Talk:Androphilia and gynephilia

Etymology

Gynephilia is philologically inconsequent, [...]; while gynophilia is formed in violation of Greek word formation rules, [...]

Picky, picky. It's no worse than "television". Shouldn't an Etymology section just say what the etymology is rather than criticising it? David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hirschfeld and androphilia?

DanB DanD rightly asked for a source for Hirschfeld's "threefold classification system" (ephebophilia, androphilia and gerontophilia), allegedly from the early 20th century. The ephebophilia article makes the following claim: "[Ephebophilia] is a term of recent coinage, created by psychologist John Money in the late twentieth century." The following reference is given: Rahman, Tariq (1988). Ephebophilia: the case for the use of a new word, Forum for Modern Language Studies, 24(2), 126-141.

Oddly, the Rahman article doesn't seem to support the claim, as least as I could see from a quick read. The author actually calls for the adoption of a "new word", ephebophilia, which would be defined as "male sexual interest in boys and youths as if the latter were surrogates of women". He writes: "This word has not been used in English, although it has been used [in a 1980 article by Felix Buffiere]" in French.

I also found a 2002 letter to the editor from The Advocate magazine. The author, Thomas Kraemer, writes: "The word ephebophilia is not "newly invented," as Richard Goldstein claims ["The Double Standard," August 20], because nearly a century ago Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld defined it as homosexuals "who are attracted to youths from puberty to the early 20s." Goldstein is right that it is a double standard to diagnose gay ephebophilia, because the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual names only pedophilia as a mental disorder, which is carefully restricted to being a "focus on prepubescent children.""

However, there are no references. Curioser and curioser! ntennis 03:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap, that's my fault! I think that reference to Rahman is supposed to go with the etymology. It was me who inserted the attribution to John Money (who definitely did use the term), but it looks like I put the {{fact}} tag in the wrong place. I apologize for sucking.

DanB†DanD 03:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I googled up a source that says Money coined "ephebophilia," and that source sources the claim to this:

John Money, Lovemaps: Clinical Concepts of Sexual-Erotic Health & Pathology, Paraphilia & Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence & Maturity, Irvington Publishers: New York, 1993 (Reprint: original edition published in 1988)

Anybody have a copy? It's entirely possible that Money picked up term from Hirschfeld and popularized in the context of his own ideas.

DanB†DanD 03:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Relevant part of this source [1]:

This term – ephebophilia - is not yet widely recognised or used, and many professionals still use the traditional term paedophilia to describe the sexual abuse of pre- and post-pubescent children.

Ephebophilia as a term or as a qualification of paedophilia does not appear in DSM-IV. According to the A.P.A. the significance of a term not appearing in DSM-IV means that, as of 1994, there was not sufficient data to justify inclusion at that time. Being a qualification of the term paedophilia, ephebophilia belongs to the category of paraphilias. The term ephebophilia was coined by Dr. John Money, a sexologist at the Johns Hopkins University Medical School. It is defined by him as a sexual attraction for adolescents, applying in the same way to male-female and male-male encounters. (and the ref. is to the above)

That source is from this Catholic journal, not really an academic publication

DanB†DanD 04:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following this up. Obviously Money couldn't have coined the term in Lovemaps (1988) — although he may have coined it earlier. I did find an article from 1974 that uses both 'ephebophilia' and 'androphilia' (and doesn't feel the need to define them, either): Kurt Freund, Ernest Nagler, Ronald Langevin, Andrew Zajac and Betty Steiner, Measuring feminine gender identity in homosexual males, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 3, Number 3 / May, 1974. Springer, Netherlands. ISSN 0004-0002.

So I guess Rahman hasn't done his research. I wouldn't be surprised if the term does in fact go back to Hirschfeld; I believe that the term 'transsexual' has been widely credited to Harry Benjamin but was in fact a Hirschfeldism. Look forward to more sleuthing — AKA original research. :P ntennis 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another (unhelpful) reference, from the Newsletter of the Connecticut Psychological Association (Summer 2002). The article, titled Treating Clergy Who Sexually Abuse Minors, By L.M. Lothstein, claims that "John Money coined the term "ephebophilia" to apply to an individual's targeting of teenagers for their sexual desires". ntennis 08:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another candidate for coining ephebophilia (given here in the synonymous form "hebephilia"): Bernard Glueck, Jr., in 1955.

Thus, the relatively rare erotic preference for prepubescent children has long been denoted as pedophilia (von Krafft-Ebing, 1886/1965), and the — perhaps even rarer — preference for the elderly is conventionally known as gerontophilia (Hirschfeld, 1920). Glueck (1955) contributed the word hebephilia to denote the erotic preference for pubescent children. Except for the occasional, semihumorous use of the term “adultophilia” (e.g., Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy, & Christenson, 1965), there was no sustained effort to label the population majority’s erotic preference for adults until we introduced the term teleiophilia (Blanchard et al., 2000).

—(Ray Blanchard and Howard E. Barbaree, (2005). The Strength of Sexual Arousal as a Function of the Age of the Sex Offender: Comparisons Among Pedophiles, Hebephiles, and Teleiophiles, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, Vol. 17, No. 4, October 2005.

It seems odd that Blanchard and Barbaree would credit "gerontophilia" to Hirschfeld but not ephebophilia/hebephilia, if Hirschfeld had indeed mentioned it. Here are the references:

• Glueck, B. C. Jr. (1955). Final report: Research project for the study and treatment of persons convicted of crimes involving sexual aberrations, June 1952 to June 1955. New York: New York State Department of Mental Hygiene.

• Hirschfeld, M. (1920). Die Homosexualität des Mannes und des Weibes [Homosexuality in males and females]. Berlin: Louis Marcus.

The editor who contributed the information about Hirschfeld's "threefold classification system" is User:William percy (see this diff). I've left a note on his talk page asking for a citation. ntennis 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are doing awesome research, thanks.

I'm pretty sure that, similar as their meaning is, "hebephilia" and "ephebophilia" have different histories as words. For one thing, "hebephilia" is from the female personification of youth, Hebe, while "ephebophilia" is from "ephebos," a generic word for male youths, and has historically been used in a gay context.

OH!

Is it possible that Hirschfeld did indeed coin "ephebophilia" as the male homosexual desire for adolescents, but that it was Money who first began to use the term to mean desire for adolescents in general? Could this be why both have been reported as the inventor of the term?

Also, who is the "we" in "we introduced the term teleiophilia"? Because that's a term Money uses too.

DanB†DanD 01:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer about Hebe (mythology), I didn't know the origin of this word. You may be right about Money, but where did he publish this revised definition?

The "we" in the above quote is Blanchard et al, and they give this reference: Blanchard, R., Barbaree, H. E., Bogaert, A. F., Dickey, R., Klassen, P., Kuban, M. E., et al (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463–478.

It may be yet another case of misattribution, as the chronophilia article suggests that "teleiophilia" was coined by Kurt Freund, who died in 1996. Now if Ray Blanchard was trying to take credit for a term he didn't actually coin, it would be consistent with Lynn Conway's characterisation of him as dishonestly and aggressively trying to make a place for himself in the history of science (see also Andrea James' Blanchard page.) ntennis 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Little update: After some sniffing around for uses of the term teleiophilia, all references I found attributed it to Blanchard. I found that in Freund's articles, he uses the terms gynephilia and androphilia to indicate an erotic preference for adults, not teleiophilia. I also put a note on the chronophilia article asking for a citation. When did Money use the term? ntennis 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Androphilia: A Manifesto by Jack Malebranche

I don't know if this article should mention it, or how the book should be entered into wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.255.214.83 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

