Content deleted Content added
Line 125: ::::Respectfully, whether something is "offensive" or not is not relevant. Everything I've read in the article suggests that Cashier was a woman who presented herself as a man, so the status quo prior to your edits looks reasonable. Furthermore, it is ''entirely'' inappropriate to propose encouraging people who do not already have Wikipedia accounts to support you here: please see [[WP:MEATPUPPET]]. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 02:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC) :::::Respectfully, you did nothing to address my previous comment save for harping on my use of the word "offensive" as an additional description after the primary description of "grossly inaccurate." I am having a hard time understanding how Susan Stryker, easily the most respected trans historian out there, writing in a study for the Department of the Interior, and supported by a number of other reliable sources, does nothing to suggest that our previous understanding of Cashier's identity--an understanding which, again, was based ''entirely'' on antiquated notions of gender that took little to no account of trans existence--is more properly placed in the trans spectrum. Moreover, the number of people following our account that already have Wikipedia accounts is quite substantial, based on previous conversations with followers, so please don't assume I meant anything about non-Wikipedia account holders. The bottom line is that I will continue to make sure that those who do not give proper credence to the clearly reliable sources I've provided are not the final arbiters of an extremely important issue; the only reason why you would ignore Stryker's work, Moser's work, Teich's work, Ernst's work, and the others is because you simply do not want to allow for trans history. It's a real problem. [[User:Lgbt.history.ig|Lgbt.history.ig]] ([[User talk:Lgbt.history.ig|talk]]) 04:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC) ::::::::The bottom line is that Wikipedia operates by consensus, and you have no consensus for your proposed changes to the article. So far, it's two against one, as I pretty much agree with Roscelese. Meat puppetry is unacceptable here, and unfortunately your comments create a suspicion (whether justified or not) that you are prepared to encourage it. That won't help you. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 06:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC) | |||