User talk:Grand Dizzy

Dear Grand Dizzy: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! HighInBC 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Thanks for uploading Image:Inspector-gadget-soundtrack.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can take a look to Talk:Arabic Wikipedia? about it's restrictions. regards. --Riyadi.asmawi (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ayako Saso. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayako Saso. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Ayako Saso, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Ayako Saso and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:AeronPeryton/Articles/Ayako Saso during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Pastoral epistles. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Gospel seemed less than neutral to me, so it has been removed it for now. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to arguments based on guidelines and polices, not your own ideas. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was certainly not expressing my "own ideas", quite the opposite in fact. What I said was in response to the user Tataral who was expressing a lot of very personal opinions about the President of the United States, and seemed to be personally biased against America on that basis. I, on the other hand, was arguing for neutrality and that Wikipedia editors should report the facts, not opinions. Tataral was suggesting that "the whole world disagrees with President Trump" (which is not true), therefore Wikipedia should not update its articles to reflect laws passed by him. This is quite clearly personal bias, which I am *against* in Wikipedia. For example, I don't agree with the policies of Kim Jong-un but that would not give me the right to exclude his legal rulings from a Wikipedia article, nor to make implications that the man is worthy of contempt--as though that has to do with the writing of an encyclopedia. Tataral was also clearly expressing the fallacy that if "most scientists" agree on something then they can't possibly be wrong, and therefore holders of alternative views (like President Trump who denies Climate Change) are somehow "invalidated" and their laws should not be reported in Wikipedia. It is Tataral who is introducing his "own ideas" into Wikipedia, not me. I just want the facts to be reported. If the world leaders agreed that Jerusalem was officially the capital of Palestine, I may not like such a ruling, but I would not wish for that ruling to be somehow withheld from appearing as fact on Wikipedia, to do so would be a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Grand Dizzy (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Homosexuality, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can a message on article talk. Other Wikipedia articles are not considered WP:RS, so I couldn't let the edit stand. Please try again with better sourcing. If in doubt, take it to article talk. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 01:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CorbieVreccan, thanks for letting me know about this. As well as the Wikipedia reference (which you say is invalid), I also added information citing an article on www.pbs.org written by a specialist on homosexual history who has published several books on the subject. Is that citation valid?Grand Dizzy (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

…are misogynistic and unacceptable. Belief in women’s rights and accomplishments is not a “politically-charged, controversial, extreme-left-wing minority view”. Has it even occurred to you that women’s accomplishments are erased BECAUSE of society’s patriarchal structure? This sort of blatantly sexist behavior drives away female contributors, reinforces Wikipedia’s gender bias, and goes against the WP:UCOC. Please do not do this again or you will be reported for trolling and abusive language towards female contributors. Dronebogus (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/madam, I am utterly bewildered by your comment. You call ME sexist - for accusing Wikipedia of being sexist! That is illogical. How could it be sexist to accuse Wikipedia of sexism?

On a personal note, I abhor sexism, but the point of my topic was NOT to air personal views, it was to point out that Wikipedia claims to be neutral, and draw attention to a place where Wikipedia seems to be failing in that area, by promoting controversial political views that are not shared by other cultures. The point of my topic was to learn more about what is going on here, help Wikipedia, and try to eliminate sexism and political bias. I don't know how you can interpret that as sexist!

Now I have pointed out precisely why I think Wikipedia is sexist, and have given very clear reasoning. You, on the other hand, offer nothing to back up your claim that I have made sexist comments. No quote of what I supposedly said that was "misogynistic". It is merely a baseless accusation. Nor could you find such a quote from me, because I am vehemently AGAINST sexism, and the idea of me saying anything that is sexist is absurd.

You accuse me of "abusive language towards female contributors"? What "abusive language"? I haven't spoken to any contributors directly, aside from having to write this response to your very hostile and accusatory entry on my talk page. I have never been rude or 'abusive' to anyone anywhere, and certainly not here on Wikipedia.

