Talk:Transphobia/Archive 5 - Knowledge (XXG)

2107:

to polarise the discussion and the often aggressive tone and attitude that gets expressed in conflicts regarding this topic, I think it is important to also include the dark side in the article. The first criticism would be, that discussing the this topic seems to be taboo. People get cancelled for just speaking out in a critical way or simply expressing their personal ideas. This is bad practise in an open society and raises the suspicion that there might be more to this than meets the eye. Secondly a critical sign should be posted where the topic leads to physical harm, as can be expected from medical procedures regarding transpeople. A third concern is the erosion of common sense for the sake of an ideology. This is more of a war on the mind and propaganda, when it comes to leading these ideas into schools and families. I think what we see is that subjective experience is taken to be valued more than objective facts. Now in many ways it is important to listen to the subjective truth of individuals and groups. Nevertheless in this regard the transgender issue tends to become like a cult, where objective facts are being actively suppressed in order to maintain the cohering beliefstrucktures. Finally, it seems that there being made an attempt to bring all who perceive themselves as being ignored, rejected or suppressed to belong to this movement. That gives it an almost religious aspect. For politics that used to separate church from state for these reasons, deep consideration should be made when it comes to legislation in this regard. This is my first contribution to Knowledge (XXG) ever. Thank you for reading.

647:, I know that such a message is commonly made due to transphobia these days. And that because there is a lot more transgender awareness these days, the message can be considered transphobic regardless of its intent. But such material has also been written for men, rather than trans women, specifically. For example, I would occasionally come across this type of thing in high school...because boys would sneak into the girls bathroom. Back then, it was very rare for trans discussion (including discussion of non-binary people) to occur in schools and elsewhere (outside of LGBT spaces) and so the message wasn't meant for trans girls. Do you know if the intent of the image's message was to exclude trans women? Considering that such a statement is commonly directed at trans women these days, I'm not stating that we should remove the image. It's a strong image. 3023:, so as to find works talking about that specific facet of the topic of transphobia, I spotted the article I linked in my edit summary, which discusses how researchers variously labelled pictures variously as trans or cis to different participants and observed that people of various sexualities rated someone as less attractive if they thought the person is trans. But focusing on one subset (lesbians) of one facet (people rating someone as less attractive if they think they're trans) of transphobia, and presenting it as a "some people complain about being called transphobic" type of thing, isn't contributing to presenting an accurate or complete picture of the topic. Looking at articles on other forms of discrimination where people even more often/loudly complain about / dispute being accused of them, e.g. 367:

have said ..." (I don't think either of us think the names should all be presented). I can work with your wording though. Is their any reason transphobia is in quotes though? I also think "was overly broad" should be "has become overly broad" as it seems to fit better with what they are suggesting. I do think it is useful to add that they feel it is affecting their work, but it probably does not fit in that well under etymology (I actually considered removing that part when I moved it). That aspect might be better with specific examples, and counters, in the feminism section. I also think the whole etymology section could be expanded with a better summary style of what is considered transphobic, with the details presented in their specific section.

1075:

between different people's competing claims. Knowledge (XXG), like any other encyclopaedia, has to reflect what is written elsewhere, not make up its own truth otherwise it would tear itself apart arguing over what that truth should be. Believe me, the transphobes would love to be able to write whatever the hell they like and our prohibition on original research is a key tool to prevent that. Whenever a transphobe tries to insert their made up nonsense along the lines of "blah, blah, something irrelevant about chromosomes, blah, blah, its just basic biology init, blah, blah." the prohibition against original research is our reason for removing it and refusing to readmit it without solid references for the complete claim.

698:, I didn't see that the uploader called the message transphobic. Again, I know that due to transgender awareness today, it can be considered transphobic because, either way, it excludes trans women who haven't undergone bottom surgery. So such a message can be unintentionally transphobic. I was simply wondering because of my experiences having witnessed this as a teenager (and to a lesser extent as an adult) when it wasn't directed toward trans girls or trans women. Some might ask me: "How do you know that the boys sneaking into the girls bathroom weren't transgender?" Well, to our knowledge, the boys were sneaking into the girls bathroom to 1090:. So what should we make of that? Personally, I'd assume that it was probably intentionally transphobic but there is also a small possibility that it was written by somebody not merely tone deaf but totally unaware of trans issues. They might have intended to ward off cis men without even the slightest thought that they were excluding some trans women as well. I doubt that but I can't prove it. Nobody can. To state it without referencing a reliable source would be original research. This ambiguity makes it a poor example to use in the article. 3048:

feel that they harbor no ill will towards trans people. Some label this transphobic because it constitutes a refusal to accept a trans person’s stated gender for all purposes, or perhaps a refusal (inability?) to recognize sex and gender as a dichotomy where their personal sexual attraction is concerned. Maybe some label it transphobic because it seems to be a rejection of another person only because that person is trans. Is there a difference between that and rejecting another person only because that person has the wrong biological sex?

1832:"As an example of a high-profile employment-related court case unfavorable to transgender people, in 2000 the southern U.S. grocery chain Winn-Dixie fired long-time employee Peter Oiler, despite a history of repeatedly earning raises and promotions, after management learned that the married, heterosexual truck driver occasionally cross-dressed off the job." I feel like this section almost implies that the guy is transgender just because he crossdressed. 31: 2266:

pejoratively of those opposed to or critical of transgender movements and ideas. The fact that hyperlinks elsewhere on wikipedia such as 'anti-trans' and similar lead to 'transphobia' shows the problem. The term is used in the world today, and the article should explain how it is used, but it cannot be used as a catch-all by any serious encyclopedia for movements or positions which take a critical position towards transgender phenomena.

1160:"A high percentage report being victims of sexual violence. Some are refused healthcare or suffer workplace discrimination, including being fired for being transgender, or feel under siege by conservative political or religious groups, such as trans exclusionary radical feminists, who oppose laws to protect them. They also suffer discrimination from some people within the movement for the rights of gender and sexual minorities." 144:, this article is about the topic rather than the definition. Definitions concerning transphobia are best placed in the "Etymology and use" section. The vast majority of the article is about the topic. If any definition aspect belongs in some other part of the article more than it does in the "Etymology and use" section, that's fine. I just wanted to point out that the "Etymology and use" section is about use of the term 4104: 4051: 3623: 1236: 1122: 674:

bathroom use has been something of a battleground; on the flip, it was photographed in 2011 which is before this was such a well-known issue as it is now, although it was still certainly around quite prominently then. I agree with your point about transphobia without intent, and would add that regardless of intent this will definitely reinforce, support, and encourage transphobic attitudes.

2065:

struggles trans people face in Christian communities. I'm fine with that but what seems weird to me is this is then flipped in the Islam sections. With Islam there's an emphasis on diffrenting views in islam. unlike the Christian section instead of linking Islamic institutions that are considered transphobic it does the opposite linking institutions that aren't considered transphobic

1153:"A high percentage report being victims of sexual violence. Some are refused healthcare or suffer workplace discrimination, including being fired for being transgender, or feel under siege by conservative political or religious groups who oppose laws to protect them. They also suffer discrimination from some people within the movement for the rights of gender and sexual minorities." 302:. The letter is basically a Primary Source and is not really needed. I only included it since it is in a reliable source and some people (myself included) find it informative to look at the original source. The second reference is the secondary source. It is the one I read first and having a background in Academia I found that part quite interesting and relevant to this topic area. 1177: 4200:

mention B in the article about B. What we have here is a statement about transgender people of colour which doesn't say or imply anything about anybody else. As you say, it would be ridiculous to imply that trans people of colour are the only group where multiple different discriminations can intersect. It is pretty obvious to me that no such implication is being made. --

3052:

disagreement about whether this should be considered transphobic. To label something as a phobia is to denigrate those who are being described. Is there something inconsistent here? Is a type of conversion therapy being recommended for those whose sexual attraction is problematic? Should these people be punished if they refuse to change who they find sexually attractive?

1619:, which doesn't mean it's wrong (we all do it), just that it's undiscussed. With your removal, that's two editors now that think it should be removed. It's worth a discussion, especially on your other point about too many refs, but I'd argue this one has interesting material not covered in the others; whether that's sufficient to keep it around is debatable. 3806: 1285: 403:

rather than academic standpoint. I'm skeptical of the claim that mathematicians are doing research on transphobia. I think that debates from people like Stock are totally worth mentioning, but my concern is that this letter addresses that debate in a way that might give the impression that the debate is non-existent.

3347:

harsher word than "incorrect". I would agree that it is a good decision to use the pronouns that someone declared but that is subjective and someone else could have a different view and it never said once in the section that this was the right course of action, and we shouldn't add this because it is not a

3876:

As the article explains (with numerous sources), the meaning of the word is not simply "fear"; similar to homophobia, it encompasses a wide range of negative reactions. English is a complicated language that has evolved over time, and many words have etymologies that result in a meaning that does not

3346:

they have. As OP said, you cannot know what someone's true gender identity is because it's not in external reality the way an apple's colour is. So it doesn't seem too clear to one of us either. Although, to your credit, wrong implies not that it is incorrect to use but a bad decision because it is a

3091:

Now, I appreciate that that might sound a little aggressive so I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of anything here. I don't know whether you are aware of the false nature of these claims. People do repeat them in good faith. After all, that is the whole point of propaganda, to trick people

2382:

I would question some viewpoints said there, that Iran thinks people are born transgender. This not the case, but instead it is more about that Iran’s government would prefer to have trans people than gay people as in some contexts they are less visible and sex would mostly still be different-gender.

