User talk:24.38.185.65

January 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop using Talk pages as a WP:SOAPBOX for your personal views. Talk pages are for discussion of reliable sources and Wikipedia policies; repeated comments that don’t cite either become disruptive. Please stop. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Well, this is rich. To express an unpopular opinion on a Talk page is not being disruptive. What you are saying is that no comment can go on a Talk page unless it is about a source or about Wikipedia policies? You know as well as I do that most comments on Talk pages are not about either of those things. In this case, Wikipedia's policies need to be changed, and a Talk page is as good a place as any to start the conversation.

Wikipedia is no longer a reliable source of information. Whichever group of editors wins the editing war on a particular issue is the group that gets their opinion represented in the encyclopedia. People have known that this is true for a very long time, and for you to deny it is simply dishonest. Editors like you not only block the truth from being written into the articles, you prevent an honest discussion of the issues. Indeed, if I were to go here -- WP:GENDERID -- to discuss the issue on the Talk page, you would try to block me there also.

The things I said on the Talk page for Masha Gessen are completely true. The adoption of politicized language by an encyclopedia is an egregious violation of what an encyclopedia should be. The standards need to be based on what is generally accepted by scientists as a whole and/or society as a whole, and the reality is that there are very few people using transgender terminology. Indeed, the vast majority of people in the U.S. would not be willing to refer to individuals as "they" or "them". What the encyclopedia SHOULD be doing is using the language traditionally used in such cases: "he/she", "he or she", etc. Wikipedia should also not be using words like "cis" or phrases like "assigned at birth".

Oh, and if you think I sound bitter, I am. I was an early editor on Wikipedia, and I was driven out by control-freaks like you who wanted to build the encyclopedia to reflect their own views. Thanks for showing me that nothing has changed.

FYI, changing IP addresses is not a problem for me.

August 2021

Hello!

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Posting embittered polemic rants about an article's subject matter, with no intent on building consensus or actually improving the article, is fundamentally disruptive to the encyclopedia's goals. You should avoid doing so, or other editors will probably continue to delete your messages, in accordance with the talk page guidelines.

Like all subjects, Wikipedia writes about transgender issues the way reliable sources write about them. This means any suggestion you have on how to improve the article needs to based on Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines (themselves the result of community-wide consensus), rather than your own ideas, beliefs, and biases, which constitute original research.

If you have any policy-based suggestions on how to improve Trans woman, or other articles, the talk page remains open to you. Please focus on content, rather than contributors. The article as it is (and the way Wikipedia describes transgender subjects in general) is the result of many RfCs and consensus-building discussions. You can search through talk page archives to see some of those.

If you are looking for an encyclopedia which specifically validates your fringe ideas about gender, the List of online encyclopedias might help you.

If you wish for a place to argue and debate your ideas with an anarchic horde of blood-thirsty strangers, consider joining Twitter.

Tendentiously yours, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 13:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

So, the idea that a person's gender comes from one's sexual reproductive system is a fringe idea? That's rich! Have you heard that the moon is made of green cheese?

The fringe ideas are all coming from trans people, and eventually those ideas will be discredited as the nonsense they are. That those fringe ideas have made it into this encyclopedia just shows how useless an encyclopedia is which can be edited by anyone.

I know you are trans, Roxy, because of your unusual first name. I've got news for you: You are a man. Oh, but that's not really news to you, is it?, given that every time you pee, you have to hold your penis.--24.38.185.65 (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you somehow unaware that, according to the recent, reliable sources, sex and gender are two different things? That isn't exactly a fringe idea - it is actually part of mainstream, consensus reality. Newimpartial (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No, sex and gender are not two different things. That is a new idea contrived by transgender people perhaps 30 or 40 years ago. The idea is not universally accepted. The idea allows them to pretend that they are real men and women when they are demonstrably not. What has happened is that transgender ideology has been accepted as fact on Wikipedia, but it is not fact. Wikipedia's willingness to accept unproven ideas as fact is one of the reasons it is not a reliable source of information.

