Talk:Attraction to transgender people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page move

(Personal attack removed)

I've moved this page to tranny chaser, which is what they're actually known as. Searching for "tranny chaser" on Google comes up with 26,100 relevant hits. Searching for "transsensual" turns up 646 hits, many of which are not relevant. The former may be somewhat derogatory, but it's the common term; the latter is a neologism that makes no sense whatsoever. Ambi 08:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC) -- Hi! I'm the one who wanted to add the term transsensual or transensual to the article. I don't really use the term myself, but I've seen it used many times as a sort of more neutral or politically correct way to say somebody who is attracted to trans people. I've also seen it used a for people who are attracted to FTM people. I believe the word should at least be added to the article.--Sonjaaa 23:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tool for spreading neologisms. Ambi 14:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't we just discribe it in a literal and logical sense as being a 'heterosexual penis fetish'? It seems pretty neutral and factual way to discribe a 'tranny chaser'. It also doesn't reek of homophobia, paranoia or excessive liberalism. -Ashley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.131.95 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 December 2005

The problem with terms is that they might be connotative or denotative, or that a denotative term might turn into a connotative one, or vice versa, through usage. Words evolve and change, just like people. In this specific case, tranny chaser designs, in our community, a man who is attracted to a pre-op transsexual woman BECAUSE of her male genitalia. PERIOD. A man who is attracted to male genitalia is homosexual, even though they try to deny it. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, but that's not what TG women like myself want. I'm satisfied with the lexical juxtaposition "tranny chaser" because we needed something to describe, in an immediate and vivid way, a certain type of men we should be leery of. There are a lot of things to say about this issue, but the most relevant point is that these tranny chasers are in denial and need to see a penis attached to a woman (and that's how tranny chaser perceive us) to deceive themselves into thinking that they are straight. Let's set the record straight. A heterosexual man is someone who might be attracted to us, but who completely ignores our male genitalia and considers them as a de-sexualized part of our body (like the elbow or the wrist) in need of future corrective surgery. A real man doesn't care if our penis is big or small, functional or non functional, because he's not attracted to it. For a tranny chaser, by contrast, the penis is the "conditio sine qua non". This is what "straight" means. "Transsensual" is a kind of euphemism, I don't like this term at all, it's full of hypocrisy. This is such a contradictory situation. First and foremost, people with gender dysphoria like myself are very uncomfortable with their penis and become much more uncomfortable when it becomes the lover's object of attraction. How could tranny chasers possibly say that they are heterosexuals when all they want is to do a "fellatio in ore" and be sodomized? Transsexual women don't transition to screw men's asses, really! The other contradiction is that tranny chasers look for shemales (a very offensive, disgusting term) a mythical figure, a stunning feminine girl with a huge functional penis. And this is a contradiction, indeed, or a mythical figure, first of all because hormone theraphy renders the penis non-functional, and then because what's the use of going through the hell of transition (with surgical procedures, risks etc) if a tranny chaser seeks you for your male part? Another distinguishing trait of tranny chasers is that they suffer from BDD (body dysmorphic disorder). They have a distorted, unrealistic and non-realistic picture of their physical appearence. They are very demanding and exacting when it comes to the beauty of the transsexual woman and want a transsexual woman be more beautiful and more feminine than a genetic female, but they are most often average to ugly aging men, are going bald, are overweight and consider themselves very attractive or handsome. A lot of tranny chasers just don't click with genetic females (obviously, because they have a homosexual orientation) and consider transsexual women as easy, substandard women and want to treat us accordingly. In other words, most tranny chasers are losers refused by genetic women and want us as a substitute. The lead a double life, are married or in a long term relationship with a genetic woman, but look for trannies with huge penis to fulfil their insane obsessions.

Discription of a tranny chaser? Do you even know what you just said? Let's quote this... "Another distinguishing trait of tranny chasers is that they suffer from BDD (body dysmorphic disorder)." Okay, let's read about Body dysmorphic disorder. Essentually, they're convinced their ugly. Then you said "but they are most often avarage to ugly aging men, are going bald, are overweight and consider themselves very attractive or handsome." So, they are people who are convinced they are ugly as a result of a mental disorder. However, they are also ugly people who are convinced they are attractive? That's entirely contradictory. "They are very demanding and exacting when it comes to the beauty of the transsexual woman and want a transsexual woman be more beautiful and more feminine than a genetic female," So do most married men who wish their wives looked more like the girls on the covers of Maxim. This is the problem with you transsexuals and your gender politics, you forget to use common sense before saying anything. -Ashley

Excuse me, you missed my point. BDD is a distortion of your body image, for the worse or for the better. In the case of tranny chasers, they don't think they are ugly when they are handsome, on the contrary, they think they are handsom when they are very ugly, i.e. they have a distorted perception of their physical appearence! That's what BDD is all about! We always read stories about people who suffer from BDD and consider themselves to be more unattractive than what they really are, but we never hear of opposite stories, that is, people who are delusional and consider themselves stunning when they look horrible. This is the typical case of tranny chasers. They look at TS women as substandard women and want to treat us like garbage and think that we will accept anything and we have different standards of beauty. They think that just because we are not genetic women, we will consider them attractive. And it's ridiculous to make the comparison with married men who wish their wives looked more like the girls of the covers of Maxim. Your point doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.246.31 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 30 December 2005

No. No it's not. There is nothing about people with BDD having a positive body image when they themselves are 'ugly'. You do not see mention of people with such a positive image because that is not BDD. I have the DSM-IV-TR sitting here on my desk. You read the wiki entry which actually lists the three diagnosis criterion for 300.7 Body Dysmorphic Disorder. You have no place on the wikipedia if you are just going to make stuff up that is obviously false and claim them as fact. -Ashley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.131.95 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 30 December 2005

Then, let's go back to the etymology of the word "dysmorphophobia". Dys is the prefix which indicates an undesirable state (as in , dysphoria which is the opposite of euphoria), morpho means "shape" (as in "morphology", "morpheme") "phobia" means fear (as in claustrophobia). Dysmorphophobia is a word from greek derivation. Of course, and as I have already put it, words evolve and sometimes terms containing phobia do not really mean "fear" but something else. In fact, homophobia, at the present day, doesn't literally mean that someone is frightened by homosexuals but something else. Here in Europe there are psychotherapists who adopt the term dysmorphophobia to describe people who have a distorted image of themselves, and this might be for the worse or for the better, i.e. not only to describe patients who perceive themselves as unattractive (or tend to magnify a physical flaw, such as people who suffer from anorexia nervosa) but also the opposite. BDD or dysmorphophoby is the umbrella term (hyperonim) which includes other hyponims (such as bigorexia). I'm not making stuff up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.50.246.31 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 31 December 2005

(Personal attack removed)

There are so many assumptions and much ill-considered prejudice in this discussion. A few points: 1. The term transfan, while not as offensive as tranny chaser, is I believe condescending. The terms transoriented man or trans-attracted man are more adequate. Chasers and fans have been described as akin to a player, as used in the heterosexual sense. There is an inferred assumption here that transoriented men are all players, which ignores the fact that many, albeit a comparatively small percentage of us, for various reasons, have happy loving relationships with transwomen. 2. To claim that all transoriented men seek to receive, or even give anal sex is also ignorant of the diversity that exists among us. 3. It is not true that all transoriented men are closet gays, some do in fact consider themselves gay to a degree, though the majority who have though about it believe gays are significantly and categorically different. Part of this is that these men usually feel their partner to be female and use feminine pronouns. They also are usually turned off by most aspects of masculinity that are commonly found attractive to gay males.

There is a website www.transoriented.com which is making an effort to better understand transoriented men. Seeing the near hatred and comparison to pedophiles and scum that is part of the discussion here, it's little wonder transoriented men have been tentative to declare and talk about their orientation publicly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.186.160 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC) To the one talking about all transatracted are chasers: I am transgender and choose to be non-op for my personal reasons, also, not all of us have the same reaction to testosterone blockers, so some of us, maybe a minority still can use our lady parts. I do agree that there's a high number of people that just wants us for sex; although I find it a bit disgusting, this still means attraction in my opinion. Also when both parts agree it's ok to have casual. There's some of us that like the idea of having casual, because we are normal people and normal people also enjoy casual. Not to mention there's also people that are exclusively attracted to us in romantical and sexual ways. I have found them and the experience has been comfortable. If we say people that are attracted to us have a fetish, we are saying that we in some sense can be a fetish object, and we are giving the reason to people that say that being attracted to us is sick. I see myself as a human, so being attracted to me I think is not a fetish, is just a natural behavior. And it should be seen as something as normal as being homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual. Normalizing it I believe will help us finding healthy and safe relationships with people that respect us.

Pre- or pre

I really don't want to start anything over something this silly, so I'm more than willing to let it go as is. However, I'd like to mention that as best as I've been taught as far as English goes, while "pre-" is technically correct, whether to use the suspensive hyphen here or not is more of a stylistic point. It's a device that's often encouraged to be used very spraringly, and most typically to avoid confusion. [Example: "The right- or left-handed scissors" would be necessary as it would clarify that we're contrasting two different pair and not a single one that works both ways] It would be very difficult to state that any confusion would be created by its abscence in this situation, as one cannot be both pre-operative and non-operative. So I guess with that said, I'll leave it to any future editors to decide if Mr. Hyphen should stay around or not. You know my vote. But as it stands now, Tamara versus myself in Hyphen War '06 won't get us anywhere. :-p -- Zoe 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Tranny chaser, there is no such thing as 'transsensual'

Really, that should be 'nuff said. Transsensual is a horrible misuse of psudolatin. By breaking it down, it seems it would apply more to someone into S&M, B&D, or something.