2145:

I am not the OP, but I agree that there ought to be a criticism section. There are legitimate philosophical qualms with the transgender identity held by a number of reputable figures in academia such as Kathleen Stock, Germaine Greer, Tomas Bogardus, Jon Pike, and Holly Lawford-Smith that do not boil

2064:

The religions section doesn't seem neutral. It starts of by talking about the christian right, linking anti-trans christian groups without any separation between diffrent forms of Christianity or differing beliefs between churches/religious communities. It than uses anecdotal quotes to talk about the

1977:

Hi everyone. If consensus is to remove the section I'm ok with that, but I worry the case is being misrepresented. Oiler was a transgender person fired for being transgender, and the case is definitely on-topic for this page. Citing the ACLU complaint only is an issue, but there are secondary sources

1879:

No - crossdressing has nothing to do with being trans. Cross-dressing involves someone dressing in clothes usually worn by people of a different gender. Transgender people have a different gender to the one they were assigned at birth. Including this story implies that trans women are men dressing in

1847:

I don't think that's too much of an issue. Clearly, a company firing a person for how they dress off the job is unfavorable to transgender people. The bigger issue with that paragraph is that it's based only on the actual filing by the ACLU, rather than a secondary source. It could be stretching into

1337:

I'd say so. I wouldn't think it'd be difficult to find sources on the subject; it seems to be all anyone talks of these days, when they're not busy talking of the dangers of trans people "stealing" lesbians. (You'd think they'd understand that they'll keep making new ones, but apparently lesbians are

1078:

It can be annoying and frustrating when you feel that something is both important and obviously true but the only way to defeat a claim of original research is to find valid sources showing that the research did not originate with some Knowledge (XXG) editor but is a thing in the real world. Normally

552:

I have already agreed that the letter is essentially a primary source and should be treated as such. It is the mention in a secondary source I was interested in and have said so multiple times now. It has always been attributed so that is not an issue. It really comes down to how much of a mention is

402:

have been used in the past to present fringe or extremist viewpoints as mainstream beliefs, so, ideally, I think it would be better to be able to say more about where these people are coming from. I get that this isn't really possible here, but I suspect they might be coming at this from a political,

319:

Gotcha. I do think that helps somewhat, but I was sort of hoping for something a little more detailed - in particular it would be helpful to have some context on who wrote the letter. The letter represents a particular viewpoint, and that view is contested, so it would really be preferable to be able

2815:

The proposed text is so poorly worded that it is likely to give offence to both "sides" here. It fails to say who "some" is and who they feel is accusing them, thus overstating this artificial talking point. It states that those people who do reject trans women on genital grounds are "denying that a

2588:

Look, I'm sure I don't understand the intricacies in this area as well as many. This is not my area of expertise. I linked the page from the Lesbian Alliance simply as a group of people who claim that they are being called transphobic for rejecting trans women. I don't understand why that would call

1752:

Addressing the latter question first: trans outlets have long complained of erasure of trans involvement at Stonewall (trans position: yes, of course trans women were present; but not only that, they instigated the whole thing and omitting that is revisionist). So, there are two different assertions

1093:

Compare this with the graffito shown in the article at present. That image shows the slogan "Trans raus" and a swastika. This is a much better illustration because it is utterly unambiguous in its awfulness. No inference is needed to determine its meaning so questions of original research can't even

889:

As far as I know, omnisexual isn't usually a synonym for pansexual. The distinction I've seen in internet groups is usually that pansexual implies being "gender-blind" while omnisexual explicitly isn't. I don't know of any sources I can reference, so I'm not going to change it, but you can just look

230:

Because a reliable secondary source mentions it specifically in relation to transphobia. You and Nblund are focussing on the wrong thing. It is not the letter or even the signatories that are important, it is the fact that it gets mainstream coverage. Recentism is a form of undue when the article is

215:

I am also unclear how ·academics who's expertise seems to be other fields are especially relevant in an article on transphobia. This seems more like focusing on recent news than significant contributions to our understanding of transphobia. As is this letter to the guardian is only briefly mentioned

189:

is more than acceptable for the statement as written. It is a mainstream reputable newspaper in the UK and the addition was attributed. Not sure why Stock is being brought up, they were just one of the signatories to a statement referenced by the Guardian and were not presented except as part of the

123:

an etymology and use section is meant as just a brief intro for the meaning of the word and how the word is used with further explanation and critiques further down. In a sense everything in this article is explaining different aspects about how the word is used but it wouldn't make sense to fit all

3891:

Even if the OP were correct, which I am pretty sure that they already know that they are not, this would not be the correct place to raise it. The word exists and has a well established meaning. There is nothing to be gained from challenging the dictionary to a fight in a parking lot but, for those

3390:

Going off this article's definition of the term, you can misgender someone even when respecting their wishes. As the excerpt you propose changing says, it can be accidental. In such a case where someone uses the wrong pronouns for themselves (i.e., different to their gender identity), they would be

2106:

As stated already in the header of the article, it may be unbalanced. Many of the topics found on Knowledge (XXG) also include an attempt to objectively address the negative aspects in the form of a review of criticism regarding the topic. Especially in the light of the way this topic has been able

748:

The edit in question was WEASEL language, and the parts of the text that were qualified in this way did not depend on the cited source. The article is cited to show that some of those labelled TERF object to that term, not to demonstrate that some feminists are considered exclusionary. Still, do we

702:

with the girls and/or to get a peep of the girls barely dressed, as some of them admitted to and got in trouble for. To our knowledge, none were going into the bathroom to use the toilet, faucet, or mirror, at least not because of their gender identity. That stated, I don't know if any of them were

521:

As a transsexual woman, I am sick and tired of seeing people being subject to character assassination because apparently they’re transphobic. In many cases, these people are either absolutely not transphobic, or accusing them of transphobia is a stretch (or somewhere in between). Unfortunately, the

495:

I will be tweaking and expanding the "In gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities" section. This is because there are important aspects and debates missing from the article, such as "Is it transphobic if a cisgender person doesn't want to date a transgender person?" This debate, as some know, is very

190:"some academics" (which was the Guardians wording). It was at the end of the entymology section so not sure how it can get any lower. I originally had it in the feminist section, but the objection was that the source did not make clear that they were feminists. The edit summary that removed it said 3430:

Since we're talking language ... I venture that in most cases it is more encyclopedic to write "different from" (as in "different from one's gender identity") rather than "different to" or "different than". Yes, there are exceptions and, yes, all these usages are plenty common enough, so they are

3371:

OP's point (from what I read) is that unlike the observable colour of an apple that exists in external reality, gender is an internal perception of yourself with no way of telling if it is true. Would referring to a male with female pronouns be using the wrong pronouns if they had lied about their

3047:

The issue I was trying to get at was that for many people sexual attraction seems to be irretrievably affixed to the biological sex of the other person rather than to the gender that the other person expresses, and they are surprised to find themselves labeled “transphobic” as a result, since they

2031:

Good question! As best as I can tell, that was Oiler's pronoun. Oiler's own attorneys used he/him and the complaint notes that "he had no intention of changing his sex or of "transitioning" to live full-time as a woman in any way". All three secondary sources use he/him, which isn't solid proof of

1211:

Article claims that prejudice can be caused by a belief that gender is limited to biological sex. It says that things like that, directed at transgender people, is called transphobia. But it mentions transgender and transexual people interchangeably. This seems paradoxical. Perhaps take care to

3732:"Transgenderism" needs to be avoided completely as it is very commonly used as a dog whistle to imply that being trans is an ideological position. "Transness" is probably OK. It's a word that people do use and its meaning is readily apparent even to people who have not heard it before. Wiktionary 3575:

There are a number of specific examples cited for various types of violence and harassment. While they are indeed examples, and I have sympathy for those people, I think the bar for including specific cases should be pretty high (e.g. national news, landmark/seminal case, etc) and most don't meet

3309:

I would need some clarification on this. I would support the proposed change. A pronoun is a part of speech, and its correct usage is objective, it does not depend on personal wishes. Misgendering, as OP pointed out, would be better defined here as “different than the pronouns the person uses for

366:

The 54 signatories wrote the letter, or at the least consented that the information in the letter represents their viewpoint. It becomes a catch 22 with these, as the more detail contained the more undue the information can become. We could change "Some academics say ..." to "Fifty four academics

3693:

is "transness" an appropriate term to use? i feel like even shortening transgender to trans is a bit ehh in terms of formality but i feel like this is kind of just crossing the line because its too informal and may not even be considered grammatically correct, at least by public sources, and the

3067:

The problem here is that the "issue" is made up in bad faith. It is not real. It is a 2020s version of "The Jewish Question". It was confected for the purposes of propaganda seeking to legitimise persecution. Knowledge (XXG) does not indulge such conspiracy theories. If they rise to the level of

3014:

Not to pile on what is clearly a dead horse at this point, when other people have said most of what I would've said had I seen the ping sooner, but: as I said in my edit summary, I saw two issues, one of due weight and one of POV; the issues are intertwined. Looking through various sources, it's

2957:

If this topic is covered, we should do so in a way that reflects the actual claims of what is transphobic. AFAIK the actual conversation is the way a minority of cis lesbians characterize and categorize trans women's bodies when describing their lack of attraction. I really doubt any trans woman

2314:

This discourse, and the discourse around “TERF is a slur” (apparently now “gendercrit is a slur”), necessarily exists in the context of a larger “culture war”, in which participants stand to benefit greatly from positioning themselves as helpless victims of bullying and censorship. We should, as

2122:

The trouble with a general criticism of Knowledge (XXG) like this is that it is not easy for us to know what you want us to do with it. The trouble with your opinions on the subject of this article are that they are not really helpful for improving the article and we don't want talk pages to get

4199:

I don't think it is saying that at all. Nothing in this wording precludes other people also experiencing different forms of discrimination simultaneously. Saying A experiences X does not preclude B also experiencing X. It is perfectly reasonable to only mention A in the article about A and only

4116: 4063: 3395:

and this would cause other people to do so as well, accidentally. And the definition makes sense that way because I'm sure that many trans people feel denied by not accepting themselves similar to how they might feel when being denied by others, and misgendering from others as a result probably

3099:

make us recognise this claim as a legitimate topic, if it were one? There has to be more to this than just me saying "no" and, of course, there is. If there was scholarly coverage which acknowledged its existence or other forms of genuinely impartial analysis published by Reliable Sources which

2882:

The mistake is to conflate a sexual preference (not intrinsically transphobic) with the wholesale rejection of trans women as women (intrinsically transphobic) thus the proposed sentence would hinder rather than help our readers in trying to understand the issue here (such as there actually is

2820:

of them. This makes both "sides" sound monolithic and extreme which is great for those confecting this divisive talking point but it is not reflective of reality. The mistake is to conflate a sexual preference (not intrinsically transphobic) with the wholesale rejection of trans women as women

1748:

It looks to me that it's supposed to be supporting the former, and uses alleged revisionist history at Stonewall as an example, without explaining how it's an example. But just the fact that it's not even clear to editors here what that reference is doing there, makes it clear to me that some

1665:

I don't see why we can't just re-remove the source. For one thing, it's just one among three others, although the three others aren't that great either, not being academic sources but media ones, and not major outlets either. The claims in that sentence, both about current conditions and about

1074:

There really is no alternative to a prohibition on original research. Without it there can be no limit to what people can put in an encyclopaedia. It just becomes another internet chat/discussion/arguing site where people can write whatever they feel to be true and there is no way to arbitrate

991:

So if a trans woman is barred from entering woman's restroom because of her primary sexual characteristic, it's somehow not transphobia even if she's forced to use a restroom that doesn't actually fit her gender, and is very likely to face sexual harassment or hate crimes if she uses the men's

673:

certain this was aimed (at least partially) towards trans women, but the original photographer doesn't offer any further information and I suspect doesn't have any to offer; it had no associated information and I believe was simply stumbled upon by them. The photographer is Kansas-based, where

2265:

And the comment above shows better than any criticism could what the problem is with a large sub-set of editors on pretty much all of the trans-related articles on wikipedia - they're unhinged. The article should give the etymology of the word and then refer to the fact that it is often used

3635: 3100:

concluded that it was a real thing and if this formed a consensus among the majority of Reliable Sources then we would write about it as as potentially real thing. We don't have anything like that. All we have are vague assertions that crumble to dust under the very slightest scrutiny (like

3051:

Is addressing this issue out of bounds? I think it’s a topic of interest to a great many people and it is squarely within the subject matter of this article. One approach would be to briefly mention the existence of the issue. Another would be to discuss it in more depth. There seems to be

324:

to a specific group or individual. I think the case for including here is pretty weak, but it might be viable with some re-wording. "In 2018 a group of academics wrote a letter to the Guardian in which they expressed concerns that the definition of "transphobia" was overly broad".

