts, then surely sources can be found. -Kasreyn 08:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL. What a surprise to find it was already there... Oh well, guess someone beat me to it. -Kasreyn 08:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly sources are needed. Just one caveat - for issues dealing with a discriminated against and excluded group, sources (particularly robust sources) may be lacking. Very little scientific research is done into trans issues, though the amount is growing. Personally, I'm amazed this hasn't happened before - I'm waiting for some rabid person to go through all trans-related articles deleting every sentence and sub-clause that's unsourced, instead of finding sources where possible. There are sources out there! Wish I had time and energy to look for them. I've fought all my battles and can't fight any more.213.86.59.92 17:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sub-Cat of Homophobia

I would like to point out that placing "transphobia" as a sub-category of homophobia is incorrect and inappropriate. Many are not homophobic and yet are transphobic. Transgenderism is not synonymous with homosexuality and it is inappropriate to equate the two through this subtle form of intolerance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.57.55 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 6 April 2006

Depends on how you look at it - many people regard trans being something like an extreme form of homosexuality; and while this view is definitely not compatible with the current scientific view, it exists. Seen this way, the categorisation would seem correct. On the other hand, both can exist perfectly independantly, including (few) LGB people, who fight homophobia with a vengance, but are quite transphobic themselfes. Which is why the current categorisation of both in Discrimination does make more sense. -- AlexR 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, what matters is the distinction drawn in the minds of the phobics, rather than any distinction drawn by defenders of the transgendered. All phobias and forms of intolerance are social and psychological problems, and any discussion of them has to take the fundamental irrationality of the human mind into account. It is a mistake to imagine that human fears and hatreds can be categorized without understanding them first. -Kasreyn 02:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Many people exhibiting transphobic behaviour are themselves homosexual, and exhibit no 'other' forms of homophobia. The MWMF is a perfect example, as is the occasional harrassment of residents of 'Camp Trans' nearby. Besides, fear and violent hatred of the different have semi-rational roots. That these are loathsome is beside the point, and not NPOV. 213.86.59.92 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely the distinction in terms of Wikipedia is in commonly accepted usage. Most organisations, including LGBT organisations, would not say discrimination against transfolk is homophobic. Legislation and workplace guidance, at least in the UK, is entirely different in both cases. They are not identical. Finally, the distinction should not be left up to 'the minds of the phobics', else we would end up with articles on paedophillia written by paedophiles.213.86.59.92 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you might find this indecorous, but who else would understand pedophilia well enough to write about it? Why insist that articles on unpleasant subjects only be written by people who have never done anything unpleasant? As long as he used proper sourcing, was respectful to other editors, and wrote in an encyclopedic style, I'd see nothing wrong with Charles Manson contributing to Wikipedia. -Kasreyn 20:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Gender identity x gender expression

First, from gender identity:

"In sociology, gender identity describes the gender with which a person identifies (i.e, whether one perceives oneself to be a man, a woman, or describes oneself in some less conventional way),"

"One such case is that of David Reimer, reported in As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto. It details the persistence of a male gender identity and the stubborn adherence to a male gender role of a person whose penis had been totally destroyed shortly after birth as the result of a botched circumcision, and who had subsequently been surgically reassigned by constructing female genitalia. So the term "gender identity" is broader than the sex of the individual as determined by examination of the external genitalia."

The fact someone has a male gender identity does not mean that he's living as a man. For a lot of reasons, por example, social pressure, he could be living as a woman (probably because he was assigned as a woman; because of his genitals, etc.). So we can't say people change gender identity or (better than this) we can't say every trans person change their gender identity. People change their gender role (or gender expression) because of (a lot of times) a inner gender identity! (by some point of view)

Changing gender identity?? It sound bizarre!

From transexuality

Psychological techniques that attempt to alter gender identity to one considered appropriate for the person's assigned sex have been shown to be ineffective, as stated above. Therefore, it is generally accepted that the only effective course of treatment for transsexual people is sex reassignment therapy.

Hugs, Alinefr 05:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please synthesize that? As in, I see your sources, but what point precisely are you trying to make? I still wonder whether your grasp on the terminology is accurate. Sex is the physical genitalia of the body, which can be changed by surgery or injury. Gender identity is a state of being; if you believe in a soul then it's part of that, otherwise it's a complex result of brain processes. To the best of my knowledge gender identity may take its cues from society and/or the existing genitalia, but isn't ruled by those factors. A person with male sex may express female gender identity, even while still occupying a male body. Is this what you find bizarre? Kasreyn 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A person with male sex may have a female gender identity, even while still living as a man. Alinefr 10:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely my point. I suppose a male-sexed female-gendered person can live "as" male, ie. remain in the closet so to speak, but outward behavior isn't a real indicator of what a person really is. So, what is bizarre? I'm still confused. Kasreyn 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources which do/may confirm the legitimacy and existence of "transphobia"

Note that each of the following, from official offices of the UK, make a distinct differentiation between homophobia and transphobia...

• http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/cs_009128.pdf
• http://www.leics.police.uk/files/library/documents/hate_crime.pdf
• http://www.bristol-city.gov.uk/ccm/cms-service/download/asset/?asset_id=10996056
• http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/6-living/equality/pdf/breaking-silence-report2003.pdf
• http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/transsex/wgtrans.pdf

There are undoubtedly many many more links from UK government websites that cite "transphobia" and some even describe what it is.

I only wish I had more time to further cite the article! Crimsone 01:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia entry. It is an editorial and propaganda piece.

Not only is this editorial lacking any citations or references, but its creators have erased any contrary opinions that are inserted into the editorial. This is nothing but propaganda and it should be removed.

That being the case, why did you revert to the version with the largest commentary paragraph in the entire article. Both the UK and Irish governments say that Trasphobia exists. Many people directly experience it or witness it. Ergo, transphobia exists, and this article merely explains what it is and how it presents itself in the world. Reverted. Crimsone 19:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So anecdotal evidence and one or two members of a governmental cabinet are all that is required to prove that something is true? Wow. That sure opens the door a whole lot of theories. Have I ever told you about the Burren Monster that came after me in Ireland? Maybe I should write an entry about that. Or perhaps I should write an article about black people are only 2/3 of a real person or about women's brains are inferior to the brains of men - those are also opinions that have been held by various government departments at various times. While "transphobia" might exist within some people, it is absurd that you would use such a word to describe the sentiments of all people who dislike transsexuals - which is exactly what you have done here. This writing is not balanced and it is not a legitimate article. It is propaganda plain and simple. If it weren't propaganda, then you would not be so intent on deleting a contrary opinion. Reverted back to some legitimacy.

The piece you have re-instated is not a contrary opinion, it is a commentary. Just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As for "not liking transsexual people", this too is an invalid argument for some very obvious reasons such as both medical and governmental recognition, and it's more than a few ministers. This leaves the only argument against the term as the fact that some people feel that it is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against or even hound transsexual people, and so feel that the term transphobia makes them look bad for doing so. Given that genuine transsexual people cannot help being who they are as proven time and time again by various medical practices such as psychotherapy and even ECT, and as also by the now established, researched, and the proven view of medical science, this makes this arguement void too. Further voiding the argument is the fact that a substantial number of transsexual people blend seamlessly with other members of their gender, and nobody would know any different about them if they saw them.

It is effectively shifting the blame for discrimination from those doing the discriminating onto the transsexual person. Given what is known about transsexualism, the argument disproves itself. This has been your third revert - twice by myself, and once by Everyking. Please see WP:3RR, and I would suggest that perhaps you might like to sign off your talk page comments with four tildes, as per the conventions of wiki.

While the article does indeed need some citing and tidying, it does not need editorial/commentary pieces such as the one you are trying to persistantly re-insert. Transphobia either exists or it doesn't, and I'm afraid that all evidence points to the fact that it does. The article is certainly not a propaganda piece or editorial in spite of it's flaws, and does not need to be turned into one. Reverted. Crimsone 13:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ee, now, there's your problem. You don't understand the difference between fear and dislike. Many types of discrimination are based solely on dislike. This is the case with most forms of discrimination against transsexuals. Dislike is not fear. When you attempt to say that all forms of dislike are "phobia" - then, at that point, you are putting forth opinionated commentary - not fact. And, as someone who likes to use Wikipedia as a launching pad for further research, I just can't allow it to become a platform for such obvious propaganda. Re-reverted.

And I have reviewed my edit and I would like an explanation as to how it is biased commentary. It simply states the fact that many people disapproveo of the use of this word. Why exactly is it that you are so phobic of having such facts placed into your "entry"? Ranja 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First, please note that it's not "MY" aticle, and I didn't write even a few lines of it - I am however hoping to clean it up. Now that that's said, let us place this another way - the etymology of the word, as ever, is unimportant. The word may or may not be used to describe either a fear of transgender people, or discrimination against them due to an unfounded dislike towards them as a stereotype rather than as individual people. What is important is that it is a word that describes something that really happens, it is commonly used, and thus is part of everyday language to those who would speak about the subject. Only those interested in the subject are likely to come to the wiki page on the subject. As the Oxford English demonstrates, just because a word contains "phobic", it doesn't mean that strictly applies only to fear.

As for the negative comparison to the word homophobia, there are no grounds whatsoever for objection to the word homophobia given that it is even listed in the oxford english dictionary - "• noun an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexuals". Please note that is doesn't mention the word fear. Given that even such a rudimentary source as the Oxford English Dictionary (And it's only the compact version I looked in!) effectively defuncts the argument against the word homophobia, it follows that the same argument by comparison to it cannot apply to transphobia. Without the comparison, the argument is not one easily followed, nor is it one that that can be considered very strong.

Given that the word "transphobia" is in common usage already, for the reasons loosely given in the article, argument against its use are both futile and non productive. Whether or not one believes that the word has correct etymology is entirely irrelivant on grounds of the reality of the way it is used and it's assigned meaning in its common usage. As such this is not propoganda. I am reverting your edit on these grounds for a third time.

Please note also that while you were busy propagating an edit war, I was busy making far more important changes to the article such as rewording, restructuring, and generally cleaning it up - all of which have now been lost. Perhaps if you are insistant in arguing the point, a far more productive use of time may lie in replacing the incorrectly used commentary language with more encyclopedic language. Please note that a dislike of transsexual people as a whole for little good reason instead of a dislike of a transsexual individuals on a case by case basis for good reasons in itself consitutes "an extreme and irrational aversion". Crimsone

Whether or not you believe it is justifiable for people to object to the use of this word (or the word "homophobia"), the fact is that many people do. There are many people who object to both homosexuals and transsexuals for moral and/or religious reasons - and they strongly disagree with the notion that their beliefs are based on fear or based on "an extreme and irrational aversion". It is absurd for you to attempt to silence this aspect of the discussion - especially when the majority of this article is nothing but an opinionated rant. Due to your methods of heavy-handed thought-control, I'll be recommending that this article be deleted. As I have stated before, I don't think that Wikipedia needs to become a propaganda machine.

Actually, the majority of the article is a loose collection of facts and real life recorded events. I am trying to silence nothing. Whether people object to the use of the wrod or not, such commentary does not belong in this article. If you are truly concerned with articles being of an encyclopedic nature, I suggest you start writing Religious views on transsexuality and religious views on homosexuality. While religious people may indeed object to their religious views on homosexuality or transsexuality being labele d so, it doesn't alter the fact thet "God told me so" is considered by science philosophy and the rules of logic as an irrational, circular, and extreme argument. By all means recommend it for deletion, but please ensure that you cite this talk page topic.

Before you do so though, it might be an idea to to first register on wiki, and secondly, sign your comments with four tildes.

Also please note that as per your last meaningless addition to the article....

"A clearly biased administrator has taken great steps to prevent this "entry" from being objective or from presenting facts that are contrary to their beliefs. It should therefore be regarded as a propaganda piece and not as an encyclopedia entry. Thank you for your attention."

I am not a wiki administrator. I am a mere wiki user like most others on here. Crimsone 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bit of an agnostic, so I wouldn't really be qualified to write those articles you mention (and, of course, by writing them I'd be validating the use of the word). In any case, I do recognize the fact that many people believe it is "extreme and irrational" for a man to castrate himself and start wearing make-up - and that these people therefore do not wish to employ such a person. While this might be considered bigotry, it is not a "phobia", and to call it a phobia is to engage in a political wordgame. That is why I believe it is necessary to include such an opinion in any article that attempts to define such a political word. I'm quite certain that you are aware of this, as well. That is why you are going to such lengths to silence dissent. However, after your latest comment, I am not so sure that you a first-rate propagandist. Your failed attempts to sound intelligent make it painfully clear that you are something of a third-hand propagandist - merely chirping what you have been told to chirp and not really thinking much about it. So I can't really condemn you too much. It's not your fault.

