Misplaced Pages

Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:04, 8 August 2010 editHfarmer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,062 edits →Links to RSN about Wyndzen← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:35, 16 November 2024 edit undoGeneralissima (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers11,087 editsm Generalissima moved page Talk:Blanchard's Outlook on Gender Identity and Expression to Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology over redirect: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM)Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{{skip to bottom}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Connected contributor
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|
|user=James Cantor
1={{WikiProject Psychology|class=|importance=}}
|alt1=Banglange
{{WP Sexuality|class=B|importance=mid}}
|alt2=Starburst9
{{LGBTProject | class=B}}
|editedhere=yes
|banned=yes
|otherlinks=]
}} }}
{{Old peer review|reviewedname=Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory|Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory|archive=1}}
{{oldpeerreview|archive=1}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{archives|search=yes}}
1=

{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid|needs-infobox=no}}
== Autogynephilia merge proposal ==
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Mid|needs-infobox=no|needs-photo=no}}

{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
I have looked around some and don't see much academic discussion of this concept outside the closed circle of BBL advocates - virtually all the cites are fomr Blanchard's own work, which looks wrong as we should be drawing primarily on reliable ''secondary'' sources, not primary sources. I think the article ] needs to be merged to a short section here; we appear to e trying to blaze a trail in documenting this largely-ignored idea. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
}}
<s>:Before I comment further on this proposal just what do you wan't to merge this with?--] (]) 16:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)</s>
{{Merged-from|Autogynephilia|11 September 2010}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
:Oh I did not notice that this link was to the BBL theory talk page instead of the autogynephilia talk page. Well you say that this idea is not notable enough. To warrant a separate article. Let me address your assertion directly. Sexology is not a huge field in the first place so the fact that not allot of people write papers about any sexological theory has to be weighed against that. Then there is another way of assesing the value of a scientific theory that is how many others cite that theory (papers writen specifically about that theory). Looking at google scholar if you drill donwn below the first three pages you see that Blanchard's papers on autogynephila appear cited in many many places and by a variety of sexologist beyond just that "small circle". Last but not least there is the way that the scientist who proposes a theory is regarded by their peer's. Again using google scholar to seach for Autogynephilia. It list the key authors as Blanchard and Zucker along with Cohen-Kettenis. Ok now look at the names of the people choosen to help write the part of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological association. Zucker is in charge of the working group, Blanchard and Cohen-Ketennis are part of the group. That can only be taken as a sign of the respect that those people have in the field of sexology. Richard B. Krueger, and Jack Drescher have also written papers that made reference to autogynephilia.
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 75K
:With the above in mind I cite the policy ] "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
|counter = 11

|minthreadsleft = 2
:If one uses google to search for news article that have the word Autogynephilia verbatim there are three pages of hits. If one searches regular google for any websites that have Autogynephila you will find 37,000 hits. If even 10% of those are reliable sources that more than meets the "significant coverage" requirement.
|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(90d)
:Last but not least there is ] Which states that
|archive = Talk:Blanchard's transsexualism typology/Archive %(counter)d
<blockquote>
}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Sections of ] should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place| Summary sections are linked to the detailed article with a <nowiki>{{</nowiki>]<nowiki>|</nowiki><name of detailed article><nowiki>}}</nowiki> or comparable template |To preserve links to the edit history of the moved text, the first edit summary of the new article links back to the original.
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes
</blockquote>
}}

{{Refideas
:Which is the case here. These two articles are linked in that BBL theory is the main article, Autogynephila is a pure sub article. Homosexual transsexual is a related article in it's own right since that term and the phenomena it describes were around before Blanchard. The controversy is also deserving of a separate article because that aspect has taken on a life of it's own. Simmilar arguements to the one above work for the other related articles. --] (]) 17:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
| {{cite book |last1=Becker |first1=Judith V. |last2=Perkins |first2=Andrew |editor1-last=Hales |editor1-first=Robert E. |editor2-last=Yudofsky |editor2-first=Stuart C. |editor3-last=Roberts |editor3-first=Laura Weiss |title=The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry |date=2014 |publisher=American Psychiatric Publishing |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=978-1-5856-2444-7 |page=688 |edition=6th |chapter=Gender Dysphoria}}

| {{cite book |last1=Rider |first1=G. Nic |last2=Tebbe |first2=Elliot A. |editor1-last=Goldberg |editor1-first=Abbie E. |editor2-last=Beemyn |editor2-first=Genny |title=The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Volume 1 |date=2021 |publisher=SAGE Publications |location=Thousand Oaks, Calif. |isbn=978-1-5443-9382-7 |pages=39–43 |doi=10.4135/9781544393858.n12 |chapter=Anti-Trans Theories}}
'''No merge.''' The two pages are related, but not redundant. Autogynephilia refers to a specific pattern of sexual interests; BBL theory (a misnomer, in my opinion) refers to a taxonomy of male-to-female transsexuality, one of which (the theory says) is motivated by autogynephilia. One can experience autogynephilia without being transsexual, and one can be transsexual without being autogynephilic.
}}

{{TOC left}}
Second, the Blanchard pubs ''are'' secondary sources for WP purposes. Guy's use of primary vs. secondary sources above is incorrect, although I do acknowledge that the primary/secondary distinction differs between the physical/medical sciences and the humanities. In the humanities, a primary source would be, for example, an historical document, whereas the secondary source would be an historian's published article about that document. (WP editors are expected generally to cite the historian, not interpret the historical document for themselves.) In the physical/medical sciences, that primary source would be the data collected for a study, and the scientist's published article ''is'' the secondary source. (WP editors are expected generally to cite the scientist, not acquire and analyze the data themselves.) Although the scientist's publication is the first thing available to the public, it is a ''secondary'' source for WP, and such reports are noted as the preferred source by WP:V and WP:SPS. (Incidentally, I am not a long-timer here; I am merely repeating the interpretations I have been given, in this case by an admin (user:DGG).)
{{clear left}}

Third, autogynephilia has indeed been mentioned in multiple notable RS's, including the DSM. The enormous interest in autogynephilia by WP editors (both supporting and decrying the idea) as indicated in the history page here also suggests that the topic is all but ignored. Even if the topic were of only little interest, it nonetheless meets all WP policies for having a page. Whether it is far over the line or barely over the line doesn't matter.<br>
] (]) 17:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

===Proposal Let's sandbox it===

I have a proposal let us compose a merged article in a sandbox and see what it would look like. It will be a merger of all of those things that are related to Blanchardian gender theory. (let us not argue about the title it's just a sandbox). I have a day to kill so I'll do now.

] (In thier infinite wisdom someone felt it would be a good idea to move this to my talk page but did not think it necessary to redirect this link.--] (]) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

We can look at what merging these together would look like then discuss them. --] (]) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK that about does it. Take a look at the sandbox. I have done some preliminary work on what a merger of all of the related articles into one article would look like. Merger has been proposedn on all of them at some point. I have done my best to remove redundant matterial. However no through copyediting for small pieces of redundant matterial. I would estimate that at best it could be made 1/3 smaller.

Take a look at that and ask yourselves does this serve WP better? Does this comply with ] and ] as I argued this could not above? --] (]) 19:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am more than appreciative of Hfarmer's effort. I do not believe that the resultant merge improves things, however. The article is quite long and unfocussed, in my opinion. Moreover, it confabulates the basic meanings of autogynephilia and the taxonomy of transsexualism that Blanchard proposed. For example, Blanchard has also written that erotic cross-dressing (transvestism) in non-transsexuals is motivated by autogynephilia. To include autogynephilia as a subtopic within Blanchard's taxonomy of transsexuals is to ignore important parts of the concept. Blanchard developed his ideas about transsexual taxonomy independently of his ideas about autogynephilia, and he is extremely precise in each of his papers to show how they are related, but should not be confused. From the point of view of someone who studies transsexuality, autogynephilia would seem a subtopic; but from the point of view of someone who studies sexuality in more of its breadth, autogynephilia and the homosexual/nonhomosexual taxonomy are distinct (albeit overlapping) ideas. It is an error to subsume one under the other.<br>
] (]) 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

:I agree with James (yes, it happened once before!). Autogynephilia is just one of Blanchard's weird ideas. His taxonomy that Bailey and Lawrence promote is relatively distinct as a (lame) concept. ] (]) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:: Yes, my main concern here is that by having multiple articles we give ] to a crank theory with only a very small number of proponents. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

:::However as you can see it is not a trival matter to compress such a broad topic into one article. I really tried above (I could not and would not do all of this myself. Let's face it whatever the group decides in practice I seem to be the one who ends up implementing things. This would be no different. I will execute a merger if that is decided.

