Content deleted Content added
Argento Surfer (talk | contribs) clarify + edit conflict |
SMcCandlish (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:: That's enough, you have have nailed your colours to the mast. If you want to keep on publishing disruptive transphobic misinformation, please do it a long way away from Wikimedia projects. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
:: That's enough, you have have nailed your colours to the mast. If you want to keep on publishing disruptive transphobic misinformation, please do it a long way away from Wikimedia projects. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
::: You just ran afoul of #11 on [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Essay|this list]] from another Signpost article today. [[User:Argento Surfer|Argento Surfer]] ([[User talk:Argento Surfer|talk]]) 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
::: You just ran afoul of #11 on [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Essay|this list]] from another Signpost article today. [[User:Argento Surfer|Argento Surfer]] ([[User talk:Argento Surfer|talk]]) 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::Yeah, in Fæ's [[WP:HOUNDING]] of me from site to site, |
::::Yeah, in Fæ's [[WP:HOUNDING]] of me from site to site, they been using the same sort of "no discussion can happen because I say so" stuff (which is remarkably similar in spirit to what I was criticizing in the essay: "You have to write it like {{var|Foo}} because I/we say so"). See, e.g., [[Meta:Talk:Tech/Ambassadors#SMcCandlish]], in which they've trying make trouble for me in one of my technical roles because of her political disagreements with something they imagine I said but [[Straw man|which isn't what I actually said]] (Fæ also outed my full name over there, which I don't use at that site; I've since redacted it). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::: Enforcing compliance with the WMF Code of Conduct correctly on Meta, is not "hounding". Please correct your misgendering of me, unless this is a "joke" you intend to defend and are trying to make into another pointy problem. See [[User:Fæ/Userboxes/me]] or read my user page. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
::::: Enforcing compliance with the WMF Code of Conduct correctly on Meta, is not "hounding". Please correct your misgendering of me, unless this is a "joke" you intend to defend and are trying to make into another pointy problem. See [[User:Fæ/Userboxes/me]] or read my user page. --[[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::: You're just forum shopping. There is no code of conduct violation. If one is determined to have transpired, then you'd have a case, but not for what you're doing (interfering with a technical role I have at another site). Apologies for any mis-gendering; what should it be corrected to? I simply saw someone else use "she" and continued with it. I'll use "they" in the interim. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: Given language doesn't appear to be result from physics in what way are any of the pronouns we use not made up?[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 17:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
:: Given language doesn't appear to be result from physics in what way are any of the pronouns we use not made up?[[User:Geni|©Geni]] ([[User talk:Geni|talk]]) 17:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
||
::As opposed to the naturally-occurring pronouns "he" and "her"? [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
::As opposed to the naturally-occurring pronouns "he" and "her"? [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:40, 28 February 2019
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The essay by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) and Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs) is a misuse of Wikipedia pages under WP:POLEMIC and by targeting minority gender identity fails to meet the requirements of WP:Harassment, WMF:Non-discrimination_policy and the websites WMF:Terms of Use, as it attacks and defames minority groups. The article is written as a joke, but is clearly intended to marginalize and disparage transgender, nonbinary or genderqueer readers and Wikipedians.
Wikipedia essays and the Signpost are not free speech forums to publish what to most readers will be deliberately transphobic rhetoric, even if those words are wrapped in a "joke" format. --Fæ (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Addendum: Recommend this discussion applies automatically to the userspace essay discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SMcCandlish/It --Fæ (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know if it warrants deletion but I would like to see a strong public response along these lines. We can and should discuss this sensitive issue without venom and rancor; this op-ed doesn't do that. ElKevbo (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm not sure if deletion would be appropriate. It did manage to get into the Signpost, a publication just about important enough to have its own Wikipedia article, so it does have some additional importance that the usual oddly genderqueer-phobic/transphobic essay wouldn't have. On the other hand, it is also not very tasteful and nowhere near funny enough to deserve thousands of Signpost readers' time, and if it gets deleted it can be viewed from a safe distance inside the Internet Archive. Jc86035 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- As a thought experiment, if someone were to write a similar jolly funny article which derided and marginalized, say Jewish religious customs by making fun of the way they dress, or poked fun at African-Americans because their ancestors might have been slaves to white people, do you really think that the Wikipedians that were using this project's resources to publish it, would not be instantly blocked, and probably end up globally banned? Exactly why are LGBT+ people any different, or deserve less respect and dignity? --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Fæ: I really don't know. It was run past several other editors before its publication. Would it be considered revisionist to pretend its publication never happened? (The article's talk page would also probably be deleted under this nomination without further clarification, because of CSD G8.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is a clear next step, hopefully unnecessary, of asking WMF Legal to intervene. Though they will resist appearing to change encyclopedic content or legitimate discussion, an "humorous" essay which attacks a protected minority group, does have specific legal implications as well as being counter to existing WMF operational policy. No doubt this was missed in prior discussion before publication. --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Fæ: I really don't know. It was run past several other editors before its publication. Would it be considered revisionist to pretend its publication never happened? (The article's talk page would also probably be deleted under this nomination without further clarification, because of CSD G8.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- As a thought experiment, if someone were to write a similar jolly funny article which derided and marginalized, say Jewish religious customs by making fun of the way they dress, or poked fun at African-Americans because their ancestors might have been slaves to white people, do you really think that the Wikipedians that were using this project's resources to publish it, would not be instantly blocked, and probably end up globally banned? Exactly why are LGBT+ people any different, or deserve less respect and dignity? --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Are you seriously invoking Wikipedia:No legal threats or did you mean to suggest that this situation is some kind of exception to it? – Athaenara ✉ 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Tangent: Asking WMF Legal to look at a Signpost article as being in breach of WMF policy, is not a legal threat by anyone's logical interpretation. Nobody is asking the WMF to start a civil action, neither would they be interested if someone tried. By the way, in light of your other comment about me here, if you raise another question for me, I'll be calling you a Crybully; seems fair. --Fæ (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- It seems to me you're considering yourself exempt from standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I can't approve of that. – Athaenara ✉ 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's possibly not technically a legal threat, but "does have specific legal implications" is obviously meant to feel like one. It's not Fæ threatening direct legal action, but telling us that she's actively trying to get WMF to take legal action (which of course is nonsensical, since nothing illegal or unlawful has transpired). This is an example of what WP:SANCTIONGAMING was written about: trying to "get away with it" on a technicality. We have WP:NLT not because laws and courts and attorneys are an evil, but because clubbing people over the head with legalistic FUD and WP:DRAMA is inimical to an open and good-faith-assumptive editorial community. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Are you seriously invoking Wikipedia:No legal threats or did you mean to suggest that this situation is some kind of exception to it? – Athaenara ✉ 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Don't know if you meant to, but you raise an interesting point about capitalizing "it". Re. your second sentence: How does one know if the "It" at the beginning pertains to the personal pronoun or the regular "it"? Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- One would perhaps boldface? Heh. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- This discussion is for the deletion of the defamatory essay. If you want to chat about the best grammatical use of personal pronouns, try WT:MOS rather than creating tangents. If you are making jokes about personal pronouns, do it off-wiki, it's not constructive here. --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Or else Fæ may follow you, too, from site to site and try to gin up a pogrom against you. LOL. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Specifically because it is in the Signpost, ostensibly the official publication of enwiki, and deleting it would remove any implicit endorsement of its contents by enwiki. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- The Signpost has no offical standing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Unless I'm reading something wrong, the essay is about biographies, while the policies linked in the nom are talking about the relationship between editors. wumbolo ^^^ 15:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- You do appear to be reading something wrong, POLEMIC states "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia", i.e. a misuse of Wikipedia pages to make jokes about the respectful way to handle pronouns for nonbinary or genderqueer people. The essay opens with "SMcCandlish, hereby declares Its personal pronoun to be It", clearly this is a Wikipedia editor talking about themselves on Wikipedia, not just about BLPs or MOS in the abstract. --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete though I don't really expect this to actually get deleted. How is this funny? The only way I can see that this could be considered "funny" is by way of pointing and laughing at non-binary/trans people. Which isn't great. I know people can be put off by nonstandard gender pronoun preferences, and that whether there's a social or moral obligation to honor those preferences is "controversial", and that there can reasonably be a *hypothetical* upper limit to the burden that one can be expected to bear due to others' preferences, but it's not a laughing matter, and jokes like this or the attack helicopter meme are in bad taste, to say the least. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I love Barbara's work and I look forward to more of her humor but this one should be deleted. We all make mistakes on what seems funny to us without realizing that it may demean another - Ive done it myself from time to time and I have been corrected for it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete the polemical parts per nom, neutral on the MOS-related stuff. wumbolo ^^^ 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I have also nominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:SMcCandlish/It for deletion. Jc86035 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - it's satire, which is best when it takes an extreme position. It reframes an argument and can inspire cooperation between opposing viewpoints by establishing some common ground. It's the reverse-psychology equivalent to a "slippery slope" argument that makes people think about where the metaphorical ledge is. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- A satire of what? Of people's gender identity? If this is satire, like of over-enforcement of MOS:GENDERID or something--not that that MOS:GENDERID is necessarily a worthy target of satire either--then it's missing context, which is like the most important part of satire. There is no context for this other than "people with nonstandard pronoun preferences (i.e. non-binary or trans people)", so it's just making fun of people who are non-binary/trans. If this is satire, it's a very bad example of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- A satire of the way MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF are enforced. The context is provided at the bottom of the article, starting with the line "All of the above..." Argento Surfer (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- More specifically, it's a satire about community doubts about whether we should have IDENTITY and ABOUTSELF say what they say, instead of leaning heavily toward what subjects prefer, all the way down to made-up word, which in turn opens the door to religious phrasing demands, to an expectation of "respecting" logo stylizations, and etc., etc. Some slippery slopes are actually slippery. Every time our guidelines budge a little to many one group happy, everyone else wants their "pet" exception. We're just not going to make an exception for fake pronouns, no matter how often/loud a handful of people demand them (or, more often, try to WP:CIVILPOV tactic of quietly "slow-editwarring" them into articles like Genesis P-Orridge and various others). Our encyclopedic job is to record the subject's preference, if it's reliably sourceable; not to use it in Wikipedia's own voice. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- A satire of the way MOS:IDENTITY and WP:ABOUTSELF are enforced. The context is provided at the bottom of the article, starting with the line "All of the above..." Argento Surfer (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- A satire of what? Of people's gender identity? If this is satire, like of over-enforcement of MOS:GENDERID or something--not that that MOS:GENDERID is necessarily a worthy target of satire either--then it's missing context, which is like the most important part of satire. There is no context for this other than "people with nonstandard pronoun preferences (i.e. non-binary or trans people)", so it's just making fun of people who are non-binary/trans. If this is satire, it's a very bad example of it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete While I'm usually the first to argue that MOS:GENDERID is often taken too far in disregarding the pronouns used in contemporary reliable sources, this isn't the right way to advance the debate. This "humor" piece is just mean spirited and has no place on a public-facing Wikipedia page. It isn't funny, and only serves to further marginalize part of the Wikipedia community. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Delete Incredibly offensive and disrespectful rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.194.26 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - an inappropriate use of the Signpost and in this queer editor's opinion, in incredibly poor taste, if not a violation of the TOU. The nom also makes an excellent point about WP:POLEMIC. (And I so rarely agree with Fae, so I suppose it's working to bring opposing viewpoints together...!) Keilana (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Saddened that anyone involved in this 'humour' thought it was a good idea. The very definition of punching down, when we should be putting our efforts into welcoming more contributors, not making people feel unwelcome. Sam Walton (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Those who wrote and allowed this to be published in the Signpost should be ashamed of themselves. Making fun of a group of people who are already on the receiving end of a lot of harassment and violence both online and off does not make for a lighthearted humor piece, it makes for yet another example of how Wikipedia is not a safe place for members of those groups to participate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I would normally be hesitant to interfere with any publication's editorial independence, but in the community-based context of Wikipedia, I think it's appropriate for users to override such a clear error in editorial judgement, and this incident needs to be a wake-up call. - Sdkb (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm trans, I tend to go by "they". It's really fun to have WP's cis contingent aggressively mocking my identity. Sorry, did I say fun? I meant it's offensive. -- a. get in the spam hole | get nosey 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. It's funny enough, fairly well-crafted satire, and serves as attractive bait to bring the humorless out of the shadows, hell-bent on depriving the normal average human of an opportunity to laugh. The nominator seems determined to buttonhole and pin down every editor who deems the thing worth keeping, so I suppose I'll be accosted too. Ho hum. (I guess this isn't the forum to ask why there isn't a Crybully article yet.) – Athaenara ✉ 17:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- I recall why now, it's because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I know any of us could create a {{Soft redirect}} to Wiktionary ("a person who engages in intimidation, harassment, or other abusive behaviour while claiming to be a victim"), but it would be provocative in the context of this raging storm, so I won't. – Athaenara ✉ 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Writing this as a nonbinary person who sometimes makes small edits to the projects: read the last line of this [1] if there's any doubt about the point of the essay. I will not vote, since I am apparently one of the persons targeted by the text. -- ArielGlenn (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per Galobtter, Sdkb and ArielGlenn's comments (as well as my comments above). Jc86035 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Blank or delete. If I'm being honest, I think this could have been written to be funny if it had, say, focused on stage names and WP:COMMONNAME concepts ("My stagename is 'The President of the United States'"), honorifics, or trademarks, as suggested in the nutshell. That could've been funny. That did not happen and this is not that. This is a series of cruel potshots making light of marginalized individuals, many of which are part of our community. Even using "it" as the "joke" enforces the dehumanizing impact of such a thing. This is bad and should be removed. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. I would support their editorial independence if there was any evidence of editorial judgement. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to delete the Signpost thing. [Update: The talk page of it has meaningful discussion, however. Maybe some other solution is better, like removing it from the Signpost ToC?] It wasn't intended for that venue, but someone who edits it wanted to include it. I had my misgivings, predicting that various of the too-easily-offended would willfully misinterpret it, which is exactly what's happened. It wasn't transphobic in the faintest. You all utterly missed the point. It's about Wikipedia editors engaging in language-change activism trying to push non-mainstream stylistic strangeness, including a) fake pronouns like zie and hirm, b) unusual trademark stylizations, and c) excessive honorifics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the off-site usage or the values of those who engage in it. It's about and only about encyclopedic usage. If you want to go change WP:MOS to say "It's okay to exactly mimic the appearance of logos, to write of Jesus and Mohammad with "Our Lord" and "Peace Be Upon Him" before and after (respectively) their names, to inject made-up pronoun shenanigans like ze and xir into our articles", well, good luck with that. Never going to happen. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC); updated 19:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- There is no debate here, your op-ed is a transphobic polemic. Your next step would have best to have been an honest apology, not to defend your actions and go on to offensively compound them by comparing nonbinary pronouns to using "Our Lord".
- That's enough, you have have nailed your colours to the mast. If you want to keep on publishing disruptive transphobic misinformation, please do it a long way away from Wikimedia projects. --Fæ (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- You just ran afoul of #11 on this list from another Signpost article today. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, in Fæ's WP:HOUNDING of me from site to site, they been using the same sort of "no discussion can happen because I say so" stuff (which is remarkably similar in spirit to what I was criticizing in the essay: "You have to write it like Foo because I/we say so"). See, e.g., Meta:Talk:Tech/Ambassadors#SMcCandlish, in which they've trying make trouble for me in one of my technical roles because of her political disagreements with something they imagine I said but which isn't what I actually said (Fæ also outed my full name over there, which I don't use at that site; I've since redacted it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Enforcing compliance with the WMF Code of Conduct correctly on Meta, is not "hounding". Please correct your misgendering of me, unless this is a "joke" you intend to defend and are trying to make into another pointy problem. See User:Fæ/Userboxes/me or read my user page. --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- You're just forum shopping. There is no code of conduct violation. If one is determined to have transpired, then you'd have a case, but not for what you're doing (interfering with a technical role I have at another site). Apologies for any mis-gendering; what should it be corrected to? I simply saw someone else use "she" and continued with it. I'll use "they" in the interim. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Enforcing compliance with the WMF Code of Conduct correctly on Meta, is not "hounding". Please correct your misgendering of me, unless this is a "joke" you intend to defend and are trying to make into another pointy problem. See User:Fæ/Userboxes/me or read my user page. --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, in Fæ's WP:HOUNDING of me from site to site, they been using the same sort of "no discussion can happen because I say so" stuff (which is remarkably similar in spirit to what I was criticizing in the essay: "You have to write it like Foo because I/we say so"). See, e.g., Meta:Talk:Tech/Ambassadors#SMcCandlish, in which they've trying make trouble for me in one of my technical roles because of her political disagreements with something they imagine I said but which isn't what I actually said (Fæ also outed my full name over there, which I don't use at that site; I've since redacted it). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- You just ran afoul of #11 on this list from another Signpost article today. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Given language doesn't appear to be result from physics in what way are any of the pronouns we use not made up?©Geni (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- As opposed to the naturally-occurring pronouns "he" and "her"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hand-smelted from ore fresh from the gender mines, versus these counterfeit lab-synthesized pronounts that the scary queers wear. I'm so tired of re-hashing this with people. :( -- a. get in the spam hole | get nosey 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- MOS:NEO. It's nothing to do with how queer someone is, but how well-accepted something is in mainstream English. Singular they is, fortunately, making a strong comeback. MOS doesn't yet explicitly say to use it, but it's only a matter of time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hand-smelted from ore fresh from the gender mines, versus these counterfeit lab-synthesized pronounts that the scary queers wear. I'm so tired of re-hashing this with people. :( -- a. get in the spam hole | get nosey 18:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Nuke it till it glows then curse it in the dark Look there are a lot of issues around how to handle pronouns but this is the worst possible way to address that.©Geni (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Signpost goes out as an announcement on watchlists. Imagine being a new nonbinary editor and clicking that. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone else. Transphobic rants have no place on Wikipedia, and that's exactly what this is. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete - If the uploader wants to express a view that could be read in a specfic ideological way (however unintended), there are more appropriate forums and ways to do it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- This page has been subject to serious canvassing: [2]. The behaviour by certain participants in this thread has been reprehensible. Please abide by civility norms, do not make personal attacks even against people you strongly disagree with, and certainly never make legal threats. (That said, delete per author request. I do not agree with the other arguments in favor of deletion.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- As a person who has !voted delete, I will confirm that I was not canvassed; I received my Signpost notification, read the article in question, saw the discussion below, came back in an hour and saw the deletion discussion, and chose to express my view on the ideal future of the article. While I do think the essay is transphobic and repulsive, I agree with you that the person involved in the link you posted took it too far. This incident is bad, but not so bad as to warrant such drastic measures. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep When someone holds up a funhouse mirror, it might be smart to note that the distortions are, well, distorted. It’s when you complain about the mirror part that it becomes a problem. Yes, it’s a little unpleasant to realize that the whole world doesn’t accept our own self-conceptions as fact. Get over it. Qwirkle (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep as the over the top histrionics about this demonstrate a total lack of perspective. Besides the irony of who's passing judgment on "editorial judgment", it's a website. And frankly, being someone who has an ASD (the terminology is FUBAR with the new DSM) there are constant references to the autistic tendencies of Wikipedia editors; unleashing my autistic screeching to demand people delete anything daring to express it would be prudish in the extreme, to say nothing of killing off some on-point and well-earned humor. "Harassment" and "marginalization"? Seriously? It's satire. Grow up. (And my personal views are irrelevant, I've expressed them elsewhere but will not now, and spare me efforts to infer them) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Retract ideally and mark as historical to document the fuckup, but this is an option that's only available to the Signpost editors User:Kudpung and User:Bri. But failing that, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete While I certainly understand humor and appreciate distorted realities to give us a nudge, I have an objection to humor against marginalized groups. Transgender and non-binary people are being under pressure and discriminated against everywhere and their suicide rate is over the roof, don't make it worse for them. Let me give you an example, imagine a transgender person who was kicked of her parents' house because she came out to them and said "I prefer pronoun 'she'". Now, she's homeless and extremely depressed. Then she saw this page. How that's going to help her if not making it worse? Ladsgroupoverleg 19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- This, exactly, is what I meant by lack of perspective. How important do you really think this obscure backwater of Wikipedia is that it'll have any effect, either way, on someone undergoing that kind of trauma? The world isn't censored, plus there's a chance that someone actually might get the true point of this even without the author's answer key above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- This page isn't about using "she" or "he". It's about pronouns that aren't in common usage like "xe" Argento Surfer (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)