3031:

weight being given to people complaining about / disputing being accused of racism: most of the article, like most of this one — following what most sources focus the most on — is about the origins, nature and effects of the discrimination (violence, prejudice in hiring, etc).

3169:

Let’s define “fact 1” as “the refusal of cis people to date trans people is deemed transphobic by some in the trans community.” Are you saying that including fact 1 in this article would serve only to paint trans people as bullies and aggressors, aggravating transphobia?

1352:

Just how to work out sex and gender in sports and where exactly to draw the lines is greatly debated. Some in the debate calls others transphobic, but that's a POV. Any such material is likely to be highly politicized media sources that mix news and opinion; presenting a

231:

unbalanced towards events that have just happened too much. It does not mean that we cannot add recent information to an article. Given that it is only one sentence I don't think it is undue. Would it help if we expanded the section, it could certainly do with some work.

1046:"Original research". What a great word. Life experience of anyone not backed up by the majority is always "original research" and thus irrelevant. But anything you people write about, no matter how biased it is or how unreliable the source, is not "original research" . 3275:

It's not about "right" or "wrong" pronouns in the way that an adjective can be true or false (i.e. calling a red apple green). it's about respecting people's wishes. If someone isn't out to everyone, and wants to be called the "wrong" pronouns in public, it's not

1933:

I completely agree. Since three of us are in favour of the section being excised and only one of us supports its inclusion - do you think that a consensus has been reached and that it should be stricken? Even a consensus it hasn't been reached yet, it goes per

1419:

I see some vague terms such as "it is very common", "often", "regularly", and "many". Also this may be a point of view issue because when reading this it feels very opinionated. I'm not sure if this is an actual issue so I just wanted to see what others think.

2344:. Comments I am sure were scoffed at by most transgender individuals, particularly those of Colour. But such niche criticisms and incidents are of no relevance here, and would be handled at pages such as feminist views on transgender topics/lesbophobia etc.-- 932:

I'm not convinced that the graffito ("Women's room, please only enter if you have a dick") should be simply judged transphobic. It could possibly be understood as a general complaint against men in the restroom. Regardless, the question of whether primary

194:. So if it is more broad than just feminists it belongs in a more broad section. It specifically talks about the definition so I am not seeing an issue with it being in the section that talks about definitions, especially as it is kept general and brief. 2551:

Please help me with the fundamental objection. Is it that there is insufficient evidence that lesbians are being called transphobic for refusing trans women as lovers? This conflict within the LGBT community is a well-known phenomenon. For example, see

1310:

I was wondering, would a new section on transphobia and/or trans-exclusionary policies in sports be warranted or no? It's probably one of the most common forms of transphobia in the United States as of recently, especially on the legal side of things.

3015:

possible we could compose a sentence covering transphobia in dating and the way people (in general, of various sexualities) say they find someone less attractive if they think they're trans; even just doing a quick search for the keywords you'd used,

2292:, I will re-emphasize that I have no problem if someone wants to expand one of the existing sections with a sourced paragraph on how XYZ prominent gendercrit says they have been personally victimized by hasty or pejorative application of the label 2850:

Here’s the quote from the BBC article: “Some lesbians say they are increasingly being pressured and coerced into accepting trans women as partners - then shunned and even threatened for speaking out.” Doesn’t the BBC article support the original

425:

A letter doesn't go through the same vetting process as news content, and so I wouldn't think it inherits the news source's reliable-source chops; I would say it's a primary source, and does not inherit reliability. It counts as unvetted opinion.

2774:

they could be used to include the author's opinion, with attribution, if it is DUE. I'm not sure they are, but I've never heard of these people so I could be wrong. Also from a quick glance, I dont think the blog titled lesbian alliance is RS.

3576:

that bar. The citations should be enough to support the claims made in the article; citing individual cases unnecessarily adds bloat and I feel it weakens the topic by making it sound more like an isolated incident that's being generalized.

974:

Thanks. I removed it. That makes 3 editors against it. It's original research, which is never allowed, to say that this image has to do with trans women. (The image's caption and file name are by wiki editors, and are thus part of the OR.)

1389:

It's not a POV to point out that the scientific basis for a lot of arguments against trans women in sports are not the greatest. It's also important to recognise that sex isn't a black-and-white issue, and that research into this issue is

725:

I am trying to find an acceptable way of rephrasing the problematic text cited to a clearly non-reliable opinion advocacy piece. I don't see how it violates the MOS to say that opinion claims about living people are opinions, not facts.

3601:

that seems to confirm the claim that "a follow-up study in 1999 reported 70% of trans respondents being unemployed". While it is on leginfo.ca.gov, I couldn't find the actual source from the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

2340:= unfortunately, we saw the very same mindset in reverse at a high-profile court case here in the UK, wherein a trans rights activist stood up and declared that lesbians not wanting to date or have sex with trans women was akin to 2871:

Isn’t that the fundamental issue? The lesbians who do not want trans women as lovers are being called transphobic for refusing to accept them as women for the purposes of a loving personal relationship. How else would you phrase

1998:

Use of the phrase "cross-dressing" here is an issue. The ACLU complaint uses "dressed as a woman" and Oiler himself is quoted as saying "dress as a lady" (quoted in the Georgetown paper). I'd prefer to use similar language.

3372:

gender? Granted, it is the best thing to do because their own declaration to their gender is the best you can get at inferring what corresponding grammatical gender is accurate. But that doesn't make it any more factual. –

1443:

Please sign your comments, but anyway I haven’t really read the sources cited in this article but if a certain source says something like “Tran people are often victims of sexual assault” then Knowledge (XXG) mentions they

1385:

encourage you to understand that there are some issues that one cannot be neutral one, and I would argue that this is one of them, especially given how scientifically shaky the grounds of 'banning' trans people from sports

1520:- I think that was my (clumsy) attempt to bring a bit of order to those sections. I agree they're clunky-sounding - couldn't really find words that seemed to fit right. They do need re-organising, but I'm not sure how. -- 496:

strong in the lesbian and bisexual communities because some trans women suggest being open with regard to genital preferences or that genital preferences shouldn't matter, while a number of cisgender lesbians argue that

595:'s edit was distinguishing transphobia from cissexism. I think I only have access to the abstract of the cited source, but it seems like we should be careful in that it seems to be proposing that "cisgenderism" be used 3860:

Transphobia is used incorrectly. Phobia in short is a fear but people arent acting scared of trans,but hatred(talking about "transphobes" for lack of better termonology for now) the word needs to change to make sense.

522:

trans 'community', now run by the Regressive Left, does not call out on fake transphobia often enough, if at all. For this reason and many others, I didn't leave the trans 'community', rather, the 'community' left me.

276:

words and without attributing it to a specific author. I can't find any coverage of this letter in a secondary source, but if we could track one down it would probably help to add some context and assess notability.

2473:

I honestly don't have much of a problem with including something about "lesbians being called transphobic". It'd be important to attribute opinions clearly. But it was clear the initial edits are challenged and

937:

or gender self-indentification determines access to women's rooms is a matter of current heated debate. The current caption ("A transphobic graffito") is not really a fact, it's a value judgment or opinion. --

271:

Right, I think it is essentially just a letter to the editor. I brought up Stock because she's the leading signatory, so I assume she wrote it, but who knows. I'm not sure how to write it without resorting to

500:

is not about sexual attraction to gender identity, their attraction is not really a preference, and that to insist that a cisgender lesbian should be sexually attracted to a person who has a penis is akin to

2840:

The proposed text is so poorly worded that it is likely to give offence to both "sides" here. It fails to say who "some" is and who they feel is accusing them, thus overstating this confected talking point.

1267:

Change the word "disenfranchisement" in the caption for the graffiti image to "disillusionment" - disenfranchisement means loss of the right to vote and that is not what is being expressed by this graffiti

2191:

as a source to assert that Stock and Phoenix had their legitimate academic free speech silenced by the freedom-hating anti-academic wokeist trangender mob, though we can attribute the fact that they think

1447:

Also I’m not entirely sure about your comment when you say this is very opinionated. Honestly your comment comes off as a little confusing so can you explain in more depth on what you mean in simplistic

1756:

Have there been a lot of claims by trans supporters that there has been revisionist history of trans involvement at Stonewall? (that's what I think that source is claiming; I could be mis-reading it)

470:

I agree that this doesn't count as a reliable source for a statement of fact, but as statement attributed to the authors might be acceptable. I'm inclined toward saying that mentioning it in-text is

119:

The first edit appears to be from a different section? Either way I think it would be odd to have criticism of the topic before it is more thoroughly introduced further on. In other articles, like

2409:

Some lesbians have been called transphobic because they have a “genital preference” which causes them to reject as lovers trans women who have a penis, thus denying that a trans woman is a woman.

169:, not part of the mainstream among academic feminist philosophers. At best, it seems like it should be presented lower in the section, and it shouldn't present Stock as a disinterested academic. 3697:

is "transgenderism" not applicable (im not sure if its a formally recognized term)? and if not, is something like "...towards transgender people or transgender identities in general" applicble?

2992:(the scope of the article) to include. In other words, the proposed text doesn't represent an attempt to summarize significant opinions on transphobia, as a Knowledge (XXG) article should. ■ ∃ 2933: 3130: 3092:

into actually believing and repeating the points that the propagandists want to spread. If that is where you are coming from then I realise that this might be tough to read and I do sympathise.

3295:

not respecting someone's choice of pronoun does count as using the wrong pronoun. it is factually not the correct pronoun to use for the individual, therefore, it is the wrong pronoun. so, no

2108: 618:

Roscelese, thanks for commenting on it. Feel free to tweak that text as needed, of course. And for future reference, there is no need to ping me to this talk page since it's on my watchlist.

3825: 2861:

It also states that those people who do reject trans women on genital grounds are "denying that a trans woman is a woman" which some of them most certainly are but probably not all of them.

