User talk:2.100.205.41

August 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sall Grover. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Please be aware that, while you are perfectly free to remove warnings from this page, the previous warnings which you have removed are all retained in the Page History and all still stand. Removing a warning notice can be taken as proof that you have seen it and lead to the conclusion that any further disruptive edits are being made intentionally. So... No more trying to censor the word "cisgenger". No more changing the correct phrase "trans woman" to the incorrect dogwhistle phrase "transwoman". No more spin or obfuscation. No more unreferenced additions. It is time to pack it in. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I could have used either spelling, I didn't really think about the difference I just was being consistent, I don't really see what was a dogwhistle about it, I was just removing the word "cisgender" because I was trying to keep the language of the article neutral, by not saying that trans women aren't women, and not saying they are either (the reality they aren't women), either way the average person would find it easier to understand my version of the article than the one that is currently being presented as it is more straightforward and doesn't resort to using "cisgender woman" to describe almost all women in order to legitimise trans women as a category of women, but I am aware that in many cases wikipedia's position seems to be that trans women are women (they aren't) which is why I didn't edit the page to call them men (they are men)

but i won't edit it anymore2.100.205.41 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

but the tone of your message comes across as less formal and much more aggravated than what I'm used to on wikipedia when I edit an article twice 2.100.205.41 (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Why are you surprised that DanielRigal is using a harsh tone with you when you are editing against Wikipedia policy and in a disruptive and in a way that could be considered transphobic? GraziePrego (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the actual edit (not taking into account the fact i did it twice) to be disruptive, the very neutral wording would not be viewed as "transphobic" to the vast majority of people who would read that article, the fact that he sees the spelling "transwoman" as a dogwhistle proves he is a fairly ardent transactivist, (i also left in the original spelling of trans woman for the first time i edited it for what it's worth), I'm just mostly used to seeing automated messages come in and he clearly put thought into writing that. but all of this has proved to me how biased the wikipedian environment is. 2.100.205.41 (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia environment is indeed biased against transphobia and transphobes such as yourself, and Daniel was perfectly correct in calling that particular spelling a dogwhistle. Your wording was not neutral in the slightest, on the contrary it was exceedingly obviously biased. It's better you don't edit if you can't help being disruptive. GraziePrego (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

then it is at odds with reality. only people who seem to be transactivists, such as yourself view that spelling as any different from trans woman (both are used in media), i imagine you would have also taken issue with it even if i hadn't spelled it in that particular way because i refrained from at any point implying that trans women are men or aren't women, and only people who seem to be transactivists such as yourself view that as not neutral because your own views are at odds with reality 2.100.205.41 (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

and he also felt the need to delete one of the replies i left to his comment he left on someone else's talk page who did a very minor (much smaller than the edit i did) non disruptive edit just because he disagreed with what i said about it, but he probably won't delete your reply accusing me of being transphobic (which i don't really care about being called) 2.100.205.41 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

and i will not deny that the motive for the edit was "transphobic" but the actual result is something much more straightforward than what ended up being there, someone who does believe that trans women are women could still read my version and not be particularly bothered by it unless they're radical enough to notice the difference between transwomen and trans women, it's still possible someone with a pro-trans point of view could have written my version of the page as saying it's an app for women that excludes trans women, is a pretty neutral and straightforward way of describing the app, 2.100.205.41 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Treating transgender people as normal people does not make individuals "transactivists". I don't know what our readers think or believe (and neither do you) but if you are biased against them and it effects your editing, your time here on Wikipedia will be short. There is zero tolerance for discrimination of any kind, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, sexual orientation or gender identity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.GraziePrego (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

the point of my edits first and foremost weren't the transwomen/trans women distinction, mainly it was due to the word "cisgender" being the main word used and a few other things such as language such as "assigned at birth", i also included other bits of info like Feminist Current being a radical feminist site, but i am glad people have been very restrained in dealing with these edits 2.100.205.206 (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

---