This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.93.64.21 (talk) at 21:59, 14 April 2013 (→Autogynephilia in Women.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:59, 14 April 2013 by 76.93.64.21 (talk) (→Autogynephilia in Women.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Man Who Would Be Queen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | LGBTQ+ studies B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Sexology and sexuality B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Man Who Would Be Queen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Man Who Would Be Queen at the Reference desk. |
Re-archival notice
Some massive deletions of talk page posts took place here and in some subsequent edits (nearly half the byte size of this talk page), making a number of threads unintelligible. Unfortunately, it wasn't reverted in time making a rollback now almost impossible due to new posts. I'm going to archive sections that haven't received reply since then from the pre-deletion version. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think I fixed it. I restored some comments to the "live" talk page as well, in the active threads. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- It has come to my attention (by email) that during the above process I've restored some potentially uncivil communications on this talk page . I did not mean to cause any more controversy than this page has already seen. I ask an uninvolved administrator to examine the matter. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Autogynephilia in Women.
Has anyone read Charles Moser's paper claiming that autogynephilia occurs in women? "To test the possibility that natal women also experience autogynephilia, an Autogynephilia Scale for Women (ASW) was created from items used to categorize MTFs as autogynephilic in other studies. A questionnaire that included the ASW was distributed to a sample of 51 professional women employed at an urban hospital; 29 completed questionnaires were returned for analysis. By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. "
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591032
If this is true does this not completely discredit Blanchard and Bailey? 75.84.159.117 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- The unregistered user has also asked the same question at Talk:Feminine_essence_concept_of_transsexuality#Autogynephilia_in_Women.. Perhaps one location is sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps not. It concerns both articles and perhaps many more, but different aspects. Since you watch both so very closely you can oversee, making sure there is no duplication of discussion. Perhaps cross posting by link relevant to this books article. 75.84.159.117 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- The question was valid , if it is peer reviewed should it not be included in the controversy section on the book. The entire premise of this theory was that having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman was unique only to these MTF's. No study was ever done on women, men or FTM's to this point. 93% of the regular women being tested coming out autogynephilic is an amazing blow against the entire theory and needs to be included. This information is from 2011, why is it not included?76.93.64.21 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
MTF but no FTM
There is absolutely nothing about females to males like Chaz Bono. Bailey focused entirely on male to female transsexuals and gays so why use the term "transsexuals" when it really means exclusively male to female ? I'm amazed no one has mentioned it.
- Since there is no response , does anyone have an objection to pointing out clearly that Bailey is only talking about the FTM only? And if so please clearly explain why. Consensus ? 76.93.23.246 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have no particular objection to saying that the parts of the book that deal with transsexuality are about people assigned a male gender at birth, but I thought that it was already pretty clear, from its use of words like "transwomen" (or even from the title). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
- "Bailey says that some of his critics were motivated by a desire to suppress discussion of the book's ideas about autogynephilia theory on transsexuals." How is that clear ? Baileys research was entirely about MTF. There is no research at all about females to male. No comparison of the claimed erotisized fetishistic nature he was examining. Saying "transwoman" once in a while doesn't really qualify as clarity. 76.93.23.246 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
No further discussion ? 76.93.23.246 (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion without source
This is a bias and unsourced statement. "Two of the transsexual people in Bailey's book, two people who mistakenly thought . . . ", It creates conclusions without proof. It should read "Two transsexual women believed they were the basis for the book . . ." then cite your source claiming they weren't. The article is bias. 142.11.96.183 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Categories: