Usually when they start ranking IQ, especially across broad groups
You can't edit Wikipedia pages on a topic to which you have a close connection/conflict of interest.
Also WP:Notability
If people want a respectful space to discuss among themselves I don't see any good reason to force myself into the conversation. Not every space on the internet (or real life) needs to be a stage for the free marketplace of ideas, especially when you're talking about already marginalised communities who are easily disenfranchised by many of the kinds of people attracted to that style of space.
Personally, looking at the interaction between yourself and the mod, it reads to me like you was the one who was sarcastic and rude.
I don't think Butler is going for "scare power", she is simply trying to accurately describe institutional transphobia. I think it's important to recognise and treat transphobia as an inherently a fascist ideology.
Whether they acted out of malice or ignorance, they bear the same moral culpability for the consequences of their vote. They have a social responsibility to ensure they are informed and vote accordingly; everyone should be able to spot fascism and authoritarianism when they see it.
counterpoint:
I don't want you to call me female or male. Creeps call me female and bigots call me male.
Woman probably. IDK I'm kinda just vibing it out from my brain.
Also this guy
Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe
This is literally me if you even care
It's difficult (as in you need massive market recognition of which the specific colour is a major component), but you are allowed to trademark specific shades of a colour. Even then, like regular trademarks, you can only make the trademark in the specific field in which it is used commercially. In this case "Cadbury Purple" is registered in class 30, which covers most kinds of chocolate packaging. You can see their registration here.
spoiler
I used to occasionally watch James Somerton's videos. Holy shit, what a fundamentally uncreative piece of shit. I can't believe he exploited such an important discourse and niche just for his own gain.
In my experience, Wikipedia has a pervasive cultural of false balance, and it does not surprise me at all that this attitude extends to the founder of the site. Despite their many policies dictating otherwise, in my experience adjudicators often end up weighing authoritative academic sources equally with outdated or lower quality references. Looking through the talk page, it sounds like there was already an extensive RFC for the wording of the lede. Policy was already applied correctly in this case - the system worked as it was supposed to - and it's incredibly inappropriate for Wales to pull rank, reopen discussion when there has been no notable change in circumstance, and advocate for this exact kind of behaviour.