A Tranny chaser is a man who frequents trans-friendly clubs and internet chats, looking to hook up with transwomen for quick sexual fixes. They are abnormally obsessed with the penis, and with how femenine any given transwoman looks. Straight men may talk about how good looking this or that woman is, but seldom if ever will you hear to straight men discussing which woman is more womanly, nor whether or not it's a shame that their penis doesn't work. These discussions have been had by chasers. Trannychasers display behavior in line with that of Closeted homosexual males, such as a complete denial of their homosexual tendenceis, and an overcompensation of finding 'femininity' attractive, to such ends that most chasers have unusually and unrealisticly high demands of beauty and femininity.

A tranny chasers Modis Operendi is more akin to that of a pedophile than a homosexual male, although the psychological drive is probably more similar to a homosexual male. Most Transwomen, particularly when still in transition, are very much like pubescent women. Thanks to hormone therepy they are often overly-emotional, frustrated, often insecure, and extremely curious about their newfound gender and in exploring their sexual identity with their new gender.

Chasers take advantage of these insecurities and curiosity in much the same way that pedophiles do with young children. In clubs and chats, chaser mentality and behavior towards transwomen is startlingly similar to that of a pedophile trying to groom a child. If you're insulted by this comparasin, do some research on pedophilia and see for yourself. Remember, I'm not saying that chasers are child molestors, just that their behavior towards transwomen is extremely similar to that of a child molestor to a child.

As an aside, neither pedophiles nor tranny chasers like very much being called gay.

A tranny chaser is a man who always insists they are hetero-sexual, with an extremely keen interest in the secondary feminine sexual characteristics, such as hair, smooth skin, and feminine faces, while being attracted sexually to the primary masculine feature of transwomen, that being the penis, and in particular whether or not the penis functions. And, whether or not the transwoman wants to or is willing to use it.

Most if not all of these chasers are always hunting to be with a T-girl who they feel is ideal. Whether it is online or in real life. Chasers are not interested in forming relationships with Transsexuals for the most part, although I've personally encountered three (out of literally thousands) who wanted to have long term relationships, only one of them wanted specifically someone who was either post op, or wanted to be post op in the near future, or only biological women. All of the others wanted only sexual release, and 75% of them were either married or had serious long term relationships with genetic women. Neither the Spouses or girlfriends knew of their lovers interest in transwomen. About 50% of the chasers had actually been with transsexual hookers and escorts, and it seemed about 80% were willing to pay for sex as well, but hadn't for various reasons, usually pride. Every single one of them expected to have sex with a transwomen if they went out to a tranny club, and 90% of those online expected to have sex with a transwoman if they were to meet one for the first time. None of them had such expectations in regards to genetic women, and many even said they had no real interest in genetic woman, and absolutely no interest in a post-operative transsexual. Akinokaze 00:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)The Autumn Wind

What in god's name have you been doing in life that has lead you to encounter 'literally thousands' of men who are sexually interested in you? DJ Izumi 00:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

I'd like to remind all contributors that Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks and that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi all! I know this is an emotional topic for all of you, but please try and be at least a little civil. Debates go so much nicer then :) - FrancisTyers 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 12:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

TGs and Tranny Chasers as Queers; can I suggest another line of thinking on this; that chasers are representatyive of firstly, str8 society's feeling of entitlement to use queers for gratification/sexual release, and secondly to heterosexualize latent homosexuality/bisexuality to protect the patriarchal system, in other words to proivide an outlet for it within a heterosexual context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R jay72 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Book reference all mixed up

The reference to "True Selves" seems a bit conflated. "True Selves" was written by Mildred L. Brown and Chloe Ann Rounsley. Helen Boyd (a pseudonym) wrote "My Husband Betty" and "She's Not the Man I Married".

I don't remember "True Selves" having anything about tranny chasers in it. It seems more like something Helen Boyd would have addressed, but I don't remember that either.

While "True Selves" is a good book I don't know whether I'd objectively describe it as "pathbreaking"

Temblast (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What about people who like post-ops?

I really hate the attitude of western transsexuals. They classify everyone who like transsexuals as trannychasers who are after "chicks with dicks". But what about the rest of us who are attracted to post-op transsexuals? This article doesn't mention a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.226.133 (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are attracted to post-op ts women, then you simply like women. The ones who are penis obsessed, but prefer that it comes attached to transitioning women (so they don't have to admit homosexual desires) are the ones who earn the pejorative term 'tranny chaser.'

Sexual and affectional orientation

This article covers both sexual orientation and affectional orientation. We do not need articles for both. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As it states on our page about sexual orientation, The American Psychological Association states that "[s]exual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others." Alternately, "Sexual orientation is a specific manifestation of sexuality as expressed through sexual, affectional, and relational predispositions toward other persons." Docter's 2001 article discusses "affectional, social, or sexual encounters between a transgendered person and a male." Please state the concern with phrasing this as the APA does. Attraction to transgender people, just like any other kind of attraction, is not necessarily sexual. Jokestress (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can discuss only the sources provided. APA provides a broad definition, but provides no information about gynandromorphophilia. Docter provides information about gynandromorphophilia, but no definition for sexual orientation. Gupta is not an RS at all. All that's left is SYNTH and OR.

To a repeated question, I can give only a repeated answer: There are researchers who gather data using the focused definition, and there are rights advocates who use a broad definition. It is, to repeat, both SYNTH and OR to use the broad definitions provided by rights groups to misrepresent what was meant by the scientists to apply only to their narrow/specific definitions.

There are separate articles for homosexual (the technical term, which contains the research info on the topic) and for gay (the everyday term, which contains all the info about that term and its use). That there are many more hits for the common term than the technical term does not supercede WP:MoS.

— James Cantor (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The APA no longer says "toward others," if it ever did, seeing as that can be taken to mean any type of attraction. It says "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." And of course it says more as well, but certainly makes it clear that sexual orientation is usually categorized as heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality. Thus, I will change that part of the article accordingly. 23.29.123.148 (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just added another definition that very clearly discusses attraction to trans people in its section on sexual orientation. Per the book by National Academies Press, "This working definition encompasses attraction, behavior, and identity. As explained in Chapter 3, most researchers studying sexual orientation have defined it operationally in terms of one or more of these three components. Defined in terms of attraction (or desire), sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of experiencing sexual or romantic feelings for men, women, transgender persons, or some combination of these groups." [1] That's the part cited in the article. It then goes on to give similar definitions for behavior and identity. We should go by the definitions used by most researchers (emphasis mine), not an activist minority in the mental health field. Jokestress (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The definition of sexual orientation used by most researchers is "heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality," as the APA states. Meaning sexual/romantic attraction to males/men, females/women or both sexes/genders, or, specifically-speaking, the sexual/romantic attraction to the opposite sex, same sex or both sexes. I consider transgender people a part of that equation because they usually appear to be either male or female and usually identify as either a man or a woman. But a specific attraction to transgender people is not usually defined as a sexual orientation. 23.29.123.148 (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A number of researchers have noted the problems with simplistic homo/hetero terminology in relation to attraction to trans people and attraction overall, which is why there are a number of proposed improvements in use, like androphilia and gynephilia. The idea that attraction to trans people is a paraphilia is also shifting, which is why there's a strong reaction among activists who want to preserve the narrow older ideology. Jokestress (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There has now been a string of RS’s added to the lead, with claims that they support something they do not.

1. A “working definition” is not generally the highly-sourced/cited one that would appear in an encyclopedia.

2. Most authors studying SEXUAL ORIENTATION use sexual-attraction/romantic-attraction/identity, but most authors (all?) studying GYNANDROMORPHILIA only use the SEXUAL aspects to form the category studied.

3. Missing from Jokestress’ excerpt is the report’s caution: "[S]exual attractions and behaviors are generally understood as ranging along a continuum from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual....’’’Which of these categories is used in a particular study or health intervention will depend on the research or treatment goals.’’’ Individuals may also have a specific attraction toward transgender persons" (p. 28). This is what I have said already: The particular studies on the mainpage categorized by the sexual, not romantic, aspects.

Now that many sources posted on the main page have failed verification, I suggest obtaining a consensus here before posting any additional ones.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your objection is to the inclusion of the word romantic as it appears in the source? The source says attraction is "sexual or romantic feelings" and is a reliable source. This is an article about attraction. You requested a source that mentions trans people specifically. This meets all the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.

• Is the citation you removed a reliable source? Yes.
• Does the source state "Defined in terms of attraction (or desire), sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of experiencing sexual or romantic feelings for men, women, transgender persons, or some combination of these groups." Yes.
• Does the source specifically mention that attraction to trans people can be romantic? Yes.

It's one thing to request sources, but this is now veering into disruption. Please explain yourself or add back the reliable source you removed. Jokestress (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL You kinda forgot another aspect of a lead: It has to be about the topic of the page. Every RS on the page (and every RS in print) is about the SEXUAL aspects.

