Revision as of 22:15, 21 May 2008 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,613 editsm Added {{tilde}} note. | Revision as of 01:59, 22 May 2008 edit undoMarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs)1,153 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Your recent edits== | |||
DarlieB: | |||
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should ] by typing four ]s ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!<!-- Template:Tilde --> --] (]) 22:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC) | |||
I think your summary on TMWMBQ is about as balanced as I have seen, so I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying on the parts on which we disagree. I think we are disagreeing over more than one piece, so let me try to take them apart. | |||
First is whether the two-types-of-transsexualism/autogynephilia theory has been discredited. Whether any theory is discredited or not is an opinion. There are still people on both sides of the issue. Perhaps we should just call it controversial? | |||
Second is Baily's intent: Was he trying to >describe< autogynephilia (etc.) or do science (i.e., test an hypothesis)? In the book, he says he wants to describe it...at least, if he had an hypothesis he was trying to prove, no one (not even he) has said what it was. | |||
Thoughout the book, although he did not provide the references to Blanchard's journal articles, he describe the content of Blanchard's articles and why Bailey was convinced by them. |
Revision as of 01:59, 22 May 2008
DarlieB:
I think your summary on TMWMBQ is about as balanced as I have seen, so I feel I must be misunderstanding what you are saying on the parts on which we disagree. I think we are disagreeing over more than one piece, so let me try to take them apart.
First is whether the two-types-of-transsexualism/autogynephilia theory has been discredited. Whether any theory is discredited or not is an opinion. There are still people on both sides of the issue. Perhaps we should just call it controversial?
Second is Baily's intent: Was he trying to >describe< autogynephilia (etc.) or do science (i.e., test an hypothesis)? In the book, he says he wants to describe it...at least, if he had an hypothesis he was trying to prove, no one (not even he) has said what it was.
Thoughout the book, although he did not provide the references to Blanchard's journal articles, he describe the content of Blanchard's articles and why Bailey was convinced by them.