I especially like the quote: "“The word gay has never described mere homosexuality. Gay is a subculture, a slur, a set of gestures, a slang, a look, a posture, a parade, a rainbow flag, a film genre, a taste in music, a hairstyle, a marketing demographic, a bumper sticker, a political agenda and philosophical viewpoint. Gay is a pre-packaged, superficial persona—a lifestyle. It’s a sexual identity that has almost nothing to do with sexuality.”"Kyle112 (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The page should probably mention thay Jack Donovan is a fascist since that's his only credential.71.104.42.95 (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The reference to this book should be further down the page or in some kind of separate "offshoots of terminology"-type section (along with the Freudian psychoanalyst and her specific theory that she named gynephilia). Jack Donovan's ideas are specific to him and his few followers. They're divergent from the concept of androphilia as it is generally used in discussion and scientific inquiry - where it refers purely, specifically to the experience of attraction to men. This is helpful because it allows us to compare and simultaneously discuss the attraction to men experienced by straight or bisexual women and attraction to men experienced by gay or bisexual men, or anyone else who has androphilic experiences; i.e. it allows us to look at attraction to men independently of the identity of the person experiencing that attraction (and there are similarities to be observed )

Donovan's "Androphilia" is distinctly different from this useful linguistic construct because it 1) refers only to men who are attracted to men and 2) seeks to tie sexual orientation to gender identity even more deeply by wrapping gender identity concepts and rejection of gender divergence directly into the word "Androphile". Donovan's "Androphilia" is kind of the opposite of androphilia, and its inclusion so early in the article will confuse readers trying to understand the concepts of androphilia and gynephilia on a basic level. 2601:445:447F:D003:6852:7869:1B38:BBAE (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Will remove. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The third sexuality?

This is a minor point, but the sentence, "The third common term that describes sexual orientation, bisexuality, makes no claim about the subject's sex or gender identity," seems out of place in the Sex and/or Gender section, as there are actually many non-normative terms to describe sexuality, and this section really concerns itself more with the reason why gynephilia and androphilia are sometimes preferred. It might be appropriate to edit the sentence so the language is less POV--perhaps "other common terms that describe...including bisexual and (queer? other suggestions?), make no implication about the subject's own sexual and gender identity and are broader in terms of the objects of one's desire. (I'm very open to revising that wording.) I still feel, however, that sexual orientations other than gynephilia and androphilia really fall beyond the scope of the article. Locho269 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my inclination, unless anyone objects, is to delete the sentence altogether. Locho269 00:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Multi Merge discussion

Resolved

 – Merge all to transgender sexuality. -- Banjeboi 02:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose merging any usable content from:

• Transmen attracted to men
• Transmen attracted to women
• Transwomen attracted to men
• Transwomen attracted to women

Into this article, the rest can be sent to articles concerning transmen and transwomen if it's not already there. These are splitting gender hairs and conflating social and gender identities. The articles all seem to mirror information we already have and justifies a sexual identity onto a gender identity that casually implies most or all transmen are this or that, this may also be reaching into original research concerns. It causes more problems then simply explaining what Gynophilia and androphilia are and linking to existing articles about transmen and transwomen that appropriately details history. In any case it would be wisest to merge and clean-up content at Gynephilia and androphilia. -- Banjeboi 03:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Merge all as nominator and consider deleting redirects. -- Banjeboi 03:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Merge all - I think it's overkill to have that many articles that basically say the same thing save for gender swapping. It should all be in one article. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose There is more to these articles than sexuality. These articles exist because each of the above named groups has unique concerns, issues, and even history. i.e. transwomen attracted to men is the best place to put information about the marriage rights of such people which are in a really strange place. (We could almost universally get married if we had srs but, ironically due in part to the LGB marriage rights movement we have all but lost that right in the USA.) We have a long recorded history separate and apart from the LGB. Transwomen attracted to women, same thing, they have different issues than transwomen attracted to men. i.e. For a long time they were not accepted in the lesbian community, especilly by radical feminist. They were/are treated badly by the psychological profession. Transmen attracted to men have suffered almost total erasure from the literature, many psychologist were not aware they existed. They share in common with transmen attracted to women being relatively ignored.... These articles are young and in progress give us some time to develope them a bit more. Please. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe a better merge might be transgender sexuality. Gynephilia and androphilia are not used exclusively for transgender people. Jokestress (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this comment. --Hfarmer (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Jokestress on this. I believe that the articles are too specific and need to be merged somewhere, and transgender sexuality is a better place than here. If they grow big enough, there might be justification for splitting them out later, but keeping them in one article for now should result in a better quality article. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging to transexual sexuality definitly sounds like the best suggestion so far. Having every combination of gender & sexual preference is overboard and does a disservice to curious readers. Having all the info on one page is better in every way.YobMod 00:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with redirecting the goal article to transgender sexuality. -- Banjeboi 13:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that is totally appropriate, since those articles are not just about sexuality. But I will not object to this informaiton being there. But I am not sure it is the absolute best option. Perhaps a rename of the article transgender sexuality to something else to reflect this change? --Hfarmer (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, we do consider transmen and transwomen within the umbrella transgender? And these article do refer to attraction as their main purpose. Any other content can be merged to other articles as appropriate so we don't lose anything. -- Banjeboi 20:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The logic we used in specifying attractions was that by way of their attractions different and distinct issues arise. This is information that is IMO too detailed for the articles "transsexual" and "transgender" which are huge as they are. As for transman and transwoman being transgender.... Well, in my experience the term transwoman was only applied to transsexual women, not CD's, DQ's etc. People who though they may dress as a woman occasionally, will punch you in the mouth if you call them a transwoman. IMHO the word in front of these should always have been transsexual not transgender. Moving them was not discussed very much at all.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Those issues can be clarified at the article level. In the lede, for instance, it's perfectly reasonable to clarify ____ term is often broadened to include x, y and z. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As you have said to me in the past. Wikipedia has to follow not lead. Just how are these words used in the world. What do the sources. say?--Hfarmer (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm after some quick Googleling there is nothing as definitively authoratative as a definition. The uses of the word I see vary greatly, though on the whole you are right. The word "transwoman" is used for the whole spectrum.  :-/ So that is I think the way it should be used here. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sexual orientation and transgender or Transgender sexuality are the umbrella articles about transsexualism, not this article. Gynephilia and androphilia are at first orientation of majority of people. Gynephilia of heterosexual man is the same gynephilia as gynephilia of homosexual women or as gynephilia of transsexual person. The article about gynephilia isn't the article about transsexualism or transgender. --ŠJů (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The discussion so far seems to have agreement that transgender sexuality would be a better target. Does that work for you? -- Banjeboi 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, transgender sexuality is the good name for an article about erotic orientation of transgender persons. This article (Gynephilia and androphilia) is related to it only marginally.

• Comment. I think if this article must be moved, transgender sexuality would be the best option. Keep up the good work, everybody. Miscellanium (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A Transsexual/transgender project

Here is what I think is needed to make some sense of this whole mess. A unified project or just a less formal effort to reorganize the transsexual/transgender articles. . i.e. The article transgender needs to be trimmed and sub articles spun off of it. One of these will be transsexuality. Then this information should be put in the proper sub articles. i.e. I am sure one about legal concerns exist. Some of this information can go there. I am not sure if a unified overview of transgender/transsexual history is on here, the closest is I think transsexual/transgender in non-western cultures. That one could be repurposed to cover transgender/transsexual history across the board, with subarticles. Then there are of course the always contentious articles which deal with the way psychologist/sexologist have treated T's, their theories etc.... eitology of transsexualism get's close to being an umbrella for all of that but not quite.