• No RS uses "romantic" (or "emotional," or "affectional," or any of the other bowlderized terms you tried) as a defining characteristic). Rather, the RS's provide (at best) a passing mention if it when describing (at best) a whole range of sexual interests, and "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
• The definition you are inserting this time is that book's definition of SEXUAL orientation, which can include nonsexual aspects. The mainpage title, however, is not "SEXUAL attraction to trans", it's just "attraction", making it (falsely) sound like merely having a romantic attraction (and not a sexual one) would count. NONE of the RS's say that, however. Like I said, this is all SYNTH aimed at minimizing the sexual component of a sexual phenomenon. The page, clearly, puts its attention on what is and is not a politically correct term rather than on the actual topic. It's rather clear WP:PROMOTION, using WP to advocate for the language of the day, all in violation of WP:MOS.
• Moreover, you're skipping some point. For example, the book being an RS does not let you use what it calls a "working definition" as something stronger than the actual RS does.

— James Cantor (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If the name of the page were changed to Sexual attraction to transgender people, then I would have little objection to vaguer/broader lead sentences. But the watering down of both pagename and lead misrepresents the topic and is unsupported by the RS's. — James Cantor (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, talking about RS and then not providing any for convenience is annoying. I also want to point out that edit warring or near-edit warring is not acceptable! Seriously you guys. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

C Hunger games catching fire (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article gives undue weight to the notion that attraction to trans people is a paraphilia/fetish. Money's and Blanchard's ideas have been largely discredited, and their methods questioned, and yet their ideas make up the majority of this page. Their POVs should be discussed, certainly, but should not inform the tone of the entire article. It is entirely possible to be attracted to a trans person without fetishizing them, yet this article seems to suggest otherwise.

This article also discusses attraction to trans women and MtF crossdressers almost exclusively, with only brief mentions of people attracted to trans men or non-binary folks. It also only discusses cisgender people who are attracted to trans people, ignoring cases of trans people who are attracted to other trans people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandbergja (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Money's and Blanchard's ideas have been largely discredited

— Citation fucking needed...

128.189.144.214 (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation, and for a reminder to back up my assertions. Money's research methods included coercing parents into having their infant undergo sex reassignment surgery and forcing twin siblings to engage in sexual acts with one another (Colapinto, J (2001). As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl. Harper Perennial. ISBN 0-06-092959-6.). The World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the leading world authority on transgender healthcare has rejected Blanchard's typology of trans women, noting that there wasn't any acceptable evidence to support it (see DOI 10.1080/15532739.2010.550766 and DOI 10.1080/15532739.2011.606195). Both of them have a pretty awful reputation within trans and intersex communities as well. I don't want to clog the talk page with a bunch of citations, but you can visit the wikipedia articles about either Money or Blanchard to find references to critiques by leading trans and intersex thinkers. Let me know if you have any questions, and if you have any constructive ideas about how to address the undue weight issue that still exists on this article. Sandbergja (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Exceptionally poor, arguably prejudiced and definitely inaccurate article

Incredibly poorly framed, narrow in focus, and biased in core content coverage, this article needs serious work. The title itself betrays an incredible lack of understanding about the subject matter. Believe it or not, but trans people are not some alien other who only attract people who align with a particular niche orientation. Transgender people are a vast and diverse demographic, who can be and usually are just as attractive to the population in general as cisgender people are. It is impossible to even tell if somebody is trans by looking at them on the street unless they inform you as such! Yet, this article persists in fetishizing and othering trans people in much the same manner as do the chasers that it describes, and who most likely were responsible for much of the text. Moreover, why does an article entitled "attraction to transgender people" concern itself almost entirely with people who "chase" trans women, almost entirely neglecting trans men (and non-binary trans people), and discussing cross dressers who are themselves not even trans? This is a poor article in need of significant work and a definite rename. I might suggest "fetishization of trans people" as a good working title to start with. 92.40.249.42 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

May I propose a term?

Conisexual

Coniungere (latin "to combine, to connect"), Sexualis (latin "sexual") A person whose sexual and/or romantic attraction is exclusively directed towards another person combining feminine as well as masculine traits. This includes androgynous and non-operative transgender individuals.

I identify as such without having a fetish (which I think is a very degrading and inaccurate explanation for this type of attraction). Conisexuals can be defined by not being Hetero, nor Homosexual but instead being attracted to non-binary, transgender and androgynous people only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CE:1BE6:A872:9534:D013:113A:26A7 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Transvestophilia

Why does Transvestophilia (i.e. sexual interest in crossdressers) redirect here? Cross-dressing is not the same thing as transgender.Sega31098 (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, transgender is an umbrella term which includes transsexuals and cross-dressers. AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A better explanation might be, that men with this type of attraction see what is on the outside, whereas gender identity distinctions are on the inside, and not visible. Thus, whether someone is a trans women, a cross-dresser, or female impersonator, isn't part of the equation for men who are attracted to feminine appearing persons assigned male at birth. Thus, it makes sense for Transvestophilia to redirect here. Mathglot (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sexual attraction to third-gender people

There's some research about the sexual orientation of men who have sex with third genders in Asian and Pacific communities. I was thinking about including some such content in here. Do you think this belongs in this entry? What say you, User:Flyer22 Reborn? Rafe87 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if I saw this earlier. I'd have to look at the sources you are speaking of. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The "attraction to transgender people as a medical diagnosis to be managed" material

Mooeena, 84percent and Mathglot, regarding this, this and this, like I stated (followup note here), the academic book sources actually are WP:MEDRS-compliant. If what the sources are reporting on for this matter is an outdated view, then the sources fall afoul WP:MEDDATE. But even if we look at sources that report this view to be outdated, it is still something we should include in a historical context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

On a side note: Sexual attraction to trans women and trans men are currently listed at List of paraphilias. Some have tried to remove the entries, but sexologist/psychologist James Cantor has restored the material. See, for example, this edit. So, apparently, it's not outdated to him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

My reasoning is this: Being transgender itself has, in the past, been characterized as a mental illness to be treated or a paraphilia. The "Sexual Deviance" book's section on "Transvestic Fetishism" is an example. If this article is to mention that attraction to transgender people was pathologized, what is the point at which every transgender-related article does not have a section mentioning that academics have suggested that it is a mental illness or paraphilia? Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 02:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about attraction to transgender people. That sexual attraction to transgender people has been considered a medical diagnosis to be managed is material that belongs in the article. It is WP:Due. You know, in the same way that homosexuality having been considered a mental illness is WP:Due in the Homosexuality article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Please go ahead and add the material back. Thank you for your insights; I have nothing else to add. 84percent (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to be consensus for this. I'm sympathetic to Mooeena's concerns, which were (are) my own, but the arguments here are persuasive. Thanks, Flyer, for your comments on MEDRS compliance, and the MEDDATE and historical aspects. I withdraw my objection, and won't interfere with adding it back. Mathglot (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe the above discussion is now moot. The 2007 RS was written before the current DSM-5 (in 2013). Under the current systems, the sexual preference for transpeople is a paraphilia, but it is not a paraphilic disorder (unless it causes harm or the kind of distress that makes the person want to come in for therapy to help come out and integrate into his life.— James Cantor (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Attraction to trans men

In diff, an editor boldly removed much of the text on attraction to trans men, with the exception of one sentence attributing the visibility of materials for such people to Buck Angel. I restored some of the material, because of the face of it the references cited give more space/time/WP:WEIGHT to discussing the nature of attraction to vs exclusion of trans men than they do to attributing such attraction to Buck. As the editor has removed everything but Buck again, I'd like to see if that removal/reading of the sources is shared by anyone else (or, more to the point, has consensus or should be undone). -sche (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The editor removing the material appears to believe that ethnomethodology is not a "real" methodology, and that only statistical findings should be featured in this and similar articles. By contrast, I prefer more diversity of sources. Newimpartial (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's nice, but here we prefer to use WP:SECONDARY sources. We also have to hold to WP:MEDRS. 3 opinion pieces and an autobiography totally fail those requirements. The idea that anyone should be attracted to any particular type of person or body is totally WP:FRINGE and to keep it is WP:UNDUE. And, I may add, whoever added it originally very clearly had a particular ax to grind. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of consensus that the non-medical claims in this article are subject to MEDRS. Given the scope of the available literature on the topic of this article, I doubt very much that the DUE balance between scientific and non-scientific sources is where Crossroads1 thinks it ought to be according to their personal POV. Finally, I don't think PRIMARY means what Crossroads1 assumes it to mean. Newimpartial (talk)

A claim that someone can control their sexual attraction, no matter the forum it is made in, is a medical/psychological claim. I don't think "primary" means what Newimpartial thinks it does. According to WP:PRIMARY, note c, "Further examples of primary sources include...editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces...For definitions of primary sources: The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies..." -Crossroads- (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any claims in the (now-restored) material that anyone can "control their sexual attraction". Care to share evidence for that interpretation?

Also, the essence of WP:PRIMARY is that (1) articles should be based primarily on secondary sources and (2) editors should not add interpretation to primary sources (which is OR).

In particular, autobiographical or ethnomethodological primary sources have exactly the same status as original scientific studies under PRIMARY; there is no restriction on including the interpretation offered by the authors of the primary source themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand Crossroads1's concerns and have expressed my concerns before about the section as well, since the biology of sexual orientation is sex-based rather than based on sexual attraction to a gender identity. So Jaime Woo saying cisgender gay men often show a "fundamental resistance to accept trans men as partners" and that "the problem" is partly because cisgender gay men are invested in sexual orientation without including gender identity? Well, yeah. That is "the problem." By "can't control their sexual attraction," Crossroads1 obviously means that a cisgender gay man can't make himself sexually attracted to a person who is absent of male secondary sexual characteristics or doesn't have the genitals that are important to that cisgender gay man's ability to become sexually aroused. Genitals may not matter to some people, but they matter to many people, and this has been especially shown when it comes to gay men, which is why the section talks about "the privileged role of the penis" with regard cisgender gay men. All that stated, it's good to see that the section has been trimmed. And since what is there is a social commentary view that exists, it seems okay to have material on it in this article. The section is the "Social aspects" section. It's not a section about science. As also suggested, more trimming can be had.