:::Also this cranck theory arguement is just not supportable by the evidence. Autogynephilia and the researchers who put it forward have some level of acceptance by most other psychologist. Zucker, Blanchard, and Cohen-Kietennis are working on the section of the DSM which covers gender identity disorder. They would not be put in that position by other psychologist if they were regarded as cranks.(A crank scientist is like someone who looks for the loc ness Monster or bigfoot. You don't see people like that being placed in authoratative positions by other biologist. That is what a crank does.)--] (]) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

* '''Oppose merge''' Merging the related articles makes them too long and unwieldy. I don't see this as a service to the reader. ] (]) 00:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am disturbed by a WP administrator (or member of a WP cabal) referring to Blanchard's theory as "crank." I hope that this administrator will disqualify himself from any future involvement, as administrator, in issues pertaining to related pages.] (]) 19:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:Lighten up. This happens all the time. Admins are as entitled to opinions as anyone, and are generally careful not to make admin decisions in areas where they've expressed a strong content opinion, since it wouldn't stand. ] (]) 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
:ProudAGP, admins are certainly not prohibited from normal editing, and JzG (who is an admin, and the "cabal" is a joke) has not proposed doing anything administrative with this page, so I think that your complaint is overblown. ] (]) 20:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:I have no idea what to do about the 'Summary of Ad Hominem Attacks' section. The entire thing seems to tread on BLP violations. To keep it as it is includes only (in my opinion, rather biased part) of the story, whereas to expand it is both unfocused and, in my opinion, quite possible actively harmful. ] (]) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

::I'd say toss it out, and then any editors who care about anything that was lost can find reliable sources, check for BLP problems, and put the info back in a more suitable place and style. ] (]) 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Sure let's toss it out. Then I can rewrite this all over again finding reliable sources for the whole thing. Let's just toss out ALL of the articles and start from scratch. But, only if Dicklyon pledges on pain of banning that he will do most of the rewriting and that he has to actually be able to write it in a way that is really and truly neutral. --] (]) 07:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I pledge on pain of banning that I'm not going to rewrite any of that junk. ] (]) 07:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

::::So basically you have comitted to never actually write anything, and in the process have to insult me and my writing personallty. <s>Dick that is the last straw.</s>--] (]) 22:16, 5 January 2009(UTC) I am going to give this one more chance. --] (]) 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::HFarmer, hasn't DickLyon already been forced into a non-editing stance? And participation in Misplaced Pages is voluntary. More important that the writing style, which I think is adequate, is the framing and content. I'm worried that it's actively harmful: e.g. just continues a fight further into ad hominem territory. In particular, I'm worried that by including whomever's claims against whomever else, regardless of notability or substantiation, then in effect wikipedia is acting as a powerful and official seeming conduit to arbitrary personal attacks. I don't think that ultimatums are helpful. In particular, not all interested parties have the time or energy to engage endlessly in sandboxes and talk pages. Most of us have other lives. ] (]) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I understand why you have those concerns. But those personal attacks are personal attacks that have already been published elsewhere. They have been published in news papers and peer reviwed journals and magazines. Aren't those official sounding already. Misplaced Pages is at this point only recording what has been said and written in RS's already. As for that "ultimatum" I wrote that because I am tired of people insulting me and my writing because I refuse to bow to their point of view. I am actively trying to resolve the dispute between me and DickLyon. As for endless talkpages and sandboxes and such. I am not the only person who writes on those. My creating a sandbox was so that I could get started on the task of actually executing a merger IF it was agreed to by the community. A merger with which I disagree. But because as you have just intimated by writing "Most of us have other lives" I will be the one on whom the burden of that work actually falls. I will do it if that is the actual consenssus.--] (]) 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::You know what I would even go so far as to say that excluding personal attacks like those in that section would have to be a violation of ] basically an attempt to right the great wrongs that have been committed by sanitizing the article. People said and did some really ugly things in relation to this whole mess. What are we supposed to do? (I am refering to the ugly things done in the course of the controversy and not about any wikipedia stuff at all.)--] (]) 23:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Please, nobody is asking you to take on more than your share of the work; in fact, take a month or two off; with pay. Anyway, I wasn't making fun of your writing, I was making fun of 71.201.225.194's. ] (]) 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
===Proposal two Break the controversy into two uneven parts===

The way this controversy has been presented in wikipedia has so far been all wrong. We have all tended to mix the scientifically questionable use of terminology, with the unscientific reactions to and all the spears and arros thrown over TMWWBQ. They are really quite separate. So I propose the following. We do away with the controversy article. The controversy around The Man Who Would be queen will only be mentioned in the article on the book and no where else. Not in any articles that are about Blanchard's theory. While in articles that are about or related to the scientific aspects of Blanchard's theory will contain a section which describes the scientific questionability of that theory. (To head off someone out there thinking that use of the word theory means "acceptance" or "liking his ideas" etc. Non scientist understand that word differently. Websters dictionary defines it as a system of thought. A glossary from the hard sciences describes a theory as a hypothesis which can be stated in some form of mathematics, which is well tested, makes predictions or suggest new area's of research. That is all the word means. This comes up about once a month on here so... I'm just getting that part of the conversation out of the way.)--] (]) 16:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
:I wish that you had waited for a reaction here before starting the AfD process.
:I do not agree to removing the scandal from the bios of individuals involved in it. ] (]) 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

==Result of Automated Peer Review==
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{name}}}|Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory|] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)}}</onlyinclude>The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic ], and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Consider adding more ] to the article; per ] and ], create links to relevant articles.<sup>]]</sup>
*Per ] and ], months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide ] for the article.<sup>]]</sup>
*This article has no or few ]. Please see if there are any ] images that fall under the ] and fit under one of the ] that can be uploaded. To upload images on Misplaced Pages, go to ]; to upload non-] images on the ], go to ].<sup>]]</sup>
*If there is not a ] image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.<sup>]]</sup>
*You may wish to consider adding an appropriate ] for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. <sup>]]</sup> (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of ]. See also ].<sup>]]</sup>
You may wish to browse through ] for further ideas. Thanks, ] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

After editing this article this morning I ran this automate peer review. Does anyone have suggestions for what could be done to address what it mentions?--] (]) 14:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== Define Homosexual ==

Given the core topic being discussed (male-to-female transsexual people), terms such as straight, heterosexual, and homosexual are extremely unhelpful in identifying a person's sexual orientation. At least up until the point where the terms are defined within the context of those published professionals' theories, I propose that they be replaced with, or noted in-line as being synonymous with, androphilial/androsexual (attracted to men) or gynophilial/gynosexual (attracted to women) as appropriate. ( see ]). ] (]) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

== Why are the BBL & "Autogynephilia" articles 100% pure, unbalanced, BBL POV? ==

E.g., BBL para 1: "Scientific and popular criticism of this theory has centered on its use of terminology that refers to transsexual individuals by their biological sex instead of their mental gender identity."

Well, no, not even close: scientific and popular criticism has centered around the arguments that it's a misguided, needlessly reductionist, and profoundly misleading approach to understanding why some males feel the desire for body feminization and feminine gender roles, where "feminine" gender identification and distress at having to fulfill "masculine" social roles often play a major role, and where biological factors involving differences in brain structure may be involved. Instead, with BBL it's all about sexual orientation, and there are only two alternatives: androphilic- or "female-self"-oriented... and the latter is labelled as a "paraphilia" to boot!
"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute." HELL YEAH! But you'd never know it from these articles!

Another example of bias: two external links are provided under the "Autogynephilia" article: one to Dr. Lawrence's site, and one to "The autogynephilia resource", which is 100% pro-BBL; no links are provided to (for example) Andrea James' <http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-blanchard-lawrence.html>, which would give a person who did not already have some background in transgender issues insight into why BBL is "controversial".
] (]) 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

:Critical links and sourced commentary were systematically removed by Blanchard's coworker ] aka ] and by self-described "homosexual transsexual" ] . You are welcome to make any edits that might help remedy this bias. ] (]) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

::Based on this, I added templates to inform other editors to look into the matter. ] (]) 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

