Board Thread:Improvements and Issues/@comment-36620412-20191115231026/@comment-36620412-20191119033057

Yyp wrote: I honestly dont see the issue here either. She is listed as female throughout bar the trivia, which is quite clear in what it says but also somewhat marginalised by being in the trivia instead of being more prominent.

Maybe Im wrong here but in real life in this part of the world anyway I and I expect others would refer to someone who was born a male and changed to female with female pronouns so as not to insult them, but in some cases also to avoid having to talk about it (like it or not that is a very common attitude - people will accept/"accept" it so long as they dont have to confront it head on). The point being he was asked about something else, not directly about the gender question (which I honestly wish he had been asked about alongside several other niggling things, but that doesnt really fit in with the interview.

no, you misunderstand. the only thing i ever implied was that the notes i left should have been added to the article as further clarification that there is confusion about her gender. I have no problem with the note that's already there, nor the way the article was referring to her/him. I have no idea where the assumption that i wanted the note removed came from, i only suggested that a reference should be added to it, because on my own wikis i require notes and most people, quite frankly, appreciate that. timjer, also, you're absolutely right, but you're mistaken that the only thing I ever requested was that maybe my notes should be added.

really not sure where everyone got the idea i wanted the note or article changed in any other way. after Sun raised the point of the note "staying" i mentioned that on my wiki's I don't usually keep them, but if you read my reply to Sun, i started by reinforcing the fact that i suggested to add my notes and never requested the removal of anything...

this is probably the most fun i've had all week, though, so i appreciate the debate about it.

EDIT: wait, maybe i found the part where everyone is confused with what i meant... in the very first line i say that there has been plenty of more "confirmation" that giselle is female, or whatever... i put the "confirmation" in quotes because i don't believe it to be confirmation of anything, just additional notes about the confusion. i don't know if that was it, but i read my posts over again and that's all i've got...?

---

I'm also not ignoring you two admins, but if you can't read my posts clearly, i'm not going to keep repeating myself. i don't know about you guys, but my spare time is limited and i have things to take care of in real life.

the only thing i will add is this...

"This topic has merely reinforced the point of the article using feminine pronouns and then making note that she was assigned male at birth."

you had given away your opinion at the beginning of the debate. you said "note that she was assigned male at birth." not note that the notes "say" she was assigned male at birth. but that you consider it fact that she was assigned male at birth which is where the "assumptions" are coming from. I wasn't directing the Occam's razor part at the article. i won't mention philosophy next time, though.

and me and Sun are obviously not getting along too well., but Xilinoc, like, "you need to calm down ~ ♪." You also should've used the version of that meme with the Donald Trump hat, it would've been better suited. lol

I'm going to be honest, i'm super surprised you haven't just banned me or locked the topic yet, though. lol.

but, oh well... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