| Revision as of 01:59, 22 May 2008 editMarionTheLibrarian (talk | contribs)1,153 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:57, 15 June 2008 edit undoAliceJMarkham (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,023 editsm {{subst:unsigned2|01:59, 22 May 2008|MarionTheLibrarian}}Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| DarlieB: | DarlieB: | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
| 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. | 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. | 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.<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:59, 22 May 2008</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 --> | ||
Revision as of 13:57, 15 June 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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MarionTheLibrarian (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 May 2008