Let's face it this discussion really is about overall organizeation of the information about transsexual/transgender issues. Right now there is none. There are patches that are well organized and well written here and there, but overall it's a mess of articles that talk right past eachother.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and that's why we already have Wikipedia:Wikiproject LGBT studies and why most of the editors working on trans articles are members of that project. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Indeed" :-/ Perhaps that explains why this is just a big steaming mess. Perhaps more focused attention is needed to the specifics of transgenderism which is really a misnomer since there is no single unifiying ism there. There are a bunch of social, psycholocial, or physiological phenomena which lead to notable gender variance. Where as every letter in LGB more or less repersents one idea T means many many things. Understand what I am saying?--Hfarmer (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I certainly do but disagree that every letter in LGB more or less repersents one idea, they really don't. Even within a small network of lesbians, for instance you will find widely varying concepts of definition, identity and culture. The one constant in LGBTI cultures is that there really is no one constant. -- Banjeboi 12:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)ificant

The differences between a CD and DQ and a TS are way more significant than those between say... a leatherman, and a bottom. CD's DQ's and TS's are totally different species, while lipstick lesbians, and radfem stone butch lesbians are more like varieties of one species.  :-/ maybe that's not the best analogy. But do you get my drift? To be a transsexual is to live every moment in the gender opposite to that role which was assigned at birth. A transsexual like me is a transwoman even if naked as a j-bird, a CD or a DQ not so. Understand? --Hfarmer (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't share this view but understand what you are saying. Labels are not so clear cut and people do change, and change again. This is, in part, why self-identification is important to our articles. -- Banjeboi 01:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

CDs, DQs and TSes are all at different places on the transgender continuum that includes full-time CDs, non-op TSes, de-transitioned TSes, borderline personality disorder pseudo-TSes, etc. There are too many variations along the scale to really be able to define an arbitrary point as the boundary between "us" and "them", and I've never seen any situation where doing so is productive except for some anti-TG churches, where a division makes it easier to ignore the post-op TSes and attack all other TS TG people. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but differnt points on a spectrum is enough difference to warrant separate articles...and once enough separate articles exist, a separate project (at least defacto) comes into being.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory, if we had unlimited interested editors this wouldn't be an issue but generally we don't. Many good ideas for Wikiprojects don't take flight because they simply aren't sustainable. -- Banjeboi 03:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split request

"Gynephilia" and "androphilia" are two different terms. Eech of them has its own meaning, its own history, its own context. Its no practical to combine both of them in a conjoint article. Each of those two items is important enough for a separated article. --ŠJů (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think there needs to be a general expansion of this article as well. The article does not remind readers that the use of gerontophilia and ephebophilia as homosexual male specific is antiquated, and it also does little to remind the reader that since the trans movement started using "androphilia" and "gynephilia" the terms have become less about age preference and more about gender/sexual preference. We should split the articles, find more sources detailing their uses (modern and outdated), and also have a short history section having to do with the history and taboos of sexual attraction to men and sexual attraction to women (that way they become more encyclopedic, rather than being just etymology and usage pages that should be in Wiktionary). Kyle112 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disregard, I have changed my mind, they are best presented together. Kyle112 (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Split ftw.24.164.65.65 (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is currently insufficient reliably sourced material to justify a split into two or more stand alone articles. The priority is to build and source the present article and when ready split out per WP:Summary style. Split declined. SilkTork *^YES! 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Philogyny

Philogyny, which is a stub article, should probably be merged into this one - it apparently means 'fondness, love, or admiration' towards women rather than strictly sexual attraction, but it's a similar enough topic that I don't think it needs a separate page. (Note that 'philogyny' and 'gynophilia' are just the same Greek words in a different order.) Robofish (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose; these are different concepts. The ones described here seem to be terms coined in the 20th century for taxonomy (orthogonal to the homo/hetero distinction), or in contrast to pedophilia. Philogyny is a concept in classical thought. Conflating them would be anachronistic. Qwertyus (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Qwertyus is correct. Jokestress (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Understanding and Terminology to amateurs

This article is actually surprisingly technical, with many sections that are not understandable to those who are new to the topics. As well, it uses a lot of specialized language with no plain language explanations or offerings to learn more (for example, teleiosexual is used in a context in which a fluent/mother-tongue English speaker and editor cannot derive its meaning but no definition exists in Wiki and could not be found in a Google search - it was always used to assist in the definition of other terms). People are never going to become interested in the issues if they can't understand the language, and amateurs are a primary audience of Wikipedia readers, with guidelines to write for them!

Side note: the lack of citation has already been pointed out, but to add to it, as I was searching to find definition for some terms, I found many exact texts. This asks the classic "chicken or the egg" question of who took from who? While Wiki might be copy-left, other sites are not and citations would greatly clarify the situation (though direct text lifting should not be done in Wiki). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.88.31 (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I just came across this article... and frankly, it looks like a hunk'o'junk to me. "Androsexuality" and "gynesexuality"? Does anybody actually use these terms, as opposed to "androphilia" and "gynephilia", which appear to have some use among sexologists? "Uranistic"? Who has used that term since the time of Hirschfeld -- the 20's? Lord, Jack Malebranche? What on earth does he have to do with it, besides seeking to create a whole new (uncommon, idiosyncratic, masculist-propagandistic) meaning for the term different from the received understanding as "attracted to males"?

Oh, and User:James Cantor paid a visit in order to insert his fave Reference, Dr. Richard/Alice Novik... apropos of ???? At least THAT got deleted!

The section on "Use for transsexual people" makes sense... but what is the point of the "Gynesexuality" section, besides inflicting confusion on the innocent? Is this page the domain of philologists? ???

Finally... why is this article here, rather than in Wiktionary? Color me perplexed! bonze blayk (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete page?

This page has had very many issues for very many years. It does WP no good, and no appears able to produce references for the long-unsourced (and rather POVish) claims on the page. I believe it should be nominated for deletion.— James Cantor (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This article could definitely be improved with the addition of proper citations... but there's a difference between "no one appears able to" and "no one has yet stepped up to" produce references ;-) .

For example, looking back over the article's history some more, I started (on June 4 2011 - Fixed misquotation: Bartlett & Vasey use "androphilic", not "androsexual" -- bonze blayk (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)) by fixing some invalid quotations and deleting invalid citations (a problem that's pandemic in Wikipedia), and in the process noted that the introduction of the (offbeat?) terms "androsexuality" and "gynesexuality", which were directly substituted in the text for (commonly used) "androphilia" and "gynephilia" came from the self-same IP editor who decided that "uranistic" was the appropriate label for "homosexual"... and thus was WP:EMBOLDENED to go ahead and fix the thing .-) So now it at least reads as a fairly sensible article!

I think the history and context of the terminology makes it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... also, the discussion re: transsexuality may be POVish, but the claims made could readily be supported by a variety of WP:RS sources; and of course, that's why the terminology is being brought into use in some areas: using natal sex to classify the sexual orientation of transfolk and (even moreso) the intersexed invariably results in confusion. -- bonze blayk (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We might be talking about different issues. There are indeed RS's about androphilia, and there are RS's about gynephilia. But there are no references about androphilia and gynephilia as a topic unto itself. The material for male androphilia belongs in homosexuality, and the material for male gynephilia belongs in heterosexuality; vice versa for female androphilia and gynephilia. There are no cites supporting the pair of terms as a pair of terms.

Although this could probably be seen as a merge (into homosexuality and heterosexuality), the useable material is already contained on those pages...all that this page adds is the POVishness.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there some Wikipedia rule forbidding treating parallel concepts in a single article? I'm unaware of such...

Looking briefly over results from a Google Scholar search on the term "gynephilia", I found a number of references which appear to use the terms in parallel; e.g.,

..."Valid and reliable scales measuring the typological variables of erotic partner preference (androphilia and gynephilia)..." "The relationship of male transsexual typology to psychosocial adjustment"

"... the mothers of androphilic and gynephilic males may follow different reproductive strategies..." - Vasey and VanderLaan, "Birth order and male androphilia in Samoan fa'afafine".

"The material for male androphilia belongs in homosexuality..." ... and material for MTF transsexual androphilia would belong in the article on Heterosexuality, with FTM transsexual gynephilia in... ? !!!

I don't believe the concepts of "gynephilia" and "androphilia" fit within the categories "homosexual" or "heterosexual": they provide terms that describe preference more objectively, without reference to embodiment of the person doing the preferring... that's the reason they are being brought into use by researchers. What meaning can the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" have when confronted with the need to classify the sexual preferences of the intersexed? I would say... none. When used as THE standard labelling for sexual preference, they only serve to induce a fog of confusion in the reader when applied to these "hard cases" (and, I would argue, in the researcher also ;-)

Anyway, I fail to see why having a Wikipedia article explaining the origin and uses of these terms is inherently "POVish". - bonze blayk (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

1. The relevant rule is WP:Notability.

2. That both terms have appeared within a single RS does not establish the pair of terms as a topic unto itself. We have an article for protons and an article for neutrons, but no article for their combination as a topic unto itself.

3. Material for androphilic MtF's and for gynephilic FtM's would go in transsexualism, but there is no reason why they could not also be mentioned in heterosexuality and in homosexuality. Indeed, I know of several experts in transsexuality (and many RS's) who prefer the terms "heterosexual transsexual" and "homosexual transsexual".

4. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion that "I don't believe the concepts of 'gynephilia' and 'androphilia' fit within the categories 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual'". But neither your nor my opinion matters; what matters is what the RS's say, and there is not a single RS supporting this topic, and has been tagged as such for over two years. (The mainpage cites non-expert blogs only.)

5. Although I know this literature rather thoroughly, I have no trouble at all giving you (or anyone) time to look for some decent RS's to support the existence of the page. So, if you are serious about looking, do go ahead. But keeping a page because you think that you would find such RS's if you wanted to look isn't how we work here. Among the reasons in the WP:Deletion policy: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed".

— James Cantor (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

James, respecting your comments:

1. & 2. - A split was proposed back in March 2009; the proposal was rejected. split|Gynophilia|Androphilia. And there are Wikipedia articles which describe complementary terms within one article ... just by coincidence, I recently came across an article in Wikipedia where two complementary concepts were incorporated into one article: Andromimetophilia and Gynemimetophilia. Both point to... Transfan.

3. Why submerge the concepts in a variety of divergent articles? I believe those articles should be sourcing back to to this article.

Re: WP:N - These terms are obviously notable (unless you want to claim that the interesting and somewhat obscure background to the development of this terminology fails to justify an article, and that they belong solely in Wikitionary)

4. "But neither your nor my opinion matters..." Well, James, in fact the opinions of Wikipedia editors matter a lot: WP:Ignore All Rules: not a joke: one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS... and is not Wikipedia the correct WP:RS for its own rules? I would certainly hope that it is!

Opinions of individual editors matter, if only because they will influence their selections among the reliable sources that are available for citation and the manner in which the citations are deployed...

5. These terms are used in a number of WP:RS sources; so I think what you are arguing for here would wind up being a split, not a deletion.

A comment: when you state "I know of several experts in transsexuality (and many RS's) who prefer the terms "heterosexual transsexual" and "homosexual transsexual"" (for androphilic MtF and gynephilic MtF transsexuals, respectively) ... well, that's nice, I certainly appreciate the sentiment!, but with either one of these terms ("homosexual" or "heterosexual") there is an implied judgment about the validity of sex transitions, and the source rather than the target of the attraction is being used to characterize the attraction... ??? Both cause confusion, and I just can't bring myself to view either one of those categorizations as "scientifically neutral", when (for example) "gynephilic MtF transsexual" is perfectly clear and unambiguous...

-- thanks! -- bonze blayk (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

1&2: Wikipedia has no deadline, and consensus can change.

3: Your claim that you think those articles should lead to this one would be believable had you ever made any effort to make that happen.

4: I have no idea what you are trying to say other than you find WP policy inconvenient to your POV.

5: I am not sure how to make this any clearer for you. It is the pair of terms, rather than each term on its own, that has no RS's to support it as a topic unto itself.

(6:) That you project into the terms a belief on the part of the speakers is your POV. That you cannot bring yourself to view any one or another thing is also your POV. That you think scientists should use those terms (for whatever reasons) is perfectly within your right, but WP is not the place for you to attempt to exert influence.

Finally, you are clearly stalling on the obvious. As I already pointed out, I know this literature inside and out, and I know that there do not exist any RS's to support the pair of terms as a topic unto itself. Despite your claims about there existing such RS, my willingness to give you time to explore/locate some, and that weeks have now passed, you still have not added a single RS to that effect.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Androphilia and gynephilia have linked to here for quite some time. I have expanded the article and reinstated those redirects. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1. That a mistake is old does not make it any less a mistake.

2. The expansion of the mainpage (in addition to introducing numerous policy violations) again failed to respond to the actual problem: There is not a single reference that establishes "androphilia and gynephilia" as a notable phrase unto itself. Both are perfectly legitimate terms on their own, and there is no shortage of professionals who use them in writing (including me). However, WP is not a dictionary, and the concepts those words represent are covered entirely (and better) by Sexual orientation.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's quite clear from the sourced materials you removed that there is a long-running discussion in the published literature regarding use of these terms, especially when discussing trans and intersex people. It's also clear from the sourced material that proponents of the older terminology have been criticized in published works by proponents of the shift in terminology. This is a topic that has been under discussion for decades, and an elegant solution (the article's title) has been promoted for about 30 years. I doubt there's been more than 15 people who have used the term "homosexual transsexual" this century in a published work, and the vast majority work at CAMH and/or publish in Archives of Sexual Behavior. Outside of that world, those who are well-read on this topic know that these terms merit a separate article, which is why we have had one since 2006. We can do a summary style write-up at sexual orientation linking to this, for those who want to know more about this debate. There was a request for sourcing; I added some. There's more, which anyone else is welcome to add. Jokestress (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

User:James Cantor... you state that "There is not a single reference that establishes "androphilia and gynephilia" as a notable phrase unto itself".

Contrary to your rather presumptuous assertion (above) that I was "clearly stalling on the obvious", I was in fact obtaining (through a friend, yes, an academic with library privileges who had to request a search to locate the misplaced volume!) a copy of a book ("Gender Dysphoria: Development, Research, Management" ed. Betty W. Steiner) containing an article cited in the additions made by User:Jokestress :

Blanchard, R. (1985). "Typology of male-to-female transsexualism". Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 247-261... which article in part discusses Blanchard's development and application of the "Modified Androphilia-Gynephilia Index (MAGI)" ... as a core component in the assessment of types of MtF transsexual (and borderline transsexual and transvestitic) persons. For reasons I'm not yet completely clear on, Blanchard thought the existing instruments assessing "androphilic" and "gynephilic" preferences had to be combined into one.

Does this use of the conjoined terms make the terms "androphilia and gynephilia" "notable in themselves"? I'm not sure... I just started trying to make sense of the context in which Blanchard is placing this instrument, and the relative importance he attaches to it, two days ago.

Moreover, is this actually forbidden in Wikipedia for terms that are clearly parallel, or is this argument just a red herring? I cited Transfan above as a case in which the parallel terms Gynemimetophilia and Andromimetophilia are both redirected to one article... User:James Cantor, do you actually have a response to that point? ... You have provided none so far.

But one thing is for certain: the article on Sexual orientation in which you claim this material belongs... has been wikilinked BACK to this article for over a year as the reference on the topic, with only one sentence (or so) devoted to the discussion of these terms.  ???

Also, User:James Cantor, I would appreciate it if you would please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Your language frequently has a tendency towards what I feel are inappropriate turns of expression... (Or is that merely a "projection" on my part ?-) -- bonze blayk (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Despite Jokestress' claim, none of those RS's establish "androphilia and gynephilia" as a phrase or topic unto itself. It is perfectly fine that RS's use the terms "androphilia" and "gynephilia," but the topic and content is Sexual orientation. By analogy: Acid and Base are articles, Acid and Base is not; the topic and content are Ph.

Clearly, there is not going to be any consensus without external input. The logical place for such input would, again, be the AfD that has been discussed here for several weeks now.

Regarding Jokestress' ad hominem's, there is little point to me highlighting her errors, other than to do acknowledge their existence for the record here. Should it be relevant, the more logical place for such a discussion would be in the AfD or other discussion containing external input. (Although, at this point, the history has become so familiar to so many editors that there's little point even to that.)

Bonze, you are going to have to calm down. In reading this discussion, external editors typically look for signs of reasonableness, and you are doing yourself no favors.

Any options other than an AfD?

