Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.248.218.48 (talk) at 19:51, 30 January 2014 (→Conclusion without source). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:51, 30 January 2014 by 172.248.218.48 (talk) (→Conclusion without source)(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.
Article policies
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 
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies B‑class
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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality B‑class 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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)

There are four people there:
  • two who were actually in the book, and
  • two who were not in the book, but wrongly believed they were.
The paragraph is already amply cited to support this claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


I'm sorry but, that is not true. They were not "transsexual people", they were transsexual women. This book has absolutely no females to males within the book at all. It is specifically and only about males to females. There is no source at all. The reference (36) you claim as a source says nothing about "wrongly" or "mistakenly" or any other bias statement of the sort.

" Wilson, Robin. "Transsexual 'Subjects' Complain About Professor's Research Methods." The Chronicle of Higher Education 25 July 2003, Vol. 49, Issue 46. "The book contains numerous observations and reports of interviews with me", C. Anjelica Kieltyka, one of the transsexual women, wrote in a letter this month to C. Bradley Moore, Northwestern's vice president for research. She added: "I did not receive, nor was I asked to sign, an informed-consent document."

Can we have another editor, one less apparently bias and one sided examine this problem ? Your dismissive tone and obvious misinterpretation of sourcing isn't constructive. 172.248.218.48 (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


Can we get another editor to make a call on this ? 172.248.218.48 (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really care whether greater detail is provided, but I do object to your implicit claim that women are not people. I believe that all trans women are people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


I made was no such claim. This book does not deal with any group other than male to female transsexuals. To imply that it is somehow discussing the general transsexual population is false and misleading as it creates the illusion of fairness where there is none. 172.248.218.48 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Categories: