Talk:Lynn Conway

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

My recent edits and justification

Reasons behind my most recent edits to this article:

  • Conway is a transsexual, indicating as such in this article will reduce confusion.
  • Conway is legally a female, this is legal fact, and need be acknowledged, despite any particular bias against sex changes.
  • While Conway was incorrect about David Reimer having female genitals, the results of the experiment are known and well-documented fact.
  • Removal of pronouns refering to Conway, a compromise. Many readers of this article may reject that Conway should be refered to with female pronouns, however, it is recommended policy even at FoxNews to refer to a transsexual according to their gender identity, and not assignment at birth. Refusing to use female pronouns in an article indended to present fact about Conway, may open Conservapedia up to suit for defamation. (I'm looking out for the Wiki rather than pushing a POV point.) Site demonstrating that FoxNews has used female pronouns for a "transgendered" person: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312298,00.html

If I think of anything else that should need justification, I'll post it here --Puellanivis 19:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Just because something is legal does not make it ethical or legitimate. Biological, this person is still a man, and always will be. Just because he's been carved up and implanted with breast does not change that on a cellular lever he is a man. He has an X and Y chromosome, and will not experience menopause or menstruation. If I paint myself green and surgically insert scales into my back, then I am a human, not an alligator. Likewise, this person is still a man. Luke 19:23, 26 November 2007 (EST)

And you can certainly hold that opinion, however it is verifiable fact that Lynn Conway is legally a female. And I specifically put "legally", because I know that being legal does not make it ethical or legitimate. This is also the reason why I did not change pronouns in the article from "he" to "she", as I knew people would likely complain. Despite all of your feelings regarding this matter, a person still has a fundamental right to be addressed as the gender that they identify with. And honestly, if you literally bumped into Lynn Conway on the street, with all likelihood step back and apologize with "sorry, ma'am", as a natural reaction to Conway's appearance.
Disregarding all the issues of pronouns however, your definitions of a "man", and "woman" are however laden with a burden of biological mistakes that contradict your position. There are 46,XY humans are female, but likewise do not experience menopause or menstruation. (Androgen-Insensitivity Syndrome AIS) There are likewise 46,XX humans that are male, due to the effects of androgens during development. (Congenital adrenal hyperplasia).
You also, have not tested Conway's karyotype, and have no verifiable or even truthful position to state that Conway has an X and a Y chromosome. Nearly one in one hundred men have a 47,XXY karyotype. They literally have two X chromosomes, but since they also have a Y chromosome, with the Sex Determination Gene, their body developed to a man. Such men are typically also entirely sterile, because their cells cannot properly form into functional sperm.
Granted, you could label all of these mistakes of biology as "unethical and non-legitimate", however these conditions are really little different than a person being born without legs, or without arms. Both of which are far more common than transsexuality.
Covering the legal field again. As mentioned, Conway is legally a female, by legal fact. Publishing information that is knowingly contrary to fact about someone in order to evoke a negative opinion of that person is libel. It is by far in Conservapedia's, and everyone's interests to avoid defamation suits. --Puellanivis 19:49, 30 November 2007 (EST)
Whether some US state regards him as female is not relevant. Conservapedia has not (yet!) accepted the validity of transexualism as even being possible, let alone being ethical or "a right".
We need an article on LGBT advocacy or the unisex movement or something like that. --Ed Poor Talk 17:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)
I agree that Conservapedia has not yet accepted the validity of transsexualism, and much so may never accept it. However, should Conservapedia reject eternally the validity of transsexualism, the US legal system has accepted transsexualism. Thus, it is a legal liability to Conservapedia, and editors to refer to a person, who is legally of one gender, with the gender pronouns of the opposite gender, even if that was their assigned gender at birth.
Libel is the act of making harmful statements, presented as if fact, in a fixed medium (the internet is qualified as a fixed medium). Refering to a person with pronouns against their gender identity is considered very offensive, and harmful, and is therefore almost certainly to be ruled as defamatory per se. Although, it is true that truth is always an absolute defense against defamation, it would be impossible to legally prove such a position, considering that for all legal purposes they are female/male.
This is a legal compulsion when presenting information as fact. Although talk pages can be easily argued to be opinion by nature and thus exempt to the risk of libel; mainspace articles are by nature presented as fact. If you it is your preference to refer to a transsexual MTF with he/him/his/himself on the talk page, you are entirely within your rights to do so. But if you present that information as fact on the mainspace article, when you know it is not a fact, it becomes libel. This is the exact same reason why Fox News is compelled to use gender of identity pronouns regardless of their personal opinions, or opinions as an organisation.
Borrowing a quote from Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians "What not to include in politician's pages: Your opinion of the politician; Unsourced, possibly contentious facts. Remember, politicans are usually lawyers... no one wants to get sued here." This would seem to effect a self-preserving interest in not putting anything on a page that could give rise to a lawsuit. It is safe to assume that just because the person is not a lawyer that it does not make them any less likely to sue. No less by presenting such statements with pronoun use inconsistent from that of its reference is: without question a "contentious fact", as a misrepresentation of that reference that makes it "opinion", and by not providing any references to justify such pronoun use that makes it "unsourced".
Most of all, the Conservapedia Commandment 1 says: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." (emphasis added) The pronoun use suggested is by its very nature legally false, because it contradicts legal fact. It is also unverifiable, as all documents and records, which would be accepted by Conservapedia, will indicate that the individual is the gender of their identity, in this case, female.
This is why I presented the solution to simply use the individual's last name for reference rather than get into legal muck with pronoun use. This method produces no legal liability, while at the same time does not make an endorsement that Conservapedia accepts the validity of transsexualism --Puellanivis 18:27, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Article has been merged with "The Man Who Would Be Queen"

This is a more appropriate place to put it, as her notability in the conservative world is primarily only linked to her negative responses to TMWWBQ, as well as the harrassment that she has done in response to TMWWBQ. --Puellanivis 18:40, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Personal tools