| Revision as of 17:58, 6 May 2011 editTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,517 edits →Published evidence showed, demonstrated, or what?: reply, and questions to multiple editors← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:11, 21 December 2024 edit undoRoxySaunders (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions3,006 edits Reverted 1 edit by 77.99.27.143 (talk): Misplaced Pages is not a discussion forum. For general knowledge questions, you can consult the WP:REFDESK . See also simple:transgender and wikt:transgender.Tags: Twinkle Undo |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Notaforum}} |
|
{{skip to bottom}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum|transgender people}} |
|
{{LGBTProject |class=B |old-peer-review=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
{{FAOL|German|de:Transgender}} |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa|style=long}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies|old-peer-review=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=top |needs-infobox=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transsexual|date=2015-07-08|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transsexual/Archive_7#Merger_Proposal_with_Transgender}} |
|
|
{{Old merge full|otherpage=Transsexual|date=2018-01-19|result=the articles were not merged|talk=Talk:Transgender/Archive_7#Merge_Transsexual_into_Transgender}} |
|
|
{{Page views double}} |
|
|
{{section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 11 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Transgender/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Transgender/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 == |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Transgender|answered=yes}} |
|
== Collected references == |
|
|
|
I think it might be a good idea to add a source to the sentence that the word transgenderism was once considered acceptable. I found this article when looking it up: "https://juliaserano.medium.com/the-history-of-the-word-transgenderism-55fd9bbf65cc". ] (]) 20:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Discussion at ]== |
|
If you cite something. Place the main citation here and then a reference tag in the above. Keep this section the bottom. This way any references that are used can be easily found. |
|
|
|
] You are invited to join the discussion at ].  Please join the move discussion for a primary redirect to this article currently in progress. ] (]) 23:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> |
|
<ref name="Ts-Si_Gaughan">{{cite web |
|
|
| last = Gaughan |
|
|
| first = Sharon |
|
|
| authorlink = |
|
|
| coauthors = |
|
|
| title = What About Non-op Transsexuals? A No-op Notion |
|
|
| work = |
|
|
| publisher = TS-SI |
|
|
| date = Saturday, 19 August 2006 |
|
|
| url = http://ts-si.org/content/view/1409/995/ |
|
|
| format = HTML |
|
|
| doi = |
|
|
| accessdate = ]]}}</ref><ref name="Hemingway1">{{Citation |
|
|
| last = Conway |
|
|
| first = Lynn |
|
|
| author-link = http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/conway.html |
|
|
| last2 = |
|
|
| first2 = |
|
|
| author2-link = |
|
|
| title = The Strange Saga of Gregory Hemmingway |
|
|
| date = |
|
|
| year = 2003 |
|
|
| url = http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/GregoryHemingway.html |
|
|
| accessdate = }}</ref><ref name="Hemingway2">{{Citation |
|
|
| last = Schoenberg |
|
|
| first = Nara |
|
|
| author-link = http://www.facebook.com/people/Nara_Schoenberg/838374580 |
|
|
| last2 = |
|
|
| first2 = |
|
|
| author2-link = |
|
|
| title = The Son Also Falls From elephant hunter to bejeweled exhibitionist, the tortured life of Gregory Hemingway. |
|
|
| newspaper = CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
|
|
| pages = |
|
|
| year = 2001 |
|
|
| date = November 19 |
|
|
| url =http://web.archive.org/web/20011120185300/http://www.newsday.com/features/printedition/ny-p2cover2470306nov19.story?coll=ny-features-print }} |
|
|
</ref><ref name="Nonopexample1">{{cite video |
|
|
| people = ] |
|
|
| title = Excerpt of "There's Something About Miriam". Miriam a known non-op transsexual talks about how she see's her self, her history, and transsexuality. Compare to Gregory Hemingway then tell me Hemingway is the real post op woman. |
|
|
| medium = Television Via Youtube |
|
|
| publisher = Edemol & Brighter picture via various Newscorp properties. |
|
|
| location = Filmed in Ibiza, Spain Produced in England. |
|
|
| year2 = 2004}} |
|
|
</ref><ref name="FTMop">{{Citation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Transgender & Transsexual == |
|
| last = |
|
|
| first = |
|
|
| author-link = |
|
|
| last2 = |
|
|
| first2 = |
|
|
| author2-link = |
|
|
| title = Female to Male |
|
|
| date = |
|
|
| year = |
|
|
| url = http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Female-to-male/ |
|
|
| accessdate = }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This question is not about people, but about terminology. Please don't flame me. I've read both articles and a goodly chunk of the archives. Maybe I missed it, but I can't find RS that really explains the difference between terms "transsexual" and "transgender" or makes a definite statement that they are the same. I find lots of opinions, but no sourcing. As a follow-on, are there particular researchers who have made a study of how use of the terms has changed over time? ] (]) 21:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Section on religious views == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@]: Flame! Haha, just kidding. :) |
|
The Bible verses cited are unclear on a number of levels. First, practically speaking, the links each lead to the first chapter of the cited book in the ]. That makes them effectively useless. When I went to edit the section, I saw the verse numbers are included in the source code, but apparently either the wrong Bible-citation template is being used, or it is being used incorrectly. I am not up-to-date on the ] but perhaps (for now at least) {{tl|bibleverse}} should replace {{tl|bibleref}}. |
|
|
|
:Are you looking for new sources to add to the article, or sources for your own research? If the latter, I would recommend that you check out the terminology section on this article and see if there are any relevant sources there - I seem to recall finding relevant information to your query a month or two ago when I was checking some sources for this article. If the former, let me know, and perhaps I can help your search. In either case, the sources at the bottom of the article, especially the academic sources (some of the sources in "References" are sorted by type and some are not), may help you in your search. Perhaps you could check out the references in the linked sources themselves. Have a good day! |
|
|
:] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::https://glaad.org/reference/trans-terms |
|
|
::Scroll down to "Transsexual" |
|
|
::] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::more academic sources, found with google scholar: |
|
|
:::https://quadernsdepsicologia.cat/article/view/v20-n3-aguirre |
|
|
:::(spanish website but english pdf) |
|
|
:::https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ST2XEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=transgender+transsexual+terminology&ots=bO_jhuXH4Y&sig=Ks_R3H1MT8KLWTXce-YqrLaNZZY#v=onepage&q=transgender%20transsexual%20terminology&f=false |
|
|
:::https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=A1emBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA173&dq=transgender+transsexual+terminology&ots=qyJWq9B-6F&sig=BJSEGZjO2N6TwInE42rhWHlEFec#v=onepage&q=transgender%20transsexual%20terminology&f=false |
|
|
:::https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-29093-1_4 ] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You're right, there doesn't seem to be an exhaustive etymological analysis of the differing word uses, at least based on my cursory search. That's unfortunate. |
|
|
::::] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks for the sources. At least it's someplace to start. And to answer the early q, it's for personal research but I'd hoped to improve the article when/if I found something that really talked to the terminology. ] (]) 22:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== LatAm section == |
|
Second, the verses listed as potentially supportive of transgender need explanation. To those unfamiliar with whatever scholarship may have been done on this issue, they may seem vague at best to irrelevant at worst. It would be better to cite a secondary source from a theologian drawing support from those verses. I know there is a secondary article specifically for religion and transgender, but the summary present in this article should nevertheless be clear, if not detailed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This phrase "They are framed as something entirely separate from transgender women, who possess the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" does not make sense, and I wonder that's really what the author even hinted at saying that. I guess it could be reworded. But does this mean they are framed as cis women or trans men? Because "the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" is not clear. Or did this try to explain what is a trans woman? Then you can just replace female with male, but would this contextualization be necessary? ] (]) 01:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
--]<sup>]</sup> 14:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] hi can you take a look? ] (]) 01:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== POV in mental health section == |
|
|
|
::"who possess the same gender identity as people assigned female at birth" is the confusing part - how does my reword look? I just removed the confusing clause, as anything else would have required unsourced generalizations ] (]) | :) | he/him | 06:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2024 == |
|
This section starts by preaching treatment, then switches to lambasting those that aim to 'cure' the transgendered. Neither POV is properly attributed, and the statements about Zucker's motives only come from activist sites. ] (]) 17:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit extended-protected|Transgender|answered=yes}} |
|
== Christianity == |
|
|
|
Add this to ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{tq| |
|
The section on religion needs to reflect that Christianity as a faith generally condemns lady men and the like. There are some Protestant denominations that have probably decided to tolerate such behavior but they're not of comparable following with more traditional denominations. ] (]) 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The term "trans*" (with an ]) emerged in the 1990s as an ] term used to encompass a wide range of non-cisgender identities. The asterisk serves as a ], indicating the inclusion of various identities beyond just transgender and transsexual, such as ] or ]. The use of the asterisk in "trans*" has been debated, either arguing that it adds unnecessary complexity or that enhances inclusivity by explicitly recognizing non-normative gender identities. |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
== Published evidence showed, demonstrated, or what? == |
|
|
|
|
|
On the mainpage, there is discussion of how best describe scientific findings. The page, thus far, uses words such as "show" to describe findings, such as: |
|
|
:In 1997, J.N. Zhou, M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab conducted tests on the brains of transgender individuals. Their tests '''showed''' that... |
|
|
:Their study was the first to '''show''' a female brain structure... |
|
|
:Their study '''shows''' male to female transsexuals are... |
|
|
I am of the opinion that to maintain NPOV, one would also described Blanchard's original taxonomic finding as: |
|
|
:Blanchard '''showed''' that there were... |
|
|
or similar.<br> |
|
|
I am sure that other acceptible phrases can be found for describing research findings accurately, but describing a desired finding as "shown" but undesired findings as dubious is pretty much the definition of failing NPOV. What other NPOV options for phrasing can folks suggest?<br> |
