Talk:Real-life experience

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Real-life experience article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Deletion

In regards to the consideration for deletion, please see the discussion here. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 22:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Real-life experience (transgender). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wpath.org/Documents2/socv6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Process of confirmation

I modified the Lead to represent that a confirmation process is being followed (rather than simply having a timeframe). It was a very difficult edit given the nuance and complexity of the subject matter. Please reach out and let me know your thoughts if they differ.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo. Seems like while you were typing this I've already reverted to the prior version. Unfortunately your change was not an improvement. RLE was not seen as minimally impactful, as it required a trans person to live and present full-time, often in circumstances that risked serious physical and mental harm to that person. If the trans person did not do so, they would be denied any transition related healthcare. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and the insight. (As I mentioned, I was very concerned with my edit, I don't take anything personally in terms of other perspectives - perhaps and initially I was taken aback at an automated "vandalism" moniker on the revert - and the swiftness of the revert (reads to me as a quite harsh approach to other people) - no big deal however - I some notes to myself on my talk page which speak to my perceptions regarding tool enhanced editing) Also know that this article was suggested for editing for new editors and that is a consideration (it might not be appropriate) . How do you feel or think about "process v timeframe?" BTW it is very nice meeting you and working with you.. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you're seeing a vandalism marker on the revert? It's got the standard undo tag that gets applied to almost every revert, and the "undid revision <id>" text is generated by the system. Speed wise, article is on my watchlist, and I happened to be looking at it as it came in.

"process v timeframe" is that to replace just the "period of time" text? If so that's probably fine, though I'd be tempted to add a descriptor onto "process", to indicate that it is no longer recommended and has received substantial criticism from researchers and human rights organisations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That concern was in part aka why I was struggling (to change from period of time to process) to put the change in proper context. Also I was both very impressed and informed by your statement " RLE ... a trans person to live and present full-time, often in circumstances that risked serious physical and mental harm to that person." personally (which does not count for very much) I don't like the idea of having to assuage "other people" or follow a process, or wait for a timeframe that someone else set as a barrier - to follow a personal right which I consider to be sacrosanct. Not only that "there is also risk" which was not obvious to me until you pointed it out. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a slash - period of time/process <-- let me know what you think.. if it adds accuracy or readability (or not) .. PS I am doing searches for "RLE as a barrier" Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We usually don't do slash terms in articles, except where it's contextually relevant. You may want to change that into prose. Perhaps ...is the period of time or process in which... Changes to the text from the previous version are in italics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barrier, in business it would be Barriers to entry, or perhaps the barrier has been masked in an Arbitrary and capricious Medical protocol Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]