In any case, I'm not certain that "the government of Great Britain told me so" is any better of an argument than "God told me so". I would, however, like to hear how "God told me so" is a "circular" argument in this case. Seriously, you must explaint that one to me - I'd hate to thing it was just something you pulled out of your Bag of Contempt to throw at me. To any person of faith, it is certainly not an extreme argument, nor is it contrary to the rules of logic or philosophy. And as for science, well - that is what is faith is all about. But that's beside the point, of course. We're talking about political wordgames here. And if Wikipedia is to be a legitimate source of information, your use of a word must be balanced with another's use of the word. And then free minds can make their own determination. That's quite scientific, wouldn't you agree? So I'll make one more legitimate effort to place this balance into the definition. Your refusal to accept it will simply brand you as something of a third-rate Orwellian mouthpiece. If that's what you want, then that's okay by me. God Save the Queen. Ranja Somepoint at sometime.

Erm, the government of great britain say so not because they have unilaterally decided, but because they see it, recognise it, and have researched it among with other organisations. transphobia, as already said, is not a "fear", but an irrational aversion. To go against the accepted wisdom stemming from of a great many years of informed medical concensus and research, in order to follow ones own personal predjudices with a view to discriminate against a stereotype is indeed an irrational aversion. As for me, my inteliligence speaks for itself. I am not a propagandist of any sort, and I am in no way going to argue over your personal insults. I'm not so sure I'm the one stifling dissent here. You have been reverted repeadedly by not only myself, but wiki administrators too. One of them has seen fit to give you a second level warning for vandalism. All I am doing is reverting that vandalism while answering your points here. Given your last message, it is clear that you aren't really reading them by nature of the parts you miss and continue to talk about.

I assure you that transsexual people go to far greater lengths to express their true feelings and identities than to "castrate themselves and wear makeup". My use of the word Transphobia is indeed balanced with the concensus of a great many other people using the word. That's what matters on wiki - the facts - not your opinion. I'm chirping nothing - I've seen it and heared about it first hand, and I've heared and read many organisations confirming it. Irelands police even record transphobic hate crime seperately from other hate crime. It seems that an awful lot of officials, professionals, and people in positions of authority would have to be so completely and totally wrong to support the view you are trying to express.

As you really want to know, the "god told me so" argment is always ultimately circular because it always runs along the lines of "God told me it is wrong, therefore it is wrong, because God told me so", or "The holy book says so, so it must be, because the holy book is Gods word, so it is, because God said so." ... It doesn't get much more circular. What people want to believe is fine, but what people believe make sfor niether good science, good logic, or sound fact - or in other words, it's a self-proving, circular argument.

What you keep adding is nonsense, and nonsense is considered vandalism. Please stop it. Crimsone 14:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No. I will not stop resisting your propaganda. I'll further argue against your thought-police nazism tomorrow. For now, I'll just make another effort at convincing you to permit an open-minded dialogue. I know you will reject it, but I still have a hope in you.

Maybe you need to look at the appropriate policy on personal attacks - WP:NPA and the policy on vandalism - WP:VAND

You are repeatedly injecting a personal opinion in the form of a commentary into the article, and this constitutes nonsense/vandalism. You have already been warned by an admin - it's not just me saying this. Now you are issueing personal attack after personal attack in your messages. This is not right, it's reprehensible, and against wiki policy. I've spent as much time as is reasonable answering your various points and I have done so in depth. I don't care if you have "hope for me". I'm not stifling discussion - I've particiated in it here on the talk page, where it belongs. This is a waste of your time, and mine. Crimsone 16:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You persist in blaming the victim. You remain a thought-nazi. Well done. Why are you so horrified of allowing alternative ideas into your world?

I remain nothing more than a wikipedia editor. Blaming the victim? What victim? You are the one who is trying to say that the recorded hate crimes and discrimination against trans people are justified on the grounds of disliking a stereotype while completely ignoring the fact that reassignment is the ONLY effective treatment for those suffering the condition of gender identity disorder. You are also the person claiming that this behaviour doesn't not constitute an irrational aversion to little more than a person leading his/her life the only way they can. Youare the only person completely ignoring the facts and the consencus that exists within those circles of people who know and study such things (ie, the experts, the legislators, and the true victims of this behaviour.). You are also the one that is trying to say this through comparison to your opinion that homophobia doesn't exist and is merely a tool that homosexual people use to make people who don't like them look bad. All of this is merely your opinion. It does not belong in the article. Your repeated re-insertion constitutes vandalism and your repeated personal attacks while somewhat amusing on certain levels and quite offensive on others... Well, I won't say what I'm really feeling in the interests of remaining civil, but I will say that your remarks and your edits are against Wiki policy WP:NPA

Alternative ideas exist in my world, and your idea here is neither encyclopedic, nor is it particularly civilised in a certain context. I have debated it with you, I have answered all of your points, and you have ignored every answer. Crimsone 18:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have actually confronted every single answer that you have thrown my way. You have understood my answer - I know you have - but you simply choose to ignore it. I do not deny that transsexuals are the victims of bigotry. I simply do not agree that this bigotry is inspired by a "phobia" and I believe that this word has a political objective to convince people that it is. This is not simply my opinion, it is the opinion of a large number of Americans. And, as with all intangible and unproveable issues, neither their opinion nor your opinion can be proven to be absolutely true. And so, any valid article on this subject requires both philosophies to be presented. Your refusal to permit this viewpoint shows that you wish not to educate the public, but to a political objective, and that you will silence anyone who wishes to prevent you from doing so. That's a very sinister motive - the motive of a thought nazi.

And, by the way, without calling you names - you really need to learn a little bit more about philosophy and arguments before using big terms like "circular argument". If the argument is that "A says that B is true, and therefore I believe B" - as is the case in the "God/Great Britain told me so." argument, then there's nothing circular there. That's simply believing something because you have been told it is true - which is the entire background of this editorial that has been composed here.

You have confronted every answer I've given you? Unless "you are a thought nazi" counts as a counterpoint, I don't for a moment believe you have, not do I see anything related to the debate itself.

Please not once more that a 'phobia' is not a fear. Phobia in this context relates only to an irrational aversion. It is a completely different concept. The bigotry perhaps gives rise to or actually is the irrational aversion, but never the less, it is irrational, and it is an aversion. This much is fact, and can be in no way politically loaded. The objective of Wikipedia is not to educate the public on personal ideals and beliefs, but to state the facts as any good encyclopedia should. By the same token, I wish only to put forward the facts - if that is a political objeective then so be it, it happens to be one that Wiki shares. Form the argument put forward, it is clear that the only objection to "transphobia" is that it gives a name to discriminatory and bigoted behaviour (of an extreme and statistically more severe nature than most other forms), and that a small number of people misuse the word. Either that, or that the people who use the word incorrectly associate the word transpobia with the etymology "phobia=fear", which is incorrect.

Finally, on the subject of circular arguments, you have incorrectly subsituted the phrases I gave above...

"God told me it is wrong, therefore it is wrong, because God says so"

'A' leads to 'B' leads to 'A'

"The holy book says so, so it must be right, because the holy book is Gods word, so must be right, because God said so."

'A' leads to 'B' leads to 'C' leads to 'B' leads to 'C'

...As a belief, it's fine and anybody is entitled to hold it. As a piece of logic, science or philosophy though, it's a circular argument.

The entire background of this article here is that Transphobia is a term that describes an irrational aversion to transgender people that results in an increased incidence of violent crime, harassment, and discrimination against transgender people. This is not an editorial concept - it is a fact.

Please note also that (albeit a little weak) consensus is against you on this as per the articles history. Your opinon doesn't make thes article POV. In fact, it is only your POV you wish to damage the article with (and yes, what you're doing is damaging an article through vandalism). Crimsone 13:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Even if it were true that I weren't confronting your arguments - there isn't even any need for me to do so, since you're making my arguments for me. I could argue that "phobia" does mean "fear" and that it is from the greek word for "fear" and that when 99% of the people see a word including the word "phobia" then they assume that means the person fears the object of the word, and so, yes, the word "transphobia" is a politically-loaded term with a very clear objective to it. But there's no need for that. I'll go along with you and say that it simply means "irrational aversion". Fine. "It is irrational," you say to be prejudiced against transsexuals. That, however, is not a fact. It is an opinion if ever there were such a thing. For someone who believes that a transsexual is mentally ill, then there is nothing irrational about not wanting them to work at your office. Do you truly not see this? Do you truly not see how opinionated this article is? I just can't believe that is possible. Your belief that it is irrational for someone to hold this view is no more proveable than another person's belief that it is rational. That's what makes this one-sided argument propaganda. And if my attempts to balance it are considered "damaging" the article, then I take great pride in doing so. Anti-propagandists have a long proud history of damaging the works of thought nazis such as yourself.

And, by the way, that's a horrible attempt at making something a circular argument. Believing a source has credibility and therefore believing what it says is true (as, once again, you have done throughout this discussion) is not circular in any way. But, we won't get into that. You don't strike me as the type of person who admits when he's wrong.

I put it to you that it isn't a horrible attempt - it's factual by nature of the fact that it breaks the argument down into it's most basic reasoning. When "God told me so" is used, it is an assertion that god says so, and because godis always right, what he says is right. In other wors, God is right because god is right. While other reasoning can lead one to come to other conclusions, this is gleefully ignored on this basis.

On the subject of proof, your last message has not only shown how POV your argument is, but contains many incomplete truths. You could well argue that phobia means fear, but you could not argue that Transphobia is a fear of trans, as transphobia does not mean this (even though such a description can include such fear, it is not limited to it and does not imply it). It finds it's root in "homophobia" in that it uses phobia in the same context - an irrational aversion (as per the Compact Oxford English Dictionary). Many terms are commonly used but still misunderstood by the general public, but that doesn't alter what they actually mean. It is only tour assersion that "99% of people" get it wrong. There is no objective to the term transphobia, political or otherwise, because it is merely a descriptive of an irrational aversion of a particular kind (towards transpeople). Your argument therefore is not with the term itself, but with the way that a minority of people may incorrectly use it.

If a person believes a trans person to be mentally ill by the way on grounds of being trans, this is itself an irrational aversion. That is the role of medicine and psychiatry, both of which state that it is perfectly normal and should not be grounds for such discrimination, as does the government. Gender Identity Disorder is indeed treated with gender/sex reassignment - this would make the psychiatrists themselves insane were the premise you propose true. An irrational aversion (I never said it was fear, nor did anybody else) to trans people is indeed proven by what is medically known about such people. As such, once more I have shown that this is not propaganda, whilst you yourself have once more shown that in spite of the fact that many (if not all) of the points in the article can be shown to be true, your own opinions colour your perception to a point where you unreasonably believe that entire article is a fabrication. It is obvious that this is not the case. Crimsone 14:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This editorial is nothing but Point of View. it your Point of View that what a few psychiatrists and government officials say should be taken as the absolute truth versus my point of view that there is great validity in the opinion, held by a great many Americans, that there is nothing irrational about viewing transsexuals as mentally ill and therefore not wanting to hire them. Does that make the psychiatrists insane, as you propose? Well, insane is a pretty extreme term - but it definitely would make them wrong. As you may or may not be aware, there is a very a large number of people (and rapidly growing) who view modern psychiatry to be something of a cult that seeks only to drug an entire civilization. And no, I'm not talking about Scientologists. I'm talking about highly vocal critics such as psychiatrist Peter Breggin and comedien Bill Maher, just a few of the people who have begun to question whether we should be swallowing every single piece of "truth" that is passed down to us by the modern psychiatric community.

And so, if you are going to express your viewpoint that a dislike of transsexuals is "irrational" (I won't even bother discussing the Orwellian use of "phobia" with you anymore), then it is only right that the opposing viewpoint be place there. Not only do you refuse to allow this opposing belief to be expressed, but you won't even allow the presentation of a tag stating that the "Neutrality of this article has been disputed" - when it quite clearly has been disputed. You've gone to a great length to lecture me on the evils of what you call "vandalism" and other violations of Wikipedia policy, but, in constantly reverting the article, you have violated the rules of Wikipedia yourself - "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, "rather than crying.""

And, by the way, just so you know - what I'm doing is not considered vandalism. Take a look at Wikipedia's official statement on what is and is not vandalism, and you'll see that what I'm doing is considered "stubberoness" and is NOT vandalism. "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism." BUT IT GETS BETTER. The page then goes on to say that "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors." So that means that your stubborn deletions of my contribution are vandalism. Please stop doing it. Also, please stop sending me those annoying Red-Sign e-mails.

Give it some thought, man. I'll give you a couple days.

