|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|Archive 6||Archive 7||Archive 8|
Boxes once again
Removed most of the debate to the archive, and moved my own reply under this heading. In case the matter comes up again, I'll leave these statemens here.
Hey yall, maybe a third persepctive is needed. It seems to me there are two questions:
- Should there be boxes?
- What form should those boxes take and where should they be placed?
I find very enticing Snowspinner's arguments that boxes are just one of many ways to link to things. They would never be central to, but could be a part of, wikipedias pluralism. I think that they could be a quicker and more clear way of grouping articles than to do so in the text of the articles, which may then be given over to explaining how it differs from or partially falls outside of any groups.
I find very convincing AlexR's arguments that boxes easily interfere with understanding articles and how those articles connect to other subjects, and how they may POV an article or group of articles.
I would suggest to Snowspinner that you create clear guidelines for writing and placing boxes, in that way you can ensure their quality and at least partially meet the objections against them (by incorporating those objections in your guidelines). I would suggest to AlexR that, if not completely opposed to ALL boxes, you create guidelines yourself, or at least a description of which boxes, where and when, you find acceptable. Ideally, you would collaborate. Things to consider:
- What belongs in "see also"s?
- What belongs in boxes?
- Where should boxes be placed?
- What is the maximum size a box should be?
If this doesn't alleviate the tone of the dispute, it will at least bring more clarity. If this is already taking place, my apologizes, please point me to it.
Hyacinth 02:56, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- See also should contain articles that provide direct background or expansion on the topic of an article, or that contain information that was glanced over in the article. For instance, in this article, Michel Foucault and Judith Butler are not mentioned directly, even though they are two important people who use the term within Critical Theory. They therefore go in See Also, because their theories directly expand and relate upon the concept of heteronormativity.
- Boxes should contain references to less obvious and immediately related paths through Wikipedia. Article links and see also contain the links that are materially relevent. Boxes should contain the links that are more abstractly relevent - linking Derrida to Foucault, John Adams to Bill Clinton, or soccer to basketball. All of these are connections that obviously make sense, but would not be directly made in the article.
- Either at the bottom of an article, or right-justified somewhere within the article - either at the top or by a section to which they are particularly relevent. (Right justifying at the bottom is visually unappealing)
- I can't see setting a blanket rule for this as a good idea, so let's just say "Boxes should not be offensively big, garrish, or stupid." And allow this to be fought out on talk pages. As it stands, I do not believe the LGBT box or the CT box to be overly large. Snowspinner 20:41, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
General proposal on Article Series Boxes
After much debate on the subject, Hyacinth suggested creating clear guidelines for writing and placing boxes in Talk:Heteronormativity, which is a good idea, in my opinion. Here, therefore, my attempt can be found: User:AlexR/Article series boxes -- AlexR 16:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
What really bothers me
For starters I made a number of edits of what I could see no reasonable person arguing in favor of (excesses of POV). The folowing are either more debatable, or more often, difficult for me to replace.
- It is descriptive of a dichotomous system of categorization that directly links social behavior and self identity with one's genitalia.
- No one links their self identity to their genitalia, or at least nobody I would want to meet...
- Genitalia largely define gender - plenty of people identify as male or female. Most of them decide which to identify as through consultation with their genitals. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- men and women are interpreted to be natural complements
- this is being insinuated to be a subject of debate?
- I'm going to go ahead and say that it is a subject of debate - c .f. the existence of gay people. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- As with much of critical theory, the focus is less on reasons for the norm, and more on trying to figure out what voices and groups are not given a voice or an identity within the terms of the norm
- is there no mention to be made of the voices of those who are maligned and dismissed as "heteronormative" and who are out of the cultural loop? Has anyone seen MTV or HBO lately? Gay culture is as trendy as can be, its practically ancient greece out there
- Yes and no. There's plenty of work being done on the appropriation of gay culture - MTV and HBO being central texts in this. The readings of most of these shows is not the straightforward reading that they're advocating gay culture. They're generally read as redefining what gayness is, and then advocating their new definition as though it were not new. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- by refusing to track down and/or prosecute murderers of transgendered people or denying vital services to transgendered people (currently, in parts of North America and Europe)
- Can you cite the numerous contemporary examples necessary to make this provocative claim? I seriously doubt the accuracy of it.
- Here I've got nothing. Alex? Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Try http://www.gender.org/remember/index.html# - it contains lots of transgender killings and related info. -- AlexR 01:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Try also "'Disposable People' A wave of violence engulfs the transgendered, whose murder rate may outpace that of all other hate killings" from the Souther Poverty Law Center, an institution that, as far as I know, can't really be accused of having a general pro-trans, pro-GLB or pro-gender debate position. -- AlexR 03:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- When this happens, if transgender or transsexual feelings and behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, people are left with two choices: they may either conform to the norms for their births sex, meaning that no medical treatment is given, and legal change of name and/or gender is not permitted, or they may comply with very strict rules for their "new" sex; any deviation from these is not permitted.
- who gives them these choices? And what are you talking about, no medical treatment is given? If they are in a car accident they are left to die? If they need orthadontic work, this is not allowed? Again, I would need copious contemporary citations for this preposterous claim.
- The medical treatment in question is pretty clearly, from context, referring to the sex change process, and not medical treatment at large. Still, if you'd like this clarified, it can be done. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- From the end of the 1990s or the beginning of the 2000s, in some places, transgendered peoples are given medical treatment as well, although their legal situation is still somewhat more difficult than that of people who can obtain a diagnosis of transsexualism.
- similar to above, and confusingly worded. What is difficult about their legal situation? Which jail to put them in? And what is ment by "in some places"? Where are they not being given medical care?
- That would be the legal situation of their gender - something very relevent to, say, getting married, getting health care, etc. Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
All in all, the person really to blame here is not any of you, nor any editor of the wikipedia, but rather the hack prof. who came up w this confounded assault upon intelligible discourse. Sam Spade 04:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- Your argument isn't really founded on a good understanding of how the concept is employed in critical theory. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but the term just isn't used that way - at least not in critical theory. I don't know about other usages, and though I think I understand what AlexR was getting at in the latter sections better than you seem to, i don't know whether I wholly agre with it. But as for your first three objections... there's not much there. The idea that gay culture (As opposed to simply gayness) is becoming accepted is far from clear. Indeed, the idea that gayness is becoming accepted isn't wholly clear - it's becoming an acceptable subject for entertainment, but there's a difference between being amused by something and accepting it. (For a good example of this, consider gangsta rap. Plenty of people can take a gangsta rapper as an object of entertainment. Fewer people can take being gang raped as an object of entertainment. The gang member is not accepted - it's appropriated.) Snowspinner 04:55, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Wow, I think you might want to substitute your gang member example for something less distressing! I happen to have been close friends w a large number of gang members, and they didn't rape anybody to my knowledge, gang style or otherwise. As far as critical theory, I know absolutely nothing of it outside of what I have seen here, so you might expect a bit of differences in our perceptions on it. I suppose I'll have to take a look at Critical Theory. I notice you made no mention of the issues regarding poorly documented allegations, and thus assume you are in general agreement w me on these particulars? Sam Spade 05:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
- I think, in that case, that the gang comparison is particularly apt, in that it shows clearly the act of a real culture (gang culture) being overwritten by an "accepted" popular view of it (The gang raping gangsta rapper, etc). Many would say something similar happens with gay culture. As for the other allegations, I'm neutral on the subject. I would not ask for their deletion, since I find them believable, however I also could not provide evidence to defend their inclusion. As for critical theory... it's tough. It's especially tough to figure out exactly what its political investments are. And, unlike a science, there's fierce disagreement in it - tracking it with generalized claims is very hard. That said, its view is that there's almost always someone being silenced - and that it's very often not who you think. :) Snowspinner 05:28, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
What bothers ME
Are transgender people the most expendable, or why is it that so much information about them has been removed, while most of the rest of the article has remained intact? Or is that what some here are willig to sacrifice to Sam Spade so he shuts up; or is it that nobody cares? Stuff will go in again as soon as the currend edit war is over, I won't be drawn into another. I am quite busy, and there is nothing to be gained by yet another one -- especially not one with a well known troll. -- AlexR 01:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It was more that I wasn't in a position to provide evidence to counter Sam's claims, and so wasn't really in a position to reinstate them. If you can provide counter-evidence, please do so. Otherwise, unfortunately, deletion on the grounds that the information is not verifiable is reasonable. Snowspinner 01:43, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
Well, let's have a look at them:
- do not develop a gender identity that corresponds to their body, and may never develop a gender identity that is plainly male or female. changed to
- do not develop a gender identity that corresponds to their body.
Where exactly is the thing that needs evidence? Even the most cursory glance of the results of a google search should give enough examples of that. I can actually offer myself as evidence, to shorten things.
- often do not behave according to the gender role assigned to them, even before transitioning. Many try, but most fail. changed to
- often do not behave according to the gender role assigned to them, even before transitioning.
Again, something that is affirmed by the mayority of reports of transgender people. The wording might be better, agree, but the fact remains.
- often identify as gay or lesbian after transitioning, and are often lumped together with homosexuals relative to their birth sex, although that is almost never correct. changed to
- often identify as gay or lesbian after transitioning, and are often lumped together with homosexuals relative to their birth sex.
The number of transpeople who pre-transitioning identified as gay or lesbian is small, once more, every piece of literature and every report on the matter says the same thing. This is speaking about self-identification, not the attribution of some self-styled "experts".
- Transgender has been pathologised so far that transgendered people routinely were locked away in psychiatric wards, or they were killed. These extremes can occur either overtly, for instance, by formally punishing transgender behavior by death (in Saudi Arabia, and many other non-western nations), or covertly, for instance, by refusing to track down and/or prosecute murderers of transgendered people or denying vital services to transgendered people (currently, in parts of North America and Europe). changed to
- Transgender has been pathologised so far that transgendered people routinely were locked away in psychiatric wards, or they were killed. These extremes can occur either overtly, for instance, by formally punishing transgender behavior by death (in Saudi Arabia, and many other non-western nations).
The reference to murders had been taken out before, and I remember back then that I provided a link to "remembering our dead" and the SPLC report, which I have provided again above.
- A special case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system is the medical diagnosis and the treatment of transsexualism. When this happens, if transgender or transsexual feelings and behaviour in a person cannot be suppressed, people are left with two choices: they may either conform to the norms for their births sex, meaning that no medical treatment is given, and legal change of name and/or gender is not permitted, or they may comply with very strict rules for their "new" sex; any deviation from these is not permitted. Failure to select either of these choices can lead to refusal of necessary treatments for gender reassignment. changed to
- A special case of incorporating transgendered people into a heteronormative system is the medical diagnosis and the treatment of transsexualism. The surgical procedure involves complying with very strict rules for their "new" sex; any deviation from these is not permitted.
And what exactly are the "missing facts" here? Same with the following example:
- Gender reassignment is has been allowed at some times in some places, conditional on the person becoming entirely a member of "the other" sex, thus reinforcing the notion that there are only two sexes. Gender reassignment includes medical procedures to produce a body that is as unambigously male or female as possible, a gender identity that is clearly male or female, the adoption of a "proper" gender role, which include things like choice of jobs and hobbies and so on, and a heterosexual sexual orientation. People are refused when they do not comply to these expectations. From the early 1990s on, the rules about "proper" gender roles began to be relaxed in some places, but in many places they are still in effect. changed to
- Gender reassignment is allowed on the condition that the person becomes entirely a member of "the other" sex, so that s/he thereby reinforces the binary gender system. Gender reassignment includes medical procedures to produce a body that is as unambigously male or female as possible, a gender identity that is clearly male or female, the adoption of a "proper" gender role, which include things like choice of jobs and hobbies and so on, and a heterosexual sexual orientation. Even today, people are being refused treatment when they did not comply to these very stereotypical expectations. This practice is slowly changing. From the early 1990s on, the rules about "proper" gender roles began to be relaxed in some places, but in many places they are still in place. From the end of the 1990s or the beginning of the 2000s, in some places, transgendered peoples are given medical treatment as well, although their legal situation is still somewhat more difficult than that of people who can obtain a diagnosis of transsexualism.
Also, the List of transgender-related topics has been removed again. I wonder what proof was missing here? It exists, just click the link.
