"

WTF are you talking about?  There is no admin decision against me to not edit gender articles.  I'm full allowed to edit any and all articles.  Not only are you engaging in slanderous accusations, you're telling flat out lies.  I'd say spreading flat out lies which have absolutely not basis in reality against other members is a violation of several Wikipedia policies, so you better be VERY careful about what you say.  I strongly suggest that you retract your slanderous accusation before you further discredit yourself.Why the heck would I make changes under an alternate account when I have the full capability of doing it under this account?  

Also, where have I inserted any kind of right wing or religious views here?  Nothing I've said has anything to do with religion nor does it have anything to do with politics.  My points are extremely valid and you only rejected them because of your ridiculous personal biases and need to push your POV.  Not only are transvestites not necessarily transgendered, there are quite a few people on this list who are clearly NOT transvestites even using the description given in the article itself.  I have to question how anyone thought it was a good idea to add them.  

I should also note that you're being hypocritical here, you're reverting a change on the basis that it hasn't been discussed, when you yourself refuse to discuss it!  I'd be very interested to know why a) non-transgendered people should be included on a list of transgendered ones and b) why transvestite is used as automatic criteria for seeing if someone is transgendered, even though there is nothing in the definition that indicates that.

Frankly, this kind of behavior is appalling.  The supposedly open minded LGBT Wikipedian cliques criticize ""right wing religious"" people (and by right-wing religious that means anyone who doesn't agree with their extremist views) is actually one of the most close-minded groups on wikipedia, with the least likely chance of actually discussing things (as evidenced here) and least likely to consider others views.   29 June 2005 22:08 (UTC)"