The section should also include some criticism of the viewpoint, such as Andrew Sullivan stating the following in the 2019 "The Nature of Sex" source, from New York/Intelligencer, "If you abandon biology in the matter of sex and gender altogether, you may help trans people live fuller, less conflicted lives; but you also undermine the very meaning of homosexuality. If you follow the current ideology of gender as entirely fluid, you actually subvert and undermine core arguments in defense of gay rights. 'A gay man loves and desires other men, and a lesbian desires and loves other women,' explains Sky Gilbert, a drag queen. 'This defines the existential state of being gay. If there is no such thing as 'male' or 'female,' the entire self-definition of gay identity, which we have spent generations seeking to validate and protect from bigots, collapses.' Contemporary transgender ideology is not a complement to gay rights; in some ways it is in active opposition to them. And the truth is that many lesbians and gay men are quite attached to the concept of sex as a natural, biological, material thing. Yes, we are very well aware that sex can be expressed in many different ways. A drag queen and a rugby player are both biologically men, with different expressions of gender. Indeed, a drag queen can also be a rugby player and express his gender identity in a variety of ways, depending on time and place. But he is still a man. And gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex. We are men and attracted to other men. If the concept of a man is deconstructed, so that someone without a penis is a man, then homosexuality itself is deconstructed. Transgender people pose no threat to us, and the vast majority of gay men and lesbians wholeheartedly support protections for transgender people. But transgenderist ideology — including postmodern conceptions of sex and gender — is indeed a threat to homosexuality, because it is a threat to biological sex as a concept. And so it is not transphobic for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. It is close to definitional. The core of the traditional gay claim is that there is indeed a very big difference between male and female, that the difference matters, and without it, homosexuality would make no sense at all. If it's all a free and fluid nonbinary choice of gender and sexual partners, a choice to have sex exclusively with the same sex would not be an expression of our identity, but a form of sexist bigotry, would it not? There is a solution to this knotted paradox. We can treat different things differently. We can accept that the homosexual experience and the transgender experience are very different, and cannot be easily conflated." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 Reborn (and everyone) that some more material could appropriately be trimmed from the restored version and that some balancing material be added. However, Crossroads1 simply deleted all the same material be trimmed before (with which he disagrees), while adding a source sharing his POV. I have restored the lambda-award winning source only, and fully accept the inclusion of the competing material, with the note that we do not achieve BALANCE simply by adding material we like and deleting material with which we individually disagree. Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source, but "...some cisgender gay men often..." sounds vague/contradictory to me. One of those words should be cut (probably "often"). gnu57 17:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Since that is a paraphrase anyway, I have opted to FIXIT. Newimpartial (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The saga continues. I have removed the word "meanwhile" because the stuff with Buck Angel did not happen during the 2015 study in the preceding paragraph. "In recent years" was removed due to being vague. The word "however" was taken out since Sullivan does not contradict Green directly; gay men partnered with trans men are a subset of gay men, and it is not reasonable or proper to expect all gay men to like any particular sort of body.

It is definitely improper to refer to Sullivan as conservative. First, his politics do not matter at all; second, he really isn't conservative; third, putting it could be construed as an attempt to discredit him to liberals.

I changed "arguing" to "on the basis", because sexual orientation is based on sex, or more accurately, sex characteristics. All the literature on measuring men's sexual orientation uses stimuli of male vs. female bodies, not people's gender identities. So, that is not just Sullivan's idea. Still, some gay men are attracted to trans men, etc., so more is involved than just biological sex assigned at birth (the secondary sex characteristics play that role - if Buck Angel looked like Scarlett Johansson, he would have hardly any gay fans). That is why I am open to putting "on the basis that" instead of "because". -Crossroads- (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the word "conservative" being left in, but calling him conservative is accurate and relevant, in my view, and was not meant to discredit him. The arguments he's making are conservative/traditionalist, and gay conservatism is, like, his thing. He made waves back in the day with the article A (Conservative) Case For Gay Marriage. His wiki page calls him a "conservative political commentator". The article you cite talks about his "attachment to the Anglo-American conservative political tradition" even as he criticizes modern American conservatism. Several years after that article was written, he was asked if he still identified as a conservative and answered "yes".

Regarding how best to sum up Sullivan's article, I think ultimately the easiest way to gain consensus will be to pull a representative quote from it. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe a quote is necessary in this case, just like many of our other similar citations. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, sexual orientation is based on biological sex, not gender identity is not a sentence that should be presented in Wikipedia's own voice. If nothing else it's confusing. To you, the term "biological sex" encompasses secondary sexual characteristics, but many people would instead consider it just a synonym for sex assigned at birth (see how this Planned Parenthood page talks about the term.) WanderingWanda (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It was not in Wikipedia's voice; it says "on the basis that." Your source is poor; we should rely on the scientific literature. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The arguments Sullivan is making in "The Nature of Sex" are not simply conservative/traditionalist views. Those arguments don't just come from conservatives or transphobic people. And if the section in question were a scientific section, this would be clear. Sexual orientation is not measured based on sexual attraction to gender identities, which are people's internal perception of who they are, and includes gender identities that have only recently been conceptualized. Like Crossroads1 stated, "All the literature on measuring men's sexual orientation uses stimuli of male vs. female bodies, not people's gender identities."

Regarding this, I agree with Crossroads1's revert. The "sexual orientation is based on biological sex, not gender identity" piece already has in-text attribution. And that sexual orientation is based on biological sex, not gender identity, when it comes to sexual attraction is already clear from our Wikipedia articles on sexual orientation, such as Biology and sexual orientation, anyway. The above Planned Parenthood source is not about sexual orientation. Nor is it scientific. I don't see that anyone is going to be confused by the "sexual orientation is based on biological sex, not gender identity" wording, unless they don't see that Sullivan is talking about sexual attraction. The text can be changed so that it's clearer that he means with regard to sexual attraction for the "biological sex, not gender identity" part, but the text already begins by stating "has criticized the idea that gay men should automatically be attracted to trans men." As a compromise, the text could also be changed back to using the word "arguing," but the sexual orientation and gender identity aspect is the main point of Sullivan's argument with regard to cisgender gay men being sexually attracted to transgender gay men (and cisgender lesbians with regard to trans women), as is clear from what I quoted above. And the "It is close to definitional" piece is without that context/is vague. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, one aspect that you quite from Crossroads1 is suspect, at least in the way you cite it here. The research about men's attraction to Trans women does not appear to support your contention "All the literature on measuring men's sexual orientation uses stimuli of male vs. female bodies", though I agree that aspects of bodies are involved rather than gender identities. It would be easy to characterize the bodies in question as "male vs. female", at least without additional specifications about the (primary and secondary) sexual characteristics of those bodies. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I can only guess why you decided to reply to me instead of to Crossroads1 on that. I'm not going to sit here and argue with you on the research that I am very familiar with. It seems to me that Crossroads1 is also familiar with the literature, which has been very welcomed by me. But I will state this: By "men," it seems that Crossroads1 was referring to cisgender men. And by "literature," he means "scientific literature," as indicated by him stating "measuring men's sexual orientation." That is how I took his comment. And I know that with regard to that research, the men are not typically measured on their sexual attraction to transgender people. If the people are transgender, then it's unknown to the researchers. In other words, those transgender people pass as cisgender. There is far less research on sexual attraction to transgender people, scientific or otherwise. What scientific literature are you referring to when you state "men's attraction to trans women"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Like this 2016 "The Role of the Illusion in the Construction of Erotic Desire: Narratives from Heterosexual Men Who Have Occasional Sex with Transgender Women" source, from Culture, Health & Sexuality, states, the literature on men's sexual desire for/sexual attraction to trans women is scant. And there are a number of factors to consider, such as Operario et al. (2008) exploring perceptions of identity and meanings of sexual behavior among men who have sex with trans women, and making clear that three general patterns of erotic attraction were observed: "(1) attraction to an individual who happened to be a trans woman rather than an attraction to trans women as a group; thus, the individual desire for sexual partnership dominated the interactions; (2) attraction to trans women because of their challenge to the traditional gender binary, in which case political or philosophical desire motivated sexual attraction; and, (3) an explicit interest in the trans body, a trans woman's physical appearances, and an attraction to eroticised femininity or hyper-femininity or the specific physical anatomical features of some trans women." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just so that we are on the same page, Flyer22 reborn, I was talking about such articles as this one and this one, which are already cited in the article. And the reason I responded to your comment above rather than Crossroads1's original one is that he included the subsequent comment, "Still, some gay men are attracted to trans men, etc., so more is involved than just biological sex assigned at birth (the secondary sex characteristics play that role ...)" which can be read as a recognition, in the same direction as the literature about attraction to Trans women, that the attractive characteristics of bodies are not simply based on "male" or "female" labels for the body as a whole, whether the specific characteristics of attraction are consonant with or contrasting with what might be expected by their sex assignment at birth. You seemed to be contrasting the "male vs. female bodies" bit with the gender identities, some of which have only recently been conceptualized (true), without looking at the complexity of many Trans bodies themselves as a factor conditioning attraction, which Crosstoads1 at least acknowledged in parenthesis. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The Sullivan source talks about sexual orientation with regard to gender identity. Sex characteristics, including secondary sex characteristics, are classified as male or female. And that includes when intersex people are considered. And, yes, I'm excluding the case of fungi or similar. People who were assigned male usually continue to have male sex characteristics. People who were assigned female usually continue to have female sex characteristics. Like I stated above, there is far less research on sexual attraction to transgender people, scientific or otherwise. In fact, going by the source I pointed to, that research is scant. You stated that I'm not looking "at the complexity of many Trans bodies themselves as a factor conditioning attraction, which Crosstoads1 at least acknowledged in parenthesis." Going by the source I pointed to and quoted, you are wrong on that. I am familiar with all of the literature on sexual orientation and sexual attraction, and that includes sexual attraction to transgender people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan's article

Regarding the Andrew Sullivan opinion piece that is being discussed above, there are two questions: 1. Is including the article DUE or UNDUE per WP:UNDUE? 2. If it is included, how should we encapsulate it?