Nope, sorry, but these are the facts, and there are many statements in this article, just as in every other article, that are not verified word for word, but verifiable. And I can only notice that the other people editing here are obviously perfectly happy to have the facts on transgendered people sacrificed to get get own points unvandalised by Mr. Spade. Sorry, but that is not going to happen, and before you ask vor my proof, how about citing anything that contradicts what I say? Those things go in again, and unless you can give me a sound reason for anything not to go back in again, this is the end of the debate for me. -- AlexR 03:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As an excuse for removing once again the List of transgender-related topics Snowspinner said in the edit comment Wasn't "List of transgender related topics" a replacement for the box? Also, you should probably ditch the box entirely in favor of Category tags at some point, no?
No, it was not, I am not even sure what box he is talking about. If he means the LGBT box, I merely moved it to the bottom, but it cannot replace the link, as it does not link to the list. Not to mention that my view on these boxes should be well known, especially to Snowspinner. If he wishes to ditch it entirely, I have absolutely no objectiony whatever, another thing he knows perfectly well. (The only reason I left it is was that if I had not, it would have been only a matter of timne before it is in again.)
And I don't see cathegories as a replacement for the list yet, because the cathegories are a complete chaos right now, and they cannot sort the entries, either, as the list does. Therefore, the link is still needed, and I will consider it vandalism if it is taken out again -- unless, for the very first time, Snowspinner or whoever else tries to erradice transgendered people from this article can give a good and sound reason to do so. -- AlexR 04:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I deleted the box and replaced it with a category. I'll do transgender topics tomorrow. The category system, though somewhat chaotic at the moment, is a perfectly adequate replacement for "list of topics," and can readily be sorted via the use of subcategories. Indeed, that's the exact reason the category system was implemented. Snowspinner 05:19, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- As for my desire to erradicate transgendered people... give me a break. Snowspinner 05:22, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- § Removing mention of people and removing people are different, no? P0M 06:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Naturally I meant removing them from the article. Claiming anything else is just trolling.
- As for removing the link to the list and replacing it with a category, I don't think you have the right to do that, because even if one consideres categories usefull right now, which I don't, there is no way of sorting the entries like they are sorted on the list. If you just want to add is, no problem, but don't remove the link to the list. Remove the link again, and you have yet another edit war brewing. Snowspinner is extremely fast on jumping on every new technically possible thingy, but he might consider the fact that just because it is new, it is not necessarily useful (maybe yet, maybe forever). You can make sub-categories in the links, yes, but where are they shown? Where is, with a category system, the place where all the things are sorted exactly the way they are on the list? Because, if you'd bother to check the debate, that sorting is a consensus reached after much debate. I don't think that somebody who is - by his own admission - as clueless about the matter as Snowspinner could possible decidede on any of these matters.
- I think this is very short of calling for another RfC. -- AlexR 14:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The feature was clearly put in to replace the ubiquitous (And much derided) list articles. This is not a matter of jumping on something new. It's a matter of noting that Wikipedia and, more to the point, the people who run it have replaced lists with these categories. Accordingly, we the editors should replace lists with categories. As for the function of categories, categories can be put within categories, creating subcategories to the exact effect you're saying you want. As for my right, transfering an existing list to a category could hardly require less knowledge of the subject. As you'll see later today. Snowspinner 14:29, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I've got a preliminary version of the categorization done. The top-level category is [[Category:Transgender-related topics]]. I haven't deleted the list link from anything yet, nor have I made any changes to article text other than redirecting Two-spirit to Two-Spirit, as the former was a stub on the exact same topic as the latter. There were one or two sections i couldn't decide on the best way to handle ("Other" and the sexual orientation section), so I haven't done those yet. Probably the sexual orientation section should just go in the higher-level LGBT category, but I'm not sure what to do with other. In any case, I think this is now one of the better done categories on Wikipedia. Snowspinner 16:06, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
Moved to the left for legibility "We the editors" - Now what is that supposed to mean? That you think you have the right to do everything you like, no matter how useless or badly done, and then not even anser to any criticism, just defending an obvious mistake?
Anyway, if that is one of the "better done" categories, I tremble at the thought of the worst. The entries are completely unsorted, now it reads (excerpt): Legal aspects of transsexualism, Metoidioplasty, Phalloplasty, Sex reassignment surgery, Sex reassignment surgery female-to-male, Sex reassignment surgery male-to-female, Standards of Care for Gender Identity Disorders and was labeled absolutely inappropriately 'Category:Sexual transition-related topics'. Compare that to the List of transgender-related topics, 'Topics related to transitioning'. He did not even bother to make it a sub-category of 'transgender'. (I have a feeling that he neither had grasped the concept of sub-categories not the idea that articles can be listed in more than one category.) So much for "better done". Not to mention that just because Mr. I-have-no-clue-but-I-am-a-EDITOR-so-I-do does not know how to handle a few things, therefore, let's just move them elsewhere. Whether it is a coincidence that this article is part of the section he wants to move away from transgender is an excellent question. The answer, at any rate, will not do him any credit.
In conclusion, Mr. Snowspinner has, by his own admission, no clue about transgender. He has, as can be seen by his actions, not much of a clue about categories. Yet he goes about to put the articles in categories, with highly questionable results, just to remove a single link from this article, and - quite accidentally of course - this article (to which he contributed nothing significant whatsoever in the first place) would be removed from the relation to transgender altogether. I can't help feeling that Mr. Snowspinner might suffer from a mild case of transphobia ... that is of course just my personal impression. One more try to remove transgender from this article, be it the content or the list, and I will request mediation. I've got better things to do with my time. -- AlexR 15:28, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Leave it alone, Sam
Mr. Spade removed much information about transgender people again, although he has (what a surprise) not given a reason for the removal. I don't care what exactly he does not like about transgender people, removing information without bothering to give a reason to do so is inacceptable. Unless Mr. Spade can state clearly why a particular piece of information should not be here, it stays -- particularly since I stated for each of these pieces last week why it is correct. I'd appreciate if this would not end in another edit war, but as Mr. Spade ought to know now, if there has to be one, I am not running away from it, either. Although I certainly won't bother to get into any debates until he comes up with something substantially more solid than a wish to "defend society against these horrors". In fact, how about mediation, Sam? Might save a lot of time and effort. -- AlexR 04:47, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Have you tried edit summaries? Who placed you in charge of this article? I find your grandstanding and pomposity laughably futile. The information had no evidence backing it up. Cite it and it stays, fail to do so and it goes. Your cowardly threats of edit wars scare me not, young grasshopper. The group editing process err's today, and perfects tomorrow. I understand that you can't be bothered to debate (possesed of neither the skill nor the resources), but you will have to prove yourself to be far worse before I will be willing to spend the time and effort necessary to correct you (i.e. mediation). Sam [Spade] 04:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The semantics at the beginning of the "Groups that challenge traditional gender structure" section were weird, so let me clarify my thinking. I think that when I write "against heteronormativity", I say that it exists and that it's bad. When I write "against the concept of heteronormativity", I am either saying it doesn't exist, or that the underlying assumption or notion itself is flawed. Whatever language is used in the article should clearly disambiguated between these two things, which the language I am now changing did not. Feel free to re-clarify if need be. -- Beland 10:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Regarding User:Ambivalenthysteria's 3 July 2004 edit, I'm keen to hear just how that paragraph is nonsensical enough that it warranted removal. The way I understood it is that people of a heteronormative view do not tend to accept gender identity choice as legitimate, and people outside that view tend to be the opposite.
Perhaps more citations for such an assertion would be in order, but simple removal without discussion is, in my view, over the top. —cky 14:59, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The point that last brief paragraph was making is already made by the rest of the article. That brief point, particularly without any context, was at best badly worded and unnecessary anyway, and at worst nonsensical. I don't disagree with the first assertion (it is obvious, so feel free to put it back). However, talking about "a right to alter one's gender identity"? Eh? Perhaps it may be in order to change identity to role, in which case that may make some more sense. Otherwise, IMHO, it needs considerable rewording/expansion/clarification to actually make sense in that context - but why bother, considering that the issue has already been handled elsewhere in the article. That's why I removed the statement. Ambivalenthysteria 04:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)