— James Cantor (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions re: James Cantor's claim of WP:BLP violations in recent additions

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Androphilia_and_gynephilia&curid=4462892&diff=440382702&oldid=440372538 - (@Bonze blayk: I repeat: That family of edits contains BLP violations (including of me personally), and WP takes BLP violations very seriously. I suggest also you read BOLD-REVERT-) - James Cantor

James, (if I may be familiar!), outside of the statements "The term homosexual transsexual has been promoted by psychologists including Ray Blanchard and James Cantor since 1989 as part of Blanchard's transsexualism typology.[22] Many sources, including some supporters of the typology, criticize this choice of wording as confusing and degrading.", I can't find anything in these additions that might potentially constitute violations of WP:BLP policies, so I don't see why you feel the need to revert this (rather large) body of WP:RS supported edits in toto rather than just delete or modify that phrase. I can see how the claim that this "choice of wording" is "degrading" would need to be scrupulously supported by direct citations... at a minimum! ... and it's not supported properly (i.e., directly) in the existing text...

Are there other statements that you believe to be in violation here?

Also, I'm not sure to what policy or essay you're referring to when you recommend reading BOLD-REVERT... all I can locate that has something like that title is Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle, which doesn't seem to be what you want to clue me in on.  ??? -- thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I have said: The large number of edits from Jokestress contained a large number of policy violations. I reverted them and suggesting that each needed discussion, so that each could be revised as needed. I (1) pointed out that the policy violations included BLP and (2) referred you to the bold-revert-discuss cycle both to stop what was heading for a edit war and to start appropriate discussion of the multiple problems in Jokestress' edits. (I was indeed refering to the bold/revert/discuss cycle...the "discuss" is what was missing when you forgot that it was the changes to the page that require justification, not vice versa.)

However, because none of the edits from you or from Jokestress actually address the main problem (no RS establishes this as a topic or phrase independent from Sexual orientation), it is much more logical to decide the AfD before bothering to change the page itself.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

James Cantor, this is a non-reponse to a simple question I posed in a wholly appropriate response to your challenge to engage in Bold-Revert-DISCUSS: "What are the BLP violations at issue here"?

I'm attempting to focus on a specific accusation you have raised, and it is the most important one of all. Since you have declined to identify even one specific violation of WP policies on BLP in the course of some 960 characters of indignation - that's half a page of double-spaced text! - directed primarily toward the globally-awful qualities of the recent contributions made by User:Jokestress, I'm inclined to believe that there were in fact no such violations of policy regarding BLP in terms of including content which is not supported by reliable sources. -- bonze blayk (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please specify each concern to be addressed

Right now, there is no consensus for reverting to the older version. I welcome either an AfD nomination or a complete listing of all the concerns about the version Bonze blayk restored. Barring one or both, I am going to restore it shortly. Jokestress (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I can take that as a consensus for the AfD. I've never actually initiated one before, so this may take some tweaking as I climb the learning curve.— James Cantor (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the AfD (I hope...) and notified Bonze blayk. Because Jokestress has already entered her comment at the AfD, I believe I can dispense with notifying her.— James Cantor (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

After 13,421 words and 12 votes (only 1 vote to delete), this wild goose chase is finally over. Please note that the result was KEEP. BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically speaking, a "keep" close at AFD means "do not delete", not "do not merge". That the page was not deleted, when 11 users opposed its deletion, is not surprising.

The number of words used in discussion is not important. Many words with useful information is highly preferable to few words and no information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the number of words is quite important. Some of us had simple, clear points. Others wrote as if hoping to bury those points in obscurity and misdirection. BitterGrey (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge Androphilia

Androphila should be merged here. Currently, it is a redundant content fork, discussing the same term as here, which is more inclusive. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree fully. Autoandrophilia and autogynephilia are in the same article. Internal and external bicycle gearing are in the same article too, even though none of the gears are interchangeable. The anti-'and' AFD ended, so now we should clean up the mess. BitterGrey (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC) (expanded BitterGrey (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC))
• I disagree. There are >700,000 google hits to androphilia in the absence of gynephilia.[2] Androphilia and gynephilia should be about their dual use, and androphilia for its own use (which is far, far more notable).— James Cantor (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry James, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary that requires each word to be defined in a separate article. So, the question is what would be the clearest entry for a concept (not a single word), and combining androphilia and gynephilia makes much more sense as they effectively discuss the same concept, just for the opposite attraction. Or would you argue that there are aspects that are unique to one and not the other? And if so, what would those aspects be? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC) To add, to claim that a title forces the article to be about the dual use is incorrect, it is a representation for the topic in question, and as such, it is perfectly appropriate for this article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. The redundant article at androphilia is a POV fork created during the unsuccessful attempt to delete androphilia and gynephilia. Looking at the differences between the two, it's clear the goal of the androphilia fork is to downplay use of these terms as distinguished from homosexuality and heterosexuality. Jokestress (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Where exactly is it that you are proposing to put the 700,000 hits that have nothing to do with gynephilia? And downplay the use? How many RS's with the term relate to transsexuality at all, and what proportion of the androphila and gynephilia page relates to transsexuality? This is a transparent effort of known activists using wikipedia to increase the visibility of the terms they prefer, despite occuring in fewer about 2% of hits. (No harm in the terms themselves, but no what WP is for.)— James Cantor (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Please don't rehash the thirteen-thousand-word AFD debacle here, hoping that people will get bored and go away or that excessive verbosity might bludgeon people into compliance. It is done. It is over. The article was kept. Accept that. BitterGrey (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I take that to mean you have no answer. If you feel my behavior is inappropriate, you know where to go to report it.— James Cantor (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. As far as I know, the only penalty for meaningless puffery is that people will start to ignore the source of the noise. Unfounded accusations, on the other hand, have a tendency to bomerang. For example, the known pro-homosexuality activist who filed the AFD to try to change the article shouldn't go around claiming that restoring the article to how it was before is "a transparent effort of known activists using wikipedia to increase the visibility of the terms they prefer."[3] Seems like a clear case of projection. BitterGrey (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. I agree, we don't need redundant content forks. I will put forth the argument I put in the AFD discussion:

"I can't help but point out that there are many secondary sources that point to the use of "gynephilia and androphilia". Here is just one. [4] That article (published this year) would be a primary source for "Avuncularity in Japan", but is a secondary source on use of "gynephilia and androphilia". This is really indisputable, if you read any article on primary and secondary sources it will tell you that "primary source" is a relative term, that a primary source can be a secondary source depending on context. Furthermore, Wikipedia has nothing against using peer reviewed primary sources if you do not synthesize your own conclusions from it and a non-expert could plainly see the conclusion in the research. So even if you some how decided that the article's later summary of history of use of the term androphilia and gynephilia was still not a secondary source, this is an appropriate use of a primary source because the primary source says in plain english: "Androphilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult males, whereas gynephilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult females". And this is just one source I randomly found in a lazy search. "

These terms have been used together since at least 1983 [5], and as recently as 2011 as demonstrated. Besides in the many primary sources provided, they appear without a doubt in secondary and tertiary sources like this LGBT term book (it points out the sometimes used synonyms "gynesexuality and androsexuality" as well).[6] James Cantor tries to say that the whole article was about sexuality so therefore the whole discussion belongs in "sexuality", but if we went by that standard homosexuality, transexuality, heterosexuality, and any philia would just be in one gigantic all encompassing article on "sexuality".Kyle112 (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Sex-venn.png

Don't know where the "original research" is. It summarizes the contrast between the "homosexuality"/"heterosexuality" distinction vs. the "gynephilia"/"androphilia" distinction in a nice little chart. The making of article-specific maps, charts, and graphs which are not simple straight copies of previously-existing maps, charts, and graphs is not forbidden (and in fact simple straight copies of previously-existing maps, charts, and graphs would often be copyright violations). AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that its aesthetics get in the way of its explanatory power. I'll try making something nicer and clearer, based on Rebecca Jordan-Young's work. Jokestress (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Male/female matrix + androphilic/gynephilic matrix = homosexual/heterosexual matrix.

OK, I just uploaded a graphic for discussion.

I believe it's a little clearer in describing the conceptualizations.

Here's what I put as the caption:

"Diagram comparing sex and sexual orientation conceptualizations:

1. male/female matrix
2. androphilic/gynephilic matrix
3. homosexual/heterosexual matrix (first two combined)

• The terms male and female describe a person on one axis: the person's sex.
• The terms androphilic and gynephilic describe a person on one axis: the person's object of attraction.
• The terms homosexual and heterosexual describe a person on two axes: the person's sex and their object of attraction.