I have no knowledge or interest in the gender of any contributors (including you) and fail to see what relevance their gender would have? You almost seem to be suggesting that it's perfectly fine to speak abusively to male contributors? If not, then why even mention the gender of contributors? Surely, abusive behavior is abusive behavior, regardless of the genders involved. Wikipedia doesn't have different standards of personal conduct for men and women, does it?

You threaten to "report me for trolling". What a bizarre claim! How is it "trolling" to discuss the issue of an apparent contradiction in Wikipedia's policies, and apparent political bias? In fact, it is you who ought to be reported for your conduct, and I am considering doing as such because your message to me is aggressive, emotional, hostile, accusatory, and lacking even the most rudimentary manners and courtesy. That is simply not the way editors of an academic resource speak to one another. I have been a helpful and constructive member of Wikipedia for 16 years and my personal conduct is impeccable, unlike yours, sir/madam.

Finally, you call me "misogynistic", but that is a term normally applied to a male. It seems that you have assumed that I am male without any basis for such an assumption, since I have never even mentioned my own gender and see no relevance to that here. All of the charges you accuse me of seem to be the result of assumption, imagination, and generally a very emotional over-reactive personality. I, on the other hand, find any such personal bickering to be highly distasteful and inappropriate.

As you can clearly see from the topic I opened, I am trying to ensure that Wikipedia is impartial, dispassionate, factual, and completely free from any kind of personal agenda or emotionalism, especially sexism. For you to accuse me of all such things myself is, as I said, utterly bewildering. You are taking my serious accusations of Wikipedia and throwing them against me. I do not know why. I am a polite, respectful person. Grand Dizzy (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, along with being a violation of wp:notforum, used language that sounded like it was intended to disparage women as “almost insignificant” and grossly misinterpreted Wikimedia’s attempts at improving coverage of women (see Gender bias on Wikipedia) as some kind of “extreme left-wing” agenda. The point isn’t whether or not women are as “important” as men, it’s that Wikipedia a) doesn’t have many female contributors and b) doesn’t have biographies for anywhere near the same proportion of notable women as it does for notable men. Are you going to go to the wiki loves pride article and complain it’s giving “insignificant” LGBTQ people too much attention over straight/cis people? Dronebogus (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you very much for taking the time to offer clarification on this. It would seem there has been a misunderstanding between us. After your message I thought you might be some kind of 'troll' or vandal, but I can see now that you are a very legitimate user.

While I'm not here to argue my personal views on gender, considering the reaction I received to the things I said, I feel it is worth briefly sharing a few perspectives, for the sake of clarification. (Apologies for the length of the below but I feel it is relevant, and I would only do this on my own talk page.)

First, I am sorry that my original topic was deemed irrelevant to the article. I was sincerely not aware of wp:notforum, or quite how the directive applies. I have always generally regarded the talk page as a forum to ask anything pertaining to the general subject - always with a view to improving the article - but in future I will be careful of deviating too far into general discussion, so thanks for pointing this out.

Now yes, I did state in my original topic that the female gender has played "an almost insignificant role in history". I fail to see how anyone could that this as a sexist statement!? It is surely a rather obvious statistical fact. What percentage of notable historical figures were female? What percentage of historical authors, academics, religious leaders, politicians? Virtually 0 - since all historical societies were male-oriented and social power and influence was not ascribed to women. This is a simple fact.

Now some feminist 21st-century groups may not like this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless, and for people to take offence at the mere mention of such facts is detrimental to both freedom of speech and the reporting of true fact. Such a negative reaction to my general views is also an act of bigotry and intolerance against other cultures and their values (ie half the world).

Sadly, there seems to be a growing movement of people in the West who claim to believe in "equality" yet at the same time treat those with different political views with the utmost of contempt. What gives anyone the right to act as though they are 'better' than others, just because they have different views on gender? If a woman believes she is fundamentally different to men, is it right that she should be 'silenced' and 'banned' from Wikipedia on the grounds that her views are 'offensive' to the controlling elite? Should she be beaten into submission until she agrees with the liberals? Is that freedom and equality?