677:

Perhaps the way forward is to more carefully describe the exclusive language and the context within the caption. Or, in plainer English, we should just say what it says, where, and to whom.

528:

article, and I'll eventually get around to that poor article as well. Working on sexuality topics is partly what I do on this site, and I might as well go ahead and tackle these aspects.

467:

Thanks Mathglot, that makes sense regarding the words as words thing. Like I said, totally not imperative - I really wasn't expecting anyone to copy-paste my suggested wording verbatim.

4147: 2358:"not wanting to date or have sex" I was not aware of any legal obligation which would prevent people from choosing their own sexual partners. Does this have any basis in British law? 3084:

but it is a talking point that a fair number of people with privileged access to the media have an intense interest in promoting for reasons of propaganda in the hope that it can be

3471:

I agree, according to a few sources "different from" is used in both American English and British English unlike "than" or "to" so we should favour the more universally used as per

1094:

arise. It demonstrates the nature of transphobic graffiti perfectly. The swastika makes explicit what is so often hidden and denied. Readers are left in no doubt as to its nature.

3670:

Cool that it's being used in coursework! I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done to improve the quality of this article, I am planning on making improvements soon.

832:. What do you imagine would go into a Knowledge (XXG) article about the term? Do you see it expanding beyond a section-long amount of text, that could just fit here instead? 2603:

If you typed "trans men" as a genuine mistake then I'd advise you to go back and change it. If you did it deliberately to get a rise out of us then I'd advise you to give up.

2911: 1704:

I don’t think a source needs to always be academic to be reliable all the time. Context matters and I do think sources like that are reliable for the context of this article.

554: 3962:, then why do you park your car in the driveway, and drive your car on the parkway? Words take their meaning from how they are used, and too-clever-by-half assertions about 2821:(intrinsically transphobic) thus the proposed sentence would hinder rather than help our readers in trying to understand the issue here (insofar as there actually is one). 1790:

However, the source is talking about a single incident of this happening. I don’t really see a mention of the source saying trans people are denied services in restaurants.

2209:(certainly, all philosophers believe their philosophy is legitimate, and all bigots would like to have their bigotry perceived as "legitimate qualms", hence why we prefer 1749:

rewording is necessary, at a minimum so Roscolese's question is definitely answered. Following that, there might be further discussion about whether it's warranted at all.

599:"transphobia" because "phobia" terms are based in fear, ie. seems to be intentionally conflating cissexism-as-system-of-assumptions with transphobia-as-outright-bigotry. – 292:

Some academics say that the definition of transphobia has become so broad that it makes analytical analysis of the issues difficult and has led to censorship of their work

2984:

critique of that. The current proposal just reads like some people complaining about unnamed others calling them transphobic, which in my opinion is too far removed from

1097:

Rather than argue for the inclusion of this particular graffito, maybe somebody can find something else that could serve in a similar capacity without these problems? --

2893:

But that is exactly the point of the BBC article – that a sexual preference is being termed transphobic. Did I misread the article or do you disagree with the article?

290:

Ahh I see the confusion. I cited the Guardian twice. One is the letter and the other is an article where they refer to it. For clarification the disputed sentence is

4234:

I feel like this article tends to focus too heavily on transphobia in the United States compared to other countries. A few other countries are briefly mentioned in

519:

speaking of broad application of the meaning of transphobia, including the dating aspect. The source is from a transgender author. The author states, for example, "

4242:

but apart from that it primarily focuses on US transphobia, the manifestations and consequences section in particular. Especially considering there already is an

2508: 960:. Like I stated then, my experience with seeing such wording in public bathrooms (including when I was a teenager) has been a reference to cisgender boys/men. 3928:, which means that just because the term phobia is usually defined as fear does not mean that terms such as homophobia or transphobia can’t be about hatred.-- 3977:

doesn't mean what it obviously means. Such questions should be removed or collapsed as an utter waste of time, and we shouldn't waste another minute on it.

2574:

You just linked to another opinion page with a blatantly transphobic image featured at the top. I don't believe you are acting in good faith at this point.

1212:

avoid the term "transsexual"? Or change the definition of transphobia, in which case the "biological sex" bit becomes irrelevant? Sorry for my poor English

3877:

match their Latin roots or other ways of dissecting the original meaning of their individual components. ("Inflammable means flammable? What a country!") --

2529:

That Guardian article is clearly an op-ed. I can't read the full New Statesman article without registering, but it appears to be an opinion piece as well.

295: 166: 1397:

direction. We seem to be the hot topic of the day and everyone has an opinion - and not all of these opinions are going to be scientifically grounded. --

3767: 3497:

Agree with Daniel; the current wording is clear (existing as it does not as an isolated word in a void, but as part of a sentence), and more succinct.

2512: 1607:

restoring the citation, I tried to explain my reason in the edit summary. I don't know why it was originally tagged either. The tag was first added on

2045: 2008: 4148:

https://www.lemkininstitute.com/statements-new-page/statement-on-the-genocidal-nature-of-the-gender-critical-movement%E2%80%99s-ideology-and-practice

1729:

What is it that the source is meant to be supporting - that transphobia exists in gay communities, or that trans people were present at Stonewall? –

4184:

I think this line needs some work. It ridiculously implies that not everyone can experience many different forms of discrimination simultaneously.

2127:. Can you tell us what you think should be changed in this particular article to make it better? The more specific you can be the better. The more 680:

It's certainly powerful, especially in context within the article. I thought straight away of it's potential for this article as soon as I saw it.

3643: 2914:. Using at as a source while ignoring its overwhelming condemnation and multiple rebuttals in equally reliable sources is an surprising omission. 1393:

Though I cannot help being POV myself, I would at least urge other editors to consider that many articles on this subject may also be POV in the

4071: 3147:(c) That whether people are called transphobic for this reason is of interest to anybody or serves any purpose other than to fan transphobia. 3126: 2036:

access can get the sources I listed above, and anyone else should email me if they'd like copies to use for improving this or other articles.

1577:

Although I don't know why it was tagged with it to be honest. But if the source is unreliable I don't see any reason why it should be in here.

299: 506: 104:

has become too broad in a way that might be problematic, whether it's just an opinion or not, it can fit in the "Etymology and use" section.

3816: 3798: 2429:

This was sourced to a BBC article. Please explain how the sentence I added misrepresented the article or was undue or pov. I also provide a

3765: 3296: 2273: 1435: 1213: 1161: 3525: 1183:

I added a mention: "They also suffer discrimination from some people within the movement for the rights of gender and sexual minorities,

4165: 2459:, “The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.” Does anybody think it does not? What is the issue? 2146:

down to simple prejudice as the term “transphobia” implies. I think that the leading criticism of the concept of transphobia should be,

733: 3969:

Editors (or trolls) are not going to change the meaning of a word by pointless discussions on Knowledge (XXG) talk pages. I call for a

4150: 4008: 3929: 3782: 3088:

a topic of interest to a great many people. If it happens, it happens, but Knowledge (XXG) is not here to assist them in that project.

3077: 2324: 2230: 1269: 399: 3598: 3348: 2112: 3909: 1992: 1982: 3579:

I've already removed one that was just "Minor Celebrity Assaulted, Moves To LA" and I think most others should be removed as well.

1987: 1849: 4246:

for US transphobia specifically. Maybe adding statistics for other countries (such as in the UK) could be a good way to fix this?

4243: 3281: 2349: 2617:

It was a mistake. I changed it. But I have no idea what the motive would be of a person who would have done that intentionally.

3462: 3445: 2509:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/29/if-lesbian-prefers-same-sex-dates-thats-not-bigotry-desire-personal-thing

2018: 1954: 1938: 1898: 1881: 1738: 1612: 1468:

Just from a quick skim, these two sections seem redundant; that is, unless there are manifestations of transphobia that happen

1196: 1062: 1035: 1008: 868: 809: 776: 608: 449:, re transphobia in quotes: that may be their stylistic convention, but it’s not ours. We use italics for indicating usage of 2730:

Do you say that it is not? What about the BBC article and what about the sources linked in the Lesbian erasure article under

2032:

pronoun usage but it's what I'm leaning on in the absence of a definitive statement from Oiler. As a side note, anyone with

1547: 1156:

The above statement should also include feminist groups, such as 2nd wave feminists and TERFs and so should read as follows:

2210: 524:" So the broadness aspect will be covered in the article to some degree. Some of what I intend to add should also be in the 3125:(a) That there are people who are only attracted to the biological sex even where that differs from expressed gender. See 165:

I'm not actually sure these would qualify as "reliable sources" - it's an evidence-free assertion by a philosopher who is,

3403:

argues otherwise) as you've used the word but would oppose your specific replacement, though I do love the implication of

2041: 2004: 1525: 1472:

of society. (Transphobic hermits? Probably not too noteworthy.) I suggest the latter section be merged into the former. --

1402: 1343: 634: 553:

due and how it is presented. Nothing else really matters and most likely is original research on our parts. There is also

2017:

I did not know this. In that case, I support the retention of the content. However may I ask you why you said "himself"?

906: 3843: 2999: 2701: 2641: 2338:"which participants stand to benefit greatly from positioning themselves as helpless victims of bullying and censorship" 474:

given that we don't have a lot of coverage in secondary sources, but it's not a hill I'm necessarily willing to die on.

3690:"Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general." 3736:

it as being used since 1996. That said, if there is a preference for "transgender identities" then that's fine too. --

2345: 2425:

it's undue and pov as written (looking at how RS cover transphobia, this aspect is not given nearly this much weight)

1616: 3946:

It is being used perfectly correctly, and these continual statements that it isn't are flat out wrong, and they are

2513:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2018/07/why-were-lesbians-protesting-pride-because-lgbt-coalition-leaves-women

2405:

I recently added a sentence about lesbians being called transphobic for refusing to accept as partners trans women:

1019:

Just because you are privileged enough to be fine with transphobia doesn't mean other people don't suffer from it.

100:, the "Etymology and use" section is about etymology and usage of the term. If reliable sources state that the term 4290: 4285:

I have added a template whilst making an edit to state that the article needs to touch on more countries globally.

4219: 4189: 3547: 3533: 805: 788: 772: 72: 67: 59: 38: 2658:

Since you admit this is not your area of expertise, perhaps you shouldn't be editing on this contentious subject.

1242: 1128: 557:

from the independent in 2015, which along with Flyer22s example suggest a small mention about this aspect is fair.

3342:" yet you seem to think it is related to what one says about what pronoun to use, i.e. what gender identity they 3137: 2734:? I'm just confused as to what the objection is. Somebody please explain it to me as if to a very simple person. 1574:

I have no idea why you put that unreliable source tag back in. That source has been tagged with that since 2017.

