Talk:Blaire White

Is the point of this wiki to list all youtube nobodies, who have offended someone?
There used to be debunking pseudoscience in here few years ago, but nowdays it's all about cataloguing internet drama. This site is becoming an unfunny version of ED Filtered Walrus (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not our fault if your understanding of pseudoscience is stunted. Perhaps you should try reading the relevant literature? 14:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't classify someone with 800k+ subscribers as a "nobody", and this article is absolutely about counteracting both the pseudoscience and the harmful, transphobic ideas that White promotes to her large audience. — Vermilion  ( talk ) 23:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't let articles like these bother you to the point of defacing them. Kinda dilutes the point of your complaint. 02:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, an idiot I put in the bin actually came back for more. That doesn’t happen often; they usually take the hint and fuck off. 02:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"White is the Milo Yiannopoulos of trans issues"
This is false and could not possibly be more blatantly false. The article on Milo states that he believes being gay is a choice and that he allegedly chooses to be gay as a shield from homophobia. The article on Blaire White, as it has been revised to be more accurate, states that she is a transmedicalist. Read: being transgender is not a choice. To edit war against this new change removing the Milo ad-hominem is to be blatantly dishonest. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's in keeping with our POV. She is a member of a demographic ordinarily on the left, but identifies as being on the right.  She speaks out against people in her own demographic.  It's amusing to compare her to Milo Yiannopoulos--Hastur! (talk)  04:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But she doesn't speak out against those in her own demographic. Transgender people are not the property of the left. She considers herself socially liberal, by the way, and supports transgender people. Her transmedicalist POV is not right-wing, and it is shared by may on the left. It may be amusing to lie, but amusement makes it no less of a lie. The phrase isn't even intellectually honest enough to explain the (deeply flawed) perspective you provide here. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These points are considered transphobic in the eyes of RationalWiki's community--Hastur! (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The list needs to be updated. The first citation redirects me to a now-vanished site that I'm 90% sure is malware. Here is her official opinion: people with penises should not be in public women's changing rooms, people with vaginas shouldn't be in public men's changing rooms, and there should be a gender dysphoria diagnosis from a doctor for a child to be allowed to use the bathrooms-but more specifically locker rooms-of their choosing. She does not oppose transgender rights and transmedicalism is not transphobia. She never once mentions passing in the video, though if you can find an archive version


 * Secondly, the point that the article makes alleging she "denies the possibility that socially conditioned transphobic biases could play a role in dating preferences" is never stated once in either of the articles that section links to (the second of which has a terribly clickbait-y kind of title that RW criticizes Blaire White for using), and when the second article does state that there is a need for cis people to acknowledge that there may be biases, it is its own projection, based on its own problem with the video rather than addressing anything particularly to what Blaire's video said. Her video states that she believes people are entitled to their own sexual preferences in regards to genitals. It's not very progressive to force a woman to have sex with a penis. Same-sex attraction is a scientifically sound attraction to someone of the same sex. "Sexual orientation is not a [dating] preference" is a direct quote from the video. (https://youtu.be/f6ywxHAvAds?t=205)


 * The third point is built entirely around one study. There's another study that states the contrary. Blaire's argument was based on science. The thesis of the study provided in the Blaire White article is this: "In summary, there is limited research from which to draw any conclusion about whether transgender people have an athletic advantage in competitive sport or not." It's not exactly a rebuttal against the fact that there is, but it states that the research does not exist. Previous scientific knowledge (men are stronger than women) does support the idea. Here's her take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20vfmSjnYFw. It should also be noted that there is a hormonal requirement acknowledged in both journals to reduce the advantage of biological males against transgender people that it is uncertain the people she's addressing here have met.


 * The fourth and final point is this: https://twitter.com/msblairewhite/status/1167799885321498626?lang=en. If any trans woman is demanding that women touch their balls, they have the same problem as Yaniv, sans child predation. This is hardly a transphobic claim: women should not be forced to touch penises. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So. That right there is called a strawman, and is in fact, very explicit transphobia. 13:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the other three aren't transphobic then. Also, neither is this one; the entire basis of her tweet is that it's a trans person who is either exactly like Yaniv or it's Yaniv going unnamed. There is no indication that it's talking about the entire trans community, and to claim that is a complete falsehood. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also find your accusations of dishonesty towards to be disingenuous, and without evidence or merit. For all you know, you are incorrect. Or perhaps, none of us are correct. So it seems to me that you ought to lay off the accusations of dishonesty moving forward.  13:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weird, because I made it clear how I wasn't referring to Hastur, but rather the statement that somehow Blaire is the "Milo" of trans issues that is currently on her page. I do happen to find Hastur intellectually dishonest because the answer is inconsistent: is it because she's allegedly right wing on social issues (she's not, she very clearly states that she's socially liberal) or is it because she's transphobic? The transphobic answer wasn't given until after I called out the falsehoods in the initial reason given. So, yeah, to call him that now is entirely merited. You don't sound confident at all in your conviction to be telling me, someone who actually knows stuff, to back down lol TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "I am conservative in my viewpoints". Have I made a true statement, yes or no? And how can you be sure? 17:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering you're a commie on RW, I have reason to believe that you're not conservative economically, and the fact that you're choosing Blaire somehow being transphobic as your hill to die on suggests not socially either. She has however espoused largely transmedicalist viewpoints; that is not transphobia. It is a manipulation to say that it is, and a massive fucking gaslight. Way to not address actual concerns and to cry that common sense is transphobic. I'm gonna go so far as to guess neither of you are trans lmao. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Considering you're a commie on RW..." Oh. You're a superficial moron. You don't actually understand things like irony, sarcasm, or subtext. I see. 17:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the joke was that you're like a grammar Nazi but you're actually a commie? Don't know, don't really care, it's not that funny or clever. I'm glad that's the only thing you're replying to in my comment and that you're so clearly intellectually inhibited that you can't come up with a response to the things I said that actually matter. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Given your first comment exposed you as having no clue as to what you were talking about, I felt it was the only point worth addressing. Also, I would think the Nineteen-Eighty-Four reference would be enough of a hint. 17:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So because I took something within the realm of possibility at face value, without any indicator that it isn't true (you still haven't said you're not a commie), and because you made a reference to a book, I don't have any idea of what I'm talking about on an unrelated issue? LMAO, you're truly the crown prince of intellectual dishonesty. You're not even honest enough to tell me what I apparently am failing to understand. What's funny is, out of the two of us, you blatantly said that you yourself could be wrong. You're not even willing to back up your own argument because you aren't certain enough that it's right. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate that we are engaging in active dishonesty. And if it makes you drop such a silly assumption fine, I am not a Communist. The fact that you couldn't figure that out on its own saddens me. Finally, I said that all of us could be wrong, yourself included. Being a Skeptic does mean considering that everyone might be wrong, after all. 18:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already demonstrated it. There's an entire thread above the point where you started deflecting. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, given I was unable to properly start a debate last night due to needing sleep, and then awoke to wild accusations of dishonesty right out of the gate, um... No you didn't actually demonstrate that? 18:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, given within the last two hours I've explained how it disingenuous to claim her transmedicalism is transphobic, and this comment exists: "Weird, because I made it clear how I wasn't referring to Hastur, but rather the statement that somehow Blaire is the "Milo" of trans issues that is currently on her page. I do happen to find Hastur intellectually dishonest because the answer is inconsistent: is it because she's allegedly right wing on social issues (she's not, she very clearly states that she's socially liberal) or is it because she's transphobic? The transphobic answer wasn't given until after I called out the falsehoods in the initial reason given. So, yeah, to call him that now is entirely merited. You don't sound confident at all in your conviction to be telling me, someone who actually knows stuff, to back down lol", you really have no excuse lmao TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

"To edit war against this new change removing the Milo ad-hominem is to be blatantly dishonest." First comment, no attempt at good faith. "It may be amusing to lie, but amusement makes it no less of a lie. The phrase isn't even intellectually honest enough to explain the (deeply flawed) perspective you provide here." Second edit, no attempt at good faith. "The transphobic answer wasn't given until after I called out the falsehoods in the initial reason given. So, yeah, to call him that now is entirely merited." Third edit, no attempt at good faith. I could go on, or I could point out that I've done this song and dance before with a 9/11 truther who removed my comments while accusing me of censorship and dishonesty. In short, maybe take a few dozen steps back and assume good faith. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps you are wrong, perhaps is wrong, perhaps all of us are collectively wrong, etc. I think if we are to determine the truth, we should firstly assume good faith, and then to to put forward our premises and arguments. 18:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that I have put forth my arguments; I explained why the ad hominem is dishonest: "The article on Milo states that he believes being gay is a choice and that he allegedly chooses to be gay as a shield from homophobia. The article on Blaire White, as it has been revised to be more accurate, states that she is a transmedicalist. Read: being transgender is not a choice." After that was pointed out, the reason given was that because she holds right wing opinions, she speaks out against those in her demographic, which is supposedly the left? That's a flawed statement on Hastur's part, because trans people aren't the property of the left, and there is no one ideology for trans people. It was only then that the transphobe argument was brought up, and I unequivocally refuted it. I don't believe you comprehend what "good faith" means. I was criticizing blatant logical fallacies. It's foolish to say that I'm not doing my part in determining truth. You're the one going out of your way to deflect from it to go on unrelated tangents. It's absolutely dishonest to compare me to a 9/11 truther or to suggest that I'm acting similar to someone removing your comments or accusing you of censorship. I am accusing you of being dishonest and wrong. You, on the other hand, as a so-called proponent of assuming good faith, have failed to do so up to this point, with the closest attempt being to say "any one of us could be wrong!" That is not intellectual honesty. That is hypocrisy. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how dishonesty works. If I say the sky is green, am I being dishonest? Like, I feel that your mind is broken in such a way that you mix up being incorrect with being dishonest, and vice versa. This is due to you having strong opinions, and not stopping to consider the other person's point of view, or what has led them to that point of view. So rather than asking Hastur why he believes that being pro-trans is a left-wing position, you instead accuse him of saying that "Transgender people are the property of the left." when he could in fact, be mistaken and unaware of this mistake, and thusly believe that being pro-trans automatically makes you left-wing. Does this particular example show the problem? We cannot go into the core dispute, because you are unable to engage with others in good faith. Instead, you accuse them of dishonesty, rather than explaining what leads you to believe that they are mistaken or incorrect. The example of the 9/11 truther is supposed to show parallels in your behavior and theirs, though admittedly thus far your behavior has been (mostly, excluding the personal talkpage dispute) less egregious. You are letting your emotions effect your judgment, and this hurts your ability to communicate others. Do you understand the point I'm trying to convey? 19:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you say that the sky is green when it is clearly and demonstrably blue and you can comprehend the difference between the two colors, you are being dishonest. I didn't accuse Hastur of stating that he believes that trans people are the property of the left, I just made it clear why the statement that Blaire's demographic is somehow liberal is a fallacy: transgender people are not a political party. They encompass a wide variety of beliefs. I have explained what leads me to believe he is incorrect several times now. I don't believe you have the mental capacity to be saying at this point that I need to lay out my argument, because despite your acknowledgement of the contents of my argument, you seem to lack the mental coherence to piece together the simple and obvious fact that it is my argument. That's a sentence I never thought I'd write, that sounds mad contradictory, but that's because you're constantly contradicting yourself. I don't need to consider the POV that the sky is green when it is demonstrably blue; there is no room for error there. Addendum to that, since we're talking about content being on the Wiki, if the only defense you have is that the person who is putting the information there is mentally insufficient (in your metaphor, a person who cannot tell the difference between green and blue) and that their argument is factually wrong, regardless of intention, then that content should not be on the Wiki. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so firstly, Liberals aren't leftists. That's literally impossible. Leftism is either critical of or openly hostile towards capitalism, and Liberalism is intertwined with capitalism. So, first point, incorrect assumption noted. Secondly, you are correct that being trans does not make one left-wing, or even that being pro-trans is a left-wing position. Tankies for example, are opposed to all LGBT+ groups and claim them to be a result of "bourgeoisie decadence", to show one example of Leftists hostile to trans people. Further, there are TERFs who also exist on the left, to show another example. So clearly, to be trans or to support trans rights does not make one a leftist, merely (somewhat) progressive on a certain social issue, despite what Hastur said. Nextly the statement "transgender people are not a political party." is a bit misleading, as political parties do not have clear ideologies per se, but will drift between ideologies depending on region, subject, and time period. Further, you can live in a country without a left wing party, as I do here in the US. But you explained none of this, nor did you really go into the why and how of the matter. Saying things like "She considers herself socially liberal, by the way, and supports transgender people. Her transmedicalist POV is not right-wing, and it is shared by may on the left." Which is not as simple as you lay out. "socially liberal" means nothing if the person in question harasses others and misgenders them, as White has done. It's a meaningless shield, one that has been particularly abused as of late. If you are someone who espouses views predominantly from one political classification, you are part of that classification. To that end, Blair White is a Neo-reactionary. A trans Neo-reactionary, but a Neo-reactionary all the same. She not a Liberal, nor is she a leftist, nor even a conservative. As for "Many on the left", this is very misleading. While there are those on the left who oppose trans rights, most are at least passively accepting on the issue, thus leading to more support from the trans community as a whole, which I do believe was Hastur's original point.