:::They only seem like 100% unbalanced pro BBL POV because to you someone who I am sure is 100% anti BBL neutral writing looks unbalanced. Jokesstress was involved in the drafting process from the beginning and is only pouting because she did not get her way all of the time. For the record to people who are 100% pro BBL this article looks harshly critical this they have told me personally. Kind of like Liberals who think Fox is biased and MSNBC is neutral or Conservatives who think Fox is neutral but MSNBC is biased... when in their all biased and just cant' see it.
:::As for why links to Andrea James's website were not included that has to do with ] which at the time and probably now does not consider a personal website or blog by someone without academic credentials to be a reliable source. If you are talking about external links then fine be BOLD and add her websites as external links. However they are for the purpose of WP not reliable sources.
:::A large part of the problem I have had with providing information from the trans POV on this is that little written by transpeople on this topic has been published in a way that would make it a WP:RS which could not be objected to. Most of what is written appears on websites or blogs. One book which is self published and by WP's bizarre standards a self published book is assumed to be unreliable. Plus there seems to be consensus that simply being trans does not make one an expert by WP standards. ''The very policies of WP which favor academic sources and people with academic credentials (in the pertinent fields of sexology, psychology etc.) are the reason that these articles are hard but not impossible to balance.''
:::For those reasons this article is about as balanced as it can get. --] (]) 07:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::Hfarmer -- Please note WP:CIV & WP:AGF
:::::Inspired by WP:BB, I'm making some edits here.
:::::I quoted above the sentence which gives the impression that BBL theory is NOT controversial on wider grounds: "E.g., BBL para 1: 'Scientific and popular criticism of this theory has centered on its use of terminology that refers to transsexual individuals by their biological sex instead of their mental gender identity.'" This line, which originated in an edit by Hfarmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=259680739&oldid=259680276), is WP:OR: I'm deleting it.
:::::I'm restoring as WP:RS text citing academic psychologist Madeline Wyndzen's published comments which was deleted by "Marion the Librarian" (IRL James Cantor, with a COI) "(?BBL controversy: Does not meet WP:RS)" Revision as of 22:01, 4 June 2008:
:::::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=217167232&oldid=217072677
:::::Wyndzen's more thorough criticism of Blanchard's model is available at * by Madeline H. Wyndzen (2003), which used to be included as a link in a "BBL Controversy" section... until James Cantor deleted the whole section as "non-RS". (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=228473852&oldid=227729642). Wyndzen's analysis strikes me as reliable, even though it's self-published, but I'm going to refrain from adding it.
:::::] (]) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


::::As you noticed already, I'm new to the whole article. I understood Jokestress' accusation of POV to refer to the relative absence of citation of non-RS, non-POV, academic material. If that's not the case, I understand your position on that issue. And although I do see BBL theory as largely relying on a very naive understanding of the concept of fetishes and ignorance regarding sociological matters involved in the topic, not to mention the other issues it has, I don't intend to let that result in OR- and/or POV-driven editing of the article. ] (]) 14:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::Neither do I. Frankly I think psychology as a science goes is the softest of them all. Short of some mindreading technology I don't see how they can every really prove anything in the way that say chemist do. For this reason I take this theory as worth a heavy grain of salt. Most of it's weight coming from the reaction of transsexuals to it.

:::::She describes me as a self described "homosexual transsexual". If asked which of Blanchards categories I would be labeled with I think it's a better than 90% chance it would be that one. Furthermore as part of research for the article ] I sought to get a idea of the POV of a group of self described homosexual transsexuals. ''Their POV was for the most part negative towards the label though they felt it was somehow useful to not treat all transsexuals the same.'' That's the closest I come to having a COI. Which is not at all because I had/have nothing invested in that website.

:::::As for it's treatment of fetishes I too think that what Psychology in general has done up to this is suspect. It seems that any sexuality which is not "normal" according to our society is called a Paraphillia. In which case I would have to say Autogynephilia is in line with the rest of that field. That's just how psychology operates. --] (]) 15:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

:Linking Jokestress's website would probably violate ] #11 (which generally bans personal websites, except those written by a recognized authority). ] (]) 16:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

::Which hits upon the true source of unfairness in this whole mess. Who decides who is a "recognized authority"? The academic world. Is the academic world open enough to transgender people not really. There are some notable successes. However the far majority of transwomen are black Hispanic and undereducated OR even if educated are still excluded from Academia.

::So who decides who is a recognized authority? To many in the transgender world AJ is such an authority. Why is that not valid? ::Because she's never had to defend her work from hostile questioning in a environment where she did not control the conversation. She has never been through a thesis process. That seems to be the only difference. --] (]) 20:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

::] is clearly a recognized authority on transgender issues; she's mentioned in many books and articles as such. The ELNO#11 says "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for biographies.)" Obviously, at least that criterion has been met; and more. ] (]) 04:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:::Oh brother. You and I know the only way that will ever be worked out to anyones satisfaction is to RfC, and then when one side or the other won't let it go there get informal mediation. So who want's to begin the process? I guess either Rich Low or myself are the least involved parties and should do it.

:::RichLow when you see this could you perhaps start a formal RfC on the "regongnized expertness" of Andrea James. I did my bit already and what'd it get me. --] (]) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

::::It seems premature to escalate, since nobody has objected to my point yet. ] (]) 23:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::Ok. Just to move things along, for the sake of process I object. She's not an "recognized authority" strictly speaking. The policy states "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has ''previously been published'' by reliable third-party publications." What is meant by reliable third party sources? ''It seems to me that they mean people who have been published in academic journals. A person with some relevant academic educational credentials who just maybe blogs a bit.'' One such guideline is ] which more or less restricts that to established journals for medical articles. On the other hand what specific books or journals published by a third party (not counting "self published" books) has she been published in. Not just cited in published in. That would bring her to the basic minimum level. If such books can be found those should also be cited. However without presenting at least links to those books we cannot proceed to make durable edits without further consultation. ] would probably be the place to put an RFC on this issue.--] (]) 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, ] is the usual standard for determining whether a ] is a 'recognized authority' for the purposes of ] #11. It's not, however, restricted merely to academic publications.
:::::::The most appropriate forum for outside assistance is the ], not ]. I'm fairly active there -- so I know a bit more than the average editor about the usual application of the guideline -- and I do not expect them to consider Andrea James a 'recognized authority'. ] (]) 16:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Again, it's pointless to speculate in the abstract. If someone wants to add a statement of position, sourced to her website, and it gets challenged on this basis, than we can seek input. It will likely come down to the medical sexologists arguing that only medical sexologists have a right to be regarded as experts on transgender issues, but then again, maybe not. ] (]) 06:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::But what about the tags on the page? Unless there is some unquestionable WP RS that someone wants to add or some specific complaint other than "seems biased" they ought to be removed. ''The article is as neutral as the rules of WP will allow this article to be given that they favor academic expertise over peoples practical experience''. --] (]) 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::I think the tags should stay. The rules won't prevent a good-faith effort to clean up the problem, should someone decide to take it on. ] (]) 17:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::According to the docs for the tags at ], the tags should be removed, unless there is an active effort to address the problem. ] (]) 21:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

== Links to RSN about Wyndzen ==

The question of whether a pseudonymous author can be accepted as an expert on the basis of professional credentials that cannot be verified has been addressed repeatedly at ] and other fora, and Wyndzen's comment been rejected every time. See, for example, ] ], ], and
]. The community's consistent view is that this open-call publish-all-comers unknown-author letter does not meet Misplaced Pages's standards for a (non-self-published) reliable source, and that since Wyndzen chooses to be anonymous, it is not possible for the community to accept the comment under the usual ]. Consequently, we can't use it in this article. ] (]) 19:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
::Which is unfortunate. Her opinions are valuable but unless we can look up her CV or verify who she says she is then she could be totally made up. (I know she isn't simple searching on the websites can reveal her full name she's quite real.) So far as I know she is the only transgender person with a academic degree in psychology which would make her immensely and irrefutably qualified to dispute BBL theory. Not only here but out in the world. --] (]) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

:The previous discussions were basically just arguments among the principle editors of these controversial articles. Very little community input is found there. ] (]) 05:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
::My quick scan of the linked discussions turns up comments from Protonk, Vassyana, Eubulides, Momento, Paul B, DGG, VasileGaburici, Philcha, Squidfryerchef, Soulscanner, and Blueboar -- eleven uninvolved editors, by my count, or about three times the usual number of editors commenting at any RSN question. If eleven uninvolved editors is "very little community input" in your books, perhaps you'd tell us how many editors you need to get to an acceptable level of community input? ] (]) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
:::I wasn't counting, just noting that it's hard to find community input among all the noise of the usual participants, in the discussions that you linked. ] (]) 04:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
::::"Noise" As opposed to the utter clarity of letting either AJ or JC bias the comments. When I started each of those I would post a question which we had hashed out here and was reasonably neutral (getting us to all agree is why we need an RFC so waiting for 100% agreement would be futile.) If it will make you all happy then list some specific sources you want used and we can RFC them at RS/N one at a time. ''Though I think that it is well established by now that anonymous or pseudonymous sources are not acceptable.'' Practically anything else should be looked at intently and fairly interpreted and used.. --] (]) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::Hfarmer: Wyndzen's comment should be included, if only in the "Public Controversy" section. There are excellent reasons why she writes under a pseudonym; she's written by far the most ''reasonable'' and scientifically-oriented negative critical analysis of Blanchard's work. It would be a great irony if the one writer one this topic who has written work that never descends into flaming diatribes should be wholly excluded.

:::::Whatamidoing: I think you're seriously overstating your case.
:::::I looked over the RSN on the June 2008 ASB issue http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25.
:::::This regards the Dreger commentaries rather than Wyndzen's writings per se, but I believe the comments are quite relevant: "...more like a war than a normal academic debate...".
:::::First, I decided to do a character count of the text: 10,065 from commenters out of 39,102 total. Dicklyon has a point here...
:::::Here are quotations and extracts from the discussion of the correct classification of the commentaries by Squidfryerchef, Philcha, DGG, Protonk, and soulscanner; I don't see a "consensus" here.
:::::_____
:::::Would you consider asking at WP:RFC? This area is really for short discussions on what passes the minimum of a reliable source. ::::Its already been established that the disputed citations have been published, the question is whether it makes sense to use them in the article. A request for comment should help with that. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::_____
:::::...the earlier discussion make it plain that the whole issue was more like a war than a normal academic debate.
:::::...
:::::* If you mean editors working on scientific topics that are so controversial that there's a lot of dirty politicking, like this one, the safest course is to treat it like any political controversy that is still active (e.g. The Middle East situation): assume all sources have a POV; aim for balanced coverage rather than attempting to identify a consensus; if any doubt at all, attribute statements as the views of particular person or groups.
:::::* I have no experience of working on academic topics outside the traditional sciences, i.e. where hypotheses are not empirically falsifiable. If I got involved in such a topic, I'd treat as controversial (balanced coverage, attributed statements, etc.) until proven otherwise. Other editors with more experience in thse fields may take a different view.
:::::* For most other topics on Misplaced Pages, WP:RS already takes an excessively academic point of view, and I would hate to see that reinforced. --Philcha (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::_____
:::::... So long as they are under the control of the editor, i consider them as published.... DGG (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::_____
:::::* Comment Why was the result of the last WP:RSN discussion not sufficient? I don't see any reason to deviate from:
:::::* Treat the published article as RS.
:::::* Treat the named "invited" comments as self-published material and include them per WP:SPS and WP:UNDUE (where I specifically mean that if they are experts their opinion and factual notes are included and where they are not experts no mention is made because the article isn't about them)
:::::* <u>Exclude the anonymous and pseudonymous commentary entirely.</u>
:::::* What happened to that? Protonk (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::_____
:::::Commentaries in peer review journals represent opinions of qualified specialists. Journals would not publish them if they did not represent important opinions.... --soulscanner (talk).. 08:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::...
:::::If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum....
:::::Finally, there is a question of whether this is a point of scientific fact, or one of social relevance....
:::::--soulscanner (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC
:::::...
:::::Perhaps it's a good idea to focus on principles rather than personalities. Is the commentary in question in a section reviewing the results of documented research, or is it intended to be about policy, social and political relevance, or possible applications of the research? --soulscanner (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::_____
:::::And for the finale I'll note:

:::::One cannot have an informed discussion about this topic without knowing its context: There exists great conflict at the moment between the ''ideas'' expressed predominantly in ''high-end scientific journals'' and the ''beliefs'' expressed predominantly by transsexual ''activists''. — James Cantor (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::Italics mine, just to make a point: I looove the use of the swear word "activists"; and if you can't accept that, e.g., Lynn Conway has ''ideas'', I think you ought to... check your premises :-)

:::::] (]) 20:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::I will begin from the end of your comments. I have the utmost respect for Prof Conway but she is not a psychologist endocrinologist neurologist or even published as a sexologist in any journal. While she is a very intelligent woman the word activist is the best word that can describe her in this instance.

::::::As for the seclection of quotes you have above cherry picking one of those conversations proves nothing. The overall result was at the time that sources that were not peer reviewed, even if in a print journal, are not considered reliable unless the person is a recognized expert. We argued over what makes one a recognized expert. Using one's actual name was one issue. On top of that having a peer reviewed citation to your name on the subject of transsexualism, transgenderism or just in psychology was determined as a minimum requirement.

::::::Now I know how unfair that is to people who know what they are talking about but do not have the credentials, name recognition, or institutional affiliation to get through peer review. (Trust me many a lazy lazy peer reviewer decides if something is "worth their time" based on such nonsense.) Those institutional roadblocks bias the set of sources that current WP policy will allow. Thems the rules, the rules would be very hard to change but that's about what it would take to get a different result.

::::::Come here with a new source that we who are commited to this have not discussed to the point of exhaustion and we'll consider it! I would love to have a fully accredited, fully credentialed, transgender sexologist to quote. More critical perspective is needed.

::::::That said this article cannot be all about criticism either. That too would be biased. The article has to do a few things. It has to explain effectively and understandably what the ideas of BBL are. Second it has to discuss the scientific criticism and mention the controversy (Which I believe has it's own article). Third it has to do those first two without showing any bias towards either point of view.--] (]) 15:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Once again, Hfarmer, please note WP:CIV. I did not engage in "cherry picking". Some of the editors' comments had to be abridged, but every one is represented, and I don't see a consensus there.
:::::::I will repeat what I said above:
:::::::Hfarmer: Wyndzen's comment should be included, if only in the "Public Controversy" section.
:::::::What is the reasonable objection to including this comment there? You don't address this issue, instead engaging in laments about how WP:RS just won't allow its presence ... apparently in any place on the page.
:::::::What I see going on with this page is a whole lotta legalistic wrangling about what constitutes a reliable source, with no inclination to reach reasonable compromises: OK, fine: so she's a figure in the "Public Controversy". WP:BURO. The strictest interpretations of WP:RS are not sacred when they lead to violation of WP:NPOV, which is what's going on here; the only reason there's a "problem" with Wyndzen is that she publishes under a pseudonym. Philcha's comment that this is "more like a war than a normal academic debate" makes it clear why she does that.
:::::::] (]) 15:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::::Bonze, I've highlighted (with underlining) the quotation you provided above that represents (IMO) the ultimate decision at RSN.
::::::::The 'problem' with Wyndzen is not that she publishes under a pseudonym: we could cope with a ''nom de plume'' just fine under other circumstances. The problem is that the letters are self-published under Misplaced Pages's rules, and the pseudonymity prevents us from determining whether she actually has the academic and legal credentials that she claims to have (and that would make the self-published letter qualify for the expert exemption at ]). Consequently, for Misplaced Pages's purposes, we have a self-published, non-(provably)expert letter in an open forum, and such sources are not ]. The status, in fact, is almost exactly the same as a reader comment on a blog (albeit, by blog standards, an unusually thoughtful comment). ] (]) 16:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Still wrong. Blog comments don't have PubMed IDs: Wyndzen MH. A social psychology of a history of a snippet in the psychology of transgenderism. ''Arch Sex Behav.'' 2008 Jun;37(3):366-421. PMID 18431620. This is just WhatamIdoing still trying to control this debate and game the system in order to right great wrongs (she thinks this is about "academic freedom"). She is deliberately misrepresenting a published commentary in a reliable source because she thinks this fiasco threatens the integrity of academia. This has never been an academic debate, though. It's a debate '''about''' academia and its abuses. It is a watershed moment in the history of the pathologization of trans people: the beginning of the end of the intellectualized justification of oppression. See Surkan, K (2007). Transsexuals Protest Academic Exploitation. In Lillian Faderman, Yolanda Retter, Horacio Roque Ramírez, eds. ''Great Events From History: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Events, 1848-2006.'' pages 111-114. Salem Press ISBN 978-1-58765-263-9 All of the viewpoints that challenge WhatamIdoing's POV/COI have been stripped out systematically by WhatamIdoing and her like-minded allies. Anyone who is presented the facts without WhatamIdoing's spin can see that there are plenty of reliably-sourced articles that can balance this article's bias. ] (]) 19:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

:I think you've misunderstood what I said:
:Misplaced Pages divides sources into two groups: "reliable" and "not reliable". The Wyndzen comment was deemed to fit in the "not reliable" category at all of the many RSN discussions. This means that the community (rightly or wrongly) decided that it falls into the same category of sources as reader comments at a blog (=another example of sources deemed 'not reliable' by the community), and for much the same reasons (inability to demonstrate that the self-published comment is from a proper subject-matter expert).
:PMIDs are not magic talismans that exempt the sources from complying with Misplaced Pages's standards, so the fact that Wyndzen's comment has been assigned a PMID is completely irrelevant. ] (]) 19:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
::Credentialism is what's irrelevant here. The journal's editor is responsible for vetting contributors and assessing the quality of content. This is a published comment in a notable journal: verifiable, reliable, and deemed to have value by the journal's editor. They did not publish all comments, and they edited comments for content. This is entirely about excluding a point of view that would balance the article. WhatamIdoing is spinning it as some sort of fakery, when there are clearly good reasons why Wyndzen is publishing pseudonymously, like ]. The points are as valid as the source. It is not self-published. Wyndzen has no control over the publisher, the Archives of Sexual Behavior. If they had concerns that Wyndzen is a fraud, their editing and fact-checking process would have caught that. If this had not been consistently spun by WhatamIdoing as a self-published blog comment instead of a response published in an academic journal, any uninvolved editor would see that this is a perfectly acceptable source. Let's be very clear that the issue here is the COI and POV-pushing of WhatamIdoing, which is much more subtle than her like-minded allies. ] (]) 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

