User talk:Kbachler

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kbachler! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Schazjmd (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Lia Thomas for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your perception of my comments is both biased and incorrect. It was not a general discussion of the topic or other related topics. It was focused solely on incorrect information stated in the Lia Thomas article.kbachler (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

kblacher, before the discussion thread was closed, you stated Wikipedia may need to address internal policies to address publishing non-factual information, I don't really care [1], which is beyond the article, and you had previously been advised that you could express your concerns elsewhere [2]. You also continued to misgender Thomas [3], after being asked not to [4] and after a warning that continuing this conduct may lead to a block [5]. After the discussion thread was closed, [6], with a template stating "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion", you continued to post in the section, [7], [8], [9]. It does appear that your concerns are directed at Wikipedia policies, and you should discuss your concerns in appropriate forums, not the article Talk page, because the article Talk page will not be able to address your concerns. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lia Thomas

In this edit you question whether "reliable sources" would have reported that a 5-year-old girl named Lia was learning to swim? But that is how contemporary RS now report those events of the past, e.g., this one: Thomas, who grew up in Austin, Texas, said she fell in love with swimming at age 4. Which part of this is my "opinion"? It is your opinion that it is more "factual" to write about the background of trans people using their deadnames and the gender they may have presented as at the time. Your opinion, however, conflicts with both community consensus and the way reliable sources consistently report the childhoods of trans people. The fact that you WP:DONTLIKEIT and don't think it is "factual" doesn't matter to anyone but yourself. Newimpartial (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is incorrect. An example - several months ago a Minneapolis TV news editor came across a news story on a teachers' strike from many years earlier. In the video was an 11-year old child, who seemed to be the younger version of a person who was later known as Prince. To confirm, the TV station tracked down classmates and other information. Classmates of that year were, of course, the MOST reliable sources. When they saw the video they all exclaimed "That's SKIPPY!" - Prince's childhood nickname. Not one identified him as Prince.

So here we have the best possible reliable observers, not doing what you claim.

You clearly belong to a woke group that has made up some bizarre rules around transgenderism and other topics that have nothing to do with basic standards of acceptable reality. I'm not the one with opinions here and its easy to demonstrate -- find any person who watched the five year old learn to swim and ask what they saw that day. Not one will describe a girl named Lia.

What you've done is put feelings above fact. I and others are quite respectful of Lia's (and other's) feelings. You'll note that I've treated her by her request. But information in the past doesn't change. It happened. It's real. It's immutable.

This is where many people that you might call rude differ with this extremist view that treats reality as something that can change under this circumstance. This isn't quantum mechanics - our perception doesn't change the objective view.

People aren't necessarily transphobic, I'm not transphobic, but they do insist on reality. kbachler (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that the article on Prince (musician) should discuss his childhood as SKIPPY!, that seems WP:EXTRAORDINARY and UNDUE - it's a topic you could raise on that article's Talk page, but it is scarcely an example that demonstrates your point.

Your opinion that what is objective is the recollections of elementary school children and that the descriptions published in recent, reliable sources are less reliable is just that - your opinion - and doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability.

The fact is, the way we write about the past is not immutable and it never has been; it it were, Wikipedia would be using the N-word in its own voice and describing historical figures as Uranian (sexology). Published, reliable sources do not share your very primitive ontology and epistemology where the past is concerned, so neither does Wikipedia. Newimpartial (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

So far you have been treated exceptionally lightly, having received only one low level warning template, but you can't continue to behave as you have over the last couple of days. You need to decide whether you can contribute to Wikipedia in a sensible, non-disruptive way or whether you are going to continue getting into pointless and unwinnable arguments that only serve to waste people's time that they could be using for something more worthwhile.

Before you got involved in the Lia Thomas article you were editing other articles and talk pages. I strongly recommend that you go back to doing that. If you just avoid topics of gender and sexuality you should have a lot less problems. Maybe even avoid, or at least be very cautious of, all controversial topics until you have a better handle on how things work around here? Speaking of which, the Welcome message at the top of this page has links to pages which explain our ethos and policies. I strongly recommend that you take a look at those. DanielRigal (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't viewed this topic for awhile. Yes, I have edited other articles and talk pages and still do. But as time changes, perhaps you've learned something, since reality has remained unchanged. There is nothing I commented on that was rude, or unwelcome - simply real.

One person asked whether I was arguing that a childhood article on Prince would have to refer to him as Skippy. That's not the argument. The person today is known as Prince. The same person then was known as Skippy. People who knew him then used his name from then. That is a natural thing to do, and did not follow what you claimed would happen.

However, in the interim, we have learned better arguments. Here is the real issue, and a significant reason why there are problems today.

If we stipulate to the idea that gender and sex are separate concepts and that gender does not necessarily equate to sex, that is fine. The issue comes up insomuch as people - both those who support and those who do not support the concept of transgenderism, continue to view it as something on a spectrum (i.e. a range on a line.)

The problem is that once we stipulate to such separate concepts, we in fact have orthogonal concepts and they exist in a plane, not on a line.

In that plane, sex is nearly always Male or Female With a Small Group of Intersex,and might be represented as the X-axis in such a plane. It is, however, practically immutable for humans. Humans can do things to change some sexual characteristics. There is currently no means by which anyone can change all sexual characteristics. We thus have Sₙ, a constant.

Gender, however, is asserted as different and we can accept that assertion. It is definable as a function, g(t).

A person's gen-sex identity is thereby given as an ordered pair (g(t),Sₙ)

Males are (M,M)

Females are (F,F)

Transmen are (M,F)

Transwomen are (F,M)

The issue in sports today is that sports separation is done by sex; however, people are participating in women's sports based on gender. We see from a logical and mathematically correct definition that Transwoman ≠ Woman. The gender is the same, but the sex is different. When one uses their gender to participate in a sexually defined event, it is just as dishonest as misgendering someone.

Note also, that depending upon circumstances, a person can be both mis-gendered and pro-sexed. A transwoman participating in female sports is mis-sexing. A Transwoman being kept from purchasing a dress for themself is being misgendered.

It's not a one-way street. It's a two-way street - it must be. That's the reality of gender and sex being separate.

I realize that, as it did before, this commentary will likely generate a bunch of woke anger. The topic is not emotional at all, it's not based on an emotional preference. It's based on reality and stipulated convention.

In this case, if one is talking about Lia Thomas in the present, one can reasonably say "she." However, if one is discussing Lia Thomas in the past, it is he. The reason for this is although Lia may have perceived herself as (F,M) at that time, none of the people did, nor did any program in which she was part. Had Lia competed in a race at that time, he would have competed in a male race, as defined both by sex and by gender at that point in history.

If your assertion is that pronouns generally are problematic, on that we can agree. Prince is known today as Prince, in the past as Skippy, and his "real name" at all times was Prince Rogers Nelson. The question is whether a pronoun comes down to gender, or down to sex, and if so when. Clearly, many people assert that pronouns reflect gender. That seems reasonable. But on what basis would it retroactively change the person's gender at the time? I don't see how that happens. It seems to that gender has to be at the time of perception. If it isn't, then it would be acceptable for someone who knew Lia as a boy to refer to Lia as a he today, since the person knew them as that then. If the point is that Lia today is a transwoman, then one must recognize the gender today not the prior gender. The reverse should also be true when referring to time prior to the gender change. kbachler (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]