|
|
] (]) 20:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:James, as an academic, you should know the difference between observed phenomenon (such as the size of a brain structure) and the result of a correlation between self-reported factors that are used as a proxy for the operationalization of a concept. So, what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation, which is still not causation. Hence, he has NOT demonstrated that there are two types, but only shown that it is possible to subdivide the group in two subgroups using his criteria suggesting that maybe his idea is correct. Furthermore, in line with your pledge not to edit autogynephilia and related articles, I am surprised to see you popping up here. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Kim, 1. You appear to be addressing the wrong debate. Blanchard was making a taxonomic statement (i.e., what goes with what); he did not make and his data did not show ''either'' a correlation ''or'' a causation. He merely showed that the homosexual group was very distinct from all the other groups. As a postdoc, you should be able to recognize both correlations and their absence. |
|
|
::2. Blanchard did not take a group and divide it. Either you didn't read his papers or you are willfully ignoring their contents. Blanchard did the very opposite of dividing. He took what was then believed to be a multiplicity of phenomena and showed that they were ''reduceable'' to two. The lay literature usually gets this wrong, but the professional literature does a better job. |
|
|
::So, to get back to the mainpage: The discussion relevant here is how to describe Blanchard's (and any other) findings for readers in a way unpolluted from the views of the editor providing them. So, what exactly are you suggesting to use as text? |
|
|
::] (]) 21:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm surprised you're surprised...Actually, I'm not surprised at all. Throughout our interactions, I have had the consistent impression that you react to what ''you think'' I am saying because I am a researcher, for example, rather than react to what I am actually writing. In fact, I have found myself wondering at your hostile tone towards me when your next edit was to express (to someone else) the very same idea I had just pointed out. |
|
|
:::The pages I pledged not to edit were specifically to end a long series of edit wars with specific other editors (and my invitation that they join me in that self-imposed ban stands). This page was never wrapped up in the problem my pledge was meant to help solve. No mystery. |
|
|
:::] (]) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"In order to prevent whatever COI I might be perceived to have from affecting Misplaced Pages, I pledge not to edit article space of the pages listed below, and I invite both Dicklyon, Jokestress to do the same.... ] ... " ] |
|
|
::::Your phrasing here appears to acknowledge the (arguable) existence of a COI which may lead to an appearance of impropriety, rather than a temporary truce in edit wars on certain topics... which you will resume on another front. |
|
|
::::Do you believe that editing a section on Autogynephilia in the ] article is somehow not (by analogy) a part of the "article space" on Autogynephilia? |
|
|
::::Also, with respect to my earlier edit which you reverted: when I stated "Autogynephilia - deleted ULTRA-controversial minority claim by Anne Lawrence of relationship to aptemnophilia - THIS DOESN'T BELONG AT THE TOP!" in my edit summary, I meant to imply: ] is at a higher level ''conceptually'' than ], and again that is at a higher level than ] or the subject of "Similarities postulated between transsexualism and apotemnophilia". I don't see why such (admittedly interesting, yet recondite) arguments have found their way to the "top level" relating to "transgenderism" in general. |
|
|
::::Just to note: I find that the organization of gender-related topics in Misplaced Pages is a wretched mess, and the articles themselves foci of partisan contention, so this topic creep isn't really surprising to me. |
|
|
::::— ] (]) 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Yes. |
|
|
:::::1. I gave my pledge in response to a series of edit wars on the pages I listed. Of the three of editors involved, only I made such a pledge. It was to specific pages, not a topic. To insinuate that I am somehow at fault for not going farther, when no other editor would go as far as I, is a bit silly. |
|
|
:::::2. We are now going back ''years'' since I gave that pledge, and have held to it, without exception. To call that ''temporary'' in wikipedia time is, again, a bit silly. |
|
|
:::::3. I'm not the one who put "autogynephilia" here, nor am I the one who put the neurological data here. I merely updated it with more recent RS's. |
|
|
:::::4. I agree entirely with the poor state of this family of topics and that the articles themselves are a series of scars from edit wars with community activists who do not like the picture emerging from the research, and so scapegoat and discount the researchers. Indeed, the extent of the activists' war against science has itself become a notable topic. |
|
|
:::::] (]) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No. I address the right debate. No, Blanchard first made an artificial grouping using two continuous variables (degree of attraction to men and women) in a cluster analysis dividing them in four groups by using the four corners of the square as reference points. The data are quite uneven positioned across the square. Anyway, he then uses this artificial grouping to see how they scored on certain factors: |
|
|
::::''Fisher Exact tests were used to compare the frequency with which subjects in the four clusters reported a history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing. As predicted, there were no differences among the asexual, bisexual, and heterosexual transsexuals, and all three groups included a much higher proportion of fetishistic cases than the homosexual group (p .0001, two-tailed).'' |
|
|
