User talk:Missmonstergirl: Difference between revisions

Welcome…

Hello, Missmonstergirl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page.

If you have particular interests like
Games and Geography, you may add these if there are relevant Wikipedia:Userboxes to your User page see Wikipedia:User pages. These are kind of like the clubs within Wikipedia. And having a User page helps the Wikipedia community to know your interests better as a wikipedian, like a personal profile page. You can check out mine as an example.

Again, welcome! Lorraine Crane (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi, while i don’t disagree that the Enaree could be considered transgender by today’s standards, making that change to the terminology would require strong academic sourcing which explicitly describes them as such. the scholarship cited in the article does not describe them as transgender, but it does use terminology like “queer”, “androgynous”, “eunuch”, and so on. “transgender” is a modern term which would not necessarily map onto ancient understandings of gender variance. … sawyer * any/all * talk 17:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn’t. The article states that their society regarded them as transgender. You are buying into degendering, transmisogynistic language, and you are not correct in your assessment. All of those terms have been used historically and today to dismiss and degender trans women. Missmonstergirl (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s very gross and transphobic of you to regard people who lived, spoke, dressed as, and were regarded as women as being “male eunuchs”. Transgender is a modern term only because it exists in modern context. The concept of transsexuality has been around forever. “Queer”, “androgynous”, and “eunuch” are all modern terms as well, and deeply offensive, with their use here rooted in transphobia and an inability to accept trans women as being women. Third-sexing these women, who were, again, entirely regarded as being women and transgender women specifically, because you don’t wish to acknowledge that trans women existed in the past and are pretending that they are some magically appearing phenomenon that doesn’t apply to the “gender variance” of being considered a woman in every single way is disgusting, and I encourage you to examine your biases and prejudices with regards to not wanting to accept trans women as women before you continue to vandalise an article about them. Missmonstergirl (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am transgender, not that it matters. please do not cast aspersions towards other editors based on disagreements on the precise phraseology in articles. … sawyer * any/all * talk 18:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter, so am I, you are still being transphobic. I don’t think that its ‘casting aspersions’ to say that calling people who identify as, are identified as, spoke, dressed as, and lived as women “androgynous male eunuchs” is transphobic Missmonstergirl (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith of your fellow editors: before assuming that Sawyer is motivated by a desire to deny the historical existence of trans women, consider the possibility that they are motivated by a desire to follow Wikipedia’s core principle of verifiability. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks’ noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]