User talk:Katie Ryan A

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You have been mentioned on Jimbo Wales' talk page[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. As a courtesy, I am leaving you a note to let you know that there is a discussion centering around comments you made recently about feeling uncomfortable editing on Wikipedia due to some comments during the Chelsea Manning naming debate. I discovered the discussion and while reading noticed that you had not been notified. While this is not a requirement, it is considered best practice to do so. The original posting editor should have informed you but was not required by policy.

You may find the discussion located at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 143#This comment makes me sad.. In a nut shell, an editor is expressing their disappointment in having editors feel uncomfortable editing Wikipedia due to such uncivil comments as you mention. Many of these rude comments are being given as evidence in an Arbitration case involving the name change and homophobic/transphobic issues as well as edit warring etc. Please feel free to join the discussion. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note at my talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for the "Thanks"...I continue to be shocked at the recent bias against transgender individuals' articles on Wikipedia. The attempts to dehumanize them is unacceptable. The fact is is that before the Chelsea/Bradley Manning dispute in August, there doesn't have been much controversy about renaming articles to accommodate gender transitions. I have no idea why this animosity has suddenly emerged this summer. I hope that respectful policy can be enacted to make renames just a matter of course, not subject to debate. Liz Read! Talk! 13:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole case has been a bit crazy for the trans community and the polarization is happening everywhere. It has brought a lot of trans issues into the mainstream press, and there has been a lot of positive coverage of the problems we face. However, Chelsea Manning was a polarizing subject before anyone knew she was trans, so her case isn't very helpful towards the cause when people can't seperate their disapproval with her actions from her gender identity. The people that bother me the most are the ones who claim that they support trans people and understand and respect transitioning as necessary, but then go on to say that Chelsea deserves to be denied her transition because they don't like her. I've never heard this sort of outrage about providing heart medication to convicted murderers...
One of my favorite arguments I've seen on-wiki is that she has male genitalia and it is therefore inaccurate to refer to her as anything but male. If that logic somehow gets put into the guidelines here (not that there is any chance it will), then I look forward to putting together a team of "gender police". They would go through articles on every person on wikipedia, converting them to gender-neutral language until someone could provide a reliable source on the configuration of that person's genitals. Otherwise calling them by the pronouns they prefer would be original research, right? Katie R (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer to my question on the reference desk about changing the HD serial number[edit]

However, I still wonder why there are special programs for changing the HD serial number (see ibid. and the second page as well), if there's a simple command <uniqueid>?

Additionally, your link about the command <uniqueid> claims this command "displays or sets the GUID partition table (GPT) identifier or master boot record (MBR) signature for the disk with focus". So, are you still sure this refers to changing the HD serial number? (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is distinct from the serial number, which will be a manufacturer-specific thing to change. Like I said on the reference desk, the thing that uniqueid sets is commonly called the disk signature. This is what is usually used by the operating system to uniquely identify the disk, not the serial number, so I thought it may still be of interest depending on why you needed to change the serial number in the first place. Katie R (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thankxs. (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

I didn't need a reason, i just think the advice you give on the help desk is very valuable. Also what you went through with the Chelsea/Bradley Manning rename was terrible and you should have earned a medal for putting up with that. Thanks for sticking around Katie and keep up the good wikiing =]. I hope to continue seeing you around the help desks for a long long time!

Jenova20 (email) 14:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed hat and some explanation[edit]

I removed your hat here [1]. I find it wrong for you to suggest there is something wrong with me pointing out that AFAIK a person does not identify as female after some has said they do, as somehow wrong. I would add you seem to have missed the point of the pronoun issue (which wasn't really what the discussion was about).