 * I'll ignore "I don't believe you have the mental capacity to be saying at this point that I need to lay out my argument, because despite your acknowledgement of the contents of my argument, you seem to lack the mental coherence to piece together the simple and obvious fact that it is my argument.", as it seems to simply be an overly verbose way of saying "retard". "That's a sentence I never thought I'd write, that sounds mad contradictory, but that's because you're constantly contradicting yourself." Nonsense. Perhaps my tone my have shifted from annoyance to empathy, but I have repeatedly told you that we are unable to go into the arguments in question before we untangle your accusations of dishonesty, else how can we debate in good faith? And if we are unable to debate in good faith, then why would we debate? Thusly, from where I sit, your accusations of dishonesty without clear evidence of such paint a very negative picture of you, one I am attempting to remedy. "I don't need to consider the POV that the sky is green when it is demonstrably blue; there is no room for error there." Except you do not know why someone has said the sky is green. You merely assume that they are operating from the same viewpoint as yourself, rather than trying to seek clarity. So, instead of your hostility, you could have asked Hastur or myself to elaborate on our positions, thus gaining insight into how we see the matter, thus allowing you a clearer picture. Instead, you have repeatedly engaged in hostility towards both of us, and do not seem to be able to understand each of our perspectives. And as I have repeatly laid out now, you have openly accused both of us of bad faith, i.e. dishonesty, without evidence to suggest that. 20:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This entire paragraph is literally just semantics. I'm going to ignore everything up until you mention "Her transmedicalist POV". She accurately assigns pronouns to people she suspects aren't trans based on her perception, that is not indicative of transphobia, and that was not included in the actual BW article as a reason she is allegedly "transphobic", according to Hastur. Additionally, it's beyond hypocritical that you are telling me that her perception is somehow objectively transphobic, without regard for what her actual stance and reasoning is, while telling me I should entertain the delusions of someone who says that the sky is green when it's demonstrably blue, because I have to assume good faith and listen to the perspective of someone telling me a falsehood because you want me to consider that there may be validity somewhere in their argument. Assume good faith to Blair, then. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, more like a polite and more specific way of telling you why I think you're retarded, more than it is calling you retarded in and of itself. I have repeatedly gone into my arguments, you're arguing against them right now. I'm giving you a reason why the things you and Hastur are saying are disingenuous. Now, if you're done deflecting, what "valid" reasons would someone be telling me that the demonstrably blue sky is green? Is it because they're colorblind and can't see? I'll grant them that they are incapable of viewing color correctly and therefore cannot accurately judge what color the sky is. Is it because they never learned which color is called blue and which one's called green? They lack the sufficient information to be able to judge between the two colors, their opinion should not be taken at the same level as someone who can tell which color is which. If they are not colorblind or retarded and they still call the sky green, then they're a liar. I have no clue why you're trying to argue that I should assume someone who's arguing with me is retarded and not a liar. In either case, the sky, which is demonstrably blue, is not green. The Wiki should not then be saying that the sky is green. Falsehoods are falsehoods. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You complain about being discussed semantics when the entire argument revolves around semantics. i.e. what criteria must someone fulfill to be called a transphobe? This has to be a semantics argument. Blaire White's opinions on bathrooms and that one tweet are pretty damning evidence she's a transphobe. Calling people by proper pronouns is the bare minimum you can do but it doesn't make you free to just turn around and say they shouldn't walk in bathrooms because of a crotch accessory or summing all trans issues in a mean-spirited tweet that invalidates real problems that Blaire White has failed to consider. Believing in trans rights is not inherently synonymous with left-wing politics, but human decency in that aspect has been politicized by "the right" and perhaps "the left" can act as too possessive of trans rights when it's not inherently a political issue. But which kind of politics nearly consistently has been kicking trans people, laughing at them when they cry, harassing them, calling them slurs and complaining when networks bar them from doing so, and have been represented by leaders enacting laws aimed to bar, exclude, and humiliate them? It's perhaps difficult to hold right-wing viewpoints while being a minority because not only is the majority of that wing hostile to you, the ones that aren't are more than happy to use and manipulate you to ultimately drag the rest of the the LGBT community down. It's not "the left"'s problem of the apparent ownership of trans issues, it's "the right"'s failure to remove bigots that have infested their side that leaves the majority of the LGBT community no other choice. Minority demographics that have been treated poorly by a wing of politics tend to not flock to that wing! "The left" doesn't "own" just trans issues either, they also seem to have gained homosexual issues, black issues, women issues, and so on. Why call to attention to just the trans politics? 23:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that she's not a transphobe. As a trans woman, she is enabled to speak about trans issues in a very real, genuine way. It's inappropriate to gatekeep what opinion trans people are supposed to have and disingenuously claim that they are somehow transphobic. How exactly is it transphobic to say that you have to have dysphoria or be transitioning to be trans? That is her viewpoint. The only people she has supported misgendering are people she doesn't think are actually trans - Jessica Yaniv, for instance, she does not believe that Jessica is trans. She made a good case for why she thinks Yaniv is using a trans identity to prey on children. Even then, she referred to Yaniv as she/her in her videos, something she thought was way too nice but did anyways. I don't see why it's transphobic (do you know what that word even means?) to say that you have to have dysphoria to be trans, you have to be seeking treatment to be trans. Why is that transphobic? Particularly if she respects those people. I have never seen her speak out against the trans community. Transmedicalism is not transphobia. Also, "human decency" tends to be overblown on the left. How is it human decency to suddenly have to cater to the whims of a very recent phenomenon where we call people made up pronouns like "zim/zir"? Human decency is just being polite to people and treating them as equals, it's not feeding into people's delusions. She doesn't view non-binary people as transgender, and she's 100% right. I do not see an ounce of evidence that she is transphobic. The only "real problems" brought up in her tweet are that people with penises shouldn't force women to touch their penis. There's nothing offensive about her tweet at all. People, including trans, tend to be in consensus that Yaniv is fucked up for doing that. Also, you try to make your message into an anti-right thing, but it's not. She is a trans person. Read: a person, with her own opinions. How is her demographic somehow leftist? Leftists don't own any of the issues you brought up, but it's good to know you're blatantly biased and can't think critically on your own. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can yammer all you want from then on now. I don't see any defense for any of Blaire White's claims, especially this tweet you shared where she explicitly swept the trans community as strawflakes that want people to cater to their genitals and force hormones and cry fascism, which is, as I said, mean-spirited (which is charitable from me). That you're apparently conflating the issue of human decency as a political problem associated with "the left" as well as undermining your own idea of decency by turning around and casting people's existences as delusions as well as your snide passive-aggressive remarks on my integrity and critical thinking skills tells me you're not worth engaging. You can have the last word but this issue of whether Blaire White is an asshole or not or trans people should deserve respect is not up for debate and we've gone way too long giving you detailed and good-willed responses you frankly do not deserve. 21:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for conceding that you're projecting. She's not talking about the trans community, she's part of the trans community. She's putting a singular trans person in there (presumably Yaniv), without addressing her directly. I'm not saying that human decency is exclusively associated with the left, I'm saying that you and many people that Blaire criticizes pretend that human decency is something it's not and shift the goalposts. I'm not saying she's not an "asshole". I don't think she is. I'm saying unequivocally that she's not transphobic. She does respect trans people. She does not entertain transtrenders and made-up pronouns. The entire basis of the discussion was whether or not she's transphobic; she's not. I've given you good faith responses. You guys have whined and whined about how I'm not giving you enough credit for stating blatant lies and not entertaining the notion, as framed in Commie's chosen metaphor, that the sky is green. I've called out intellectual dishonesty. Now you guys are crying that because of that, I'm somehow lying to you. You're such funny little hypocrites. The matter we were looking for consensus on is, is Blaire White transphobic? If that one tweet is about Jessica Yaniv, which it is, and not the entire trans community (which it is demonstrably not, she is part of the trans community, she's certainly not talking about herself or the many people who disagree with Yaniv), and if she treats trans issues from a transmedicalist viewpoint, is she transphobic? That's all we're trying to solve, but you two had a huge meltdown in front of everyone and distracted from that objective. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Blair White is a trans person who is transphobic against other specfic groups of trans people, who she doesn't respect or consider valid. Transmed itself is also inherantly transphobic, as anyone supporting it is purposefully rejecting certain elements of the trans community, which is transphobia. You admit to most of this anyway, it's pretty obvious that you know what the point is here but want to argue it because you are also transphobic. 22:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how transmedicalism is "inherently" transphobic. What aspects are being rejected? The aspects that don't experience gender dysphoria and have zero interest in transitioning? Great, then it rejects non-trans people. The trans community isn't harmed in the slightest. Not transphobia. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are trans people. Hence, you are a transphobic moron. End of debate. 23:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-binary people aren't trans, and people who don't have dysphoria aren't trans either. That's not transphobic. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We are assuming people are trans because they attest to being trans. It's not complicated. It's a rhetorical condition.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it's not. Being trans isn't a choice. It's a result of dysphoria, and you have to have dysphoria to be trans. There's a danger in that line of thought because kids are increasingly transitioning and detransitioning because they are realizing that they're not actually trans. There is a medical requirement for people to transition for a good reason. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I and likely several other users, many of them trans, had enough of this crap. Stop spreading your hateful bile about trans people. Identity and dysphoria (a serious mental health problem) are two different things ultimately and it is absolutely rancid you conflate the two as the same thing. Your whole hand-wringing on transitioning is an overblown ordeal spread by people like you just so you can belittle trans people and let them continue feeling uncomfortable. This discussion is closed and you will not continue. 06:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"Edit warring"
I got an edit undone for a baseless allegation of edit warring, and the page was protected. My latest edit on the page was not an edit war, rather it was editing two other places in the article that were not awaiting consensus before they were edited. I was fixing now-redundant notes ([sic] replaces the need for any note that there was a grammatical error in a sentence, and "despite being trans and a woman herself" was something that should already be covered in the paragraph it was in, and neither of those things come at the expense of her POV.) TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I find it totally retarded for someone to be like "we need consensus on the talk page!!!!" and not try to get that consensus lmao. Deadass the last message on the thread is "yeah, this content shouldn't be on the Wiki" and nothing disputes that. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You were implementing edits that were disputed, while the talkpage discussion of those disputes was ongoing. That's editwarring. 20:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Only one edit was being disputed, and that was whether she should be compared to Milo. I left that sentence untouched while I removed other redundancies. How is THAT edit-warring? TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * they are disputed, and I have as of yet been unable to address why I feel they should stay, albeit slightly altered. 20:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They were not disputed before, and you simply made a unilateral decision and cried wolf about an edit war. The page should not be locked. Other edits should be allowed to be made. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were disputed. I disputed your removal. 21:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I concede in the case of the first revision. My mistake. However, your reasoning that it's somehow "Whitewashing" deserves to be discussed. I clearly state in my revision that there is an error, in the quote itself no less. How then is it "whitewashing" to remove the exact note? It's clear that there's a mistake, I am not hiding that fact. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The whitewashing comment refers to your edits as a whole. You are specifically trying to make the article less critical of White. The reasoning seems to be that she is right and we are wrong because... You say so? Hence why we are are now using the talkpage to discuss these matters. 21:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How does that particular edit support this narrative? How is it "less critical" to point out that there is an error in her quote in an efficient way than to.... point out that there is an error in her quote? I'm removing falsehoods, people who say the sky is green when it's clearly blue. I'm glad you're using your powers so you can soapbox to people about why we should listen to the falsehood that the sky is green instead of simply stating that it's factually blue, and to be triggered at people when they actually use the talkpage indentations correctly. Must be nice, being so trigger-happy. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not say "retarded" again. You said it twice. Carry on with the discussion. 21:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also refrain from using "triggered". Stop being such a jerk. 21:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume from your little outburst that you are what is called a Neo-reactionary. Now, I've been calm though slightly frustrated throughout this whole ordeal, perhaps amused that you think I'm "triggered", i.e. upset, but you have been quite angry it appears, so I'd tone down on the pathos attacks, stones in glass houses and all that. As for formatting, you are not using "proper formatting" for this website when you truncate someone's post. Those paragraphs are seperated for ease of reading, not so you can reply to each of them separately. That was a courtesy I did for you. "I'm removing falsehoods..." look, I understand that being a reactionary means you think everyone with an opposing viewpoint is out to "get" you, but please do cease these nonsense attacks on others, else I'll be forced to end the conversation and deny you your changes. I'm not bluffing by the way, I will end this conversation and deny you the changes you seek (due to a lack of consensus in your favor) if you keep up these accusations of bad faith. I've actually grown tired of explaining why your being disigenious when you use them, and I will not repeat myself indefinitely. "I'm glad you're using your powers so you can soapbox to people about why we should listen to the falsehood" I'm hardly soapboxing. I've been trying to get through your thick skull and communicate how intent works. Clearly that was a mistake, due to your paranoia. That's why I chose to try to convey that there might be further context that you are either ignoring or unable to understand. To be uttelry blunt, you've taken my brief jumping off point overly literally, and seem to be having some sort of meltdown. Perhaps we should take a break for today and pick this up again tomorrow? 21:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not using it right for this site, but I'm definitely following the standards of the other wikis I have been on since 2010. By stating that I am removing falsehoods (i.e. "the sky is green", an apt comparison which you yourself have made), I am not stating people are out to get me. I am instead removing demonstrably false information that you consistently fail to address and go on psychotic tangents about. It's amusing how the word triggered is forbidden and somehow indicates that I have a certain political view, yet to say so baselessly that I'm having a meltdown (exactly the same thing I accused you of) is a-okay lmao. I'm not angry, actually, far from it. I'm certainly impatient, but that's a far cry from angry. I think it's clear that you are having a meltdown, actually, because you consistently fail to address points that are being brought up, insist that falsehoods are valid, actually; and you focus more on projecting characteristics onto me instead of addressing the things I'm saying. Also, "thick skull"? You don't think you're angry? LMAO. You honestly never have to continue this convo. You have had no problem putting it off before, quite hilariously, and I fully expect you to do the same now. Or, actually at this point, to try to continue it out of spite because you don't want people to walk away realizing you actually don't have consensus in your favor (it is literally 1:1 at this point) and that you aren't capable of making sufficient arguments. Really, I couldn't care less. Hopefully people see this talk page in the future and realize the logical fallacies that make this page the way it is. Stay triggered, xoxo. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I had to get to sleep. It was literally 11:30 PM at the time. I'm sorry that I didn't deprive myself of sleep for you, your highness, but I consider getting rest more important than you. And again, your need to insist that I am "triggered" is very much in bad faith. As for how this indicates that you are a Neo-reactionary, well... That's who uses that term. Well, them and Neo-Nazis. And certain parts of the Left, though in that latter most case it's usually sarcastic. And well, you seemed to be having am meltdown. I apologize if that was incorrect, but given the number of times you accused me and others of dishonesty, as well as your rather impatient and increasingly aggressive behavior, it seemed to be the logical conclusion. And I'm sorry that my need to actually examine things disrupts your need to defend your para-social idols. I'm sure they and their hundreds of thousands of dollars will have to get by without you changing the page for another week or so... Anyway, calm down during your block, I'll see you later. Oh, and some friendly advice, it might be wise to not try evading the block, it'll only make things worse for yourself. 22:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Man, I still don’t get the issue with saying “retarded”. It’s just an insult, like a harsher version of calling someone an idiot. 21:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the word idiot has the exact same ableism attached to it, but in that case, the left realizes they don't want to censor themselves for once because it's such a reliable insult. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Complaining about this is making you just look more like a prick you know. 22:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't care how I look to you for agreeing with somebody else. I'm not complaining, I understand you're sensitive to the word and I haven't repeated it. I'm just concurring with another person. I don't care if I look like a prick to the likes of you. TheLeftIsIrrational (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the problem.--Delibirda (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the problem now?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What...
What the hell's going on with all the  stuff? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

THİS İS MY SELFLESS DEVOTİON
sorry but blaire is right. Children cannot consent to transitioning saying that doesn't make her transphobic. She's even trans herself like what the hell?&mdash; Unsigned, by: 46.106.197.230 / talk
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Christopher (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)Childhood transitioning only entails social transitioning (like a change of name, pronouns, clothing etc.) and puberty blockers, which are reversable and also have other medical uses besides transitioning. Blaire White is very uninformed/is lying about the issue. Plutocow (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

No that's very wrong. So ıt's okay to transition babies if they act girly? C'mon....i would be okay if it was teens But these ARE CHİLDREN.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 46.106.197.230 / talk
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
 * Christopher (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence please. I've literally never heard anyone advocate for babies to transition. Also children and babies are not the same thing. And I've not heard credible evidence to suggest that trans activists, or medical professionals for that matter, advocate for children to medically transition. 19:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)