2556:. Do you reject the original BBC article as well as all the sources linked in the Lesbian erasure article under 321: 3866: 2277: 2250:

Perhaps there should be some sort of different viewpoints/criticism/viewpoints from around the world section.

2196: 2037: 2000: 1521: 1431: 1398: 1381:- I'd just like to point out, as a transgender person myself, I know this too will come across as a POV, but I 1339: 965: 708: 652: 623: 533: 152: 109: 3300: 2433:

to another article dealing with the same subject matter. Is that article also undue and pov? Please explain.

1859: 1217: 1165: 3892:

minded to do so, it needs to be understood that Knowledge (XXG) is not the parking lot they are looking for.

1551:. The content of the current page seems on-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. 4169: 4154: 3966:

meaning something other than what it actually means are a perennial question on this page and a time-waster.

3933: 3481: 3420: 3378: 3357: 2993: 2963: 2780: 2695: 2635: 2391: 2255: 2092: 1604: 1556: 1273: 795: 737: 691: 682: 640: 3913: 3324:

The word "wrong" is perfectly clear in context and in no way ungrammatical. There is no need to change it.

3127:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/inclusive-insight/201906/are-trans-people-excluded-the-world-dating

2269: 2204: 1488: 1423: 1050: 1023: 996: 729: 4004: 3862: 3778: 2495: 2320: 2224: 2159: 1978:

about the case, which I'd be happy to cite and summarize in the article if we decide to keep the content:

1608: 934: 757: 2771: 2386:

Also, I think we should memtion that the majority of Islamic populations don’t really approve of LBTQIA+

1427: 854: 4286: 4215: 4205: 4185: 3897: 3741: 3329: 3242: 3193: 3109: 2941: 2826: 2757: 2608: 2136: 1500: 1477: 1102: 525: 3820: 2308: 2169: 2124: 592: 3925: 3285: 2180:

issues). The preferred approach is to integrate positive and negative material into the same section.

1837: 956:, I also brought up the "men in the restroom" aspect, as separate from referring to trans women. See 3947: 3694:

shortening of transgender to trans isnt introduced in this article so it may be confusing, i think.

3580: 2173: 2154:

by preemptively defining all aforementioned qualms as simple bigotry worthy of automatic dismissal.

1054: 1027: 1000: 4180:"Transgender people of color can experience many different forms of discrimination simultaneously." 4120: 3882: 3721: 3659: 3608: 3584: 3558: 3458: 3441: 3340:

Misgendering is the act of labelling others with a gender that does not match their gender identity

3315: 2663: 2579: 2553: 2534: 2022: 1958: 1942: 1902: 1885: 1734: 1318: 1192: 1058: 1031: 1004: 961: 864: 704: 664: 648: 619: 604: 586: 529: 148: 105: 4264: 3265:"Misgendering can be deliberate or accidental; common examples of misgendering a person are using 2456: 1863: 273: 4253: 4132: 4107:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

4087: 4054:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

4029: 3982: 3702: 3647: 3626:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

3477: 3416: 3374: 3353: 3228: 3214: 3175: 3152: 3141: 3057: 2959: 2919: 2898: 2806: 2776: 2739: 2622: 2594: 2565: 2520: 2464: 2438: 2387: 2363: 2251: 2088: 2066: 1769: 1656: 1624: 1594: 1552: 1295: 943: 837: 510: 502: 497: 458: 431: 3763: 3185: 2307:

My issue is specifically with a section titled Criticism, which, by design, becomes a one-sided

2301: 471: 2147: 408: 4276: 4000: 3774: 3310:

themselves.” The way it is currently written does not follow the logic of grammar and syntax.

3272:

Should this be changed to "pronoun(s) different than those the person uses for themselves"?

2479: 2450: 2316: 2219: 2155: 1895: 1086:? Absolutely nothing because that is not what the graffito in question says. It actually says 895: 753: 566: 376: 311: 240: 203: 2297: 2177: 1935: 141: 4201: 3893: 3837: 3737: 3675: 3400: 3325: 3238: 3204: 3189: 3105: 2937: 2822: 2753: 2604: 2315:

always, exercise caution before taking individual opinion pieces completely at face value. –

2132: 2084: 2070: 1795: 1709: 1642: 1582: 1515: 1496: 1473: 1453: 1098: 47: 17: 2981: 2973: 2690:

Referencing an anti-trans organization's website promoting this idea doesn't prove it is a

2475: 2289: 2033: 1853: 1354: 3639: 3502: 3472: 3104:

BBC article) and that doesn't even get us to the starting line for discussing legitimacy.

3037: 2798: 2731: 2557: 2430: 2236: 2151: 1924: 1833: 1807: 1699: 1668: 1376: 1359: 977: 915: 221: 129: 4268: 2128: 3399:

I would support an elaboration that "wrong" means "different to one's gender identity" (

1862:. If you want to change your username, you can do that by following the instructions at 4075: 3878: 3717: 3655: 3603: 3449: 3432: 3311: 2659: 2575: 2530: 2184: 1916: 1911:

There are maybe more notable cases anyway that would be better to mention anyway, like

1869: 1730: 1332: 1312: 1188: 860: 600: 507:

commentary on how to mend the rift between cisgender lesbians and transgender lesbians.

3758: 695: 4249: 4128: 4083: 4025: 3978: 3698: 3224: 3210: 3171: 3148: 3053: 2954:

Feels like COATRACK to add a FRINGE misinterpretation of transphobia to this article.

2915: 2894: 2802: 2735: 2618: 2590: 2561: 2516: 2460: 2434: 2359: 1765: 1652: 1620: 1571: 1291: 953: 939: 833: 515: 454: 427: 4272: 4067: 3794: 1615:

doesn't show any particular commentary about it, so in that sense it appears to be

910: 891: 558: 368: 303: 232: 195: 186: 4214:

To avoid any confusion or offense, I reworded the article to appear more neutral.

3954:

used correctly? After all, butter cannot fly. If you know the difference between

3237:

I think I've answered this matter quite sufficiently. I'm not here to play games.

3770: 2816:

trans woman is a woman", which some of them most certainly are, but probably not

4294: 4280: 4257: 4235: 4223: 4209: 4193: 4173: 4158: 4136: 4103: 4091: 4050: 4033: 4012: 3996: 3986: 3937: 3917: 3901: 3886: 3870: 3850: 3831: 3786: 3745: 3725: 3706: 3679: 3671: 3663: 3622: 3611: 3588: 3506: 3486: 3466: 3425: 3383: 3362: 3333: 3319: 3304: 3289: 3246: 3232: 3218: 3197: 3179: 3156: 3113: 3061: 3041: 3007: 2967: 2945: 2923: 2902: 2830: 2810: 2784: 2761: 2743: 2709: 2667: 2649: 2631: 2626: 2612: 2598: 2583: 2569: 2538: 2524: 2498: 2468: 2442: 2395: 2367: 2353: 2328: 2281: 2259: 2241: 2200: 2163: 2140: 2116: 2096: 2074: 2049: 2026: 2012: 1962: 1946: 1928: 1912: 1906: 1889: 1874: 1858:

Unrelated, I see that your signature is very different from your username. Your

1841: 1813: 1799: 1791: 1773: 1742: 1713: 1705: 1674: 1660: 1646: 1638: 1628: 1600: 1586: 1578: 1560: 1529: 1504: 1481: 1457: 1449: 1406: 1365: 1347: 1324: 1299: 1277: 1246: 1221: 1200: 1169: 1132: 1106: 1066: 1039: 1012: 983: 969: 947: 921: 899: 872: 841: 828: 813: 799: 780: 761: 741: 712: 686: 656: 627: 612: 569: 537: 482: 475: 462: 444: 435: 419: 412: 379: 333: 326: 314: 285: 278: 266: 261: 243: 225: 206: 177: 170: 156: 133: 113: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2972:

I think if something like this is to be included, it should take the form of a

3752: 3498: 3033: 2749: 2416: 2188: 1920: 1880:

women's clothing. And I fully support @Aleeza2018 in the story being removed.

1492: 217: 125: 120: 3122:

What are you disputing when you refer to the "false nature of these claims"?

3826:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Genderphobia

822: 411:, it's totally not imperative here. "Has become overly broad" is also fine. 905:

Those are unreliable sources; while some may be under that impression, the

2958:

wants this small subset of transphobic lesbians to be attracted to them.

1820:

No real muslim “influential conservative scholars” support transgenderism

703:

transgender, but it's highly unlikely that all of them were transgender.

699: 3805: 3431:

not wrong or incorrect; it is just that they are not as encyclopedic. —

505:

and is homophobic. I do intend to present both sides of the debate, and

3404: 450: 3184:

You are trying to argue an alleged phenomenon into existence. This is

3024: 1824:

This is a blatant lie, and as such should not remain on the article.

771:

Any reason Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have a separate article on this?

4263:

Knowledge (XXG) is a collaborative effort, so please go ahead and

3823:. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at 1753:

that need explanation, with (probably) separate sources for each:

3769:

and acceptable in Wikivoice. I think we should prefer generally

3714:"towards transgender people or transgender identities in general" 2797:

See also the sources linked in the Lesbian erasure article under

2554:

https://lesbianalliance.org.uk/biology/open-letter-to-stonewall/

2215:, but you're welcome to propose ways to enhance these sections. 793:

Nobody has written one... yet. One could certainly be written.

2908:

Did I misread the article or do you disagree with the article?

1230: 1116: 859:

What is your issue with the cited source? It looks reliable. –

25: 3136:(b) That people in the above category are called transphobic 2910:

That infamous BBC article has been so widely disagreed with,

2207:

to some of the "legitimate philosophical qualms" in question

1786:

Transgender people may also be denied service in restaurants.

3209:

What are you referring to by the term "alleged phenomenon"?

3076:. (You may recall this approach from when you were editing 2507:

The same issue is discussed in many other places, such as:

2131:

you can offer to support your proposed changes the better.

1860:

signature should make it easy to tell what your username is

1784:

I have an issue with source . That source is used for this

4098:

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

4045:

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

3617:

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

2932:

BBC article. Knowledge (XXG) is familiar with it. In fact

2311:

for issues the article should preferably cover in context.

1611:(by an editor I trust) in a rather tentative way, and the 3773:(uncountable) as the noun form of "being transgender". – 2936:. I don't propose to recount the problems with it here. 958:

Talk:Transphobia/Archive 5#File:Transphobic Graffito.jpg

260:~Is the Guardian or a letter published in the Guardian? 4240:

added a short section about an anti-trans law in Russia

4239: 3950:

about getting actual improvements into the article. Is

3811: 3733: 1088:"Women's room, please do not enter if you have a DICK!" 890:

up the Urban Dictionary definition to see what I mean.

644: 191: 97: 93: 4164:

i mean they'll even go as far as calling it genocide.

3223:

Does this refer to response (a) in my question above?

2170:

avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies

3819:

to determine whether its use and function meets the

1084:"Women's room, please only enter if you have a dick" 3999:

would only be a postponement, and not a pause. 🙃 –

4143:The Genocidal Ideology of Gender Critical Ideology 1338:a hard-to-find resource...or so it would seem.) -- 957: 3526:"Different from, different to or different than?" 3082:"it’s a topic of interest to a great many people" 1491:could be renamed "In institutions"; compare with 2560:? I'm just not following what the objection is. 694:, thanks for explaining. Yeah, when I looked at 1993:Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law (2002) 1113:Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2021 1988:Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy (2007) 2123:derailed by general chat about the topic per 192:it included mathematicians and art historians 8: 4267:help to globalize the article with relevant 4019: 3973:on any further questions or assertions that 1227:Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021 3072:conspiracy theories then we can cover them 2267: 727: 1493:Homophobia § Institutionalized homophobia 407:I put transphobia in quotes because of a 3517: 1651:Perhaps. Let's see if others weigh in. 3713: 3411: 3408: 3339: 3081: 2907: 2881: 2860: 2839: 2691: 1666:history, should have a better source. 1637:Maybe the tag should removed entirely. 1082:So, what should we make of the phrase 291: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3548:"Real Grammar: different from or to?" 2183:I don't think we can cite remarks by 2109:2003:C1:8F0C:39F2:72E9:7B8F:B4C5:7903 1545:be split into a separate page called 1306:New section on transphobia in sports? 886:(an alternative word for pansexual)" 7: 4230:Too focused on American transphobia? 3995:as (according to its Latin roots) a 3991:No no, you should be calling for a 669:, that's an interesting point. I'm 4112: 4108: 4059: 4055: 3631: 3627: 3078:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory 2288:Ignoring your personal attack and 24: 2401:Lesbians being called transphobic 1187:." Hopefully this is sufficient. 4115:. Further details are available 4102: 4062:. Further details are available 4049: 3804: 3634:. Further details are available 3621: 2934:we have a whole article about it 2799:In_relation_to_transgender_women 2748:Careful. This sounds a lot like 2732:In_relation_to_transgender_women 2558:In_relation_to_transgender_women 1759:Has there been such revisionism? 1538:Transphobia in LGBTQ Community ‎ 1283: 1234: 1175: 1120: 124:of them into the usage section. 29: 3908:Read the definition of phobia. 3829:until a consensus is reached. 509:Anyway, there are sources like 3918:18:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC) 3476: 3415: 3373: 3352: 3129:The actual study is available 2515:Again, what is the objection? 2242:17:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 2164:03:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 1743:19:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC) 1714:14:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC) 1675:05:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC) 1661:19:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC) 1647:19:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC) 1629:19:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC) 1587:18:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC) 1548:Transphobia in LGBTQ Community 1464:"Manifestations", "In society" 878:Minor issue in the bi section? 800:11:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC) 1: 4127:— Assignment last updated by 4082:— Assignment last updated by 4034:11:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC) 4021:Je dormirai pas bête ce soir. 3938:01:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC) 3851:02:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC) 3787:05:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 3746:03:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 3726:03:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 3707:00:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 3654:— Assignment last updated by 2912:we even have an article on it 2589:my good faith into question. 2396:13:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC) 2260:13:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC) 2141:13:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 2117:13:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 1201:18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC) 1170:14:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC) 1107:02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 1067:01:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 1040:01:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 1013:01:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC) 713:02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC) 687:19:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC) 657:04:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC) 635:File:Transphobic Graffito.jpg 4159:03:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 4013:23:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 3987:18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC) 3680:10:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC) 3664:16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC) 3027:, I'm not actually spotting 2368:14:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC) 2354:23:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC) 2150:, that the charge creates a 1814:04:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC) 1800:20:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC) 1774:20:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC) 922:21:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC) 900:20:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC) 696:the original uploader's page 628:21:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC) 613:16:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC) 570:08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC) 538:22:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC) 483:17:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC) 463:20:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC) 436:09:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC) 420:19:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC) 380:06:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC) 334:19:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC) 315:06:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC) 286:15:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 267:09:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 244:04:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 226:23:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC) 207:22:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC) 178:14:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC) 157:22:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC) 134:07:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC) 114:05:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC) 2329:16:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC) 2282:15:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC) 1438:) 21:41, June 9, 2021 (UTC) 1357:as fact is not acceptable. 1261:to reactivate your request. 1249:has been answered. Set the 1147:to reactivate your request. 1135:has been answered. Set the 842:10:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 814:07:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 4311: 4174:07:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) 4137:03:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) 4092:00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC) 3902:17:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 3887:15:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 3871:12:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) 3594:San Francisco Study Source 3571:Removing specific examples 3534:Cambridge University Press 3396:reinforces those feelings. 3290:22:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC) 3247:20:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 3233:20:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 3219:20:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 3198:20:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 3180:19:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 3157:18:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 3114:16:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 3062:16:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 3042:22:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 3008:21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2968:21:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2946:20:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2924:20:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2903:20:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2831:19:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2811:19:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2785:21:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2762:20:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2744:20:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2710:20:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2668:21:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2650:20:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2627:20:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2613:20:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2599:20:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2584:20:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2570:20:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2539:19:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2525:18:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2499:21:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2469:18:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2443:17:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 2172:, as this often creates a 1875:20:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 1842:20:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 1805:Good catch. I removed it. 1561:14:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC) 1300:10:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC) 1278:07:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC) 1222:01:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC) 781:18:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC) 762:05:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC) 742:01:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC) 4295:20:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) 4281:01:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 4258:23:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC) 4224:20:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC) 3612:20:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC) 3487:22:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC) 3467:13:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3426:02:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3384:03:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 3363:03:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC) 2980:transphobic and then any 2168:Knowledge (XXG) tends to 2148:as laid out by Jo Phoenix 2097:06:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC) 2087:Feel free to add content 1530:09:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC) 1505:03:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC) 1482:03:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC) 1458:01:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC) 873:13:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC) 4210:02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC) 4194:23:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC) 3817:redirects for discussion 3799:Redirects for discussion 3762:" are both well-attested 3589:20:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC) 3507:09:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC) 3334:11:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 3320:10:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 3305:20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC) 3269:to describe someone..." 2990:what transphobia is like 2197:Gender-critical feminism 2075:01:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC) 1953:It goes for the moment 1542:I propose that sections 1207:confusion of terminology 749:need additional sources? 294:and the two sources are 3080:.) So, I disagree that 2290:assumption of bad faith 2201:Transphobia#In feminism 2050:01:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 2034:Knowledge (XXG) Library 2027:01:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 2013:01:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 1963:15:49, 7 May 2022 (UTC) 1947:15:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC) 1929:19:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 1907:16:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 1890:16:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 1407:10:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC) 1366:04:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC) 1348:19:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 1325:14:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC) 1185:and from some feminists 984:20:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 970:20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 948:19:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 4020: 3757: 3751: 3074:as conspiracy theories 2296:, provided it follows 935:sexual characteristics 928:"Transphobic" graffito 804:That is a great idea. 216:in the cited article. 4066:. Student editor(s): 3638:. Student editor(s): 2692:well-known phenomenon 2156:Juandissimo Magnifico 1613:Talk page of the time 1566:Unreliable source tag 806:Cleopatran Apocalypse 789:Cleopatran Apocalypse 773:Cleopatran Apocalypse 591:I think the logic of 526:Transgender sexuality 400:letters like this one 42:of past discussions. 3926:Etymological fallacy 3771:transgender identity 3555:Macmillan Dictionary 3530:Cambridge Dictionary 2413:This was removed by 409:stylistic convention 322:attribute it in-text 167:by her own admission 4119:. Peer reviewers: 4074:). Peer reviewers: 4001:RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ 3971:24-month moratorium 3821:redirect guidelines 3815:has been listed at 3775:RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ 3646:). Peer reviewers: 3599:I found this source 3559:Macmillan Education 3412:uses for themselves 2986:what transphobia is 2421:with this comment: 2317:RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ 2038:Firefangledfeathers 2001:Firefangledfeathers 1983:The Advocate (2001) 1522:Ineffablebookkeeper 1399:Ineffablebookkeeper 1340:Ineffablebookkeeper 907:WP:Reliable sources 4117:on the course page 4064:on the course page 3636:on the course page 3267:the wrong pronouns 3017:genital preference 2300:and does not give 692:My Name is Madness 641:My Name is Madness 503:conversion therapy 498:sexual orientation 4036: 4024:Thanks for that! 3924:Also look up the 3609:talk and coffee ☕ 3338:The context was " 2284: 2272:comment added by 2214: 2211:secondary sources 1850:original research 1617:WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING 1609:25 September 2017 1598: 1426:comment added by 1265: 1264: 1151: 1150: 1079:this can be done. 1053:comment added by 1026:comment added by 999:comment added by 744: 732:comment added by 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4302: 4287:ChillyDude153198 4269:reliable sources 4216:ChillyDude153198 4186:Uchiha Itachi 25 4139: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4094: 4072:article contribs 4061: 4057: 4053: 4023: 4018:Oooh, good one! 4017: 3856:Used incorrectly 3849: 3814: 3808: 3772: 3666: 3644:article contribs 3633: 3629: 3625: 3563: 3562: 3552: 3544: 3538: 3537: 3522: 3485: 3454: 3437: 3424: 3414:" has though! – 3382: 3361: 3208: 2770:Since these are 2492: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2454: 2420: 2240: 2208: 2195:The sections at 2129:reliable sources 2085:Female Privilege 1872: 1867: 1852:and potentially 1812: 1787: 1703: 1673: 1592: 1519: 1439: 1380: 1364: 1336: 1321: 1315: 1287: 1286: 1256: 1252: 1238: 1237: 1231: 1179: 1178: 1142: 1138: 1124: 1123: 1117: 1070: 1069: 1043: 1042: 1016: 1015: 982: 920: 913:show otherwise. 858: 792: 668: 590: 480: 448: 417: 331: 283: 264: 175: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 18:Talk:Transphobia 4310: 4309: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4232: 4182: 4145: 4126: 4109:22 January 2024 4100: 4081: 4056:22 January 2024 4047: 3993:24-month hiatus 3863:Letsmakesense01 3858: 3848: 3830: 3810: 3802: 3716:is better IMO. 3688: 3653: 3632:8 December 2023 3619: 3596: 3573: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3550: 3546: 3545: 3541: 3524: 3523: 3519: 3473:MOS:COMMONALITY 3450: 3433: 3280:them to do so. 3263: 3202: 3022: 3018: 2976:opinion that X 2490: 2487: 2484: 2481: 2448: 2414: 2403: 2380: 2222: 2152:chilling effect 2104: 2082: 2062: 1997: 1870: 1857: 1830: 1822: 1806: 1785: 1782: 1697: 1667: 1568: 1540: 1513: 1466: 1421: 1417: 1374: 1358: 1330: 1319: 1313: 1308: 1284: 1254: 1250: 1235: 1229: 1209: 1176: 1140: 1136: 1121: 1115: 1048: 1047: 1021: 1020: 994: 993: 976: 930: 914: 880: 852: 850: 820:Wiktionary has 786: 769: 723: 662: 638: 584: 582: 476: 442: 413: 327: 279: 262: 171: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4308: 4306: 4298: 4297: 4283: 4231: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4212: 4181: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4144: 4141: 4121:Garcia.yaira12 4099: 4096: 4046: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 3967: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3857: 3854: 3834: 3801: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3748: 3729: 3728: 3687: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3628:21 August 2023 3618: 3615: 3606: 3595: 3592: 3572: 3569: 3565: 3564: 3539: 3516: 3515: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3397: 3394: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3345: 3297:109.76.188.243 3262: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3221: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3145: 3134: 3117: 3116: 3093: 3089: 3045: 3044: 3020: 3016: 3011: 3010: 2991: 2987: 2979: 2970: 2955: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2926: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2834: 2833: 2813: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2427: 2426: 2411: 2410: 2402: 2399: 2379: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2332: 2331: 2312: 2305: 2274:37.228.200.153 2263: 2262: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2216: 2193: 2185:Kathleen Stock 2181: 2103: 2100: 2081: 2078: 2061: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 1996: 1995: 1990: 1985: 1979: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1917:Aimee Stephens 1892: 1829: 1826: 1821: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1781: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1757: 1750: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1632: 1631: 1567: 1564: 1539: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1508: 1507: 1471: 1465: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1445: 1428:68.118.175.138 1416: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1391: 1387: 1369: 1368: 1350: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1263: 1262: 1239: 1228: 1225: 1214:122.56.204.171 1208: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1162:62.254.157.102 1159: 1149: 1148: 1125: 1114: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1095: 1091: 1080: 1076: 989: 988: 987: 986: 962:Flyer22 Frozen 929: 926: 925: 924: 879: 876: 855:216.181.229.22 849: 846: 845: 844: 818: 817: 816: 768: 765: 751: 750: 722: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 705:Flyer22 Reborn 678: 675: 665:Flyer22 Reborn 649:Flyer22 Reborn 637: 632: 631: 630: 620:Flyer22 Reborn 587:Flyer22 Reborn 581: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 530:Flyer22 Reborn 488: 487: 486: 485: 468: 451:words as words 439: 438: 406: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 349: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 251: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 210: 209: 183: 182: 181: 180: 160: 159: 149:Flyer22 Reborn 137: 136: 106:Flyer22 Reborn 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4307: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4179: 4175: 4171: 4167: 4166:110.44.18.224 4163: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4149: 4142: 4140: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4124: 4122: 4118: 4105: 4097: 4095: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4079: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4052: 4044: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4022: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3855: 3853: 3852: 3846: 3845: 3840: 3839: 3833: 3828: 3827: 3822: 3818: 3813: 3809:The redirect 3807: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3768: 3766: 3764: 3761: 3760: 3755: 3754: 3749: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3730: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3695: 3691: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3651: 3649: 3648:Jackiebedolla 3645: 3641: 3637: 3624: 3616: 3614: 3613: 3610: 3607: 3604: 3600: 3593: 3591: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3577: 3570: 3560: 3556: 3549: 3543: 3540: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3521: 3518: 3514: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3488: 3483: 3479: 3478:Mullafacation 3474: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3453: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3436: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3422: 3418: 3417:Mullafacation 3413: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3392: 3391:misgendering 3389: 3385: 3380: 3376: 3375:Mullafacation 3370: 3364: 3359: 3355: 3354:Mullafacation 3350: 3343: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3278:misgendering 3273: 3270: 3268: 3260: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3206: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3123: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3049: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3030: 3026: 3013: 3012: 3009: 3006: 3003: 3002: 2997: 2996: 2989: 2985: 2983: 2977: 2975: 2971: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960:Filiforme1312 2956: 2953: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2862: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2841: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2819: 2814: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2795: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2777:Filiforme1312 2773: 2769: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2711: 2708: 2705: 2704: 2699: 2698: 2693: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2651: 2648: 2645: 2644: 2639: 2638: 2633: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2505: 2500: 2497: 2494: 2493: 2477: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2455:According to 2452: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2400: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388:Scientelensia 2384: 2377: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2313: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2252:Scientelensia 2249: 2243: 2238: 2235: 2232: 2229: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2212: 2206: 2203:seem to give 2202: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2101: 2099: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2089:BlackAmerican 2086: 2079: 2077: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2059: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1994: 1991: 1989: 1986: 1984: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1937: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1897: 