You are repeatedly inserting your "stubborn" change into the article, even though consensus is against it (as per the history). How is this not vandalism? The NPOV tag you so graciously inserted was only your unilateral decision after no discussion - besides this, it was completely botched up. Based on the fact mentioned in the last sentence, this is also against consensus. The term describes issues that you yourself admitted exist from time to time in a pervious message here, and it was demonstrated that your argument therefor wasn't against the term, but instead was against the minority of people that misuse the term. Even so, you keep re-inserting the same piece of contetious information that's actually nothing to do with your true target. How is this not vandalism. You repeatedly broke WP:3RR to insert this information - I could have reported this on your fourth edit but didn't. I think you'll find (as with my civil tone) that I do infact respect your entitlement to hold your point of view, but neverthe less, it doesn't belong in the article. How is this not vandalism? You have ignored point after point against, with not as much as consideration for consesus or factual accuracy, eventually repeatedly violating WP:NPA. How is this not vandalism?

As your edit is complete fallicy on many levels, the only recourse is to remove it. Many Americans may believe it, but that doesn't make it right. I culd of course merely leave your edit on the article in place and continue to offer all of the counterpoints offered on the talkpage in response to it in the article, but this would not only show the original statement for what it is, but would also ruin the article (which I know you are hoping for by your recurrent statements). Realistically, the only way to deal with it would be to remove it. You have been given most of the reasons that your edit does not belong in the article, and even so, you keep adding this piece of nonsense. Nonsense is considered by Wiki to be vandalism. By the way - please don't assume that I don't already know about WP:VAND - it was me in fact that first gave you the link.

As for your red-sign emails - I haven't sent them. I have however added warning templates for WP:NPA and WP:Vand on your IP's talk page. While clearly you dispute WP:VAND (It seems quite clearly obvious to me that you have no grounds for such a dispute), WP:NPA is indisputable, and signing up to get your own username is not going to make the warnings previously given to you in this incident go away.

You repeatedl state that this article is completely POV. This is evidently your reason for wanting to inject your own POV into the article. You obviously know (especially after being told) that personal POVs don't belong in the articles. To discuss them, that is what the talk page is for. Never the less, not only do you post on the talk page, you simultaneously inject your POV into the article. How is ths not vandalism? I would like to direct you to previous discussions on this page - to call it complete POV is completely and entirely unreasonable.

On the subject of of a view of transgender people and a view of them as being mentally ill (don't forget that there are many types of transgender people, and transexuals are only one such type), well to put it bluntly, where is their evidence? Your argument by the way holds little water on the grounds you use, because the "resist the edicts of the quack" debate is actually one thatmany transgendered people hold dear. The current argument is not whether Transsexual people are mentally ill and deserve the stigma attached to that, or whether their care should leave the hans of Psychiatrists altogether - Peter Breggins argument therfore supports their cause! Trannssexual people have in fact been fighting for quite some time to be removed from psychiatric care because everybody that matters knows that they shouldn't really be there! While by no means complete, most evidence does now suggest that the cause of transsexuality is physical rather than mental. This combined with the fact that Transsexual people are generably capable of anything the rest of society can do, then yes, it is unreasonable, if not on the completely different and unrelated grounds that mental illness is a fact of life and doesn't nessecarily affect a persons ability to da a particular job, debending on the illness and the job concerned. To suggest that a person who's been through more than most and still survived at the other end of the road is any less capable an employee is a bit of a joke really. As for other types of transgendered people such as crossdressers (and you may have met a few of each variety even if you didn't notice) that do so in their own private time, how are they mentally ill? The argument you describe is that "anybody who wishes to dress in womens apparel must be a sick person. It's an argument that stands against all reason and erally shows the character of anybody who would use it. It also constitutes an irrational aversion.

Clearly, I haven't pushed you away from being a wiki editor. I've engaged you in civil debate whilst myself under a great deal of provocation from you (WP:NPA). Indeed, you seem intent in forcing your POV anyway, and don't seem to be interested in any articles but this one. I've really had enough of all this now, but end this message with a quote from the test5 vandalism warning template...

and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism

Given everything that's said here, even if I am incorrect about any of my earlier points to you in this discussion and so are defensible (though I don't believe they are), this one is not so easily defended. Though my time on wiki keeps getting eaten up with this nonsense, I have in fact been making worthwhile edits to this and other articles where I can.

None of this of course alters the original fact that the piece you keep adding was indeed originally removed by more than one person for good reason. Crimsone 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)