Regarding point 1, I don't really have an opinion, but do think we have to begin by acknowledging what the article is: a pro-TERF and anti-trans piece. Let's call a spade a spade. The article praises members of the anti-trans rights organization the Women's Liberation Front as having courage and plenty of it. It criticizes the Equality Act (United States)'s protections for transgender people. It's an article that I've seen shared and praised in anti-trans internet hangouts like r/GenderCritical and Mumsnet. Etc. I'm not saying all this to argue against its inclusion. As I've said, I don't have a strong opinion there. I just think we need to plainly acknowledge the sort of article that it is.

Regarding point 2, I don't think our article currently does a good job summarizing Andrew Sullivan's viewpoint. Currently the article says Andrew Sullivan has criticized the idea that gay men should automatically be attracted to trans men. Where is that word "automatically" coming from? Is it meant to imply that Sullivan thinks there are times when a cisgender gay man could be attracted to a trans man? I don't see any evidence that this is his view. One of his points seems to be that it is literally impossible for a man to be both gay and attracted to a trans man, by definition, saying It is close to definitional for a gay man not to be attracted to a trans man. And regarding the word biological sex, I've already explained how muddled that word makes things, because it means different things to different people. To some, Buck Angel clearly has lots of male "biological sex" characteristics. But others say "biological sex" and mean simply "sex assigned at birth", and those people would say that Buck Angel's "biological sex" is female. When Andrew Sullivan says "biological sex" he seems to mean "sex assigned at birth", although it's hard to say for 100% sure. For this reason we should not include the word, unless we are quoting Sullivan directly.

All that being said, here is my new proposed wording: Conservative gay commentator Andrew Sullivan is critical of the view that a man could be both gay and attracted to a trans man, saying "It is close to definitional" that a gay man wouldn't be, and that "gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex". WanderingWanda (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing the word "conservative" from my proposal. Don't really want to fight about that word. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As for changing "author" to "commentator" I thought "author" might imply that the quote comes from a book, but really, really don't care either way and don't want to fight about that either. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"A pro-TERF and anti-trans piece"? Certainly not for talking about the real and valid sex-based sexual attraction that gay men usually have (and, yes, "usually" based on the scientific literature). Certainly not for talking about transgender women in sports, which is something that transgender people disagree on, as made clear by this "Do Transgender Athletes Have an Advantage in Female Sporting Events?" video from Good Morning Britain. The video clearly shows a transgender woman disagreeing with transgender women competing against cisgender women in women's sports. In the "The Nature of Sex" source, Sullivan calls for a nuanced discussion on topics relating to transgender people. As much as some transgender people and those who support particular transgender views want to see these topics as black and white, and label anyone with a dissenting view as a TERF, or transphobic, or anti-transgender, many other transgender people do not see it that way. I would not have pointed to the source if I found it to be anti-transgender. But, of course, you have implied that I'm transphobic before. You can dislike it as much as you want to, but to repeat: "Sexual orientation is not measured based on sexual attraction to gender identities, which are people's internal perception of who they are, and includes gender identities that have only recently been conceptualized." The biology of sexual orientation is sex-based. And, yes, the vast majority of "sex-based" literature with regard to sexual orientation is about assigned sex. Yes, let's call a spade a spade: You are, as usual, letting your political views affect how you go about editing these articles.

Changed back to "arguing" as a compromise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, it would be extremely undue NOT to include it. In one study 87.5% of people would not date transgender people; it was higher for heterosexuals, about the average for gay men, somewhat lower for lesbians, and about half for bisexuals/queer/etc. Does transphobia, cissexism, the white transmisogynistic cisheteropatriarchy play a role? Absolutely. But a major factor is also the fact that many trans people, bodily speaking, are between statistically typical male and female, and sexual orientation is based on sex characteristics, as cracking open a science book will show. Depending on the potential partner, a trans person's atypical features may be a deal breaker. You may not like it, but it doesn't matter, since this section is societal views, and we need to represent what society thinks. As I pointed out before, we are not here to right great wrongs; if the vast majority of society, liberal and conservative, is what you call a TERF, then so be it. You can think whatever, but we are writing an encyclopedia, not SJWiki. So, we are not going to try to discredit Sullivan's very valid point.

Regarding point 2, it is fine to say "automatically" (although am I also okay with "necessarily"), per WP:PARAPHRASE. I think both me and Flyer22 Reborn have made it clear we disagree with your interpretation of Sullivan. It is clear in context he is arguing against the idea that cisgender people as a group are obligated to be attracted to trans people. Some, not all, activists do think this, such as those who agree with the concept of the "cotton ceiling." And check out what leftist and trans woman activist Natalie Wynn said here. People, many of them not even trans, do try to piously dictate others' preferences like that (I grew up religious, so I am VERY familiar with it), and many, many people disagree with it.

Lastly, I was about to revert your last edit, but an edit conflict came up when I submitted because Flyer22 Reborn just barely beat me to it. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Crossroads1: You are making broad assumptions about my views. I've certainly never said that someone is a TERF for not wanting to have sex with a trans person. I think you are also painting your own views onto Sullivan, who goes well beyond just saying that a cis people are not obligated to find trans people attractive. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As you no doubt know, some reliable sources (yes, reliable in Wikipedia terms) note that some people use "TERF" to silence legitimate discussion about transgender topics; the term is not simply used for what is accurately described as transphobic views. But then again, people (including transgender people) have different opinions on what is transphobic. You were quick to paint the Sullivan source with the "TERF" brush. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

You were quick to paint the Sullivan source with the "TERF" brush Is this like eating before swimming? Do I have to wait 30 minutes before calling an article TERFy? Anyway, the article is largely in praise of, and defense of, a group Sullivan himself calls "TERFs". He calls them courageous, and backs up their arguments against the Equality Act, etc. I'm not sure with what other brush to paint it. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

He called the women courageous for reasons he believes they are courageous. And like I stated below with regard to the Human Rights Act, both cisgender and transgender people have raised valid concerns about it. That you disagree with some or all of those views, as a number of them pertain to concerns for cisgender women, does not automatically make all of those views "TERFy," transphobic, or anti-transgender. What you did by painting the source as "TERFy" transphobic and anti-transgender was to try to discredit the source and imply that those who support its use are anti-transgender by association. What you did was try to create a chilling effect, just like another editor recently did and was called out on it. In fact, that editor did create a chilling effect and is thankfully no longer allowed to do so at transgender or transgender-related articles. I wonder what you do when you see transgender people disagree with your views. I've seen and talked to a number of transgender people who disagree with a lot of the current views transgender people have. It also seems to be a generational thing, like older LGB people who still consider queer a slur while younger LGB people tend to not view it as a slur. I see and talk to older transgender people (including those who identify as transsexual, while younger transgender people tend to hate the term transsexual) who do not subscribe to current transgender views, and younger transgender people generally subscribing to them. There are exceptions, like Blaire White (who recently slammed the Teen Vogue "5 Common Misconceptions About Sex and Gender" video, as did many other transgender people), but they are exceptions with regard to the generational divide. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic that you talk about a "chilling effect" while trying to intimidate me by talking about another editor's topic ban. Who's really trying to silence discussion here? WanderingWanda (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Not ironic at all. No intimidation at all. I noted a similarity and mentioned it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - I do not have an opinion, necessarily, on whether the Andrew Sullivan piece is DUE for this article, and I do believe that it is important to include multiple perspectives in the section where it is currently mentioned. However, I would like to point out the following:
  • Sullivan's argument in the opinion column is not primarily about sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual attraction. Rather the topic on which he is quoted here is actually a digression from a political argument against the proposal to include "gender identity" to the Human Rights Act. Whether this argument, which he credits to radical feminists that are hostile to political arguments basses on gender identity, is well-supported or not, it is certainly reasonable and well{sourCed to characterize the argument of the piece as anti-Trans. Sullivan's comments about bodies and gay identity are not the focus of the piece nor are they crucial to his political argument.
  • Sullivan has no particular expertise in this area beyond his own personal experience as a gay man, at least not based on the content or evidence presented in this article. Now this isn't a BLP, and that lack of expertise doesn't necessarily make the article's inclusion undue. However, the idea that a particular opinion should be included because certain editors happen to agree with it and it confirms their priors is not a policy-based argument for conclusion inclusion. The evidence that many people of a particular orientation or sexual identity would not date specific gender identities really ought to stand on its own rather than being filtered through one columnist's experience. And the studies on attraction to Trans women, for example, raise the question of "what is the sexual orientation or identity of people who are attracted to specific categories of Trans people", who is actually more relevant to the supposed topic of the article than "who are gay men (or lesbians) mostly attracted to", questions that (1) I think we already know the answer to and (2) if they are to be addressed at all, really ought to be addressed in some other article. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