As for the issue of Wikipedia wanting to encourage more female editors. Please do not be mistaken - this is not an issue of equality, it's an extremist minority political view. If the issue were merely about equality then Wikipedia would merely seek to allow both men and women to edit Wikipedia without discrimination. That has already been achieved. No one has any problem with women being allowed to edit Wikipedia, I think it is a wonderful thing that ought to be fully supported, which of course it is. Society achieved this level of liberty decades ago and it is not a cause which needs to be promoted. Men and women have equal rights.

But the agenda being pushed by Wikipedia is not merely 'equal rights', it is a very modern and much more extreme political/scientific/social view (almost a religion) - the view that men and women are identical - that men and women have identical personalities, interests, and aptitudes. This view states that men are no more likely to be interested in engineering than women, or that women are no more likely to have long hair, wear makeup, or buy beauty products than men, because men and women are identical. Now as it happens, this view is utterly refuted by both science and the world around us. It is clear that women all over the world generally have longer hair than men and have far more interest in beauty and makeup. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the overwhelming internal differences between men and women, our personalities and interests. Therefore the idea of encouraging men and women to occupy 50% of all social sectors is asinine, harmful and unnatural.

But while I strongly reject this view myself, I am not here to denounce it or 'ban' it from Wikipedia. I am merely trying to point out that it is a political view which is not shared by much of the world, not even within the American population. A great many people still believe that men and women are fundamentally different, and in fact most of the women who believe this remain completely silent in society because they quietly embrace and enjoy traditional family life and have no interest in aggressively publicly asserting their views or creating controversy. My best friend is such a woman and I speak for her and all like her.

Thank you again for taking the time to interact with me. I would kindly and respectfully ask that you at least bear the above perspectives in mind in future, particularly with regards to your assessment of what is 'offensive' and 'sexist'. Not everyone in the world subscribes to the anti-scientific gender views of the modern left-wing West, and if you believe in equality, then those people matter too. Grand Dizzy (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer level of basal ignorance, chauvinism and stereotyping you have just expressed are astounding. I’m afraid you have gone from apparent “edgelord” trolling into WP:CIR. Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case there’s really not much I can do except recommend you avoid editing anything related to gender or women. If you continue to push your extremely uninformed WP:POV you will probably be blocked as WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel this way. Putting aside our differing views on gender, I would recommend that if you make accusations against other Wikipedia members, it should be supported with evidence. All you have done here is call me a bunch of names without explaining why. That is not helpful to anyone and just seems rude. Grand Dizzy (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided more than enough evidence directly above my last comment, and anywhere else you’ve discussed this. Dronebogus (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of being "abusive", while I have been nothing but polite and respectful. Yet despite my good will, you continue to hurl insults and accusations at me, not with a view to furthering the debate, but with a view to quarreling and belittling others. You may hide behind conformity to Wikipedia's rules, but you expose yourself as bigoted and vindictive individual - a bully, unfriendly, uncharitable, hostile, looking to attack. I'm afraid our conversation is now over. Grand Dizzy (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't find this too strange that I decided to react to this almost 2 years old reply of yours, but I thought it is written in such a great detail and offers a great deal of understanding to your traditional thinking, that I thought you deserve a full-scale reply from someone in actuality to it, rather than the short reactions you probably didn't appreciate it back then.

I want to start by recognizing your right to have the different opinion than the current political Left, or the current West society. You're also correct that if a woman decides to go against the current modern era, she should not be banished or vanished for it. I also praise you for correctly stating that women were indeed completely insignificant in all world history due to patriarchy and the leadership of men. I personally don't find anything incorrect about it. Perhaps you still remain greatly bewildered why would anyone dispute that and call it sexist.

I could provide a perspective on that. In my opinion, the reality of patriarchy and the fact women were always behind the men is a traditional principle that is inherently creating power dynamic and power differences between the sexes. As the ideal is to always strive for equality, one must observe if there's a dynamic that gives more power to one sex, then it is inherently also rather unfair, and thus the origin of for calling it sexist. Now, I don't personally try to offer this perspective and explanation why is it sexist as an insult or to degrade your view. I simply communicate that the traditional ways do have the power dynamic in place and that is natural and perhaps even biologically driven.

