Wikipedia blocked in Turkey

Okay, so I'll admit that about halfway through writing out some rebuttals to what you were saying, I realized that you made some really good points. I clearly missed a lot of these on my brief skim of the article, and I think I understand where you're coming from. I think we can both agree that the article needs work to be more comprehensive and precise/accurate. Feel free to read my rebuttals to some of your points below, before I stopped writing them haha. And I'm sorry for whichever commenter belittled your thoughts, that was pretty rude and not conducive to discussion.

>> For starters, while this is a fringe case (~0.3 - 0.6% is a lazy estimated range taken from Wikipedia) it takes up 2/5 of the introductory section.

I'm not sure why this is a problem. Like you said, Transgenderism is a "fringe case from normal", but the article in full mainly covers the abnormal (otherwise it would be a fairly short article). So relative to the other abnormalities, transgenderism ranks fairly high on the list. Not to mention that the rest of that paragraph covers more than just transgenderism, it also covers intersex (as you allude to).

>> I'm of the opinion that gender and sex should be treated very much separately, and this posits that assigning a sex at birth is "potentially problematic" just because the person's gender might not match up later in life.

Are you using gender in place of "gender identity"? I was under the impression that gender identity was how a person perceives their own gender, which can be an amalgamation of gender identity, social constructs, and biological sex (from my brief scan of the gender wikipedia page). Not to sound crass, but these definitions are confusing to me even after multiple lectures on the topic.

Additionally, I think that's it's fairly well documented that a mismatch between someone's gender identity and assigned sex can be "problematic", with respect to mental health problems.

>> That's well and good, but this is only relevant for intersex people, and this seems to imply that it is also so for transgender children.

You're right that it is only relevant for intersex people. All of the sources cited are regarding intersexuality, not transgenderism. The previous sentence is also about intersex children, so it makes sense that the following statement would follow with that. Could it be more clear? Absolutely, and maybe I'll submit an edit to the page right now to clarify that.

>> has resulted in the thinking that it is a child's right to determine their sex

This is almost universally frowned upon by medical professionals. DSM-V lays out very clear criteria for what to do in these scenarios. After age 1-2, wait until after the age of 18 for gender reassignment.

>> Again, over half of this section [Terminology] is dominated by transgenderism-related text.

No it isn't. It makes up maybe 20% of the section at the most. And refer to my previous point about how it's definitely relevant to the article, relative to the percentage of "abnormal" sex assignment dominated by transgenderism.

>> To me this idea seems to imply that sex is something that is arbitrarily chosen by a Doctor at birth

Didn't the explanation of how sex assignment works get discussed in the very beginning of the article, in the introduction? To quote, "In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered..." . That seems pretty biological to me, looking at their genitalia and thereby means of procreation.

>> I consider gender to be a set of social protocols...

You're right, and I don't know why they specifically say "physically change" in the article, as they clearly meant physically AND mentally. I don't think that psychological methods can be "physical". This is more of a commentary on needing to edit the page, which I may again try to clarify in a few minutes after posting this. Again, the terms confuse me at times, so I'm trying to recall if there is such a thing as "biological gender" or not, and if the author of that particular part of the article could have been referring to.

Censorship is illegal suppression of information. You can tell your kids to shut up, that isn't censoring them.

You try and choose a meaning to support your argument just as much as anyone else does. Welcome to terminology.

> I consider dismantling environmental agencies criminal in the ethical sense, but US law obviously does not consider it criminal.

I don't understand that. Surely this was plainly clear during the election ... and the electorate made it's viewpoint clear. Therefore in my opinion it is not just morally right, but an actual moral duty for the US government to at least tone down the climate research.

We live in a government for the people, by the people. It is NOT a government for the climate. US government climate actions are predicated upon a majority of the US population not just agreeing in principle, but willing to pay (a lot I might add) to make it happen.

> Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law?

Yes.

> As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.

I fail to see how this is even a little strange. Did you know Obama did the same ? And so did Bush and Clinton. All have removed reporters and refused questions.

And frankly, in most cases, for pretty good reasons. At least in the Trump and Obama cases I've seen the videos, and ... I mean sorry. I may not agree with Trump, but I agree that those reporters went too far, were warned a few times, and when they insisted, the president walked away. That, to me, doesn't seem controversial at all. I don't think I'd have similar patience, I especially would not have the patience Obama had with reporters (remember ? The birth certificate. Perhaps (being flexible with perhaps) it was a newsworthy question for a week or two, but 2 years later they were still pestering him)