If we are going to include Jamison Green's view, we should include an alternative viewpoint on that matter. So far, Sullivan's article is the only response ("response" as in "an alternative view") we have considered. I could look for a different source on the matter. But that source is significantly about sexual orientation and more so about sexual orientation than the Green source. And, either way, both commentaries are about sexual attraction to transgender people. This is not an WP:Undue weight issue, as though Green's view is more legitimate than Sullivan's view or that most cisgender gay men believe that they should be open to having transgender men as romantic/sexual partners. The research thus far (including that study Crossroads1 linked to) indicates that most cisgender gay men are not open to being romantically/sexually intimate with transgender men. You commented on "[Sullivan's] own personal experience as a gay man." You also commented on "who is actually more relevant to the supposed topic of the article than 'who are gay men (or lesbians) mostly attracted to'." The views gay men and lesbians have on dating/having sex with transgender people should be in this article. And there are academic sources that cover that. Again, the section is the "Social aspects" section. It's neither an academics section nor a scientific section. So the "Sullivan has no particular expertise in this area beyond his own personal experience as a gay man" argument is weak. And the content in question is specifically about cisgender gay men's sexual attraction to transgender men. But, sure, I can expand the section with scholarly sources on cisgender gay men's acceptance of transgender men as romantic/sexual partners; I'm guessing some here will not like that, however, considering it's not as positive as they would like it to be. You stated that "the idea that a particular opinion should be included because certain editors happen to agree with it and it confirms their priors is not a policy-based argument for conclusion." That is exactly what Crossroads1 argued with regard to reducing all of the opinionated stuff that was there before, material which mostly did not consist of experts in "the field" of attraction to transgender people. And given that literature on sexual attraction to transgender people is so scant, as I mentioned before, what is an expert on the matter in this case? James Cantor (also see the James Cantor Wikipedia article) is one, but his expertise is broader than "attraction to transgender people."

As for the proposal to include "gender identity" to the Human Rights Act, people (both cisgender and transgender) have raised valid concerns about it. But that's a different topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

sure, I can expand the section with scholarly sources on cisgender gay men's acceptance of transgender men as romantic/sexual partners; I'm guessing some here will not like that, however, considering it's not as positive as they would like it to be. Some here? Who exactly? I wouldn't have a problem with reliably sourced and appropriately weighted information about what percentage of cis people would consider dating trans people or whatever. Be my guest. If you'll look through the article's recent history, I think you'll find that while there is one editor who has been aggressively removing content they don't like from the article, it hasn't been me. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda, you couldn't even stand to have the "on the basis that sexual orientation is based on biological sex, not gender identity" text in the article, which many transgender people (especially older transgender people) would have no problem with. And here at Talk:The Matrix (franchise), you stated, "I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man." To me, it has seemed that you let your personal life (in addition to your political views) affect how go about editing here. Keeping personal and political views out of one's editing can be challenging, but it's what I do, and it's why so many Wikipedia editors have stated that they trust me to edit articles or have given me barnstars for it. I'm not even very political. Per WP:Due, I add things that I do not agree with, even though it may look like I agree with it just by adding it. But, yes, I can add some material from solid book sources (like I did at the Trans man article) about trans men having less success fitting in with and identifying with the gay male community because it tends to be more cisgender-focused and body-focused (especially in terms of being phallocentric), or material from other sources. This isn't material I disagree with, by the way, since a number of reliable sources state this and I know trans men who have talked about difficulty fitting in with cisgender men when those men know they are transgender. But there, I also added the paragraph that includes some research indicating that "many non-trans gay men have welcomed trans men into gay communities and have increasingly recognized trans men as potential sexual and romantic partners." Sticking to book sources like those are better than going with opinion pieces or other media sources. We shouldn't go overboard with regard to any demographic who is attracted to trans people, although there may be more material on one compared to another. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

you stated, "I identify as queer and have been in a long term relationship with a trans man." You bringing up my sexuality or my relationships as some sort of gotcha is profoundly inappropriate.WanderingWanda (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You brought up the fact that you are in a long term relationship with a transgender man in a "Trans Q+A" on an article talk page, as though that "Trans Q+A" was necessary or appropriate, which is why you were asked to collapse it. That whole "Trans Q+A", as if what was essentially a lesson from you should have been carried out, or as though you are some authority on transgender issues, or can speak for all or most transgender people, was inappropriate. And now you want to state that someone pointing to it as one reason you very likely edit the way you do on these transgender topics is profoundly inappropriate? I knew you would, but still. It's not a "gotcha" use. It's a "this is on the record and was likely taken by people as you trying to throw some weight around, and it no doubt affects your viewpoint on topics like these" use. I suppose I can partly chalk it up to you being a "newbie." I know that you were trying to help, and that you stated that you "don't claim to have an expert level of knowledge about this topic, but [you] consider [yourself] fairly well informed." It's still the case that you followed that up with a bit about your personal life. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You come off as a bit obsessed with me, you know. There should, I think, be some sort of policy for this kind of unproductive old-married-couple behavior: editors who like to repeatedly bring months or years old beefs they have with another editor. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I come off as bit obsessed with you? So now you are trying to turn around what I and a number of my talk page watchers stated about you with regard to me (as was noted on your talk page) around on me? As should be clear by me telling you to stay off my talk page and me trying to avoid you at every turn except when I feel I need to step in, as I did in this recent case, that is not at all true. After all, I'm not the one who goes out of my way to add nonsense like this in response to you (although I did reply). You seem to like to think that me following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or reverting material that should be discussed, is all about you, such with this ridiculousness I reverted and a left a note about. I haven't repeatedly brought up months old beefs with you. Your account isn't that old, and we haven't interacted enough (at least under your WanderingWanda account) for me to even do so. Not that I would. I have noted your activism editing more than once. But given that others have had to direct you to WP:Advocacy at various points since you've registered with the WanderingWanda account, that speaks to you still editing like an activist. So if you are still editing like one, why be surprised when someone (me or another person) keeps pointing it out? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you engage in a little bit of self-reflection. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I often do, but it's not needed in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

To quote you: Sighs. C'mon, Flyer. You know exactly how over-the-top, how disruptive, and how toxic you're being. I made a couple of good faith efforts to improve a single paragraph in a single article, and you've responded with a tirade. You've accused me of advocacy. You've insinuated I'm not fit to edit this article because of my identity and whom I've dated. You've dragged a months-old RfC into the conversation for no good reason, again. Etc. (If you don't like how that RfC turned out, incidentally, you should have voted in it while you had the chance!)

As for your insinuation that I've edited with another account: Nope. I have never, in my entire life, edited with another account apart from this one. I've also never been an IP editor. And I've told you that before, so you can stop with the sly inneundo. Unless you want us to examine your own checkered past? (Yes, yes, all the bad behavior was solely and completely your little brother's doing, we know.)

You said that it was inappropriate for me to mention, once, months ago, that I dated a trans man. Apparently me being a little bit open about my personal life was me trying to throw some weight around, and yet you, yourself defend your own editing and, yes, your own WP:ADVOCACY, on transgender topics by bringing up, over and over again, the fact that you're friends with trans people. (For example, here and here.)

And if you want to bring up what other people have said about me, it's only fair to bring up what other people have said about you. People are beginning to notice that you have some serious blindspots when it comes to transgender-related topics. When you linked to an extreme anti-trans blog named "Get the L Out" a little while back, another editor wrote that they suspected that Flyer22 has trans-exclusive feminist sympathies. When you argued that it was a bad thing for the Transgender talk page to be notified of the Non-binary gender move discussion, saying it would just bring in more and more LGBT editors, one editor said I do find Flyer22's focus on the identity of the editors to be offensive, and another editor agreed, saying that Flyer22's focus on the identities (and assumed resulting opinions) of editors to be offensive, and counterproductive. And I said, I thought their post above was both ill-considered and hurtful....imagine someone saying "don't do that, it will just bring in more and more woman editors" or "don't post a message there, it will just bring in more black editors".

(Incidentally, I had a chuckle at your response, where you said: “Trying to paint me as anti-LGBT? Me?” and then brought up, in your defense, that you....saved a picture of two guys kissing from deletion. I've heard the "I have queer friends" defense but never the "I saved a hot gay picture from being deleted" defense. That was a good one!)

You don't intimidate me, Flyer, and you won't convince me to stop trying to improve this article or any other article. But the fact is, you probably do scare off other good, thoughtful editors with your unwarranted aggression, and that does make me sad. I can stand up for myself just fine, but not everyone can.

So knock it off! I know you can do better.

Your colleague, WanderingWanda (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Out of the two of us, the only one who has been over-the-top, disruptive, and toxic is you, and that includes this discussion, where you saw fit to paint the Sullivan source as "TERFy," transphobic and anti-transgender to discredit the source and imply that those who support its use are anti-transgender by association. Let's not pretend that this is not what you did. We apparently take calling you out on this and your advocacy differently. You say that you've "made a couple of good faith efforts to improve a single paragraph in a single article, and [I've] responded with a tirade." Crossroads1 seems to have not taken your changes as good-faith. He stated, "It is definitely improper to refer to Sullivan as conservative. First, his politics do not matter at all; second, he really isn't conservative; third, putting it could be construed as an attempt to discredit him to liberals." I also believe that this is why you added "conservative," but did I state that until now? No. There was no tirade from me on anything. And nowhere did I insinuate that "[you're] not fit to edit this article because of [your] identity and [who you've] dated. Regarding this, look at your silly tone when responding to me, talking about "a giant wall-of-text." Look at how you accused me of canvassing, which you were roundly rebutted on by a different editor. As far as I'm concerned, it was fair to point out that you also have a tendency to dish out walls of text, like this latest rant of yours. It wasn't about the result of that Matrix RfC. It's not like you'd been around long enough for me to readily point to other examples. That Matrix RfC included a lot of discussion I was not interested in. I only commented there to correct you on your misuse of the MOS:GENDERID guideline, and then to occasionally reply to others.

