User talk:Trankuility

Hi - you might have heard this news already; posting here because you'd know better than I if, where, and how to include it in the various intersex articles. Funcrunch (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! There is also a major report by Human Rights Watch and Interact Advocates for Intersex Youth. Trankuility (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

There are detailed reports on the case at Intersex rights in the United States and Interact Advocates for Intersex Youth, so I updated those and a couple of brief statements that point to the detailed information. For the Human Rights Watch report, I updated both pages plus, for an international audience, Intersex human rights reports. I also updated the material at Intersex human rights, and added the report to the bibliography at Intersex. That is a lot of places. I hope it all makes sense. Trankuility (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry if I've offended you and feel free to delete this section as needed. I noticed recently that you reverted the edit to Vaginoplasty with a comment that it was about more than just transgenderism. I am confused because there is another article called Phalloplasty that has that exact sidebar to indicate it was part of the series on transgenderism. And my goal was to harmonize the different articles. Would it be your opinion that transgenderism should also be removed from the phalloplasty article for the same reason? Thank you for your response in advance. --Luxdormiens (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that link. Both medical procedures mentioned are relevant and practiced on multiple populations and should carefully consider WP:UNDUE. In general, I suggest limiting the sidebar template to pages that are listed in that template, or pages that are clearly children of those pages. It is possible to add multiple template links at the end of a page. Trankuility (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Trankuility, I hope you are well.

I was wondering a clarification on the scope of policies that ban non-consensual interventions upon intersex infants.

Do policies such as these only apply to intersex infants or does this also ban male circumcision?

I would like a clarification as banning male circumcision would effectively ban Judaism. I am aware there is a difference between IGM, FGM, and Male Circumcision. Does Malta's law only cover IGM?

I also tend to think that as more awareness on intersex rights builds that I think it would be good to clarify to the public that this does not also ban male circumcision.

Any insights? Clarifications? Should I be using different terminology?

Thanks,

TenorTwelve (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi TenorTwelve. I'm here much less these days so apologies for the delay. This page is also WP:NOTFORUM, but you make a series of claims that are not actually connected, and straw man arguments. I respond below.

1. Banning male circumcision would not effectively ban Judaism. Internally, there is significant debate within Judaism about the role of male circumcision. For example, arguments in favor of ending ritual male circumcision include:

• Kasher, Rani (2017-08-23). "It's 2017. Time to Talk About Circumcision". Haaretz.
• Ben-Nun, Yigal (2017-10-04). "It's Time to Give Up Circumcision". Haaretz.

2. Malta's law, and other policy proposal that seek to ban intersex genital mutilation (a contested term, but you use it so I do here), seek not to eliminate all forms of genital surgery without exception, they seek to defer non-urgent surgeries until the recipient can decide for themselves. The issue is one of informed consent. So, the Maltese law does not ban male circumcision, but it does defer it and make it dependent on consent.

3. If you want to argue that religiously motivated male circumcision should continue before children can consent to the procedure (and any other procedure) themselves then you are of course free to do so.

4. It is possible to write laws protecting intersex children that do not have an impact on male circumcision but only protect specific groups. A consequence of law reform on male circumcision is not inevitable or intrinsic. Trankuility (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks for helping. TenorTwelve (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I did some copy editing and I want to make sure it is okay with you. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! You are right to identify that need for a medical reference. Trankuility (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at LGBT rights in Tamil Nadu.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop wikihounding my contribution history, especially after you failed to get your POV pushed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intersex rights in India, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies where you had canvassed about this article and you got no one to agree with you. Check LGBT rights in Kerala or even LGBT rights in New York for WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:COMMONNAME. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are in breach of WP:BRD. Your WP:Wikilawyering does you no favors, and WP:COMMONNAME can be satisfied by reference to Transgender rights in the United States and related pages. Go and discuss it on the page. Trankuility (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Looks like your recent edit to the Discrimination against intersex people article causes five duplicate reference definition errors. Looks like a bot actually made the edit, but it is credited with your username -- so I'm a bit confused. Either way, are you able to fix the errors your edit created in the article? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I will take a look. Thanks for letting me know! Trankuility (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Here the intersex society states that ambiguous genitalia are not the equivalent of an intersex condition. I've been creating content on vaginal anomalies and noted that the article Ambiguous genitalia redirects to Intersex. Almost all the medical literature returned from a google search shows that ambiguous genitalia is still the preferred term for genitalia that may not be 'normal' looking by researchers. I'd like your thoughts on this. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 11:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message. People born with ambiguous genitalia are intersex. Some intersex people are born with ambiguous genitalia, but not all intersex people have ambiguous genitalia. For example, other intersex traits may become evident later in life, particularly at puberty. This means that a redirection from ambiguous genitalia to intersex is reasonable, even though the term intersex refers to a larger group. Terminology is contested but intersex is the common term and appears to be more widely used by affected people than other terms. It is important also to note that the Intersex Society of North America closed a decade ago. Some of its website is still relevant, but not all of it. Trankuility (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to help with the editing on the Genetic testing of intersex. We can collaborate on the talk page. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 08:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two (or three) groups that use different terms to describe the topic of this article. I can't find any systematic reviews that use the term 'intersex', but I am certain that will soon change. That doesn't mean that the term 'intersex' is not accurate or can't be used, but the use in med literature is so much more complicated. Take Cloacal extrophy for example. The genitalia are seriously affected but 'intersex' is not used to describe this anomaly and it is always treated because it also seriously impacts the urinary system and without treatment, babies with this anomaly will die. Comments? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 09:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a contentious subject with debate about language, and with different kinds of institutions creating definitions. The article on genetic diagnosis only specifically mentions a few terms, and this doesn’t include cloacal exstrophy. You should note though that Causes of transsexuality cites studies of men with cloacal exstrophy raised female, and this seems dubious to me. Their initial sex assignment is now frequently regarded as inappropriate. That particular page also has sources that fail to meet MEDRS. Trankuility (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trankuility! First of all, thanks so much for all your work and also vigilance! I understand your revert of the third gender option aspects related to sex assignment in the articles on PAIS and CAIS. However, i wanted to ask for your opinion on this: Imho the idea of binary sex assignment being so important is very much linked to pressure for nonconsensual interventions on intersex children. Thus i thought it would be good to include in that section some part indicating that today the binary sex assignment is considered outdated and dangerous by more and more institutions. Do you think something like that should be in there? Because right now it sounds as if making sure children are boy or girl is mandatory, without explaining the changing attitute here and the fact that many countries have third gender options or are considering to drop gender designations. I am aware that sex is not gender, but officials etc. often take those synonymously and the pressure certainly arises from having to put children in one of the legal boxes. Thank you! :) --Mangostaniko (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Are there any verifiable reports that nonconsensual interventions have stopped in the countries you named with third sex classifications? Trankuility (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I am a member of a college course on Women's and Gender Studies that is editing Wikipedia as an educational tool. I am interested in adding more information on the intersex in history page about the history of intersex people in non-Western cultures, since the bulk of the included historical information is on Europe and doesn't reflect a global intersex historical experience. If you have any tips, advice, or relevant sources, I would appreciate it! Thanks so much! Magnolier (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. If I had notable sources, I would add them. Most sources seem to be about gender and identity, not intersex traits. Trankuility (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello again! I appreciate your feedback on my work in my sandbox; I agree that adding an alternative view makes the contribution more balanced. As to the suggestion that much of my contribution might fit better on the Intersex people and religion page, I tried to structure my contributions similarly to some existing information on the Intersex in history page, and the Intersex people and religion page seems to be focused on current religious beliefs rather than the older ones I discuss in my work. Additionally, as a student editor, I am only able to edit one page for the purpose of my assignment. If you feel my work belongs elsewhere, you are welcome to move it once it goes live, or if this is an issue, I am happy to discuss it further. Finally, it makes it difficult for my instructors to assess the work in my sandbox when there are multiple editors involved, so if you could make any further suggestions on my talk page, the article talk page, or here, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you again! Magnolier (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Magnolier, I suggest you find out if you will be assessed on the appropriateness of the content you add to the page. If content better belongs elsewhere it should go elsewhere. Trankuility (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree; I believe my work does belong on the Intersex in history page and that it fits with the information already present there. In my previous message, I meant to clarify that if the editing community decides it does not belong on the page after all, I myself am not able to move it elsewhere. Another user would need to do that. Thanks. Magnolier (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please don't remove "queer" from the articles, there are homosexuals and trans people who don't "indentify" as queer either but the description is pretty widley used by and for LGBTQI groups. I think useing the term to explain contexts where intersex people are inclused in the lgbtqi context is easy and helpful.★Trekker (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t want to get into an edit war but you engage in original research when you state that intersex people are queer. Most intersex people, according to all available clinical research, identify with sex assigned at birth. Very many are heterosexual. You should not have reverted my changes to the military service article. Trankuility (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you even know what that the word means today to most people? Have you just decided that it means "only trans and non-hetrosexuals"? Because that's not how I've seen the term used.★Trekker (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Stop adding cn tags because it doesn't fit your pov. I will remove them and I don't accept that you're refusing to actually have a real conversation about the subject on the talkpage. You're not the lord of all intersex matters here on Wikipedia or anywhere else.★Trekker (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry about being rude towards you. I dissagree with you but how I expressed that was very abrasive. That's not ok, I should have been more civil.★Trekker (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

LGBT, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Intersex flag into Intersex Human Rights Australia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi - As you've been active editing intersex-related articles, I thought you should know about this discussion if you don't already. Funcrunch (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You might want to weigh in on this. (I have started and stopped several times because the term "biological sex" irritates me) Funcrunch (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karl Dürrge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umlaut. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Endosex is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endosex until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Crossroads ^-talk- 03:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you reverted my edit. Sure I will admit I made a mistake in that Edit but I explained the reason I removed, “ Intersex traits are not always visible at birth; while some infants may be born with ambiguous genitals, intersex traits may become evident prenatally, may manifest during puberty or become evident at other times.”

Was because it was already mentioned in the lead. CycoMa (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Everything in the lead, which is an introductory overview, should be properly explained in the article. See WP:CITELEAD. Trankuility (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry about that lazy comment on Timeline of intersex history. I instantly assumed the information was false without reading the article or reading the sources, I also was made a lazy comment and didn’t fully explain my issues with the article.CycoMa (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Trankuility (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Trankuility,

I have been working on the Equality Act (United States) page and I would like to know your thoughts on the way the page has made mention of protection of the intersex community within the legislation. In the lead section of the page, there is a paragraph that currently reads:

Much like the Bostock v. Clayton County decision, the Equality Act broadly defines sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, adding "pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes". The bill also defines this to include "intersex traits". The intended purpose of the Act is to legally protect individuals from discrimination based on such.^[1]

I am wondering on the usage of quotes around intersex traits. Granted it is quoting the legislation, but I am worried it could come across as "scare quotes" or as a form of othering or the like.

Aside from the quotation question, is the phrase intersex traits acceptable? Does it come across as too clinical? Or should some other wording be used like "the bill also protects intersex individuals (or the intersex community) from discrimination under its definition of sex"? Or something like that or "the bill also considers discrimination against the intersex community to be a form of sex discrimination." Or would another wording be better?

I appreciate the work you have done on intersex-related articles.

Thank you,

-TenorTwelve (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey regarding your comment at 5α-Reductase deficiency please assume good faith. You can read in on WP:GOODFAITH.

It’s never okay to accuse other editors of POV pushing. Like explain to me why you think Maneesh is POV pushing?CycoMa (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You are pushing a POV. What's more, I have described the POV carefully and accurately. Trankuility (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You been on here for over 7 years, you should know that accusing other editors of POV pushing is uncivil.CycoMa (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I am quite careful with my words, but my comments were justified - they are quite obvious to most editors, I suspect, particularly given your very prominent claim to not be promoting propaganda on your home page. Trankuility (talk) 07:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Um Maneesh has been here for over 17 years. Do you really believe calling a person who’s been here that long as POV pushing?CycoMa (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Also you failed to explain to me why you think Maneesh is a POV pusher.CycoMa (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The length of service of an editor, and that editor pushing a POV are two unrelated characteristics. Your attempt to link them is surprising. My comments have been justified, and this appears to be supported by other editors including through identification of a WP:IDHT situation by another editor. Your comments on this page don't seem very useful. Trankuility (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Intersex rights by region has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 18 § Category:Intersex on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Web-julio (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)