:::The previous RSN discussions determined that these open-call, publish-all-comers comments should be treated as self-published sources. The editors of the journal were contacted, and confirmed that they published 100% of on-topic responses, and that they made zero efforts to verify that the authors had any credentials, or that they were even from the people they purported to be from.
:::You can always take this back to RSN for a fifth or sixth round, if you think that the community has misunderstood the facts. Alternatively (and perhaps more likely to be successful), you can go to ] and see about having the section re-written to be less restrictive in ways that would permit the existing facts to be deemed a reliable source. Personally, I think SPS needs a good re-write, beginning with a definition of 'self-publication is when the person or group that writes the material ("author") is the same person or group that decides to publish it ("publisher")', as opposed to our current non-definition ('self-publication is a term of disparagement used by a couple of admins to reject sources they don't like; non-self-published is a term of approval used by these editors to accept sources they do like, regardless of who the authors and publishers are'). ] (]) 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
::::As for your allegations of a conflict of interest, I thought we had previously established that I'm the only straight, cis-gendered editor at this page who has neither met any of the principals or ever been paid by anyone to do anything related to transgenderism. Consequently, I don't think that your efforts to smear me with the COI tar brush will be effective. ] (]) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Your COI is related to your POV-warring on "academic freedom", specifically as it pertains to Institutional Review Boards, because you see it as a slippery slope that could affect your own research and the work of your peers. It's also clear that you have a huge problem with how "innocent children" (two college-aged young adults) doing press for a book dedicated to them were treated in one aspect of this fiasco. Your COI falls under the "righting great wrongs" category, and you have demonstrated again and again that your involvement in this article cluster is less about neutrality and more about upholding a personal grudge. That's why you are instantly all over new editors like RichLow and Bonzesaunders. This topic involves a number of important issues, but uninvolved readers would never know it because only one POV is represented. COI editors like you make sure of it, because they see this case as a rallying point for academic freedom rather than a rallying point for academic exploitation. Your efforts here to punish people you think deserve punishment undermine the goals of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::The status of oral histories before IRBs and the right of a university professor to talk to people or to write a book have absolutely no connection to any of my professional interests. I realize that my anonymity makes it difficult for you to attack me accurately, but your guesses are so far incorrect. On your other points:
::::::* "Righting great wrongs" isn't a type of COI under Misplaced Pages's policies, and 'making the article reflect the views in the mainstream press' isn't really the sort of thing that most editors file under that title anyway -- or under "POV warring", either.
::::::* My reply to Bonze's suggestion of linking your website appears fifty-two (52) days after his suggestion, which is not how most people define being "instantly all over" a suggestion. It might qualify for labels like 'completely failing to pay attention to my watchlist', but not 'being instantly all over new editors'.
::::::* As you know, Bailey's children weren't college age and weren't promoting the book when you publicly attacked them, with their real names and photographs taken for their elementary and junior-high yearbooks, for the 'crime' of being born to someone you disagree with. That they have gotten older in the intervening years doesn't change the fact that, at the time, you were publicly humiliating minors to get back at their father.
::::::Hope this helps clarify things for you, ] (]) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) You are pseudonymous like me, not anonymous. You have identified yourself here and elsewhere, and your reasons for interest in biomedical topics are both personal (your illness) and professional (the drug you develop). Misplaced Pages policy precludes specifying the nonprofit where you work and the sort of biomedical research you do, but IRB is involved, and that's the source of one COI. 17- and 19-year-olds who are old enough to flog a book in which they are held up as paragons of normalcy are old enough to deal with criticism for it. Your mapping of your own family onto this controversy is another aspect of your COI. It would be helpful if you would just admit your personal and professional reasons for being so enraged about this controversy, rather than pretending you have no COI. I consider that bad faith gaming the system. Hope this helps clarify things for you. ] (]) 22:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
:Tell me is her name something that rhymes with "edger" by any chance?

:Seriously though among ourselves we are never ever going to agree. So why don't we do this we will follow WP procedure with a RfC at RS/N. It's a simple question, the one that's the real bone of contention. "Is this by Madeline Wyndzen (Link to website/commentary) a reliable source even though the author uses a pseudonym?" What's wrong with doing that?

:WP has procedures for handling these things let us follow them instead of this unproductive bickering of which all of us are guilty.

:On an emotional level I agree with Jokestress on this aspect. Should academic credentials be the end all and be all of who's considered a reliable source on Misplaced Pages? No. What can we do about it? WhatamIdoing points out is a valid line of attack. We could try to rewrite WP SPS to be a more honest policy than it is now. No matter what we choose to do it's going to take a long time and will only take longer the more we argue. --] (]) 23:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

::Whatamidoing: "As for your allegations of a conflict of interest, I thought we had previously established that I'm the only straight, cis-gendered editor at this page who has neither met any of the principals or ever been paid by anyone to do anything related to transgenderism."
::You appear to be asserting here that non-straight and/or non-cisgendered editors of this page have a COI? I hope that's not what you meant to say, because it would obviously be wrong...
::I'm also curious as to why you now object so strongly to citing a source which you did ''not'' delete, but instead edited into a more appropriate form earlier, noting that a pen name was used:
::Revision as of 22:05, 20 December 2007 (edit) (undo)
::WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)
::"(?BBL controversy)"
::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory&action=historysubmit&diff=179266701&oldid=179258137
::This is almost identical to the text I used as source for my edit; note that this is derived NOT from her ASB commentary but her APA Div 44 Newsletter letter. (Of course, you're free to change your opinion, but... you're also free to change your opinion back :-). ::My own take on all this WP:RS mongering re: Wyndzen is that it's being used to exclude a notable, verifiable, 95% RS comment and viewpoint, and that the ''original'' motivation to delete it (it survived for ~2 years prior in various articles) was because... it's embarrassing. "What? We failed to provide for controls? BIRTH females? D'oh!"
::My objection to the page as it stands is that it discusses a "highly controversial theory" without noting ''at all'' why it's controversial; all the material that would explain why that's the case got cut out in Marion the Librarian/James Cantor's June 2008 "WP:RS"-justified, COI-driven editing rampage, including the External Links.
::] (]) 00:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

:::WP:RS mongering? That's a rule. What are we supposed to do just throw the rules out when they suit us? WP articles have to have credible reliable sources.


==Notes From The Stone Age==
:::Stop trying to make this into a big conspiracy would you. --] (]) 04:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Once upon a time a long time ago me and two other users, more or less, argued and fought and jousted to create these articles. I still correspond with them off WP from time to time. One was a comedian, the other a psychologist. Points they made that I recall will be attributed in that manner. You can read the talk pages of those old articles to see for yourself. That said here are some observations I hope will help in condensing and re-writing this article.