As for you not being new and my supposed checkered history, we've already been over this on your talk page. I stand by what I stated there. A number of people have identified you as non-new, and you just brush it off as you having been a quick learner. Sighs. As for my supposed bad behavior, yes, various administrators, including WP:CheckUsers, do indeed know that it was one of my younger brothers who operated the aforementioned account and edited as IPs (as he usually edits as IPs even today). They know that the edit summary style of that account is different than mine (lowercase and use of "rv"), and that I wouldn't be so stupid as to pop in and make this statement in a discussion that was pretty much resolved. Nor would I state "clit" and "its rival." I'm so sorry that you continue to have such a hard time accepting that fact and keep trying to use a checkered past that isn't mine to tar and feather me with. But I understand that it's really the only dirt you can throw my way. It's enlightening that just three years after the socking drama, people were contacting me about running for RfA, and still are. In 2014, a sock came to rant about how I'd never be an admin. And what do we see there? Alison stating, "she would need an admin in good standing, or preferably a Checkuser (like me) to explain the details surrounding her block log. Note that I have both blocked and unblocked Flyer22 in the past. What does that tell you?" And then in 2015, as seen here and here, more admin queries. Apparently, the sock drama barely put a dent in my reputation. The only reason I haven't gotten admin queries on my talk page recently is because they have all come via email and a lot of people know (per my past comments on the matter and my note about it on my user page/talk page) that I'm not interested. I don't think I would be interested even if I had a clean block log.

You stated that I "said that it was inappropriate for [you] to mention, once, months ago, that [you] dated a trans man." I called the whole "Trans Q+A" unnecessary and inappropriate. My words are right there above. It was unnecessary and inappropriate. Yes, it no doubt did come across as you trying to throw some weight around. And, yes, I have indeed accused you of advocacy. So have others. Should I point to all the times people have? It is indeed advocacy to suggest that our anatomy and medical (but especially anatomy) articles use gender-neutral language. That is over-the-top, for all of the reasons that were noted to you. Were Johnuniq, Adrian J. Hunter, Meters, and Crossroads1 not clear enough? Oops, there I go "canvassing" again. That you want to act like I and others challenging your advocacy is transphobia/cissexism is as misguided as anything I've seen. And let's be real here: You clearly take it as transphobia/cissexism that we refuse to go with "people with penises," "people with vaginas" and the like. Being against going with something like "people with penises," "people with vaginas" and similar is adhering to Wikipedia's WP:Due weight policy. That is not advocacy. Too bad you don't understand that. I noted that there are transgender people in my circle when making it very clear that not all transgender people think alike, which is something you seem to keep forgetting. You go on about what you see as transphobia or disrespecting trans people, when there are so many transgender people (not just fringe groups) who would disagree with you.

As for "some serious blindspots when it comes to transgender-related topics" and "Flyer22 has trans-exclusive feminist sympathies"? Yeah, sure, quote one of the more POV editors at these transgender articles, an editor who equates trans-exclusionary radical feminists with neo-Nazis (an extreme and ridiculous position), an editor I've been in significant debate with on these topics. The Feminist views on transgender topics and TERF articles have serious issues, including weight issues, as others have pointed out. And what happens when it's pointed out? Well, Aeusoes1 has been more than clear what happens. And as for this? Yes, I linked to that site when stating, "An IP linked to a published collection of tweets that highlight this topic." And by "topic," I meant lesbians "being called a TERF or a bigot simply because they are not sexually attracted to male-bodied people or people who have a penis" and how this makes it "clear just how the term has been used in an overly broad way." But, hey, like my brother and others, I can also link to this Daily Nous source or this New Statesman source. Or do like SlimVirgin did and point to this The Economist source. Aiming for neutrality on a topic means looking at all of what is out there, and that is what I do. I do listen to what both ContraPoints and Blaire White (polar opposites) have to state. I don't view this topic as black and white. I don't go on about how one side are neo-Nazis. But I suppose when one is barely political like I am, they wouldn't be on the far left or far right. My approach offends you? Oh well. As for the Talk:Non-binary gender matter, I stand by what I stated there. Newsflash: Transgender editors have stated the same thing about how some at WP:LGBT act. And it's worse these days. I wonder what Hfarmer, who is transgender and understands this, has been up to. Hfarmer has also been called anti-transgender or similar on Wikipedia, and for simply respecting the site's rules.

As for what you call the "I have queer friends" defense? It can certainly be valid when one is implying that you are anti-LGBT when your history of editing and offline life very much contradict it. My talk page watchers got a laugh out of your "you're anti-LGBT" post. Perhaps I should have left your post there for you to be roasted, as a number of watchers stated to me via email they were indeed going to do.

I don't intimidate you? Doth protest too much, methinks. But I'm not trying to intimidate you. I'm trying to get you to understand how this site is supposed to work. And even when neutral editors back me up on what I've stated, you just don't get it, or rather, you continue to ignore how this site is supposed to work.

You definitely need to knock it off. There is only so much of your misguided editing people are going to tolerate. Whatever you were trying to accomplish by your long, WP:Not a forum post was also misguided. You not being welcomed on my talk page does not mean you get to use the article's talk page to air your grievances with me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

it was fair to point out that you also have a tendency to dish out walls of text, like this latest rant of yours.

Whatever you were trying to accomplish by your long, WP:Not a forum post was also misguided. You not being welcomed on my talk page does not mean you get to use the article's talk page to air your grievances with me.

Pot meet kettle. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your "pot calling the kettle black" response is so predictable that I was going to note you would state that. Oh well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

"I see, Van Helsing, that you are a man who likes to have the last word. I will not be drawn into such a childish exercise ......paloshtoi!" – Dracula: Dead and Loving It WanderingWanda (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle. And for someone who so often speaks of misgendering, you surely could have found a more gender-appropriate quote. But anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

To interrupt here: User:WanderingWanda, I agree that bringing up your sexuality was super inappropriate and that both that and some of the other things Flyer has said in this thread probably violate some kind of policy, but also I think the appropriate thing to do in this situation is to figure out which policy and take it to ANI, not get baited into an argument. LokiTheLiar (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to jump in. So were others, I'm sure. Except perhaps for WP:Civility (which also extends to WanderingWanda), nothing I stated in this thread violates any kind of policy. This should be more than clear after this case. I don't even think I violated WP:Civility, a policy that this site hardly enforces (especially with regard to long-term editors), since being civil does not mean that discussion must always be pleasant. And after what WanderingWanda has stated in this thread, WanderingWanda could look foward to a WP:BOOMERANG at ANI anyway. You even stated "both that and some of the other things Flyer has said." Furthermore, WanderingWanda's entire "casting aspersions Flyer's way" screed was highly inappropriate. If anything, I was the one being baited. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

An important point regarding this: it would be extremely undue NOT to include [the Sullivan article]. In one study 87.5% of people would not date transgender people. Looking over WP:NPOV, this is explicitly not how we're supposed to determine weight: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. It's understandable that none of us newbies caught the error until now (Crossroads1 has around 1000 edits, I have around 2000, and Newimpartial has around 4000), but I'm surprised the old-timer among us didn't catch it! – WanderingWanda (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice try, but this is a section on social views. We need to represent what society thinks of the matter in the section. To give prominence to sources suggesting that cis people 'should' be attracted to trans people is grossly WP:UNDUE since that is an extremely uncommon viewpoint in society (even less common than simple willingness to date trans people). Also, see what WP:BIASED (part of WP:RS) says: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. I have noticed a tendency among several editors to assume that just some opinionated sources (the ones they like) are legitimate, and the rest are wrong because they say so. Regarding all the RS on this subject, a mountain of scientific sources are clear that attraction is not a choice and is only weakly influenced by culture, and that only some people are attracted to transgender bodies. Neither professional and scientific researchers nor society as a whole accept the idea that attraction to transgender people is something that everyone can or should have. To suggest otherwise is WP:FRINGE. And so is the idea that it is okay to pressure or guilt people to have certain attractions. Couching it in woke-speak doesn't make it better. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Maybe we could dial back the obnoxious "wokespeak" and "SJW" rhetoric.

2. Not that my own views on this are relevant, but I happen to agree that no one is obligated to find any type of person attractive. I don't really care if an individual white person isn't into black people, or a buff person isn't into fat people, or a cis person isn't into trans people. (With that said, if you are – hypothetical you – someone who likes to loudly and repeatedly announce that you're not attracted to fat people or black people or trans people, perhaps you can learn to have a modicum of class.)