The terms Androphilia and gynephilia are used for identifying a person's object of attraction without attributing a sex assignment or gender identity to the person. This can avoid confusion and offense when describing people in non-western cultures, as well as when describing intersex and transgender people."

If other editors think this is useful, we can add it to the article following discussion and any necessary revisions. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Sex-venn.png could certainly be greatly improved, but the new graphic is a JPEG even though use of the JPEG image format is somewhat discouraged for charts or diagrams of this general type (it makes it difficult to adjust the margins and internal white spaces, for example), and I'm not entirely sure what the fancy color gradients are supposed to symbolize in this context (and whether the use of colors is consistent between the two halves of the chart -- the color lavender is more often associated with homosexuality than heterosexuality). See File:Diagram sexuální orientace.png for a Czech-language diagram which is probably graphically better than either of the other two... AnonMoos (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I can make the graphic into any type of image file. The colors represent masculinity (blue) and femininity (pink), following the current Western stereotyped cultural designations for easiest understanding. In the chart I uploaded, the two-axis grid for homosexual/heterosexual is based on a simple matrix for Mendelian inheritance:

Mendelian inheritance

Inaccurate Czech diagram

The Czech diagram below it is confusing for lay readers. Gynecophilia describes gay women and straight men, but the chart suggests it describes two axes:

1. Interested in (zajimà seo)
2. Person is (osoba je)

Gynecophilia only describes one:

1. Interested in (zajimà seo)

As such, the Czech diagram is not accurate. Gynecophilia on that chart overlaps with homosexuality and heterosexuality in the top two quadrants, and androphilia overlaps with homosexuality and heterosexuality in the bottom two quadrants. Depicting them as separate is incorrect and confusing. Gynecophilia and androphilia operate independently from "person is" (osoba je). Whether a person is male or female is irrelevant in usage of androphilia and gynephilia. That is the essence of their value to scientists. Jokestress (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the chart. What it means is that a male-attracted-to-male can be called either an "androphile" or a "homosexual" (or if attracted to both males and females, a "bisexual") -- and so on for all the quadrants. For each of the four combinations, it lists all the terms that could be used to apply to such individuals. It's really clearer than the JPEG chart (and involves a lot less eye movement as you go back and forth comparing the left sub-chart and the right sub-chart of the JPEG). It's less visually fancy than the JPEG, but I would claim more suitable for Wikipedia article use. Anyway, I translated it into English: AnonMoos (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what androphilia and gynephilia mean. Gynephilia and androphilia have nothing to do with "person who is" on your translated version. The chart suggests that gynephilia can be either male or female. It operates independently of those categories, though it can also be combined with them. Same for androphilia. Furthermore, the chart you translated suggests that heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality are distinct, when many conceptualizations measure them along a continuum or scale. Update: I just revised the chart in hopes of making the concept clearer. Jokestress (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your objections seem to be based on word-endings alone, and are almost irrelevant in every other respect. I can change the "-philia" endings to "-phile" and the "-sexuality" endings to "-sexual" if you really think it's important (or if it will persuade you that the chart is about English-language terminology, rather than about mysterious essences inhabiting Plato's world of Ideal Forms), but either way, the retranslated Czech table seems to be more practical for Wikipedia article use than the JPEG (the latest version of the JPEG graphic gets around the inconsistent colors problem -- but at the expense of having three sub-charts that your eyes have to repeatedly go back and forth between, and the captions are still not very legible at article thumbnail size...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with using nouns versus adjectives. The problem with the Czech chart is that you cannot express all the information in a clear and accurate way on one graph. Think of the one I made as a set of transparencies. This first is axis A, the second is axis B, and the third is A + B combined, as if they are laid on top of each other. With two variables on each axis, there are four possible combinations. The Czech chart displays 17 total combinations: 12 distinct groups and 5 overlapping groups, and it fails to show where terminology overlaps.

Expressed as a matrix, one axis is M or F (male or female). The other axis is A or G (andropilic or gynephilic). The possible combinations are AM (androphilic male) GM (gynephilic male), AF (androphilic female) and GF (gynephilic female), as shown on the one I made. All the other stuff only complicates matters. If you don't show that androphilia and gynephilia operate without reference to "person who is" on the Czech chart, you are providing readers with misinformation. Jokestress (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It is great to see this exchange about the figures. Graphs are a powerful way to convey information, but this sometimes makes structuring the graph difficult.

If I understand Jokestress' concerns about the second Venn diagram, it is that gynephilia should envelop the entire upper half - including one lobe of homosexuality and heterosexualty, as well as maybe the upper half of bisexuality. Visually, maybe we could express this by expanding the green box to include the three areas. For visual simplicity, it should layer behind bisexuality, so the bisexuality area isn't divided by the green line. We could also consider moving the label to the side to have "gynephile" next to "attracted for females." Androphilia could be similarly expanded. Does that sound like it might work? BitterGrey (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We are trying to communicate the key distinction in definition between androphilia/gynephilia and homosexuality/heterosexuality:

• Androphilia/gynephilia only makes one declaration: object of attraction.
• Homosexuality/heterosexuality makes two: person's sex and object of attraction.

That's why a side-by-side comparison is necessary to explain it to readers. You have identified one of several key problems with the Czech graph: gynephile should take up the entire upper half, and androphile should take up the entire lower half. Once that is done, homosexual and heterosexual need to fill up each quadrant they occupy. This, however, would give readers the impression the terms we're comparing are interchangeable synonyms, when they are not. Gynephile and Androphile make no declaration about a person's sex, but that is what is shown on the Czech graph. The distinction is the key point we are trying to convey on the article's section on gender identity and expression. Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's comparative graphs show the one- versus two-axis difference depending on which framing gets used. There's no way to make the Czech graph convey what needs to be conveyed. It has to be done with at least the two side-by-side graphs. After designing it that way, I felt having a third with the person's sex variable as a standalone further clarifies. Jokestress (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Jokestress -- I think the basic conventions of the Czech-retranslated-to-English chart are intuitively pretty clear: If a bubble appears anywhere in a quadrant, then someone who is classified into that quadrant can be called by the term contained in the bubble (with the special caveat that you have to be in two quadrants to be called a "bisexual"). If there was an attempt to strictly diagram semantic subset relations between the different terms, then there would be a whole lot more inclusion of bubbles within other bubbles, and the enclosing lines of different bubbles crossing each other, than there is now (which would be more confusing). From the nature of the chart, it seems pretty obvious that no attempt is being made to show semantic subset relations.

You complained about the aesthetics of File:Sex-venn.png, which made a loose attempt to show such inclusion relationships, and then I came up with a much nicer-looking chart -- but the price for its aesthetics is that it omits the subset/inclusion relationships (the filename "Gynephilia-androphilia-heterosexual-homosexual orientations diagram.png" doesn't include the word "Venn" because it's not a Venn diagram)...

As for the other issues, it's perfectly true that biological sex is a gradient continuum (not a simple dichotomy between absolute 100% male and absolute 100% female). But if it's also true that over 95% of people are close enough to one end of the spectrum or to the other end of the spectrum so as to not make much difference in practical terms, then without any disrespect, an abstract schematic chart like this may not be the right place to address the situation of hermaphroditic and inter-sexed people. And I really don't understand the alleged difference between the "Androphile" and "Gynephile" bubbles going across both columns of File:Gynephilia-androphilia-heterosexual-homosexual orientations diagram.png versus the blue and pink "androphilic" and "gynephilic" blocks traversing both rows of the middle chart in File:Androphilia-gynephilia.png. It's logically exactly the same thing, with slight visual variations and elaborations... Anyway, your charts could be considered to be far more stereotypical than mine in adhering to a rigid pink-blue color scheme! -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Revised and simplified charts per feedback

Diagram showing relationships of sex (X axis) and sexuality (Y axis). The homosexual/heterosexual matrix lies within the androphilic/gynephilic matrix, because homosexual/heterosexual terminology describes sex and sexual orientation simultaneously.

Thanks for all the feedback, Anonmoos and Bittergrey. It's helping me get my head around the problem. Maybe this rendering makes more sense? This way androphilia/gynephilia are shown as operating independently of a person's sex, and it should look OK as a thumbnail. Jokestress (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Better: It eliminates the need for the reader to mentally stitch Jokestress' previous three figures together, and also eliminates the male/female dividing line from the Venn diagram without forcing a lot of baggage. BitterGrey (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry for delay in replying, but I was semi-distracted by dramas elsewhere.)

Jokestress -- Your most recent uploads are certainly greatly improved over your very first upload, but I remain a little concerned that even your most recent version still doesn't fully express the basic insight which is the reason for having any chart in the first place: Namely, that if you have the basic 2×2 matrix, then the terms "heterosexual" and "heterosexual" divide the cells of the matrix diagonally, while the terms "gynophilia" and "androphilia" divide the cells either by rows or by columns (depending on how you set up the chart). There needs to somehow be a stronger visual emphasis on diagonals vs. rows/columns... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries- we are not on a deadline! Per your comments directly above, I have just strengthened the visual connections vertically and diagonally. Regarding pink/blue, I previously mentioned that I chose the stereotypical gendered colors because I feel the average person will be able to grasp the connections more easily that way. They could be any two colors, but this will probably make the most sense to the most people. Personally, I have concerns about both binary concepts we are showing here, but our goal is to explain the concepts and not to make judgments about them. I omitted ambiphilic / bisexual from the chart because I think those terms complicate things for a lay reader, and the gradient is intended to represent those omitted concepts. The gradient on the Y axis is to represent the androphilia-gynephilia scale and/or the Kinsey scale. Because we are including that, it seems problematic not to do the same on the X axis for assigned sex. Nothing on this chart is designed to be proportional, as I discuss on the Wikimedia caption. If that were the case, the homosexual quadrants would be very tiny. To answer your question about the Czech chart, androphilia and gynephilia have to be independent variables outside the quadrant. That is why the Czech chart fails in its logic. If androphilia and gynephilia replaced "attracted to: male / female" on the left side and extended horizontally across the graph, it would be accurate. Let me know if my update on the right addresses your concerns. Jokestress (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good start on showing diagonal connections. I wasn't really opposed to the inclusion of gradients in your chart (as long as they didn't visually overwhelm other information) -- just insisting that other charts weren't "wrong" for not including gradients. Still see no reason why "Androphilia" and "Gynephilia" can't be in the chart (which is kind of the original point)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I may mess with the gradients a bit in the future. The Czech chart's wrongness has nothing to do with gradients. It's just wrong. To understand the problem with the Czech chart, let's try this thought exercise:

1. Explain for the me difference between androphilic and heterosexual.
2. Show me where that difference is represented visually on each chart.

Answer to #1: Androphilic does not give any information about whether the person being described is male or female, where heterosexual does. Answer to #2: It's not depicted on the Czech chart. Since that's the most important thing we are trying to explain, it needs to be depicted. Androphilic and gynephilic need to be visually represented as not interacting with the "person's sex" variable. And don't feel bad if the distinction seems elusive... a lot of sexuality "experts" struggle with the same problem! Jokestress (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Venn diagram showing relationships of sex and sexuality. Descriptors within a homosexual/heterosexual matrix are in white, to show differences in androphilic/gynephilic matrix.

For funzies, I made a true Venn diagram of the relationships between assigned sex and sexual orientation in a binary conceptualization, and why androphilic/gynephilic are the most scientifically accurate terms in some cases. Jokestress (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it! (Though it seems that the "pure" androphilic, gynephilic, and ambiphilic categorizations are reserved for neuter people...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are the three variables missing from the Czech chart that make it wrong, as well as the entire point of the difference. Androphilia, gynephila, and ambiphilia all describe people independently of their sex, the same way male and female describe people independently of sexual orientation. Saying someone is male or female gives no information about if they're are gay or straight, etc. Saying someone is androphilic or gynephilic gives no information on whether they are male or female, etc. Saying someone is homosexual gives information on both: it means they are either a gay man (androphilic male) or a lesbian (gynephilic female). Showing that androphilia, gynephila, and ambiphilia can be independent categories is the entire point we are trying to make with the chart. Jokestress (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So are we ready to put one or more up in the article? I'm curious if the average reader will assume the new Venn diagram relates to terminology (where androphilia outside of the male/female areas makes more sense) instead of relating to populations. BitterGrey (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me make one more change later this evening, and then maybe we can do an RfC for outside feedback before taking one into article space. Jokestress (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. By the way, do you think there is a risk that average readers might misunderstand, assuming that the shadow cast by homosexuality means something, other than just additional contrast for white text on a light background? BitterGrey (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

However, your fully-symmetrical theory with fully-independent variables seems to be predicated on the existence of a population of neuters (people without biological sex in any form) who don't actually exist... AnonMoos (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure this is clear. It doesn't mean they are "neuters." It means that the words androphilic and gynephilic have nothing to do with someone's sex. There are areas on the Venn diagram where male and female don't overlap with anything. That doesn't necessarily mean people within that set are asexual. It means that you can't assume anything about someone's sexuality from the terms male and female. If I say "AnonMoos is male," there's no information in the sentence indicating your sexual orientation. It doesn't automatically mean you are asexual, though. If I say "AnonMoos is gynephilic," there's no information in that sentence indicating your sex. It doesn't mean you are a "neuter." It just means that gynephilic doesn't provide any information on whether you are male or female. That's where the Czech chart fails in its logic, and why it will probably confuse many readers and lead them to inaccurate understanding. If this is still not clear, please read the Venn diagram article for details on how this type of logic works. Jokestress (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, updated both. I think they are ready for RfC. Bittergrey, on the non-Venn, the shadowing behind the white is for contrast, as you guessed. I say let's get some outside feedback and see if anyone else has specific concerns about that. Thanks again to you both for helping me to distill this into a clearer articulation. Jokestress (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK regarding the shadows. Regarding neuters, I think this is another way to express my comment about populations vs. terminologies. Having a term used with no sense of gender isn't unusual, having a person that isn't some combination of male or female is. BitterGrey (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:SEX.

IMO the Venn diagram is pretty but will confuse nearly all readers. The chart is okay.

I'm not convinced that an image is actually necessary to convey the concepts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Bittergrey: I agree, there's a huge sitewide problem with conflating phenomena with terminology, where sometimes it's important to have articles on both the phenomenon and the term. This article and the graphs are about conceptualizations and the terms employed in those conceptualizations. They are not representations of people. That said, every combination on the Venn diagram can (and has) been used to describe people. The only thing not depicted is asexuality, which falls outside of the scope of this specific article. Jokestress (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think that a male (pure blue), female (pure pink), or intersexed (greyish-blue) person who is neither gynephilic nor androphilic would be asexual -- I assumed that that's what the those three regions of the Venn chart were for... AnonMoos (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're still assuming that the chart's individual variables say something about each other. They do not. They could be asexual, but that information is not conveyed in the concepts/terms male or female. That is true on both charts. On the quadrant one, it is represented on the far left, where male is pure blue, female is pure pink, and intersex is the unmarked purple band in the middle. On either version, there are three places that describe each person: one's sex, one's sexual orientation, and the combination of those two.

• [[Ellen DeGeneres is female.
• Ellen DeGeneres is gynephilic.
• Ellen DeGeneres is a gynephilic female.

You can point to the three places on either chart.

• Elton John is male.
• Elton John is androphilic.
• Elton John is a androphilic male.

You can point to the three places on either chart.

• Cheryl Chase is intersex.
• Cheryl Chase is gynephilic.
• Cheryl Chase is a gynephilic intersex person.

