Talk:Beira's Place/Archives/2023/April

Confusing language/insincere moderation

I have copied and screenshot this text, as the last I wrote was deleted by insincere editors or editors who are out of their depth on this topic.

Many intersex people are not the "sex assigned at birth", but often still identify this way even though their chromosomes differ majorly, many are not aware they are intersex. Rowling has been clear that the genetic definition is the only one she cares about. However this method clearly is not a compatibile method with the nonbinaric and parametric 3G system (I.e. Gonads, Genitals, Genes) of determination which is a consensus method amongst scientists for dealing with sex differentiation during development and the plethora of nonbinaric DSDs. Intersex women are clearly not welcome in Beira's Place as they cannot have gender according to JKs genetics-based ideology. Intersex women aren't Rowling-Women, but they are women, even as assigned at birth in many cases. This phrase is also just plainly not an accepted way to refer to trans people amongst many (not all). It is medicalising and stigmatising at base. Are trans people who do not reference sex assigned at birth welcome in Beira's, I think nor. Your trying to turn an unscientific ideology (Rowling's) into some logical solution, but this ideology is not logically consistent or reflective of science, so you fail.

Noncolonial 3rd genders and sex plasticity in noncolonial contexts (more in line with scientific 3g concepts in most cases) are also excluded, even though its very clear Rodling does not want Two-Spirit people who identify as women in colonial contexts to feel welcome. Assignment of sex at birth is irrelevant for most of these people as it is a reflection of colonial attitudes. These people and women are also meant to be excluded by Rowlings genes-only unscientific ideology.

This page reads like a TERF/GC advert written by a cissplaining mob, eager to stomp out actual trans voices who have the expertise to wrap their head around the issue, choosing instead to ally with folks who repeat what they want to hear. Good will was exhausted when you temp-banned me for a sincere attempt at repairing the page so it didn't look like you lot had started an edit war when I asked for moderation which was one of the first things I did - ask for moderation. Further every change I made was accompanied with a "see talk" reference.

I want independent arbitration, biasing towards someone with a background in editing these topics as all the people here seem to have zero background on such issues according to their wiki home pages. Bolstering my "incompetence or malice" point.

This whole ordeal's been a disgusting example of people with accounts railroading those without. I have been doxxed here on wiki in the past, and after seeing the insincere or perhaps just extremely incompetent behaviour of this group, I am glad to not have an account anymore. I will only engage with Editors who have an editing background in trans-related pages. This lot is too out of its depth. Do better. If you question my judgement, then simply answer me how many of you have any knowledge about "3g" "DSDs" "3rd genders" "intersex" in relation the the expressly genetic-focused (I.e. eugenic) ideology of Rowling and her supporters?

77.183.164.73 (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)talonx

Articles reflect the sources, unfortunately sources on this topic don't seem to discuss much of what you're discussing, that's why it's probably been considered unfit for the article. As a rule editors' own expertise with a subject is fairly unimportant when it comes to the content of the article, or at least it should be, because articles should rely on verifiable reputable sources rather than the views pseudonymous editors. XeCyranium (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't put in any sources yet, I was banned before I was allowed to, I started a talk which I was banned from contributing too in order to workshop citations. I do not currently have faith that the present moderation has good-will or is capable of wrapping their heads around any citations I would provide. I am happy to proceed with new moderators approval? talonx89.14.148.141 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

What contribution do you want to make that would improve the Article? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

For my previous alterations.

In any case, I want another moderator, I do not trust you. I want someone with a background in articles related to gender studies and sexual violence/assault. That should be doable. I do not think it is appropriate that you imply that trans women are "not bioligical", are they made of teflon? you are out of your depth. talonx89.14.148.141 (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you identify a part of the article you think could be improved, and propose an alteration, and also read WP:NPA please. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The article should indicate "cisgender women" consistently throughout, make reference to the space being "single-sex", based on "assignment at birth" and therefore explicitly excluding all intersex persons and some indigenous persons. To explain, the use of "women" or "female" fundamentally include trans and intersex women ... which don't fit Beira's "single-sex" "equalities-law"-based standards.

Further, Lukewarmbeer is not capable of editing this article, they don't even know the correct spelling of "cis" and spell it "sis" (sic.), this along with their needing to have every point explained and offensively referring to trans people as "not biological" should be enough to prove the point.

The article should also probably reference other sexaul assault experts in the region (for instance the previous head of Edinburgh sexual assault services) who have dragged this space for teaching fear and hate.

I was temp-banned by folks who are either passively or actively GC/TERF apologists for proposing all this the first time talonx78.55.173.227 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that mention indigenous people, intersex people, or the word cisgender, in relation to the subject of this article? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I would rather do the parsimonious thing and replace "women" throughout with "cisgender women" with perhaps a clarifying reference that they only mean AFAB cisgender women. On their own page they speak of "single sex services", such services necessarily exclude all intersex persons of any gender. Further they also speak of "assignment at birth" which excludes anyone not assigned at birth (some indigenous folk, intersex folks). The solution is to use clearer language. "Biological women/females" is not clear language when in fact their own criteria indicate cisgender and AFAB women. Referring to a transwoman as "not biological" for surgeries and HTs that women and intersex women is biased stigmatising language and erases real people. The current language of this article, which defaults to "women" as not referring to "trans women" or these other groups of womdn is ignorance or bigotry,plain and simple. So let's change the language to "cisgender" throughout. Easy. After this long debate where few people with zny real knowledge have fought tooth and nail to maintain a trans-exclusionary language on this page, precisely where it is needed, I am more convinced that we need expanded "controversy/response/critique" section, I'd be happy to provide the relevant citations for thus to someone willing to help with reference formating. Talonx77.13.164.100 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Sex is registered at birth

In the UK, where Beira's Place is located, [https://www.gov.uk/register-birth the government requires that a birth is registered, including the sex of the baby]. Biological sex is usually determined during routine scans well before birth occurs. The entire purpose of the organisation that the article is about is predicated on the real and immutable reality of biological sex, so the use of phrases such as "assigned at birth", which in any case have no legal meaning in UK law, is both confusing and unnecessary. JezGrove (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The entire purpose of the organisation that the article is about is predicated on the real and immutable reality of biological sex, – that doesn't mean we need to agree with them ;-). The consensus among relevant reliable sources is that sex is "assigned". Cf. Sex assignment. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 07:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Better to just use male. I’m not aware this org has taken any position on intersex people. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Male works very well here. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)