"

WHEELER, I'm writing to thank you for your apology. I wish to emphasize that you did a great deal of good work on the article, creating the bulk of the present content and providing a great deal of references. If any of my comments in response to your use of ""moderns"" was offensive to you, I also apologize.
However, after your apology you once again accuse me of ""ignoring history"" (which is inconsequential, what is important is if wikipedia ignores history). I have not ignored history, nor your edits. I have simply added (historical) content to the article. Simply because our sources seem to differ does not mean that either is more or less suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, it simply means that we are using different sources.
Further, you have made a request for ""classical sources"" connecting effeminacy with gender, gender roles, or sexuality. I am not ignoring this request, but you must understand that it takes time to do research, compose that research, and add it to wikipedia. You, however, have also ""ignored"", o have yet to respond, to my question: if effeminacy applies only to one gender or sex, doesn't it inherently has something to with gender or sex?
One way of deflating this conflict, which would be supported by myself and was suggested by Snowspinner, is for you to create content on Malakos. Do you have an objection to this?
Lastly, if you find my sources questionable the best way, and the only way in article space, to question them is to find further references which directly contradict or question said references (for instance, a quote by Plato saying, ""Effeminacy has nothing to do with gender, sex, or sexuality,"" would effectively disable any secondary source to the contrary, or you could find another ""modern"" ""classicist"" who describes the errors of my sources).
 22:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)"