Talk:Heteronormativity/Archive 5

message: Is the neutrality issue sufficiently settled to remove the pov tag? Snowspinner 15:38, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: neutrality poll

message: I've made another pass. I think that editing back and forth has already produced language we both find acceptable on a number of sections, and I'm hopeful that these last few will smooth out as well. It may take a few tries, but I really do think we can get this. Snowspinner 14:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: [AR] I did a complete revert. Your edits are once more factually highly questionable, the reasons for that I gave before; since it is not as if you'd ever try to understand what I write you obviously feel free to ignore it. Also, let me propose something else again: Do expand the article on academic use and so on, that is obviously something you know something about. And keep your fingers out of those section you obviously neither have a clue about, not with to get one.  -- AlexR 15:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to understand what you write. Unfortunately, it is not written clearly enough for that to be an easy task. I'm taking another pass at it to try to clarify what you are saying and to use terms in their generally accepted usages. Hopefully this time you'll work with me instead of reverting. Snowspinner 16:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already told you several times, let us try to find a compromise here, and not in the articel itself. Are you expecting me to let your false claims and edits stand in the article, because you keep refusing to do anything that looks like cooperating? Keep displaying that academic arrogance and you leave me no choice to revert. Ususaly I try to include whatever usefull you have written; which was, in the three paragraphs in question, not much, but I will not let your flatout wrong ideas, especially but not exclusively in the transgender section, remain in the article. -- AlexR 23:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see section below for an explanation of every single edit I just made. Snowspinner 23:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits from 21 Apr 2004 14:32 (UTC)

message: Here are the changes I am making, and the justifications for them. I would like to know exactly what your problems are, instead of simply having edits reverted with no explanation or evidence of claims. 
"for producing an unambigous body" to "for producing a body with an unambiguous sexual assignment"
* Unambiguous body is unclear phrasing. It suggests that the surgery is to make it unambiguously true that the person has a body. It needs to be revised such that it is clear that we are talking about making an unambiguous sexual assignment.
** "Producing a body with an unambigous sexual assigment" is far more unclear, it does not make sense, because an unambigous assigment could be given even with an ambigous body, in fact, that sometimes happens. And since you don't bother talking about changes here first, I'll make the corrections in the article as well. Seems your idea of cooperating is significantly different from mine. It's "for producing a seemingly unambigous body" The assignment is already there. [AR] 
"disapproved of in many heteronormative societies" to "disapproved of in many societies"
* "heteronormative" is an unnecessary word, and use of it assumes that heteronormative societies exist. Statement remains true of word is dropped, and no meaning is lost.
** OK [AR]
"Transgender" to "Transgender"
* Article exists in Wikipedia - should be linked to on first usage.
** Correct. Used to be linked above, but most have gotten lost during one of the 100+ edits.
"the assumption of an unambiguous maleness or femaleness. Transgender people always violate the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity" to "the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity"
* Current phrasing is redundant - maleness and femaleness are awkward words that should be avoided if possible. Making broad claims about groups of people always doing something is potentially offensive to members of that group who do not conform to broad generalization.
** You just don't get it, do you? Transgender people - is that the third or fourth time I tell you that - are not just violating the assumption about identity, but about the whole concept of sex=gender identity=gender role, in other words, maleness and femaleness. Agreed, those are not particular beautiful words, but I have rather a few ugly words instead of even uglier untruths. It's now "the assumption of unambiguously male or female human beings. Transgender people always violate the assumption of an unambiguous male or female identity"
"Many seek to" to "Many seek"
* Grammar fix. 
"and also many violate assumptions of gender roles and sexuality" to "and also of traditional gender roles and sexuality"
* Too much usage of 'violate assumptions of' in a row - no meaning is lost, and it smooths language.
"A special case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system is transsexualism." to "Many transgender people are erroneously lumped into the category of transsexual." 
* Transsexualism is more than a case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system - there exist people who are in fact transsexuals. The broad category "transsexualism" is inaccurately used in current form.
** Well, I clarified that to "the medical diagnosis and treatment", it might remove some of your problems.  [AR]
"If transgender behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, it is allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of the other sex, so that s/he thereby confirms the binary gender system." to "When this happens, their transgender nature being allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of the other sex, so that s/he thereby conforms to the binary gender system."
* Current phrasing suggests that all transgender people are forced into transsexualism. New phrasing flows better from previous sentence. Also, transsexuals do not confirm the binary gender system - they are not a proof of it. They conform to it - that is, they do not disprove it.
** At least for a long time it was tried to force all people looking for medical treatment into the TS/TV-system, and that has been changing only very recently. I'll think of adding something to that effect to the article. And your idea that transsexualism (not necessary transsexuals!) do not conform the binary gender system, sorry, but that is flatout wrong. On the other hand, some transsexuals do disprove of a binary gender system, even if they feel completely male or female themselves. Rare but true. [AR]
"That" to "This"
* This was a simple grammar fix.
"including things like choice of jobs and hobbies and so on, and a heterosexual sexual orientation" removed
* "proper gender roles" already describes what occurs. Furthermore, phrasing is inaccurate. Is not the case that transsexuals are mandated to be heterosexual. Furthermore, gender lines on jobs and hobbies are increasingly fading, though I will admit that they are still there. 
** I am sorry, but you are wrong again. Transsexuals are still sometimes refused treatment because they have the wrong sexual preferences, and some are forced to get "proper" male or female jobs and hobbies. I know this sounds crazy, and it is, but it still happens. Check any support group (off-campus), and they will tell you the very same thing. [AR] 
"(Please note: This is a description of the heteronormative treatment of transgendered people, not a description of a course freely chosen by transsexual or transgendered people.)" removed
* Change to beginning of paragraph covers this. As it stands, this is in contradiction to the claim that transsexualism as a whole is something forced upon transgender people. Furthermore, parenthetical clarifications ought be avoided - better to simply not make the language unclear in the first place, which is what previous edits have done. 
** I'll think about rephrasing that. If I can't find a better place for it, it goes back in again. -- AlexR 23:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining changes

message: Here are the changes I am making, and the justifications for them. I would like to know exactly what your problems are, instead of simply having edits reverted with no explanation or evidence of claims. 
"for producing an unambigous body" to "for producing a body with an unambiguous sexual assignment"
* Unambiguous body is unclear phrasing. It suggests that the surgery is to make it unambiguously true that the person has a body. It needs to be revised such that it is clear that we are talking about making an unambiguous sexual assignment.
** "Producing a body with an unambigous sexual assigment" is far more unclear, it does not make sense, because an unambigous assigment could be given even with an ambigous body, in fact, that sometimes happens. And since you don't bother talking about changes here first, I'll make the corrections in the article as well. Seems your idea of cooperating is significantly different from mine. It's "for producing a seemingly unambigous body" The assignment is already there. [AR] 
*** My idea of cooperating is that the article, as with all of Wikipedia, is a work in progress - I'd rather have us each put our changes into the article until we arrive at an article we're both happy with. Unambiguous body is still unclear - I've attempted to recast the whole phrase to "Produce a body that appears unambiguously male or female." Snowspinner 01:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining changes