:::This is a correlation between sexual orientation group and ''whether or not they have a history of erotic arousal in association with cross-dressing''. So, now that we have that issue out of the way, we can find proper words for the correlation he found on which he based his topology. Words like suggest. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You're still not understanding your own point. You said "what Blanchard has done is showing a correlation, which is still not causation", meaning that Blanchard was not able to make any causal statements. You are entirely correct that one cannot draw a causal conclusion from correlational data, but what I seem to be having trouble getting across is that ''Blanchard didn't make a causal statement in the first place!'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::::More to the point (that you are arguing from ]): The specific paper you are talking about above is Blanchard (1985), an RS which does not even appear on the mainpage. Rather, statements about it are in the secondary sources that ''are'' on the mainpage (specifically, Bailey, 2003 and Smith et al., 2005). That ''you'' happen to] with Blanchard (1985)'s typology doesn't mean you get to change what the RS's say. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Next, you expressed in the above that you take neurological evidence over self-report evidence. For the record (and as a person who has published both neurological ''and'' behavioral/self-report research), I believe it is a grave intellectual error to hold neurological evidence to be automatically superior. Nonetheless, the typological question has been answered neurologically as well as on the basis of self-report. (Incidentally, very many transsexuals would not appreciate having their self-reports disregarded.) I have added to the mainpage two recent neurological studies (entirely independent of Blanchard) that show exactly the typology Blanchard predicted. |
|
|
:::::Rametti, G., Carrillo, B., Gómez-Gil, E., Junque, C., Zubiarre-Elorza, L., Segovia, S., Gomez, Á, & Guillamon, A. (2011). The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A DTI study. ''Journal of Psychiatric Research, 45,'' 199-204. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.05.006 |
|
|
:::::Savic, I., & Arver, S. (2011). Sex dimorphism of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals. ''Cerebral Cortex.'' doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr032 |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Next, we have two neurological articles showing that the Zhou finding, for which you express favor, was in error. (One '''demonstrated''' that the BNST difference doesn't emerge until adulthood, and the other '''showed''' that the BNST changes in response to the hormone therapy that transsexuals take, thus '''indicating''' that the BNST difference prevously reported was due to hormonal therapy, no due to being the cause transsexualism. |
|
|
:::::Chung. W., De Vries, G., & Swaab, D. (2002). Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood. ''Journal of Neuroscience, 22,'' 1027–1033. |
|
|
:::::Hulshoff Pol, H. E., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Van Haren, N. E., Peper, J. S., Brans, R. G., Cahn, W., et al. (2006). Changing your sex changes your brain: Influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure. ''European Journal of Endocrinology, 155''(Suppl. 1), S107-S114. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::So, whether you use neurological vs. self-report as your criterion or independent replicability as your criterion (or anything else other than ]) the same conclusion emerges. It is a pretty clear violation of ] (and probably ]) to say Blanchard's (repeatedly verified) finding '''suggests''' but Zhou's (repeatedly disproven) finding '''shows'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Perhaps you might bring this issue up at the neuroscience project for input? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::] (]) 00:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Sorry James, but your flood of words does not change things as they are. If someone finds a difference in the size of a specific part of the brain, that is a direct observation and the word show is appropriate. The interpretation of that is correlative, and show is not appropriate. |
|
|
:::::I am glad we agree that ''Blanchard didn't make a causal statement in the first place!''. I agree. Hence, he has not shown that autogynephilia explains gynephilic transwomen. Therefore, the word is inappropriate. It is his inference of the data. |
|
|
:::::Contrary to your impression, I do not hold neuroanatomical evidence to a higher standard, to the contrary, I believe that they both have their value in the appropriate study. I find you statement ''Incidentally, very many transsexuals would not appreciate having their self-reports disregarded.'' curious, as self-reports of non-autogynephilic gynephilic transwoman and autogynephilic androphylic transwomen are routinely disregarded by proponents of the Blanchard dichotomy. But I guess I should read that as that you disagree with disregarding those self-reports. |
|
|
:::::Now for the suggested demolition of the Zhou et al papers. The Hulshoff Pol et al paper does not address the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST or BSTc) part at all, just general brain volume and hypothalamus volume. The latter, where the BSTc is located, incidentally changes in the same way between MtF subjects and female controls. ZHpou et al also looked at one MtF who had not yet started hormone theray, and that person was square in the middle of the other MtF's. If you hypothesis would be correct, that person whould have been an outlier among the MtF's. So, the Hulshoff Pol et al paper does NOT invalidate Zhou et al. |
|
|
:::::The Chung et al paper essentially demonstrates that the differentiation of the BSTc occurs in late puberty, but that does not invalidate Zhou et al, it just pinpoints when the differentiation occurs. |
|
|
:::::So, now that we have dismantled your 'evidence' that you molded in what was obvious ], we can go back to fixing the unwarranted strong support that you want to give your boss' hypothesis. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(Outdenting)<br> |