AFAICT, no one is suggesting we should sit around someone's preferred pronoun in the absence of anything. However the person we're talking about here said things in the past which the vast majority consider to be clear self identification as female. Some people therefore began to use the female pronoun. Once or twice, people proffered correction to others who used the male pronoun. This is perfectly normal and reasonable behaviour although care has to be taken to make sure you're correct as the risk of harm is generally a bit greater from offering a correction than not offering one. But it's still the sort of stuff which happens all the time on wikipedia and other online communities without comment or complain. If you believe someone has clearly self identified as a certain gender identity, there's no harm in offering a simple correction. No one is saying there needs to be extensive speculation about the gender identity. If someone does object to such corrections, whatever their actual gender identity, they're obviously entitled to request people don't make them and no one has suggested otherwise.

However the person we're talking about here did none of this. About 2 years back, they made an extensive complaint, including apparently misidentifying the source of some commentary they objected to and accusations of "nigger" jokes which most people found nonsense and some commentary which suggested people should take care when commenting on their gender identity. While they did offer some followup, most of these didn't help much and they then proceeded to disappear as they always do offering little explanation for their complaint. Nor any apology or even real acknowledgement that they had made some highly offensive but poorly supported claims and apparently even one mistaken claim (incorrect attribution). Since then, except perhaps for once or twice early on, I've been careful not to comment on their gender identity until this case, where someone said that they claim to be female, something which I believed and still believe to be wrong so I mentioned that.

You can perhaps say I went over the line with my second comment about what I previously believed but this was a fairly complicated case as

1) It's apparent many people still believe the person we're talking about is female however the reasons for this seem to significantly be because others call them female

2) My honest impression from what they've said (i.e. ignoring what others have said) was that they're male and didn't really mind people knowing that or identifying them as such provided care was taken although precisely how much care was unclear and looking back at the earlier discussion I started to become less certain over the whole thing.

3) It's apparent as I've said that the person we're talking about here may have some objections to something relating to people commenting on their gender identity but precisely what is unclear because the discussion from which this arises is very confused and the person we're talking about here has offered no explanation

4) My comment which rereading it I feel I decent job of (even though I probably didn't have to say what I previously believed); was intended to convey the fact that wide confusion of precisely what the person we're talking about here has said we should and shouldn't do. And while I've done my best to respect their extremely unclear desires as I guess have others, I can understand why people are confused over this whole matter. And in fact I came away from rechecking the earlier discussion which started the whole thing from do years ago even more confused than I was before. (Noting of course that a key part of the reason for the confusion is that the person involved made as a I said a massive complaint including widespread accusations of Ad hominem attacks, which few people really understood because the stuff that were complaining about didn't actually seem to be harmful or in any way what they were suggesting it was, and part of the stuff they were complaining about didn't even come from who they were proscribing it to, yet they offered no further explanation.)

To be clear, the issue is not over the existence over the confusion of the identity, which the person we're talking about here, and anyone else, is entitled to if they desire. But over the confusion over whether that's what they desire perhaps including people never mentioning it in any way, or they don't actually mind people believing and mentioning they're gender identity X provided people don't go too far like use it to make what they regard as personal attacks, or what. While there obviously should always be some care taken, since this can be a sensitive subject matter, I don't feel and I don't think there's any community consensus that agrees that under normal circumstances that goes as far as to never mentioning someone's clear self identification (which BB believe) when it's highly relevant, or correcting that comment when it's apparently incorrect (as I believe). In fact, one of my beliefs before my first reply in the matter (something which I still actually think may be the case) was that the person involved possibly objected to people saying they'd self identified as female, which was partly what the previous fuss was about, so mentioning when someone had made what I thought and still believe to be a good faith error seemed not only reasonable but important.

In any case, although I still don't feel I crossed any line, I've modified my response to remove mentions in that response of gender identity [2]. Again I'm not saying and I don't think anyone is saying that we should have extensive discussions about the person we're talking about, or anyone's gender identity, but this is quite a different thing from mentioning it when you believe it is highly relevant (as BB did), and mentioning that you believe someone is mistaken when they make a point blank statement which they believe to be correct about something having claimed to be female when AFAIK the person has done no such thing and some brief followup mentioning there's extensive confusion about precisely what we should and shouldn't about the issue.

P.S. I appreciate the irony over this extensive discussion, but I see no choice since I feel as I'm sure is clear, that I did not do anything substantially wrong here and therefore am entitled to offer some explanation from where I'm coming. While I appreciate gender identity can be a sensitive subject, I'm sure you appreciate accusing someone of being insensitive in that regard is also a sensitive issue for many. Given the sensitivity, I've avoided referring to the person by name, although it's obviously easily possible to know who I'm talking about. But I see no way to avoid this since I cannot explain my position without mentioning what happened and why from my POV. I did consider emailing but I feel I prefer my response to be public come what may. As per WP:TPG you can of course delete my response as you discretion.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness & time[edit]

Cétoine dans rose.JPG

(cf your help on "Apple 17' display") . Please, take 2 minutes, put down your hat, so you'll have a close look at my roses, & smell their fragrance (the rose chafer is harmless) . T.y.Arapaima (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

disk image[edit]

Thanks, I only just saw your answers at the ref desk. After about 24 hours stuck in a loop going from "scanning and repairing disk" to "unexpected error, restart and continue windows installation" I have pretty much given up. I should say, the computer's owner has given up, and will take it to a shop or maybe get a MAC, he hates windows so. I was never able to get into safe mode like you do with Windows 7. I might look into this later in the week, but my family is coming into town as we speak, and I will be enjoying my niblings. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, just let me know if you want any more help - I saw you posted it several days ago so I figured you may have already decided to give up on it. I work with this stuff, but in the Windows Embedded world where everything is just a bit different and we haven't moved to 8 yet because we don't need to. I've had pretty terrible experiences with the Windows 8 auto-recovery stuff at home too, but I chalked that up to using a motherboard and hard drive scavenged from the scrap bin at work to build that system. Enjoy your time with your family. :-) Katie R (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for the answer dated 13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC) at the ref desk. I couldn't find the dif for some odd reason. The barnstar is not topically appropriate either, but I like the one that spins. Hehe. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For you patient answer at the humanities desk μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I try to be pretty active in fighting for trans awareness and rights in the real world and other parts of the internet, and it feels like I have to explain the same basics over and over because even the people that I know want to be accepting and supportive have big misconceptions about us and the issues we face. It's great to know that it's appreciated. :-) The spinny one is nice - the special barnstar is fun for anything vaguely LGBT-related because of the rainbow. Katie R (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to Continue an Old Conversation With You[edit]

Dear Katie,

You previously wrote this:

"Yeah, I meant to imply that the depression was part of dysphoria that I simply wasn't even aware of at the time. As for hair, the normal solution is a wig, and I know one trans woman who keeps her head shaved... It's whatever works best for you. The gendered brain idea is interesting but also controversial. It's been a while since I looked into it, but I remember people discussing flaws in the sample size and diversity. People are also worried that if it becomes a standard explanation of why people are trans, then it also has the possibility to make things worse for people who need to transition. Imagine if it became a standard test to see if someone is "really" trans, and was used as a requirement for things like HRT, surgery or legal name/gender changes. Poorer people may not be able to afford the brain scan and false negatives would affect people who do feel a need to transition. On the orchi side I don't really know for sure. Orgasms are certainly still possible, and are even with full reassignment surgery, but erections and ejaculation are affected, and I don't know enough about orchis to know how things work in the long run. Feel free to discuss your situation with me. :-)"

Now, please let me respond to you in regards to this:

Thanks for clarifying your situation with your depression; this is what I already previously suspected. As for wigs, they might work, though I don't intend to wear a wig all of the time (of course, I myself don't plan to function as a female all of the time either even if/after I get a sex change). Why exactly does this trans-woman keep her head shaved? Is it okay if you tell me? As for the gendered brain idea, I am not trying to generate controversy--I am simply trying to honestly and accurately analyze this situation. Also, the problem with your standard test scenario is that I don't necessarily see why someone needs or should need to be transgender in order to transition. After all, why exactly shouldn't a gender-fluid person be able to transition? Likewise, why exactly shouldn't someone who has a brain/mind of one sex/gender but who for some reason prefers the body and/or the life(style) of the other sex/gender be able to transition? From my perspective, your standard test scenario here appears to be an extremely good example of gate-keeping. Personally, I myself appear to be very open and tolerant in this regard. Honestly, I think that any adult who is mentally sane should eventually be able to get rid of gender-/sex-specific body parts of his or hers which he or she dislikes for some reason in a safe, medical setting regardless of whether or not he or she ever plans to transition/get a sex change. After all, I don't see why someone who has the brain/mind of one sex/gender should necessarily like all of his or her gender-/sex-specific body parts. Likewise, doing this in a safe, medical setting would be much better than having these individuals try doing this by themselves and/or "in back alleys", both of which are (much) more dangerous (and for the record, I think that I did previously read about some cases of back-alley castrations and castration attempts occurring). As for your test scenario, such a test could be made free, though I share your concern about false negatives; in addition, all of my points above still appear to be valid ones. Thank you very much for this information about orchis; I've previously read that there appeared to be some cases of people getting sex changes and then being unable to get orgasms any longer afterwards or something like that; however, I could be wrong on this. Also, I apologize for asking, but if you don't mind telling me, did you yourself ever get an orchi yet?

As for my own situation, here is a decent summary of it (I have copied and pasted a lot of the text below from one of my previous messages (on another forum) to another individual with whom I have also shared this information online):

Basically, I would like to (eventually) get a sex change because I find the female body to be much nicer than the male body (in regards to looks, lack of body and facial hair, aesthetics, smell, in regards to getting long hair on one's head more quickly, et cetera), as well as due to the fact that I want to have ovaries and a uterus and thus to get pregnant and to get periods. In addition, it appears that females have a broader and better collection of clothes and outfits to wear than males do (for instance, it is acceptable for females to wear pants but not for males to wear dresses).

In regards to functioning, even after I would get a sex change, I would still like to function as a male for a part of the time (though obviously not all of the time) while still having a female body. Of course, I would also like to function as a female sometimes as well. Also, sometimes I would simply prefer to ignore gender/sex altogether, if you get what I mean. This is what I previously meant by my gender-fluidity. Also, I would like to point out that I myself don't feel trapped in a male body, though I still prefer to have a female body over a male body.

As a side note, I prefer to have an androgynous face over a female face, and interestingly enough, mentally/brain-wise, I do appear to have a bit of a male lean. However, functioning as a female sometimes still strongly appeals to me. While many/most people prefer to have bodies which fully correspond with their brain/mind, I myself find the activity of functioning as a male (which, even with a female body, I plan to sometimes do, but not always do) to be much more appealing than actually being a male.

Whether or not I will actually get a sex change will depend on various factors, such as whether or not my insurance will cover it, whether or not my future girlfriend/wife will support me in regards to this, whether or not (and exactly to what extent) my job opportunities will be affected by this, et cetera.

Finally, I would like to point out that I hope that we will eventually be able to fully change people's bodies and to fully change people's brains to fit the sex/gender that they want it to fit. I would also love to see much greater equality, acceptance, and tolerance of LGBT people in the United States and worldwide. Honestly, hatred of LGBT people should have no place anywhere in the 21st century and beyond.

Anyway, I think that I wrote enough on this topic for now.

Have a good day. Take care.


Futurist110 (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Katie,
If there is anything which I wrote which you found to be offensive and/or want me to clarify, then please let me know. Again, I try to be careful to avoid saying offensive things, and thus, if you have a problem with anything I said, then please let me know so that I can examine and/or explain it. Also, please take as much time as you need responding to me, though I simply want to remind you that over a week has passed since my last comment to you.
Anyway, have a good day and take care,
Futurist110 (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Just been busy - I edit from work, and haven't really had the time to put into a response. I'll try to get to it soon Katie R (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, please take as much time as you need. However, could you please tell me when you think you will be able to respond to me (as in--during what time frame)? For instance, do you think that you will be able to respond to me within two weeks? Within a month? Within two months? Futurist110 (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ping me again on Monday to remind me - I should have time to get back to you then. Katie R (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]