You can point to the three places on either chart. These combinations can all be expressed as a math equation. This is very rudimentary set theory and logic. Please review those articles if it's still unclear. This discussion has been helpful in understanding how to explain this more clearly in this article and off-wiki. I'm beginning to wonder again if depicting the subsets might help on the Venn. Jokestress (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the standard interpretation of a simple Venn chart with two intersecting circles (say "people with red hair" and "people with Canadian citzenship") is that the intersection zone between the two circles represents Canadian red-heads, the area of the first circle which doesn't overlap with the second circle represents non-Canadian red-heads, the area of the second circle which doesn't overlap with the first circle represents Canadians without red hair, and the area of the diagram which is not enclosed in either circle represents non-Canadians without red hair.

Under that simple logic, the pure yellow area of File:Sex-sexuality-venn.png would represent androphilic neuters and the pure green area would represent gynephilic neuters (as discussed before), while the pure blue area would represent male asexuals and the pure pink area would represent female asexuals -- and finally, the white background area not enclosed in any of the four bubbles would represent asexual neuters. If you don't want to symbolize all 16 logical possibilities as far as "yes" or "no" on each of the four independent parameters "androphilic", "gynephilic", "male", and "female", then you really shouldn't use a diagram structure which defines 16 separate areas... AnonMoos (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's take your example. If I say "AnonMoos is Canadian," there's no information about your hair color. That doesn't mean you have no hair color. If I say "AnonMoos is a redhead," there's no information about your nationality. That doesn't mean you have no nationality. Those variables are independent of each other. The area outside each circle, including the non-overlapping part of the other circle, says nothing else beyond that you are not a redhead or not Canadian. By your logic, everyone in the white area would have no hair color or nationality, just a bunch of transparent-haired stateless people wandering the planet. If I say "AnonMoos is androphilic," there's no information about your sex. That doesn't mean you have no sex. If I say "AnonMoos is female," there's no information about your sexual orientation. That doesn't mean you have no sexual orientation. Those variables are independent of each other. That is one semantic benefit of using the terms androphilia and gynephilia. They make no statement about someone's sex. Homosexual and heterosexual say something about both sex and sexual orientation. If you'd like to continue this, maybe we can take it to your talk page. I am starting to repeat the same points. Jokestress (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps labeling the areas "known male" and "known female" would be less ambiguous. These would imply that the region not included in either, not( (known male) or (known female) ) would be unknown gender. I have to agree that, in a valid interpretation, not( (male) or (female) ) is neuter. Having androphilic and gynephilic areas in the neuter area implies (but does not state) a population there. BitterGrey (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I just added labels on both images to indicate where variables are not specified. It's not that they are unknown. It's that they are unspecified. Bittergrey's and Anonmoos' real names are not known, but that doesn't mean you don't have real names. They are just not specified in this context. I agree that this issue of what is and isn't specified in the terms is the point we are trying to drive home on either version. Does this make it clearer? Jokestress (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Jokestress -- I'm sure you're trying to do your best, and your charts (especially the more recently-uploaded versions) aren't bad, but unfortunately you seem to have a non-standard quasi-metaphysical understanding of the nature of chart categories, and this makes discussing some issues which should be quite straightforward instead rather difficult... AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the most recent modifications make the Venn diagram more clear. Couldn't we eliminate the "neuters" ambiguity by expanding the male and female ellipses on the Venn diagram to include all of the androphilic and gynephilic areas? Demographically, this is safe because we can assume that any individual would be some mix of male and female, even if we didn't know what that mix was yet. The other figure doesn't imply any neuters. I thought it was good-to-go last round. BitterGrey (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Androphilic and gynephilic are expressed the exact same way on both images. On both of them, the descriptors gynephilic and androphilic are represented as independent of a person's sex. If it seems that the first figure doesn't imply any "neuters," then we should by all means use that one. I feel the "not specified" language added in response to the concerns above helps drive home the point. Jokestress (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So is there any opposition to using the non-Venn figure (either the current one or the one just previous)? BitterGrey (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding the most recent non-Venn above. I believe it should appear at the very top, maybe about 300 pixels wide. It may be confusing at the head of the "Gender Identity and Expression" section, because the Weinrich quote is talking about a similar matrix for transsexual women, laid out slightly differently than this. If we put it at the top, maybe the transgender sidebar should move to the "Gender identity and expression" section? If that sounds good, feel free to add it. Thanks again for the feedback while developing this. Jokestress (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding it, but think we should give AnonMoos and maybe others a little while to comment. We're not in a rush. BitterGrey (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

At another article[7], I'm engaged with a discussion with two editors who really really want to use a fringe source that didn't even get the definition of gynephilia right. Clearly, this figure is not just necessary but overdue. BitterGrey (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've already pretty much said what I had to say... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The beginning of the article defines ambiphilia as attraction to people who are transgendered or intersex. The venn diagram suggests it means bisexual i.e. androphilic and gynephilic. So it's confusing as to which is the correct definition. Twinleaf (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

---

P.S. Some completely different charts at http://Nelde.deviantart.com/art/Sexual-Attraction-178695583 and http://nelde.deviantart.com/art/Sexual-Attraction-v2-180255547 ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think people should consider adding that second illustration to the article. Also, the images should be merged. MarkB40n (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Rename

Can this article be renamed to Ambiphilia, androphilia, and gynephilia? This article aims to use behavioral science concepts to describe sexual orientation in non-bias/non-gender binary terms. Yet the title contradicts itself with only 2 types of -philias. --71.160.93.144 (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Would you please give your reasoning? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel we can consider it, but ambiphilia/ambiphilic is more commonly used in chemistry. Furthermore, ambiphilic as a term still assumes a binary, ambi- meaning "both" as in ambidextrous and what-not. I recommend ambiphilic as a standalone about the use in chemistry, with a hatnote saying for the use in behavioral science, see androphilia and gynephilia. Thoughts? Jokestress (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like it would serve the reader better. Insomesia (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: Details on the recent move to Ambiphilia, androphilia, and gynephilia and the change back to Androphilia and gynephilia are here, here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I just want to thank the Wiki editors who reverted the change including "ambiphilia". The whole point of "androphilia" and "gynephilia" is to refer purely to experiences of attraction to men and experiences of attraction to women. Bisexual people are people who experience both androphilia and gynephilia! Naming the article ambiphilia/androphilia/gynephilia would very much confuse the matter of what exactly androphilia and gynephilia are. 2601:445:447F:4190:982D:F2C5:4F4E:40B7 (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Split and restore

Comparative and summarizing items should be moved and merged into the article Sexual orientation. Articles Androphilia and Gynephilia should be restored as special articles about both individual orientations and terms. It's no serious reason to group just these two (or three) terms togethter and such article is too duplicate toward Sexual orientation which should generally deal these terms too.

Also the traditional terms "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" can be used in behavorial science. Also the terms "androphilia" and "gynephilia" came from sexology. These two terms doesn't originate from some other discipline than the older two. --ŠJů (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that discussing Androphilia and Gynephilia separately from each other would be too helpful, since the main purpose is to recut the heterosexuality/homosexuality opposition solely in terms of who an individual is attracted to. Neither is a sexual identity embraced by significant percentages of the population... AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I also oppose splitting "androphilia" from "gynephilia." There's no way that these two terms can be adequately discussed without mostly discussing each other; this combined article shows that. So what we'd wind up with is a WP:CONTENT FORK, which should be avoided. As for the Sexual orientation article, androphilia and gynephilia are adequately discussed there already, as they should be, pointing readers here for in-depth material on this topic.

I'll leave a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. I would leave a note about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, but that WikiProject is pretty much dead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose a split for now. Once there is more of a shift in the public on these terms the article could grow so that it might help. But as is the article works as a singular unit. Insomesia (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Outdated section: Gender identity and expression

Looking through this section, it is not only very confusing for readers, but so much of the information is: (1) not presented in proper historical context, (2) flatly outdated, sometimes 30+ years out of date, (3) promoting terms that are extremely archaic and no longer in common use. I'm not sure exactly why this section is so outdated and jumbled, but it really needs significant cleanup to be readable. Note also that the article for homosexual transsexual was merged into Blanchard's transsexualism typology, because it's an outdated term used only within the context of that typology. That typology, meanwhile, has not received mainstream acceptance since it was proposed in the 1980s. Hist9600 (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)