User talk:Ifnord

This is Ifnord's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. Ifnord^{Talk to me!}

Additional archived messages are here.

They appeared more constructive than yourm om.

Can't someone do anything fun while in quarantine? Loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.118.30.110 (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously going to block me from editing?

Do you realize how much stuff I'm already blocked from doing for the next 10 days? Or are you just some pig who doesn't care? Loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.118.30.110 (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cordelia Fine article.

Sorry I am new to this. I edited the Cordelia Fine article because I believe it uses a source incorrectly. At present the article says 'Harriet Hall, who often writes on alternative medicine and quackery, said of Testosterone Rex in the Skeptical Inquirer that "Testosterone Rex explanations are demonstrably false".' This makes it sound as if Harriet Hall is disagreeing with Fine's book Testosterone Rex. In this quote she is talking about the concept Testosterone Rex. Hall states 'Fine calls it Testosterone Rex: the familiar, plausible, pervasive, and powerful story of sex and society. Testosterone drives masculinity; it allegedly explains all those male/female differences'. She then says 'Testosterone Rex explanations are demonstrably false', i.e. explanations that rely on familiar, plausible, pervasive, and powerful stories of sex and society are false. Hall concludes the article by saying 'Cordelia Fine’s book provides compelling evidence that men and women aren’t really very different other than in their anatomy. There is no such thing as a “male brain” or a “female brain.” There are no essential male or female natures but rather an individualized mosaic of features. Testosterone isn’t very important. Biology can’t be used to explain or excuse societal inequalities'. These arguments are the arguments of Fine's book. Hall agrees with the arguments in Fine's book.

WikiF3114 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WikiF3114. You are absolutely correct. My misunderstanding, and it mine - not something you did, was because the title of her book was also Testosterone Rex. I initially read it as a condemnation of the book, which you correctly point out was not. My apologies, I have changed the quote, perhaps it is more clear to readers now but your edits are welcome. Ifnord (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know if I'm doing this right but I changed the quote to be the conclusion to the Hall article since I think it is a bit clearer on both what Hall thinks and what Fine's book is about. Should I now delete this message on your page? Sorry I'm new to all this! WikiF3114 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]