*Make sure that the first paragraph contains a summary of what Blanchard's typology is and the criticisms of it. The comedian made the point that most people won't read much beyond the first paragraph. Almost 20 years of Twitterfication of internet reading and I believe her. I wonder if people read beyond the title of an article a lot of the time.
:Jokestress is apparently mistaken about my identity. To give just one example, I haven't worked in any capacity for an organization with an IRB for almost 20 years now (and my job, in the IT department, had no connection to it). Short of submitting 20 years of income tax returns for editors' perusal, I don't know how I'd prove this, but those are the facts.
*Make sure that you keep tightly to the peer reviewed published papers of Blanchard when describing his work and also to the similarly published works that refute or support his work. The psychologist was understandably big on that. Misplaced Pages may be stricter about that now. Back then a website by the right kind of person could suffice and be presented here as a refutation of such a work.
:Bonze, ] names 'being too close to the subject matter' as a conflict of interest. If, for example, an editor believes that this idea personally harms his/her life, then the editor probably has a COI. (I'd say the same thing about neighbors of a proposed wind farm re-writing ] to make it "more balanced", or Winduhs sales staff re-writing ] to be "more fair", or any number of similar situations.) Consequently, I think it reasonable to assert that ''some'' trans people have at least a weak conflict of interest.
*Make sure the article is about the the subject not just the criticism and critique of the subject. This is what my mission here was, as I saw it, the comedian and the psychologist might not agree. The comedian wanted almost all of the article to be about the criticism. The psychologist would've had almost none of it. So much of the articles "Autogynephilia" and "Homosexual Transsexual" were about the criticism of the subject. They were about a controversy over a book from that time. Mention those but the article needs to be about the subject for the most part. ( By the by,It refers to sex not gender and so does not misgender. It does reduce transwomen who are into men to their sex drive)
:The more important facts are the ones at the end of the sentence: except for me, apparently all of the regular editors on this page either were personally involved in the book scandal, or know the people involved in the scandal. AFAICT, I am the only regular editor on this page whose knowledge is entirely restricted to what I can read in the reliable sources, and whose real life is unaffected by Blanchard's idea. The community generally agrees that writing about yourself, your friends, and your personal enemies has some COI issues.
*Last and most important keep this in mind. 'Everyone working on this is acting voluntarily and in good faith.' If I have learned anything by interacting with those people online in other forums and on other topics is that any argument over this does not matter. Just remember to relax.
:As for the substance of your comment: I think that Misplaced Pages's standards for sourcing have risen since 2007. IMO if Wyndzen is right, it is unfortunate that the criticisms haven't been published by a person willing to put his/her reputation on the line for them. The fact that nobody seems to have done this makes me wonder (a little) about whether Wyndzen's criticisms are as important, relevant, or valid as they seem, at first glance, to a non-expert like me. ] (]) 18:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
::Please drop the silly ruse. No one is mistaken about your identity or your COI, because you personally provided your name to everyone before you started making this claim that you are "anonymous." We're not talking about your time in Iowa, which you mention on your user page. We are talking about your subsequent work. I am looking at a 2002 article right now where you and your colleague are quoted by name bemoaning the processes and expenses of institutionalized science. You and I both know that the drug you're developing will be subject to institutional review boards when (more like if) it becomes time for human trials. I have done a lot of stuff with FDA over the years, and we both know well that CDER will require IRB. That's one horse you have in this race regarding your COI here. The other major COI is your frequent carrying out of vendettas against WP editors who have done something to annoy you on- or off-wiki. It interferes with the aims of the project, which is to provide a balanced, neutral article. I have said for years that I consider you the key hindrance to getting this article properly balanced and sourced. I have written to you in the past privately (using your real name BTW) asking you to stop gaming the system here, but you continue to do it.
::Now that we have confirmed that your power word is well-established without divulging it to anyone who might not follow you on ED, let's discuss sourcing again. I provided a citation above (Surkan) which shows this is not an academic debate, but a debate '''about''' academia, specifically academic exploitation of sex and gender minorities. To say that only academics can be cited when this is not an academic debate is making this article one-sided. That violates a slew of Misplaced Pages policies. It's clear to anyone who happens upon it that the article presents only one POV. That's because of the efforts of you, Hfarmer, and MariontheLibrarian aka James Cantor. Your claims of no COI are simply untrue. ] (]) 21:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
:Does the debate/controversy have it's own separate article? Was it deleted? Why? This is the exact reason that article was created to discuss the non academic controversy around the issue at lenth.


Those are my points. Feel free to ignore all of it. What do us dinosaurs know?] (]) 16:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
:While this article was to be more about the actual idea with a good summary of the controversy and objections.


:You make a good point about the need to ensure the lead is complete. The lead is currently pretty short and contains just one sentence explaining what the typology is: "{{tq|Blanchard categorized trans women into two groups: ''homosexual transsexuals'' who are attracted exclusively to men and are feminine in both behavior and appearance; and ''autogynephilic transsexuals'' who experience sexual arousal at the idea of having a female body (autogynephilia).}}" IMO this could be expanded to include 1) not only that he defines the first group by attraction (which the lead currently does mention), but that the second group is a collection of everyone else — those attracted to women, those attracted to "both", those attracted to "neither" (and hence alternately termed ''non-homosexual transsexuals''). Other things the body devotes sections to which could be added to the lead: 2) ''why'' the typology and terminology have been criticized: the terminology for being confusing and misgendering, for which reason 3) alternative terminology has been proposed / is used by others for referring to the types of attraction Blanchard discusses; and the typology for reasons including e.g. that it posits ''autogynephilia'' as trans-only but 4) ''autogynephilia'' is also found in cis women. Also 5) that the typology or its terminology (''homosexual'', ''androphilic'', etc) has sometimes been applied to trans men, and 6) a sentence (or two) summarizing the ] section. ] (]) 17:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
:If that's not the way things are why don't we make them that way.
::Again I'm just sharing what I recall of our past perspectives and motivations. The page belongs to the present. Those all sound like reasonable things to add. I'd say given the current moment, and wanting to avoid an unending cycle of arguing about terminology.. the following.
::"Blanchard's transsexualism typology states that there are two types of transsexual androphillic, and non-androphillic. Androphillic transsexuals are attracted to men, and are a 5-6 or the Kinsey scale (link to that article cite the papers for what they say). According to this typology other transexuals are non-androphillic and instead have a paraphilic attraction to the idea or image of themselves as a woman. This idea is controversial because it reduces transsexual women to their sexualities, it does not account for transmen, and has been used to further political actions against transwomen.
::I'd sum it up that way. I am sure the comedian, you'll see which user that was in the archive of the talk page would not think I said enough about why its controversial. The psychologist would not like using androphillic vs non-androphillic. (I can't believe this issue has been a controversy for so long. A child born in 2007-2008 would be in high school now.)] (]) 16:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed with sche here that the lead should be expanded, and basically in the way outlined. I also think that just a list of critics and supporters doesn't have a lot of encyclopedic value on its own. The article already makes it pretty clear that Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence support the theory, and that Serano, Moser, and others oppose it or parts of it. ] (]) 02:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:FWIW, I think it's obvious that "autogynephilia" should have its own page, and what really happened here is that Misplaced Pages got played by trans activists who couldn't stand the thought of someone googling "autogynephilia" and being directed to a Misplaced Pages page with a fair and accurate description of this subject matter. All the arguments about POV forks and everything else were just dishonest covers for this desire. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::This is already that very page that you crave. It explains the term "autogynephilia" within its context of Blanchard's typology in a fair and accurate way. It makes strenuous effort to take the idea as seriously as it is physically possible to without straining a muscle. There is no point in a stand alone article as it would either have to refer back here for the entire conceptual framework within which the term "autogynephilia" exists or else just duplicate more than half of this article. I don't even think that there is anything more to say about it than we already say here. It would be completely redundant.
::The problem is that you want to make it look like "autogynephilia" is an accepted thing, existing in the real world, separate from Blanchard's non-mainstream typology. That simply isn't something that is widely accepted. The only people who think that "autogynephilia" is real and meaningful are people who adhere to the typology. That's a very small group (dare I say fringe?) in the medical community even if the idea has caught, on to a limited extent, outside of academia.
::It makes absolutely no sense to spin it out separately. It would be twice as much trouble for the editors and only make things more confusing and disjointed for the readers. ] (]) 18:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
:::A few points in response. First, and most obviously, while you can say what you want about Ray Blanchard and his various claims. the CONCEPT of autogynephilia obviously describes a true phenomenon. Why do we know this? Well, in addition to Blanchard's and Bailey's observations, we have: (1) 100 years of data going all the way back to data collected by Magnus Hirschfeld that describe assigned males coming in to clinics and describing an erotic attraction to the notion of being a woman-- Hirschfeld, Kurt Freund, and others gave different names for this, but they all took down detailed histories (because back then, gender clinics gatekept rigorously) and there are in fact tons of documented autogynephiles; (2) clinicians have described fetishistic cross-dressing for decades (I should add, a totally different subject from transsexualism), and one of the causes of fetishistic cross-dressing is males who have an erotic attraction to being or becoming a woman; and (3) we have autogynephiles themselves, which includes not only AGP activists like Anne Lawrence but also even one of the person who led the attacks on Michael Bailey, who said herself that autogynephilia described her experience.
:::So when you say "I want to make it look like 'autogynephilia' is an accepted thing, existing in the real world", you are arguing from a position of unreality and proving my point. You obviously don't want this thing that exists to exist, in exactly the same way that a devout evangelical might not want Darwinian evolution to be true. And of course, coming from that position of denial of strongly evidenced reality, of course you don't want there to be a standalone Misplaced Pages page, for EXACTLY the reason I said-- because you don't want an authoritative encyclopedia to document this thing that you wish didn't exist even though it does.
:::Finally, the German Misplaced Pages page has a page for . German Misplaced Pages runs under the exact same rules as Engish language Misplaced Pages. And yet they have this page. That strongly suggests that your position is exactly what I said it is.
:::An encyclopedia that wants to be authoritative got played by a bunch of trans activists who really, truly, wish something isn't true and want to skew the discourse to misinform readers. That's the whole story here. (BTW the different IP address on my signature is because I am away from home while I type this.) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::One do not have to be a trans activist to say that Blanchard didn't prove that ''all'' gynephilic trans women ''transition because of'' sexual fantasies. To prove this, it would take a little more than simply finding such fantasies among a few groups of gynephilic trans women. Freud (who didn't focus on trans people and made such claims about humanity in general) also did not prove this kind of thing. This is Blanchard's point, not that ''some trans women have sexual fantasies related to having a female body''. Neither scholars nor transgender rights activists argue with this. But autogynephilia is not a universally accepted term for this kink, there are scholars who prefer other terms. ] (]) 09:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::So what? There are many concepts out there where some scholars prefer some terms and some scholars prefer other terms. And it's not like Misplaced Pages just lists it under a different term (like Julia Serano's "Female Emobdiment Fantasy"). It doesn't list it all, instead subsuming it under a bunch of jargon ("Blanchard's Transsexualism Typology"), which is just obviously an attempt to bury the concept.
:::::Here's the point. The CONCEPT is notable under the Misplaced Pages definition of that term. It's debated. It's discussed. Everyone talks about it. Indeed, even its use as a slur (which to be clear, I find deplorable) is itself evidence of notability. Everyone knows what AGP is. It has its own page in other languages on Misplaced Pages. So what is going on here?
:::::Isn't it obvious? Trans activists hate this term. They have been out for blood against it ever since Michael Bailey wrote his book about it. And Misplaced Pages has allowed those activists to game the system here, to take a notable concept that absolutely deserves its own page and bury it, because it would hurt their feelings and perhaps harm their political project if someone googled the term and found a Misplaced Pages page for it. ] (]) 00:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::I would add, that there seems to be an unfair standard implicitly being applied. To wit, that AGP must have some level of scholarly acceptance to merit its own article. It need not. It is possible that scholars of sexuality are minded to resist a standalone article because the concept is seen as fringe in academic circles. However, it can nevertheless be notable. ] (]) 04:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Just because something is notable doesn't mean it is best covered in a standalone article. No one is disputing the notability of this concept, but as DanielRigal mentions, the concept is better covered in this article. ] (]) 04:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::I respectfully disagree - the Anglophone right have made such a fetish of this concept that it likely merits its own article. Most lay sources do not refer to it as part of a sexological typology.
::::::::However, I can see consensus is against me, so I won't press the point. ] (]) 23:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Please can we ]? Conspiratorial ranting is ] and generally gets us nowhere. We are not required to jump to attention just because a succession of IP addresses think that we are not giving their pet <s>theory</s> conjecture the walled garden of articles that they think it deserves. ] (]) 12:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Claim all you want that wanting a separate article for AGP is just "conspiratorial ranting," but it's not and calling it that doesn't make it so. ] (]) 01:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::If you think that, feel free to start ] in a new section. I would strongly suggest that you include an array of ] and ] that assert it's a notable topic in isolation from the typology however. You should also review all of the prior discussions both here and on ] for why the article was merged into this one 14 years, and why the multiple attempts at recreating a stand-alone article have failed. ] (]) 01:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


== Controversy ==
:Jokestress please stop with the conspiracy type talk it's really not all that serious. --] (]) 23:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Nowhere in the article is the explanatory status of the typology according to modern medicine indicated. Shouldn't the lead or body indicate the fringe or historical nature of the theory?
::Actually, I think it's serious. WhatamIdoing has an avowed hatred for Jokestress, and teamed up with BBL insider James Cantor to pitch many articles along the policy lines of the Zucker sexologists. That's the reality we're coming from. The question is just how to deal with it. ] (]) 00:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
:::Following AJ's clue I must say I am surprised. It seems that every person by her name has some kind of post graduate education. However I see nothing that would indicate a COI or any motive to become involved in a grand conspiracy.


If one looks at other articles on fringe theories that have long been disproven, their academic status is clearly indicated.
:::Could you point me to a link where she "avows hatred". I never sensed hatred it seems like she was sucked into the whirlpool of BBL and cant get out.


The page for ] does not say "controversial" for example. Adherents to that theory, and this theory, are ideological in nature, as there's no empirical data to support their validity. Many modern nazis adhere to the theory of social degeneration. The article simply refers to the theory matter-of-factly as historical, not controversial.
:::For my part WAID points out rightly that even I being familiar with the players involved and, in comparison to everyone else, their neighbor I have a mild COI. Namely I don't want to get an angry knock at the door (Which could happen I am easily findable.)


What is the general rule on Misplaced Pages for this sort of thing?
::::Again, I have no particular hope of convincing Jokestress, although other editors may want to know that I'm not the only person in my extended family with the same first name, and Jokestress' list of "COI crimes" includes more than one person.
::::Even if every claim Jokestress made were entirely true, however, I don't see anything in ] that any of these claims might fall under. For example, chatting with people in a bar and writing a book about what they said (what Bailey did) isn't usually part of the drug development process, so I can't see how drug development processes could be affected by it (even if they'd decided that he needed IRB approval to write a book, which they didn't). Believing that Jokestress showed appallingly bad judgment in attacking Bailey's kids also isn't in the COI list. ] (]) 02:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::I'm just trying to give everyone an honest hearing. They say these things and I wonder where's the beef. I mean the name they allude to is not really unusual. Their seem to be at least a few distinct people who come up when it is Google'd.


] (]) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::Dicklyon please show me where the beef is so we can settle this. Nothing I have found on my own would indicate a COI or anything amiss in this specific instance. I don't think I found everything or even what you had in mind. Email me the info/link if you prefer that (gravitygirl62 #@# Gmail.com). --] (]) 08:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:35, 16 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blanchard's transsexualism typology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
    The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
    The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
    Blanchard's transsexualism typology received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
    This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
    It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
    WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
    MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Mid‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. 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
    MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
    WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. 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
    The contents of the Autogynephilia page were merged into Blanchard's transsexualism typology on 11 September 2010. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

    The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
    • Becker, Judith V.; Perkins, Andrew (2014). "Gender Dysphoria". In Hales, Robert E.; Yudofsky, Stuart C.; Roberts, Laura Weiss (eds.). The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 688. ISBN 978-1-5856-2444-7.
    • Rider, G. Nic; Tebbe, Elliot A. (2021). "Anti-Trans Theories". In Goldberg, Abbie E.; Beemyn, Genny (eds.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies, Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. pp. 39–43. doi:10.4135/9781544393858.n12. ISBN 978-1-5443-9382-7.

    Notes From The Stone Age

    Once upon a time a long time ago me and two other users, more or less, argued and fought and jousted to create these articles. I still correspond with them off WP from time to time. One was a comedian, the other a psychologist. Points they made that I recall will be attributed in that manner. You can read the talk pages of those old articles to see for yourself. That said here are some observations I hope will help in condensing and re-writing this article.

    • Make sure that the first paragraph contains a summary of what Blanchard's typology is and the criticisms of it. The comedian made the point that most people won't read much beyond the first paragraph. Almost 20 years of Twitterfication of internet reading and I believe her. I wonder if people read beyond the title of an article a lot of the time.
    • Make sure that you keep tightly to the peer reviewed published papers of Blanchard when describing his work and also to the similarly published works that refute or support his work. The psychologist was understandably big on that. Misplaced Pages may be stricter about that now. Back then a website by the right kind of person could suffice and be presented here as a refutation of such a work.
    • Make sure the article is about the the subject not just the criticism and critique of the subject. This is what my mission here was, as I saw it, the comedian and the psychologist might not agree. The comedian wanted almost all of the article to be about the criticism. The psychologist would've had almost none of it. So much of the articles "Autogynephilia" and "Homosexual Transsexual" were about the criticism of the subject. They were about a controversy over a book from that time. Mention those but the article needs to be about the subject for the most part. ( By the by,It refers to sex not gender and so does not misgender. It does reduce transwomen who are into men to their sex drive)
    • Last and most important keep this in mind. 'Everyone working on this is acting voluntarily and in good faith.' If I have learned anything by interacting with those people online in other forums and on other topics is that any argument over this does not matter. Just remember to relax.