In the hunt for equality in modern age, this of course troubles lot of people (or at least half of the world as you mentioned). The idea that the world was established and managed to arrived into a civilized state based on the fact men were leading and women following; that is excruciating idea for many who strive to find equality, and on top of that the notion it might be natural or biological only adds the salt to the injury. For feminists and modern political Left this theory is unacceptable. For you it is natural and something the world always had. I think both groups would find enough of scientific evidence to support each view. Perhaps more evidence is currently on the bank of the Left, as the ideals of equality are more prominent than ever before in human history.

However that does not mean your views, your ideals of traditionalism, your belief that women should follow men, is something that should be discarded or insulted. The major crux of this issue for all of us is giving the choice and recognizing the realities of what we describe. When people use the words as "submission" or "dominance" or that the of inclination of women is always about looking more pretty than being an engineer (your note about the long hair), it is not important to get angry about it, from one side or the other, but rather to embrace and accept what each such belief represents.

You represent tradition, women following men. Men building and running the society with logic, women nurturing and caring the family with emotion. You should observe the power difference and be open about it. Admit that it feels good, too; both for men and women who subscribe into this. If I may offer another perspective, it is vital that you're honest about this and that you admit it is naturally biological reasoning that women are weaker and kept in that position as a result of it and that it might appear unfair due to it. Rather than painting traditions as something else to not scare off the Left, it is better to just speak the raw reality. But that doesn't mean you completely believe women are not as important as men. Of course each sex adds to the other. It is important to understand describing reality doesn't mean insulting it.

The Left represents the opposite of this, where the ideal is to have everyone doing the exact same things and ideally you wouldn't even be aware of sexes anymore in the long run. They perceive the power dynamics as a hinder towards justice in the world and the biological reality, or even pleasure, go against that for them. But then again we humans learned to criminalize and abandon certain things which are completely normal and omnipresent in all animal kingdom. One extreme example could be a murder, or rape. Emotional abuse can be criminal as well today. And perhaps on the same basis, then, the modern woman does not want to be humiliated anymore by a man through leadership and logic, and she wants to be equal and free in all capacities, even if it goes against the traditional views of yours and the natural state of our species.

Rationality and logic might be less present in women since the beginning of our species, just like emotionality and empathy is less present in men; but I hope I managed to show you that I'm still willing to listen even to perspectives that I might not fully subscribe to. In the end it is all about choice and naming and describing things and ideals as they are, no matter how painful and embarrassing they might be for the other party. Ellegony (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ellegony and thanks for taking the time to write this. I rarely log in to my account so I hadn't seen this until now. I don't want to prolong this conversation but I would just like to note that the science is overwhelmingly in favor of the view that males and females are fundamentally different.

Virtually every part of the male and female body is different, including organs such as the skin, which works differently for males and female. It is no surprise, then, that science tells us that males and females have completely different brains, with various regions of the brains being different proportions, with different hormone levels, and the entire brain being wired differently in males and females. Any one of these tiny changes could lead to drastically different personalities, and that is indeed what we see.

Science has overwhelmingly showed us that male and female brains are different in the womb, and that newborn babies immediately exhibit behavior consistent with their gender. This is irrefutable. Similar studies show the same with other animals. In fact, every animal in the animal kingdom has different roles for males and females. These animals were not indoctrinated by "gender stereotypes" or "social conditioning", neither are the human babies who immediately begin behaving differently according to their gender.

This is why men and women commit completely different types of crimes. Criminal activity obviously cannot be ascribed to social conditioning, since society doesn't encourage anyone to commit crimes. By definition, a crime is anti-social, shunned by society, and yet men and women's criminal habits are completely different.

The idea, then, that gender differences are not biological, but a social construct, does not hold up with science.

Indeed, it is quite an absurd notion to believe that all human societies across all history have been part of some great conspiracy, spanning millennia and crossing all cultural boundaries, which forced women into roles they wouldn't naturally occupy. Such ideas are untenable to a rational thinker.

Life has certainly been difficult for women, historically, but it was difficult for men too. Those who accuse "the patriarchy" of oppressing women seem to overlook the fact that it was only the men recruited for many careers of great physical hardship and toil. Only the men sent to fight and die in war. The idea that historical societies were misogynistic is completely unfounded, and in fact most cultures have cherished their women. Often-repeated tropes such as women being executed for being witches are greatly over-exaggerated, almost mythical, and only relevant to very specific points in history.

This does not mean I want to ban the belief in "equal personalities", or I'm intolerant of those who believe it. It's just a belief which, like all beliefs, should be openly discussed rather than cancelled and silenced.

Nor should the fact that males and females are inherently different be used to forcibly prescribe a conventional lifestyle upon "unconventional" men or women. We moved beyond that in the 20th century, when equal rights were established, following the emergence of modern technology and manufacturing, which afforded women the free time to pursue careers, while they would previously have been too busy in the home. No one faces inequality of opportunity any more, (other than victims of the evil DEI movement, with white men being discriminated against).

All I want is some rationality. All other animals in the animal kingdoms have natural gender roles. The denial that humans have natural gender roles is therefore hard to rationalize. Let's be open about this. Grand Dizzy (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Emma Corrin, you may be blocked from editing.

Your comments around singular they are a problematic breach of WP:NOTAFORUM in the same way as your comments about gender, described in the topic “Your comments on Ideological bias on Wikipedia”, here on your Talk page. Please desist from pushing your apparent gender-essentialist views on Talk pages. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 15:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sir, I'm afraid I don't understand you. You think I might get blocked for trying to improve the site's grammar? Why would I get blocked for trying to improve the site's grammar? Isn't the entire point of Wikipedia that members of the public help to build articles and improve the quality of the writing, which means I'm using the site in the precise way it was intended to be used? I've corrected grammar on many pages here over the last 2 decades and never has anyone criticized me for trying to improve the website.

With regards to WP:NOTAFORUM, I'm not sure what you mean. I made a single comment giving my opinion that I agree with others that there's an error on the article. How is that "using the site as a forum"? I really don't understand your attitude at all.

It seems pretty clear to me that the article in question has been vandalised. Its use of grammar doesn't conform to standard English. Why are you defending vandalism? If you're not a troll and you honestly think it's normal to refer to a known individual as "they"? (Which I have never heard anyone do in my life) then that is your opinion, however, you would certainly be in the minority with that opinion. If you think it's in any way standard to refer to known, named, individuals with a known sex as "they" then I would be fascinated to know where you've read this. Could you provide any examples in any famous books, or an author who is known to use this style? Honestly, I have never read it in my life and if I did I would find it extremely disturbing because it would be inexplicably changing the number to a plural while also obscuring the gender.

And how on earth do you reckon that discussing grammar can be classified as "inappropriate discussion". That is absurd. I've heard some ridiculous claims in my time, but saying that someone's views on grammar are "inappropriate" is pretty rich! If you think my views on grammar have insulted someone then please tell me whom I've insulted so I can apologise to them! I'm pretty sure Ms Corrin would not be insulted by me trying to correct her broken article!

Also, you ask me to "desist in pushing your apparent gender-essentialist views on Talk pages". I'm not familiar with this term but I think you will find that almost every author in the world subscribes to this view and would NEVER refer to a known individual as "they". If my views on grammar differ from your own, why do you think you have some kind of authority to tell me that my view is unacceptable, and that your view is fine? This seems like arrogance, assuming your educational background to be the correct one. Not to mention yours is an extremely unfriendly attitude. Quite clearly, it is you here who is being anti-social with your rudeness and arrogance. You seem like quite an unpleasant person. Is it really so hard to be polite and courteous to other users? If you disagree with someone's views on grammar why can't you just have a friendly conversation with them instead of speaking to them so rudely and getting so wound up over something so trivial as grammar? Honestly, I've spent my life having conversations about grammar and have never experienced this kind of foul, zelous attitude. Sir, it's just language. There is no need for this kind of hostility. I am considering reporting you for your conduct here. Grand Dizzy (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]