|
|
1. It was never clear to me how or why you are so angry. Regardless of your emotions, I recommend replacing phrases such as "your flood of words" etc. with more AGF language.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
2. It is still not clear why you are fighting against the idea that Blanchard said (or believes) that autogynephilia explains anything. He never provided it as an explanation. All Blanchard showed was that the multiple phenomena that were being described in those days could actually be described accurately as only two phenomena. There has not been an article in the many years since showing otherwise.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
3. I never said you held neuro data to a higher standard.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
4. There is nothing relevant to the mainpage about "curious, as self-reports of non-autogynephilic gynephilic transwoman and autogynephilic androphylic transwomen are routinely disregarded by proponents of the Blanchard dichotomy" and I have no need to join a war of sneers and to call it a discussion. I merely point out the danger, and what you "read" into what I say is not under my control. Your mind is clearly well made up.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
5. I cannot describe Hulshoff Pol better than Hulshoff Pol, who directly addressed the Zhou data: |
|
|
:"The bed nucleus of the stria terminalis of the hypothalamus, larger in males than in females, was found to be of female size in six MFs and of male size in one FM. All these transsexuals had received cross-sex hormone treatment before their brains were studied. Therefore, the altered size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis could have been due to the exposure of cross-sex hormones in adult life" (p. S108).<br> |
|
|
You are free to your OR, but that's neither here nor there for the mainpage.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
6. Your interpretation of Chung is also incorrect. Zhou et al. wrote that "the small size of the BSTc in male-to-female transsexuals...is established during development by an organzing action of sex hormones" (p. 70). Because Chung found that the BSTc difference does not exist during development, it cannot be the cause. As Chung wrote: |
|
|
:"Late sexual differentiation of the human BSTc volume also affects our perception about the relationship between BSTs volume and transsexuality....Epidemiological studies show that the awareness of gender problems is generally present much earlier. Indeed, 67-78% of transsexuals in adulthood report having strong feelings of being born in the wrong body from childhood onward" (p. 1032).<br> |
|
|
You are free to your OR, but that's neither here nor there for the mainpage.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this any time soon. So, I repeat my earlier suggestion that input be sought from folks, such as at the neuroscience project, who can readily read the neurological data but have no stake in the topic itself.<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
(7. Blanchard is not my boss. In fact, he's retired.)<br> |
|
|
] (]) 17:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===arbitrary break=== |
|
|
:About and , perhaps a solution would be to include the material in that paragraph, but to move it to another part of the page (not in the scientific studies section) and/or to rewrite it to include sources that disagree with it. Thoughts? --] (]) 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::A possibility, of course. But could you flesh out your thinking for me a bit? We have the best known scientist on the topic, writing in the best known scientific journal in the relelvant field, providing an hypothesis for what the scientific studies would show. What's the logic for moving that ''outside'' the science section?...especially when it can be followed by what the scientific studies ''do'' show?] (]) 17:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Actually, I may not have that much thinking to flesh out! As you know, I came to this page as someone who knows little about the subject matter here, but who is comfortable with neuroscience and who can look at the page with fresh eyes. What I see here is discussion about Blanchard being indeed well known but apparently, um, controversial, and the editor who wanted to remove the paragraph saying that it was a prediction, rather than a research finding. What I'm suggesting really does not come from any particular insight into the source material (I don't have such an insight), but from my sense of what is good editing practice on Misplaced Pages, and how the consensus process works. Based on what you say here, is there a way to present this in a single paragraph (so as to make the relationship clearer to the non-specialist reader) as (1) here is Blanchard's prediction, and (2, same paragraph) here is what the science actually found? Or, would it be better to delete the "predictions" paragraph, keep the description of the scientific findings, and instead put a summary sentence at the ''end'' of the scientific findings paragraph that points out how the results fit with the prediction that had been made by Blanchard? --] (]) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::LOL Humility is a rare find on WP. (I think that makes me a Trypo''fan''?) |
|
|
::::Yes, Blanchard is well-known, and any discussion from WP would indeed suggest he is controversial. It's more accurate to say that his research led to a conclusion about the nature of transsexualism that some (prolifically vocal) transsexuals found un-flattering and attempt to discredit. (The big explosions started in 2003 when ] was published by ], bringing Blanchard's ideas to wider attention.) That's why I often seek external input rather than to repeat the same arguments with the same WP editors. |
|
|
::::So, although our explicit conversation here is about good editing, the implicit conversation is the expectable one: Everything that agrees with Blanchard must be shot down, and everything that criticizes Blanchard must be included and emphasized, no matter how low the ] bar must go. You'll notice, for example, that the Zhou finding is based on the smallest dataset ever reported, each aspect of that study failed to replicate, but it still receives ] even though the data repeatedly agree with Blanchard's prediction instead of Zhou's ''n'' of 6. |
|
|
::::My personal opinion is that the Blanchard quote gives obvious context for the rest of the neuroanatomy section, but rather than take another ride on the edit war wagon, I'd likely follow your thus far uninvolved opinion. |
|
|
::::] (]) 00:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks! OK, then, what are the data that "repeatedly agree with Blanchard's prediction instead of Zhou's ''n'' of 6"? --] (]) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Hi, again. Sorry for the delay. |
|
|
::::::For reference, these are Blanchard's prediction(s): "The brains of both homosexual and heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals probably differ from the brains of typical heterosexual men, but in different ways. In homosexual male-to-female transsexuals, the difference does involve sex-dimorphic structures, and the nature of the difference is a shift in the female-typical direction. If there is any neuroanatomic intersexuality, it is in the homosexual group. In heterosexual male-to-female transsexuals, the difference may not involve sex-dimorphic structures at all, and the nature of the structural difference is not necessarily along the male–female dimension." |
|
|
::::::The data for the first part of the prediction are in Gizewski et al. (Gizewski, E. R., Krause, E., Schlamann, M., Happich, F., Ladd, M. E., Forsting, M., & Senf, W. (2009). Specific cerebral activation due to visual erotic stimuli in male-to-female transsexuals compared with male and female controls: An fMRI study. ''Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6,'' 440–448.] and in Rametti et al. . Both studies scanned homosexual male-to-females and found that they were shifted towards the female direction in sexually dimorphic brain areas (only). The data for the second part of the prediction are in Savic & Arver They scanned heterosexual male-to-females and found that they were ''not'' different from controls in any sexually dimorphic region, but ''were'' different from the controls in several ''non-'' sexually dimorphic resions. Other neurological studies of transsexuality have been conducted (and are on the mainpage), but did not record or report whether the samples were homosexual or heterosexual, so they are not informative on this aspect. |
|
|
::::::Each of studies I cite above were several times the size of the Zhou study. Although Blanchard's idea is unpopular in some quarters, that is neither here nor there for WP purposes. I think Blanchard's prediction is more than germaine to any discussion of the neurological discussion of transsexuality. Input? |
|
|
::::::] (]) 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::OK. What I'm going to do by way of response is to adopt the position of someone who is neutral and non-expert in the editing dispute, and to try to mediate the issue according to my understanding of the consensus process. |
|
|
:::::::#''Anyone'': My reading, on face value, of what James said immediately above is that there are three published studies—Gizewski et al., 2009; Rametti et al., 2010; and Savic & Arver, 2011—that, taken together, provide experimental support for Blanchard's predictions, and are peer-reviewed reliable sources per ]. There is also the Zhou study, which provides evidence that contradicts Blanchard's predictions. Zhou is, similarly, a reliable source per ], but was a smaller study than any of the other three. Those four papers constitute the principal scientific literature that experimentally tests Blanchard's hypothesis. Is that correct, or is that incorrect? |
|
|
:::::::#''James'': Why not simply cite those three studies, and note ''briefly'' that they support Blanchard's predictions, instead of devoting a paragraph to an extensive quote of the prediction? In other words, focus on the empirical data (since it's a section about science), instead of the theorizing? |
|
|
:::::::#''Anyone'': Why not present the information as: Blanchard predicted such-and-such, and there is not yet a clear scientific answer as to whether the hypothesis is correct. Three studies, constituting the bulk of the literature, seem to support the predictions, whereas one study calls them into question. |
|
|
:::::::--] (]) 17:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Blatant violation of WP:RS == |
|
|
|
|
|
James Cantor has now tried multiple times to insert a self-published piece by Anne Lawrence in conflict with ]: |
|
|
::''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.'' |
|
|
::''Self-published material may 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. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.'' |
|
|
As far as I have seen, Anne Lawrence has NOTHING published on neuroanatomy. Furthermore, she is a well recognized activist with a obvious agenda regarding autogynephilia. As such, claiming that this self-published critique is RS is absurd. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 01:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Anne Lawrence is an internationally recognized expert on ''transsexuality'' as well as an M.D. She is entirely able to provide an expert opinion on the biological basis of transsexuality. In fact, I can think of only a few other people in the ''world'' better qualified. (And I ''have'' published in neuroanatomy.) But...an activist? Really? Lawrence has published several papers expressing her agreement with the concept of autogynephilia, but an activist? This isn't about any activism on her part, this is about ] on your part. |
|
|
:Obviously, outside opinion would be helpful here. I have already posted at RS/N, asking for input . |
|
|
:] (]) 01:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Dr. Lawrence did her internship and practiced as an anesthesiologist; I personally don't believe that anesthesiologists are especially well-qualified to assess the nature of neurological syndromes which may (or may not) be relevant to gender identity and may (or may not) be related to the development of endocrinological systems, either one of which is a subject of specialized study in its own right. |
|
|
::Dr. Lawrence is ''indubitably'' an activist... she has chosen, as the form of her activism, to specialize in sexology, to publish articles in support of "autogynephilia", and advocate for the acceptance by trans women of the concepts related to autogynephilia. |
|
|
::As you yourself wrote, she is a "an openly autogynephilic transsexual": a public proponent of this theory, with a prominent website (no longer maintained) where she has published numerous testimonies sent to her of trans women's personal perceptions on the subject. (I should also note: I greatly appreciate the fact that Dr. Lawrence made the information on her website available, and has also made her published research papers available on it.) |
|
|
::My take on this particular citation is: it's a WP:SPS from a source who is ''not'' an expert in this specialty: as was commented regarding Madeline Wyndzen's WP:SPS writings: if this is really worthwhile work, why has she not had it published? And in Dr. Lawrence's case, there is obviously no felt need to preserve her anonymity! |
|
|
::And finally: ''any out transsexual person is an activist''... in some sense or another. If you are confronted with ''The Bathroom Problem''... either way you choose... you're an activist .-) |
|
|
::— ] (]) 02:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Since I've been asked to weigh in as an editor with a neuroscience background, I have to agree with Kim and Bonze about this. If, instead, there is a peer-reviewed scholarly paper that mentions and assesses this hypothesis, then that would be the way to go. Absent that, I think the most that one could do would be to present it as part of a discussion of a controversy, not as part of the scientific knowledge base on the topic, and present it from both sides of the controversy; however, I'm not convinced that such a treatment would pass ] in this particular case. --] (]) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sources to use (since they are many, only use the most reliable and highly reputable ones): |
|
::::Thanks for the input. I can't say I agree, but I am happy to follow the consensus.] (]) 22:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
#{{cite web |last=Steinmetz |first=Katy |date=2018-04-03 |title=The OED Just Added the Word 'Trans*.' Here's What It Means |url=https://time.com/5211799/what-does-trans-asterisk-star-mean-dictionary/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=TIME |language=en}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |title=Why We Used Trans* and Why We Don't Anymore - |url=https://transstudent.org/issues/asterisk/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=transstudent.org |language=en-US}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |title=Why do you include an asterisk in Trans*? » The Safe Zone Project |url=https://thesafezoneproject.com/faq/why-do-you-include-an-asterisk-in-trans/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=The Safe Zone Project |language=en-US}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |last=Middleton |first=Josh |date=2014-07-16 |title=QUEERSTIONS: What Does it Mean When There is an Asterisk After the Word "Trans?" |url=https://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/07/16/queerstions-mean-asterisk-word-trans/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=Philadelphia Magazine |language=en-US}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |title=What does the asterisk in “trans*” stand for? - ❤ It's Pronounced Metrosexual |url=https://www.itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/05/what-does-the-asterisk-in-trans-stand-for/ |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=It's Pronounced Metrosexual |language=en-us}} |
|
|
#{{cite web |last=Levenson |first=Claire |date=2018-10-15 |title=Transition des jeunes trans*, quand science et militants divergent |url=https://www.slate.fr/story/167366/sciences-recherche-etudes-jeunes-trans-militantisme |access-date=2024-12-05 |website=Slate.fr |language=fr-FR}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Prieur |first=Cha |date=2019-12-16 |title=Les violences envers les personnes trans* à l'université. Des conséquences sur la santé mentale aux pistes pour s’en sortir |url=https://journals.openedition.org/gss/5726 |journal=Genre, sexualité & société |language=fr |issue=22 |doi=10.4000/gss.5726 |issn=2104-3736}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Delage |first=Pauline |last2=Lieber |first2=Marylène |last3=Chetcuti-Osorovitz |first3=Natacha |date=2019-07-18 |title=Lutter contre les violences de genre. Des mouvements féministes à leur institutionnalisation:Introduction |url=https://shs.cairn.info/revue-cahiers-du-genre-2019-1-page-5?lang=fr |journal=Cahiers du Genre |language=fr |volume=66 |issue=1 |pages=5–16 |doi=10.3917/cdge.066.0005 |issn=1298-6046}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Iazzetti |first=Brume Dezembro |date=2022-01-01 |title=Políticas institucionais voltadas à população trans* no ensino superior brasileiro e alguns de seus limites e desafios |url=https://www.academia.edu/95784280/Pol%C3%ADticas_institucionais_voltadas_%C3%A0_popula%C3%A7%C3%A3o_trans_no_ensino_superior_brasileiro_e_alguns_de_seus_limites_e_desafios |journal=Cultura, Política, Sexualidade e Gênero na América Latina}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Guerrero McManus |first=Siobhan |date=2024 |title=Los estudios trans en México |url=https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S2448-57052024000100011&script=sci_arttext |journal=Inter disciplina |language=es |volume=12 |issue=32 |pages=11–24 |doi=10.22201/ceiich.24485705e.2024.32.86915 |issn=2448-5705}} |
|
|
#{{cite book |last=Radi |first=Blas |url=https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/143541?show=full |title=Epistemología del asterisco: una introducción sinuosa a la epistemología trans |date=2020 |publisher=Universidad Nacional de Rosario |isbn=978-987-702-385-5}} |
|
|