    Those are my points. Feel free to ignore all of it. What do us dinosaurs know?Hfarmer (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

    You make a good point about the need to ensure the lead is complete. The lead is currently pretty short and contains just one sentence explaining what the typology is: "Blanchard categorized trans women into two groups: homosexual transsexuals who are attracted exclusively to men and are feminine in both behavior and appearance; and autogynephilic transsexuals who experience sexual arousal at the idea of having a female body (autogynephilia)." IMO this could be expanded to include 1) not only that he defines the first group by attraction (which the lead currently does mention), but that the second group is a collection of everyone else — those attracted to women, those attracted to "both", those attracted to "neither" (and hence alternately termed non-homosexual transsexuals). Other things the body devotes sections to which could be added to the lead: 2) why the typology and terminology have been criticized: the terminology for being confusing and misgendering, for which reason 3) alternative terminology has been proposed / is used by others for referring to the types of attraction Blanchard discusses; and the typology for reasons including e.g. that it posits autogynephilia as trans-only but 4) autogynephilia is also found in cis women. Also 5) that the typology or its terminology (homosexual, androphilic, etc) has sometimes been applied to trans men, and 6) a sentence (or two) summarizing the § Societal impact section. -sche (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
    Again I'm just sharing what I recall of our past perspectives and motivations. The page belongs to the present. Those all sound like reasonable things to add. I'd say given the current moment, and wanting to avoid an unending cycle of arguing about terminology.. the following.
    "Blanchard's transsexualism typology states that there are two types of transsexual androphillic, and non-androphillic. Androphillic transsexuals are attracted to men, and are a 5-6 or the Kinsey scale (link to that article cite the papers for what they say). According to this typology other transexuals are non-androphillic and instead have a paraphilic attraction to the idea or image of themselves as a woman. This idea is controversial because it reduces transsexual women to their sexualities, it does not account for transmen, and has been used to further political actions against transwomen.
    I'd sum it up that way. I am sure the comedian, you'll see which user that was in the archive of the talk page would not think I said enough about why its controversial. The psychologist would not like using androphillic vs non-androphillic. (I can't believe this issue has been a controversy for so long. A child born in 2007-2008 would be in high school now.)Hfarmer (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed with sche here that the lead should be expanded, and basically in the way outlined. I also think that just a list of critics and supporters doesn't have a lot of encyclopedic value on its own. The article already makes it pretty clear that Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence support the theory, and that Serano, Moser, and others oppose it or parts of it. Loki (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
    FWIW, I think it's obvious that "autogynephilia" should have its own page, and what really happened here is that Misplaced Pages got played by trans activists who couldn't stand the thought of someone googling "autogynephilia" and being directed to a Misplaced Pages page with a fair and accurate description of this subject matter. All the arguments about POV forks and everything else were just dishonest covers for this desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.130.250 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
    This is already that very page that you crave. It explains the term "autogynephilia" within its context of Blanchard's typology in a fair and accurate way. It makes strenuous effort to take the idea as seriously as it is physically possible to without straining a muscle. There is no point in a stand alone article as it would either have to refer back here for the entire conceptual framework within which the term "autogynephilia" exists or else just duplicate more than half of this article. I don't even think that there is anything more to say about it than we already say here. It would be completely redundant.
    The problem is that you want to make it look like "autogynephilia" is an accepted thing, existing in the real world, separate from Blanchard's non-mainstream typology. That simply isn't something that is widely accepted. The only people who think that "autogynephilia" is real and meaningful are people who adhere to the typology. That's a very small group (dare I say fringe?) in the medical community even if the idea has caught, on to a limited extent, outside of academia.
    It makes absolutely no sense to spin it out separately. It would be twice as much trouble for the editors and only make things more confusing and disjointed for the readers. DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
    A few points in response. First, and most obviously, while you can say what you want about Ray Blanchard and his various claims. the CONCEPT of autogynephilia obviously describes a true phenomenon. Why do we know this? Well, in addition to Blanchard's and Bailey's observations, we have: (1) 100 years of data going all the way back to data collected by Magnus Hirschfeld that describe assigned males coming in to clinics and describing an erotic attraction to the notion of being a woman-- Hirschfeld, Kurt Freund, and others gave different names for this, but they all took down detailed histories (because back then, gender clinics gatekept rigorously) and there are in fact tons of documented autogynephiles; (2) clinicians have described fetishistic cross-dressing for decades (I should add, a totally different subject from transsexualism), and one of the causes of fetishistic cross-dressing is males who have an erotic attraction to being or becoming a woman; and (3) we have autogynephiles themselves, which includes not only AGP activists like Anne Lawrence but also even one of the person who led the attacks on Michael Bailey, who said herself that autogynephilia described her experience.
    So when you say "I want to make it look like 'autogynephilia' is an accepted thing, existing in the real world", you are arguing from a position of unreality and proving my point. You obviously don't want this thing that exists to exist, in exactly the same way that a devout evangelical might not want Darwinian evolution to be true. And of course, coming from that position of denial of strongly evidenced reality, of course you don't want there to be a standalone Misplaced Pages page, for EXACTLY the reason I said-- because you don't want an authoritative encyclopedia to document this thing that you wish didn't exist even though it does.
    Finally, the German Misplaced Pages page has a page for autogynephilia. German Misplaced Pages runs under the exact same rules as Engish language Misplaced Pages. And yet they have this page. That strongly suggests that your position is exactly what I said it is.
    An encyclopedia that wants to be authoritative got played by a bunch of trans activists who really, truly, wish something isn't true and want to skew the discourse to misinform readers. That's the whole story here. (BTW the different IP address on my signature is because I am away from home while I type this.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.110.117.250 (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    One do not have to be a trans activist to say that Blanchard didn't prove that all gynephilic trans women transition because of sexual fantasies. To prove this, it would take a little more than simply finding such fantasies among a few groups of gynephilic trans women. Freud (who didn't focus on trans people and made such claims about humanity in general) also did not prove this kind of thing. This is Blanchard's point, not that some trans women have sexual fantasies related to having a female body. Neither scholars nor transgender rights activists argue with this. But autogynephilia is not a universally accepted term for this kink, there are scholars who prefer other terms. Reprarina (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
    So what? There are many concepts out there where some scholars prefer some terms and some scholars prefer other terms. And it's not like Misplaced Pages just lists it under a different term (like Julia Serano's "Female Emobdiment Fantasy"). It doesn't list it all, instead subsuming it under a bunch of jargon ("Blanchard's Transsexualism Typology"), which is just obviously an attempt to bury the concept.
    Here's the point. The CONCEPT is notable under the Misplaced Pages definition of that term. It's debated. It's discussed. Everyone talks about it. Indeed, even its use as a slur (which to be clear, I find deplorable) is itself evidence of notability. Everyone knows what AGP is. It has its own page in other languages on Misplaced Pages. So what is going on here?
    Isn't it obvious? Trans activists hate this term. They have been out for blood against it ever since Michael Bailey wrote his book about it. And Misplaced Pages has allowed those activists to game the system here, to take a notable concept that absolutely deserves its own page and bury it, because it would hurt their feelings and perhaps harm their political project if someone googled the term and found a Misplaced Pages page for it. 47.145.135.156 (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
    I would add, that there seems to be an unfair standard implicitly being applied. To wit, that AGP must have some level of scholarly acceptance to merit its own article. It need not. It is possible that scholars of sexuality are minded to resist a standalone article because the concept is seen as fringe in academic circles. However, it can nevertheless be notable. Riposte97 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
    Just because something is notable doesn't mean it is best covered in a standalone article. No one is disputing the notability of this concept, but as DanielRigal mentions, the concept is better covered in this article. Galobtter (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
    I respectfully disagree - the Anglophone right have made such a fetish of this concept that it likely merits its own article. Most lay sources do not refer to it as part of a sexological typology.
    However, I can see consensus is against me, so I won't press the point. Riposte97 (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
    Please can we not feed the trolls? Conspiratorial ranting is WP:NOTFORUM and generally gets us nowhere. We are not required to jump to attention just because a succession of IP addresses think that we are not giving their pet theory conjecture the walled garden of articles that they think it deserves. DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
    Claim all you want that wanting a separate article for AGP is just "conspiratorial ranting," but it's not and calling it that doesn't make it so. Hooky6 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    If you think that, feel free to start a split request in a new section. I would strongly suggest that you include an array of independent and reliable sources that assert it's a notable topic in isolation from the typology however. You should also review all of the prior discussions both here and on Talk:Autogynephilia for why the article was merged into this one 14 years, and why the multiple attempts at recreating a stand-alone article have failed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

    Controversy

    Nowhere in the article is the explanatory status of the typology according to modern medicine indicated. Shouldn't the lead or body indicate the fringe or historical nature of the theory?

    If one looks at other articles on fringe theories that have long been disproven, their academic status is clearly indicated.

    The page for social degeneration does not say "controversial" for example. Adherents to that theory, and this theory, are ideological in nature, as there's no empirical data to support their validity. Many modern nazis adhere to the theory of social degeneration. The article simply refers to the theory matter-of-factly as historical, not controversial.

    What is the general rule on Misplaced Pages for this sort of thing?

    96.60.79.128 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

    Categories: