- Yes, well I was the main person who contributed to the article and didn't feel comfortable taking sides yet - but maybe other people have ideas too. --Yisfidri (talk) 09:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't get a neutral tone from this article at all, unless it's since been edited to be more sympathetic to the argument since the above discussion. Generally, defending the logic, saying that opposers base their arguments off strawmen, and not offering critique, merely commenting on the fact that it is critiqued, is not neutral at all; it's quite biased towards the argument in question. As for the argument itself, it's complete nonsense. Either we recognize that it's ridiculous to say that it's discriminatory to have categorical dating preferences based on biology (is it discriminatory to categorically exclude males from my dating pool if I am male and heterosexual?), or acknowledge that EVERYONE categorically discriminates technically to some extent and it's not a big deal and you should understand that and live with it. Most young people would not categorically include 80 year old married people as potential partners. Is that discriminatory, or is it understandable considering the various biological and other miscellaneous complications? The whole argument wreaks of false balance. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Clarification of what constitutes harassment
"Dennis has put forward several opinions that have been the subject of controversy, and she has been the target of a large amount of harassment from those who disagree with her, with many of her videos being downvoted." Just to clarify, are we saying downvotes are harassment? Because saying "with many of her videos being downvoted," implies that harassment against her includes downvotes. — Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk
- I think it's saying that the downvotes imply controversy. It's very ambiguous and should be reworded. —Kazitor, pending 21:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Riley Dennis’ genital preference argument is very week and honestly needs more critical analysis than it’s getting. Her assertion that someone can simply “unlearn” their sexual orientation sounds a lot like conversation therapy. She also seems to scoff at the notion that people don’t have to like certain genital by responding to the comment “I’m allowed to have my genital preference” by saying “ Technically this is true” also know as true. And her idea that genital preference is in any was analogous sexual racism is absurd. A cis white woman and a cis black woman are anatomically more similar that a cis white woman and a trans woman. No comparison to be made. Her idea seems to be that somehow sexual organs don’t play a role in sexual attraction and sex. That is not even close to being true. Ceilingcrasher (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Ceilingcrasher
- I made a start on this, but I feel it's a complicated issue in which I can kind of see both sides. I've done a bit of light editing to make her argument clearer and added a sentence to the effect that she goes a bit too far in totally dismissing attraction to certain sex organs. --Yisfidri (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Logically speaking, the intro to this article is contradictory. The subject is described as a "transgender activist" (presumably she's also transgender?). She is also described as "she" and as "non-binary" - so why refer to her as any gender? Also as a "non-binary woman", so how could she be both non-binary and also a woman? Finally, she is referred to as a lesbian - the definition of which is a woman who is sexually attracted to other women.