As far as talk pages are concerned, aren't they there to discuss the content of the article? Well, that's what I was doing, so I have done nothing wrong.

If you are going to block every person who understands that sex and gender are the same thing, then you are going to be blocking a lot of people. I used to be a good Wikipedia editor, but you have pushed all the good people out. The only editors left are the ones who have an agenda. Unfortunately, the trans agenda, with all of its bizarre ideas, has overtaken Wikipedia. You are all stupid.--24.38.185.65 (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, WP doesn't care about your personal opinions. Reliable sources have distinguished sex and gender for at least 60 years now, and for the last 20 years (the recent, reliable sources) are nearly unanimous on the topic. Meanwhile, the actual RS also demonstrate that transgender ideology, which you believe to be real, actually represents a quite imaginary conspiracy.

Wikipedia, as a community, doesn't care that you have personal beliefs that disagree with what reliable sources say. What the community does care about is your tendency to post rants to Talk pages that make no contribution except to spread your ignorant "well-informed" POV, devoid of reliable sourcing or evidence beyond your own emphatic opinions and UNCIVIL suspicions. Reliable sourcing is one of the Pillars, and complaining that the reliable sources are wrong - which is the most sympathetic way I can think of to interpret what you have been doing - is against WP policy and makes no contribution whatever to improving our articles. The idea that the good people are the ones who dismiss expert sources to revel in their own unexamined prejudices "what they know to be true" runs directly counter to explicit WP norms and the culture of the community. Newimpartial (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Reality is what it is. First, the idea that "gender" means "gender identity" is a very new idea. You say it's sixty years old, which I don't agree with, but even sixty years old isn't a long time. For thousands of years the gender of a person was determined by his or her sexual reproductive system, and biologists still do that. I've got news for you: Human beings are animals and their gender must be determined in the same way that we determine the gender of other animals -- by examining people's bodies.

This redefinition of the word "gender" to mean "gender identity" is not actually science. Altering the meaning of a word is merely semantics. But most people in the world don't go along with this redefinition, and I frankly doubt that most scientists go along with it either. The ugly people of cancel culture have everyone intimidated, so a lot of people aren't speaking up honestly.

The centerpiece of gender ideology is the idea that "gender" means "gender identity". This is a pretentious trick by which transgender people can convince themselves that they are normal. ("I feel like a woman, just as natural women do, so that makes me a real woman, and that permits me to invade any and all of women's private spaces.") That's just bullshit, and it will eventually be recognized as bullshit.

So, what you call "sex" is no longer being called "gender" by some people -- so what? As I have already said, that is a semantic change -- and one which is still hotly disputed. The bottom line is that our gender comes from our sexual reproductive system. ALL gender distinctions in human beings arise from the fact that men and women have different bodies. If human beings all had the same body, then there would be no gender distinctions among people AT ANY LEVEL.

If you are transgender and you are pretending to be a real man or woman, you are simply fooling yourself. I don't know who you are, but your contention that all of the theories being pushed by trans people are now accepted by everyone as fact is completely false.

Now, as for talk pages, that is where editors should state their ideas about what the article should say, and that is what I was doing. And by the way, whoever you are, you are not a spokesperson for Wikipedia. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. If Wikipedia is treating nonsensical ideas as facts, then Wikipedia needs a course correction.

Enjoy my article, which spells it out in greater detail:

https://www.peaktrans.org/guest-post-transgender-people-are-seeking-acceptance-in-the-wrong-way-by-caleb-murdock/ 24.38.185.65 (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sexual harassment, including comments on their (presumed) sexual organs, is not ever appropriate. Equivamp - talk 15:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Talk page Edit Warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Newimpartial (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Censorship on Wikipedia has existent right from the beginning, but censorship on talk pages is something new. The reason why Wikipedia moderators are using their muscle to enforce transgender ideology on Wikipedia is that transgender ideology is essentially INDEFENSIBLE. If it were a defensible ideology, it would stand naturally on its own. But it doesn't stand naturally because it is all bullshit. In other words, the idea that a real woman can have a male body is nonsense on its face, as is the idea that a real man can have a female body. Wikipedia is now the place where people go to be indoctrinated in political correctness, not facts.--24.38.185.65 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Gender and sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in . Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently editing only for the purpose of using Wikipedia talk pages as forums for promoting your opinions and criticising other Wikipedia editors, evidently with no intention of actually contributing to building the encyclopaedia. Please note that this block implies no judgement one way or another about the merits or demerits of the views you have expressed; it is because Wikipedia is not for posting for the purpose of expressing such opinions, right or wrong, and because doing so causes damage to the encyclopaedia by taking up time of editors who could be using that time on more constructive work. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

June 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Chase Strangio, you may be blocked from editing. Funcrunch (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

There was absolutely nothing that I said on the Chase Strangio Talk page that wasn't true. Strangio has extreme trans views, views that are not shared by the majority of Americans. His reputation rests largely on his extremism, as well as on his efforts to transform the ACLU into a liberal organization. For a hundred years its mission was non-partisan, but that's gone now. The article on Strangio has been whitewashed by, I assume, liberal editors like yourself who want the encyclopedia to represent their liberal point of view. Censoring people's additions to articles is bad enough, but to censor people's comments on Talk pages, where they are raising important issues that need to be discussed, is truly outrageous, and it shows how far Wikipedia has been taken over by partisans like yourself who want it to reflect only their point of view. EDITORS LIKE YOU ARE RUINING THE ENCYCLOPEDIA.

October 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing the topic of their associated main pages and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about unrelated topics. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The term "grooming" is now being used to describe the influence of transgender activists on children in which (just as I said in my talk page comment) they are encouraging children to transition to the opposite gender regardless of whether the children have gender dysphoria or not. An article entitled "Child Grooming" should cover that topic along with pedophilia. Indeed, there is a social organization that is against this kind of grooming called "Gays Against Groomers".

It is a shame what has happened on Wikipedia. There is no longer any freedom of speech. Certainly, on talk pages people should be free to raise such topics and discuss them, and yet the censorship now extends to talk pages. Where transgenderism is concerned, Wikipedia is not even slightly impartial, having adopted all of the tenets of transgender ideology. One-half percent of the population has effectively managed to disrupt all of society, and to censor an open discussion of the subject. Transgender ideology is a highly controversial set of ideas; that Wikipedia has accepted these ideas as facts -- instead of treating them as mere ideas -- shows that Wikipedia is now a partisan organization. Wikipedia is no longer good for anything but finding birth and death dates.

Editors like you, who censor people, are part of the problem. Think about this the next time you go to a book burning. 24.38.185.65 (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:RGW. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is for, it is not a forum for expressing personal views. You can express your personal views in a blog any day of the week, but Wikipedia is a collection of encyclopedia articles, not blog opinion pieces. And please don't say that other editors are ruining the encyclopedia, they are simply following the guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The term "grooming" is being used to describe the undue influence that transgender activists have gained over children by giving them the idea that they have a gender identity and by influencing them to transition to another gender. This subject should be covered in any article on Wikipedia that is entitled "Child Grooming".

Wikipedia was ruined years ago. It now reflects the views of whatever group employs the most editors to get their ideas across. Transgender ideology is a good example. It is NOT accepted by a majority of the population of ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, and yet it has now been incorporated into Wikipedia's rules and is made a part of every article. Yet, like the practice of lobotomy, it will eventually be discredited.

There is no longer any freedom of speech on Wikipedia. Not only are the articles censored of facts the editors don't like, but the Talk pages are being censored too (by dopes like you). My suggestion that trans grooming be incorporated in the Child Grooming article is perfectly reasonable and should not be removed. If other editors want to disagree, then let them disagree. Tell me, do you give yourself Nazi salutes when you look in the mirror? Do you have a picture of Mitch McConnell on your mantle?

---