#JONES, Nash. Bridging the gap-trans*: What does the asterisk mean and why is it used. '''PDX Q Center''', 2013. |
|
|
#Garvin, P. (2019). What’s the asterisk in “trans*” mean and why do some find it offensive?”. ''The LGBTQ+ Experiment'', ''18''. |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Lewis |first=Nancy M. |date=2019-01-01 |title=Open to Possibilities: Gender Variability and the Importance of the Asterisk. |url=https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA611260115&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=25760750&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Eecb3b175&aty=open-web-entry |journal=Resources for Gender and Women's Studies: A Feminist Review |language=English |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=7–8}} |
|
|
#{{cite journal |last=Tompkins |first=Avery |date=2014-05-01 |title=Asterisk |url=https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article/1/1-2/26/91872/Asterisk |journal=TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly |volume=1 |issue=1-2 |pages=26–27 |doi=10.1215/23289252-2399497 |issn=2328-9252}} ] (]) 02:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Hey @], |
|
:::I think it's OK to cite her for her opinion, but not in a context where it pretends to be science. In a similar vein, I just removed a "prediction" attributed to Blanchard; it was from an opinion paper, but Cantor had stuck it into a science section. And I add a few words and a source in the bit about Blanchard's typology, which again was mostly opinion masquerading as science, and sourced to a controversial book that has science in the title but which nobody actually claims is scientific, if I remember correctly. Some more POV balancing in this area is probably in order. ] (]) 18:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Could you choose some of the best sources and add them as inline citations? |
|
|
:If you don't get to it, I can, but you may be more familiar with the source material. |
|
|
:Thanks! |
|
|
:] (]) | :) | he/him | 05:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] I think 1, 11, 15, and 14 are the best sources and should be there. I guess that's a reasonable number and they cover what the sentences are saying. ] (]) 05:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I could not read number 11 (foreign language) or 14 (limited access), but after changing the paragraph headings, etc. for more logical flow () and adding bullets to the relevant paragraph (), I made your edit, with the following modifications: |
|
|
:::-converted quotation marks to italics |
|
|
:::-added clause about the transgender umbrella after agender to clarify how trans* includes other identities under the transgender umbrella |
|
|
:::-clarified summary of argument over use of the term |
|
|
:::-I read the sources and added them as ] where I though they fit best. |
|
|
:::-serves as -> represents, because I think that wildcard has a specific meaning (could be wrong) in computer searches, as referenced by source number 15 |
|
|
:::If you disagree with any of my choices, or want to add more information/make more changes to the article, please feel free to continue recommending them here! This was a great recommendation! |
|
|
::::P.S., in the future, you can add inline citations by surrounding your citation template with ref tags like this <nowiki> <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>, </nowiki> but that may have been too much work on a talk page. However, regardless, if you want to recommend any future changes, I would ask that you just put which sources you are referencing, like this: |
|
|
:::::"] is the greatest" |
|
|
::::::: The truest book |
|
|
:::just so it is known which sources you want to use. |
|
|
:::Again, thanks! Have a good day. |
|
|
:::] (]) | :) | he/him | 05:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks for that all. Yup, that's perfect cause I have problems sometimes with syntax or grammar. And here's an open PDF for 11: https://notablesdelaciencia.conicet.gov.ar/bitstream/handle/11336/143541/CONICET_Digital_Nro.632f17dd-d63f-4e3e-89dc-46a7306a31c9_A.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y ] (]) 05:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks also to @] for removing the quotation marks; I neglected to do that. |
|
|
:::::] (]) | :) | he/him | 22:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{already done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] completed the request ] (]) 12:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
This question is not about people, but about terminology. Please don't flame me. I've read both articles and a goodly chunk of the archives. Maybe I missed it, but I can't find RS that really explains the difference between terms "transsexual" and "transgender" or makes a definite statement that they are the same. I find lots of opinions, but no sourcing. As a follow-on, are there particular researchers who have made a study of how use of the terms has changed over time? Bitten Peach (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
This phrase "They are framed as something entirely separate from transgender women, who possess the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" does not make sense, and I wonder that's really what the author even hinted at saying that. I guess it could be reworded. But does this mean they are framed as cis women or trans men? Because "the same gender identity of people assigned female at birth" is not clear. Or did this try to explain what is a trans woman? Then you can just replace female with male, but would this contextualization be necessary? LIrala (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sources to use (since they are many, only use the most reliable and highly reputable ones):
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Trans § Requested move 15 November 2024. Please join the move discussion for a primary redirect to this article currently in progress. Raladic (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Already done User:JuxtaposedJacob completed the request The AP (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