1893: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1873: 1865: 1861: 1855: 1851: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1827: 1825: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1758: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1701: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1596: 1595:edit conflict 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1573: 1565: 1563: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1553:BlackAmerican 1550: 1549: 1544: 1537: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1517: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1469: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1414: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1378: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1363: 1362: 1356: 1351: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1334: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1322: 1316: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1290: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1260: 1257:parameter to 1248: 1244: 1240: 1233: 1232: 1226: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1157: 1154: 1146: 1143:parameter to 1134: 1130: 1126: 1119: 1118: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 985: 981: 980: 973: 972: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 952: 951: 950: 949: 945: 941: 936: 927: 923: 919: 918: 912: 908: 904: 903: 902: 901: 897: 893: 887: 885: 877: 875: 874: 870: 866: 862: 856: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 830: 825: 824: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 802: 801: 798: 797: 790: 785: 784: 783: 782: 778: 774: 766: 764: 763: 759: 755: 747: 746: 745: 743: 739: 735: 734:72.92.235.225 731: 721:Opinion piece 720: 714: 710: 706: 701: 697: 693: 690: 689: 688: 685: 684: 679: 676: 672: 666: 661: 660: 659: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 636: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 616: 615: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 594: 588: 580:Re: cissexism 579: 571: 568: 565: 564: 563: 556: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 518: 517: 516:The Spectator 512: 508: 504: 499: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 484: 481: 479: 473: 469: 466: 465: 464: 460: 456: 452: 446: 441: 440: 437: 433: 429: 424: 423: 422: 421: 418: 416: 410: 404: 401: 381: 378: 375: 374: 373: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 335: 332: 330: 323: 318: 317: 316: 313: 310: 309: 308: 301: 297: 293: 289: 288: 287: 284: 282: 275: 270: 269: 268: 265: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 245: 242: 239: 238: 237: 229: 228: 227: 223: 219: 214: 213: 212: 211: 208: 205: 202: 201: 200: 193: 188: 185: 184: 179: 176: 174: 168: 164: 163: 162: 161: 158: 154: 150: 147: 143: 139: 138: 135: 131: 127: 122: 118: 117: 116: 115: 111: 107: 103: 99: 95: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4248: 4236:this section 4233: 4183: 4151:80.3.115.218 4146: 4125: 4101: 4080: 4048: 3992: 3974: 3970: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3930:67.70.103.36 3859: 3842: 3836: 3824: 3812:Genderphobia 3803: 3797:" listed at 3795:Genderphobia 3696: 3692: 3689: 3652: 3620: 3597: 3578: 3574: 3554: 3542: 3529: 3520: 3512: 3451: 3434: 3277: 3274: 3271: 3266: 3264: 3261:Misgendering 3101: 3096: 3095:OK. So what 3085: 3073: 3069: 3050: 3046: 3028: 3004: 3000: 2994: 2929: 2817: 2772:WP:RSOPINION 2706: 2702: 2696: 2646: 2642: 2636: 2480: 2478:was needed. 2451:EvergreenFir 2428: 2412: 2404: 2385: 2381: 2346:SinoDevonian 2341: 2337: 2293: 2268:— Preceding 2264: 2233: 2227: 2220:RoxySaunders 2105: 2083: 2063: 1896:Bluesunnyfox 1831: 1823: 1808: 1789: 1783: 1728: 1669: 1603:. Regarding 1576: 1569: 1546: 1543: 1541: 1489:§ In society 1467: 1422:— Preceding 1418: 1394: 1382: 1360: 1309: 1288: 1270:37.117.74.48 1266: 1258: 1243:edit request 1210: 1184: 1181:Partly done: 1180: 1158: 1155: 1152: 1144: 1129:edit request 1087: 1083: 1049:— Preceding 1045: 1022:— Preceding 1018: 995:— Preceding 990: 978: 931: 916: 911:Pansexuality 888: 883: 881: 851: 827: 821: 794: 770: 754:Newimpartial 752: 728:— Preceding 724: 681: 670: 643:, regarding 639: 596: 593:Thecoolrahul 583: 561: 560: 520: 514: 477: 414: 405: 398: 371: 370: 328: 306: 305: 280: 235: 234: 198: 197: 187:The Guardian 172: 146:transphobia. 145: 101: 91: 78: 43: 37: 4202:DanielRigal 4113:10 May 2024 4060:10 May 2024 3975:transphobia 3964:transphobia 3910:78.0.183.25 3894:DanielRigal 3738:DanielRigal 3686:"transness" 3401:DanielRigal 3326:DanielRigal 3239:DanielRigal 3205:DanielRigal 3190:DanielRigal 3106:DanielRigal 3021:transphobia 2938:DanielRigal 2823:DanielRigal 2754:DanielRigal 2632:Transphobia 2605:DanielRigal 2309:WP:COATRACK 2176:(and other 2133:DanielRigal 2125:WP:NOTFORUM 2080:New Article 2060:in religion 1913:Karen Ulane 1601:User:CycoMa 1516:Sangdeboeuf 1497:Sangdeboeuf 1474:Sangdeboeuf 1415:Vague terms 1247:Transphobia 1133:Transphobia 1099:DanielRigal 992:restroom? 102:transphobia 36:This is an 3997:moratorium 3948:disruptive 3640:Cgochuico3 3513:References 3409:pronoun(s) 3393:themselves 3282:4.7.90.234 3001:Part of me 2750:sealioning 2703:Part of me 2643:Part of me 2294:transphobe 2205:due weight 2189:Jo Phoenix 1809:Crossroads 1700:Crossroads 1670:Crossroads 1377:Crossroads 1361:Crossroads 1251:|answered= 1137:|answered= 979:Crossroads 917:Crossroads 884:omnisexual 829:deadnaming 767:Deadnaming 597:instead of 121:patriarchy 92:Regarding 88:"So broad" 4265:WP:BOLDLY 4076:Lynnphung 3952:butterfly 3879:Aquillion 3759:transness 3718:Zenomonoz 3656:ACHorwitz 3581:Aos Sidhe 3312:Morellet1 3142:by others 3086:made into 3068:becoming 2928:Ah, yes. 2660:Funcrunch 2576:Funcrunch 2531:Funcrunch 2457:WP:BURDEN 2342:apartheid 2102:Criticism 2019:92.0.35.8 1955:92.0.35.8 1939:92.0.35.8 1899:92.0.35.8 1882:92.0.35.8 1871:Politanvm 1864:WP:RENAME 1834:blueskies 1828:a concern 1731:Roscelese 1605:this edit 1487:Or maybe 1333:Casspedia 1314:Casspedia 1189:Elliot321 1055:Jay Hulme 1028:Jay Hulme 1001:Jay Hulme 861:Roscelese 601:Roscelese 274:WP:WEASEL 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 4250:NotAmira 4129:Momlife5 4084:Bbalicia 4026:Mathglot 3979:Mathglot 3699:STIK2009 3482:◌͜◌ talk 3463:contribs 3455:uantling 3446:contribs 3438:uantling 3421:◌͜◌ talk 3379:◌͜◌ talk 3358:◌͜◌ talk 3225:Swood100 3211:Swood100 3186:WP:SYNTH 3172:Swood100 3149:Swood100 3140:but not 3054:Swood100 2995:Madeline 2916:CIreland 2895:Swood100 2851:wording? 2803:Swood100 2736:Swood100 2697:Madeline 2637:Madeline 2619:Swood100 2591:Swood100 2562:Swood100 2517:Swood100 2461:Swood100 2435:Swood100 2360:Dimadick 2302:WP:UNDUE 2270:unsigned 2231:contribs 2174:POV fork 2046:contribs 2009:contribs 1766:Mathglot 1764:Thanks, 1739:contribs 1653:Mathglot 1621:Mathglot 1572:Mathglot 1448:English? 1436:contribs 1424:unsigned 1395:opposite 1390:ongoing. 1292:Cannolis 1197:contribs 1063:contribs 1051:unsigned 1036:contribs 1024:unsigned 1009:contribs 997:unsigned 954:St.nerol 940:St.nerol 869:contribs 834:Mathglot 823:deadname 730:unsigned 700:make out 609:contribs 511:this one 472:WP:UNDUE 455:Mathglot 428:Mathglot 263:~ BOD ~ 4273:Raladic 4244:article 4068:Lesly24 3756:" and " 3557:(PDF). 3405:illeism 3138:by some 3070:notable 2694:. ■ ∃ 2634:. ■ ∃ 2304:weight. 2298:WP:NPOV 1936:WP:ONUS 1780:Source 1470:outside 892:nzsaltz 796:Madness 683:Madness 142:WP:DICT 39:archive 4238:and I 3832:Utopes 3672:Ashvio 3605:Maxx-♥ 3407:that " 3025:Racism 2982:WP:DUE 2974:WP:DUE 2496:(talk) 2476:WP:BRD 2067:Gamiac 1868:Best, 1792:CycoMa 1706:CycoMa 1639:CycoMa 1579:CycoMa 1450:CycoMa 1355:WP:POV 848:Revert 671:fairly 567:(talk) 478:Nblund 445:Nblund 415:Nblund 377:(talk) 329:Nblund 312:(talk) 281:Nblund 241:(talk) 204:(talk) 173:Nblund 3956:drive 3753:trans 3734:cites 3712:Yes, 3551:(PDF) 3499:-sche 3097:could 3034:-sche 2883:one). 2872:this? 2417:-sche 2378:Islam 2237:count 1921:Rab V 1854:undue 1383:would 1255:|ans= 1241:This 1141:|ans= 1127:This 513:from 218:Rab V 126:Rab V 16:< 4291:talk 4277:talk 4254:talk 4220:talk 4206:talk 4190:talk 4170:talk 4155:talk 4133:talk 4111:and 4088:talk 4058:and 4030:talk 3983:talk 3960:park 3958:and 3934:talk 3914:talk 3898:talk 3883:talk 3867:talk 3844:cont 3838:talk 3742:talk 3722:talk 3703:talk 3676:talk 3660:talk 3630:and 3585:talk 3503:talk 3475:. – 3459:talk 3442:talk 3351:. – 3349:NPoV 3330:talk 3316:talk 3301:talk 3286:talk 3243:talk 3229:talk 3215:talk 3194:talk 3188:. -- 3176:talk 3153:talk 3131:here 3110:talk 3102:that 3058:talk 3038:talk 3019:and 2998:⇔ ∃ 2988:and 2964:talk 2942:talk 2930:That 2920:talk 2899:talk 2827:talk 2807:talk 2781:talk 2758:talk 2740:talk 2700:⇔ ∃ 2664:talk 2640:⇔ ∃ 2623:talk 2609:talk 2595:talk 2580:talk 2566:talk 2535:talk 2521:talk 2511:and 2465:talk 2439:talk 2431:link 2392:talk 2364:talk 2350:talk 2278:talk 2256:talk 2225:talk 2199:and 2178:NPOV 2160:talk 2137:talk 2113:talk 2093:talk 2071:talk 2042:talk 2023:talk 2005:talk 1959:talk 1943:talk 1925:talk 1903:talk 1886:talk 1838:talk 1796:talk 1770:talk 1735:talk 1710:talk 1657:talk 1643:talk 1625:talk 1599:Hi, 1583:talk 1570:Hey 1557:talk 1526:talk 1501:talk 1495:. -- 1478:talk 1454:talk 1444:are. 1432:talk 1403:talk 1386:are. 1344:talk 1320:talk 1296:talk 1289:Done 1274:talk 1218:talk 1193:talk 1166:talk 1103:talk 1059:talk 1032:talk 1005:talk 966:talk 944:talk 896:talk 865:talk 838:talk 826:and 810:talk 777:talk 758:talk 738:talk 709:talk 653:talk 645:this 624:talk 605:talk 562:corn 555:this 534:talk 459:talk 432:talk 372:corn 307:corn 300:this 298:and 296:this 236:corn 222:talk 199:corn 153:talk 140:Per 130:talk 110:talk 98:this 96:and 94:this 3448:) — 3344:say 3029:any 2818:all 2491:Fir 2488:een 2485:rgr 2482:Eve 2192:so. 2187:or 1915:or 1323:) 1253:or 1245:to 1139:or 1131:to 909:at 559:AIR 369:AIR 320:to 304:AIR 233:AIR 196:AIR 4293:) 4279:) 4271:. 4256:) 4222:) 4208:) 4192:) 4172:) 4157:) 4135:) 4123:. 4090:) 4078:. 4032:) 4011:) 4009:📝 4007:• 4005:💬 3985:) 3936:) 3916:) 3900:) 3885:) 3869:) 3841:/ 3785:) 3783:📝 3781:• 3779:💬 3744:) 3724:) 3705:) 3678:) 3662:) 3650:. 3587:) 3553:. 3532:. 3528:. 3505:) 3465:) 3461:| 3444:| 3332:) 3318:) 3303:) 3288:) 3245:) 3231:) 3217:) 3196:) 3178:) 3155:) 3112:) 3060:) 3040:) 2978:is 2966:) 2944:) 2922:) 2901:) 2829:) 2809:) 2801:. 2783:) 2760:) 2752:. 2742:) 2666:) 2625:) 2611:) 2597:) 2582:) 2568:) 2537:) 2523:) 2467:) 2441:) 2394:) 2366:) 2352:) 2327:) 2325:📝 2323:• 2321:💬 2280:) 2258:) 2162:) 2139:) 2115:) 2095:) 2073:) 2048:) 2044:/ 2025:) 2011:) 2007:/ 1961:) 1945:) 1927:) 1919:. 1905:) 1888:) 1856:. 1840:) 1798:) 1772:) 1741:) 1737:⋅ 1712:) 1659:) 1645:) 1627:) 1585:) 1559:) 1528:) 1503:) 1480:) 1456:) 1434:• 1405:) 1346:) 1298:) 1276:) 1259:no 1220:) 1199:) 1195:| 1168:) 1145:no 1105:) 1065:) 1061:• 1038:) 1034:• 1011:) 1007:• 968:) 946:) 898:) 871:) 867:⋅ 840:) 812:) 779:) 760:) 740:) 711:) 655:) 626:) 611:) 607:⋅ 536:) 461:) 453:. 434:) 224:) 155:) 132:) 112:) 64:← 4289:( 4275:( 4252:( 4218:( 4204:( 4188:( 4168:( 4153:( 4131:( 4086:( 4070:( 4028:( 4003:( 3981:( 3932:( 3912:( 3896:( 3881:( 3865:( 3847:) 3835:( 3793:" 3777:( 3750:" 3740:( 3720:( 3701:( 3674:( 3658:( 3642:( 3583:( 3561:. 3536:. 3501:( 3484:} 3480:{ 3457:( 3452:Q 3440:( 3435:Q 3423:} 3419:{ 3381:} 3377:{ 3360:} 3356:{ 3328:( 3314:( 3299:( 3284:( 3241:( 3227:( 3213:( 3207:: 3203:@ 3192:( 3174:( 3151:( 3144:. 3133:. 3108:( 3056:( 3036:( 3005:; 2962:( 2940:( 2918:( 2897:( 2825:( 2805:( 2779:( 2756:( 2738:( 2707:; 2662:( 2647:; 2621:( 2607:( 2593:( 2578:( 2564:( 2533:( 2519:( 2463:( 2453:: 2449:@ 2437:( 2419:: 2415:@ 2390:( 2362:( 2348:( 2319:( 2276:( 2254:( 2239:) 2234:· 2228:· 2223:( 2218:~ 2213:) 2158:( 2135:( 2111:( 2091:( 2069:( 2040:( 2021:( 2003:( 1957:( 1941:( 1923:( 1901:( 1894:@ 1884:( 1866:. 1836:( 1794:( 1768:( 1733:( 1708:( 1702:: 1698:@ 1655:( 1641:( 1623:( 1597:) 1593:( 1581:( 1555:( 1524:( 1518:: 1514:@ 1499:( 1476:( 1452:( 1430:( 1401:( 1379:: 1375:@ 1342:( 1335:: 1331:@ 1317:( 1294:( 1272:( 1216:( 1191:( 1164:( 1101:( 1057:( 1030:( 1003:( 964:( 942:( 894:( 882:" 863:( 857:: 853:@ 836:( 808:( 791:: 787:@ 775:( 756:( 736:( 707:( 667:: 663:@ 651:( 622:( 603:( 589:: 585:@ 532:( 457:( 447:: 443:@ 430:( 220:( 151:( 128:( 108:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index