82.14.199.121

June 2019

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to TERF. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really surprised that my edit is seen as more biased than the current text, which is clearly heavily weighted against those referred to as TERFs. I get a very 'if you're not with us, you're against us' vibe here, unfortunately. This page already clearly violates any policy Wikipedia has on neutrality - perhaps you could address this? In addition, I have concerns that the intro only mentions transwomen. All too often, transmen remain sidelined in this debate. Why is this the case also in a Wikipedia article? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.199.121 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is built on mainstream, reliable sources, and all these sources tell us that groups of people described by the subject are mostly transphobic, and "merely against chromosomal males masquerading as women" is the exact kind of language these people use. Writing so in an objective voice is against Wikipedia policies on neutrality. If you read further in the article, it will say that these people are hostile to trans men as well. Trans men aren't being sidelined in any manner. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 07:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, The phrasing you cite is not from anything I posted - so I'm unsure as to why you're using that as an example. Why is it relevant? Could you possibly let me know exactly what was questionable in *my* edit, please? My second edit stated: 'the claim is levelled against those who oppose the legal self-identification of male and female categories, for example, who exclude trans women from women's spaces and who do not consider trans women to be women', which to my mind seems much more blandly neutral than what is currently stated. I then went on to modify the last sentence to state: '[w]hile some maintain that the term constitutes a slur, others claim that it is possible to use it in a politically neutral way.' I don't see how this contravenes the Wikipedia policy on neutrality - you can't tell from this which usage of the term the author would endorse. Trans men may be mentioned further down in the article, but significantly fewer people will read on till that point, whereas the introduction is much more widely read, and mentions only trans women. This would be appropriate if it were clear that this group were disproportionately affected by the actions of TERFs. Is this the case? Could you possibly provide your reasoning to justify why trans women are here presented as the default, rather than using the wording 'trans people' and 'men- and women-only spaces'? This is particularly biased phrasing which itself reflects that the word is predominantly applied only to women, rather than having a usage inclusive of the men who, similarly, oppose the presence of trans men in men's spaces. I would ask you to please be more sensitive and consistent on this issue. Thanks in advance for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.199.121 (talk • contribs)

Hi, anon. I think you'll want to comment at Talk:TERF#The lead and two pieces in the responses section. 98.162.170.103 (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

And sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~). 98.162.170.103 (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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

---