3. My point, above, was just that societal views are supposed to be completely irrelevant when determining what an article focuses on and what it doesn't. For example, one poll in the U.S. showed that 40% of people thought global warming was a hoax. Obviously we wouldn't focus 40% of the global warming article on the hoax theory. The focus of the attraction to transgender people article should be guided by whatever reliable sources happen to focus on, when they discuss attraction to transgender people, not on what "society thinks". WanderingWanda (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It is common for Wikipedia articles to include material on what society thinks. This means when it's due weight to do so. It is often due weight to do so on various topics, including medical topics, which is why our medical and anatomy articles typically have a "Society and culture" section. Crossroads1 is saying that how people feel with regard to their sexual attraction or non-sexual attraction to transgender people is relevant to this article, which it obviously is. Of course, not all views will be due. But what Sullivan is touching on is an aspect that should be covered in this article. And sexual attraction with regard to sexual orientation, being sexually attracted to certain sex characteristics, is not the same thing as (or even very similar to) a white person not being sexually attracted to a black person. One is substantially (or completely, going by enough researchers) culturally influenced (often because of societal views on skin color), while the other has a lot more to do with innate attraction (as scientists generally believe). Yes, there are some social aspects as to why many cisgender people do not find transgender people sexually attractive. But a cisgender gay man not being sexually attracted to a transgender man who has not undergone sex reassignment therapy and does not pass as a male/man is not about societal influence. We have more than enough scientific research to tell us that this is the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't catch what? What you stated about WP:NPOV does not compute. I'm also known for adhering to WP:NPOV extremely well, but anyway. Single studies are already included in the article. And if a single study is mentioned in a secondary or tertiary source, it's certainly okay for us to consider including it...unless the study is actually undue. But with little research on this topic thus far, editors cannot judge what is or isn't an undue study in this case. Well, unless the sample size is very small, maybe. Even with WP:MEDRS, we relax the high standard of sourcing for fields where little research is being done. That's why WP:MEDDATE states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." The "Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity" study is currently the only study of its kind. We can wait for secondary or tertiary non-media sources to cover it, but I have no doubt that it should eventually be included in this article. It's already cited in the 2019 "Person-Centred Counselling for Trans and Gender Diverse People: A Practical Guide" source, from Jessica Kingsley Publishers. As for the current "Social aspects" section, since it does include that penile plethysmograph study and the section is therefore somewhat academic, maybe the section should be renamed or that material should be moved into a section called "Studies" where more study material can be added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My $.02 is that, in an ideal world, we would indeed have two sections, one for studies and one for anecdotes/opinions. If possible, each of these sections would include a representative sampling of what is available concerning both attraction to Trans women and attraction to Trans men.

And as an aside, I think Crossroads1 is on to something when he draws attention to secondary sexual characteristics. One of the specific aspects of the topic of this article is that some of the bodies of attraction here combine the secondary sexual characteristics of one "biological sex" with the primary sexual characteristics of the other. While the MEDRS literature up to now is immature, what is out there suggests a tension wherein (1) for some, secondary sexual characteristics have a significant effect on attraction to Trans or genderqueer bodies and (2) for others, it is the juxtaposition of the primary and secondary characteristics themselves that is attractive.

Of course, there is also the relatively recent position that Crossroads1 alludes to, that gender identity can be entirely independent of both primary and secondary sexual characteristics of bodies (and also from gender presentation, which I know some of you are skeptical about but is a kind of performativity that seems especially relevant in this context). Those taking the "gender identity fundamentalist" position sometimes end up making rather extravagant claims about sexual identity labels and attractions, but that shouldn't distract from the fact that there really are distinct aspects to the topic of this article. As the literature on attraction to Trans women shows, the reality the article desctibes cannot be reduced to the flawed assumption that attraction necessarily gravitated to evaluating partners based on sex assignment at birth.

And no, I am not trying to sneak my own opinions into the article itself; I offer them as a richer framework to think about and discuss what to include, rather than knee-jerk ILIKEIT / IDONTLIKEIT argumentation. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, having a "Studies" section and an "Social aspects" (or "Societal views") section is what I suggested. But some studies may touch on societal views. So maybe we would need to separate the societal views aspects from those studies if we can and place them in the section about societal views. The sexual characteristics aspect we've discussed is also important. To repeat what this "The Role of the Illusion in the Construction of Erotic Desire: Narratives from Heterosexual Men Who Have Occasional Sex with Transgender Women" source states of the Operario et al. (2008) study: "(1) attraction to an individual who happened to be a trans woman rather than an attraction to trans women as a group; thus, the individual desire for sexual partnership dominated the interactions; (2) attraction to trans women because of their challenge to the traditional gender binary, in which case political or philosophical desire motivated sexual attraction; and, (3) an explicit interest in the trans body, a trans woman's physical appearances, and an attraction to eroticised femininity or hyper-femininity or the specific physical anatomical features of some trans women." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

in an ideal world, we would indeed have two sections, one for studies and one for anecdotes/opinions. If possible, each of these sections would include a representative sampling of what is available concerning both attraction to Trans women and attraction to Trans men. Sounds like a good idea to me. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

My two cents on this discussion is that while the view people are advancing Sullivan as an example of probably does deserve some representation on this page (namely, that people aren't attracted to purely psychological traits like gender identity but a body that looks a particular way), it seems from reading the piece that what Sullivan actually does believe is considerably more extreme. Sullivan doesn't just believe that gay men are attracted to male bodies instead of male minds. He apparently believes something near the reverse of the position quoted: that what gay men are attracted to is actually "biological sex" defined as something truly unchangeable like chromosomes (or, slightly more charitably, that gay men are attracted to penises specifically and nothing else). (He also appears to be operating under a major misunderstanding regarding trans men? He seems to believe that trans men look like women when that's not true? It's not super relevant but it does explain why he's taken a position that's so strange.)

I think that given this, Sullivan's views are probably UNDUE. I might be able to be convinced out of this if you found other reliable sources stating the same view but I suspect that Sullivan is basically alone here. You can certainly find people thinking that gay men are attracted to male bodies and not male minds, or that trans men aren't really men, or that they personally wouldn't date a trans man, but I have trouble believing you can find me anyone else who says that gay men are attracted to only those aspects of the male sex which trans men don't possess. LokiTheLiar (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the gay and lesbian community, Sullivan is not alone in his view in any way, and this is clear per what Crossroads1 and I have stated. It appears to me that Sullivan is using the term biological sex how people in general use the term -- to refer to anatomical characteristics. In everyday speech, people do not generally use that term to refer to chromosomes. I very much doubt that Sullivan is talking about chromosomes, which cannot be seen with the naked eye, when speaking of sexual attraction. I also doubt that he is only talking about trans men who have visible female secondary sex characteristics. And even if he were only talking about trans men who have visible female secondary sex characteristics, the gay male community is quite phallocentric (as was also mentioned in this article before). So to many (or the vast majority of) gay men, genitals do matter. To many lesbian women, genitals do matter. It's not just about secondary sex characteristics. As mentioned by this 2014 "Principles and Practice of Sex Therapy, Fifth Edition" source, from Guilford Publications, page 252, "[Gay trans men have] less success integrating socially within gay men's communities and finding sexual partners among cisgender men whose cultures tend to be more body focused (and phallocentric, in particular). We more typically see gay trans men partnering with each other." That was just a few years ago, in 2014. In this 2010 "Just One of the Guys?: Transgender Men and the Persistence of Gender Inequality" source, from University of Chicago Press, page 153, the source states that trans men had higher expectations for gay men (as in cisgender gay men), and then goes on to document (from the commentary of trans men themselves) how trans men have difficultly fitting in with cisgender gay men. What reliable book sources do you have to show that the gay male community is far more open to trans men as romantic/sexual partners than it was just a few years ago? Even in this 2014 "Trans Activism in Canada: A Reader" source, from Canadian Scholars' Press, page 248, although it says that "many non-trans gay men have welcomed trans men into gay communities and have increasingly recognized trans men as potential sexual and romantic partners," it also mentions cisgender gay men being baffled, angered, or incensed by/at trans men being in gay men's social and sexual spaces. How about a later book source? This 2017 "The Wiley Handbook of Sex Therapy" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 298, says, "For gay, bi, and queer trans men, cisgender gay men are not always open to trans male bodies, or may negate their masculine identity by hyperfocusing on genitalia (Bockting et al., 2009; Erickson-Schroth, 2014)." And, really, "not always" is an understatement. Just from that study that Crossroads1 cited, we can see that cisgender people are not that open to dating/having sex with transgender people (especially trans women) today. Unless you have a study showing the opposite, there is no valid reason to consider that it's not "a vast majority of cisgender people are like this" case. And, yes, all of these book sources I've cited are appropriate for this topic. It's sex therapy sources or similar psychological sources that mainly cover this topic. These are experts in the fields of romantic/sexual relationships (sexology), clinical psychology, sociology, and so on. They are speaking on the research, not just their own. And those aspects should be in this article.

You stated that you "have trouble believing [we] can find [you] anyone else who says that gay men are attracted to only those aspects of the male sex which trans men don't possess." Sullivan does not state anything about being sexually attracted to only certain aspects of males. And what reliable sources, preferably reliable sources that are not opinion pieces, do you have for your belief anyway? Have you even taken the time to read the study that Crossroads1 pointed to? But to address the point anyway, of course gay men are not only sexually attracted to the penis. But the penis in combination with male secondary sex characteristics are important to many, if not most, cisgender gay men. And sexual orientation is absolutely based on sexual attraction to secondary sex characteristics. So if anyone is saying that secondary sex characteristics are not important to gay men's sexual attraction and that they can easily be sexually attracted to female secondary sex characteristics, that person had better provide an academic source for that assertion.

And on the topic of undue, how is the Jamison Green commentary any more due than the Sullivan commentary? And while we're on the topic of undue, this edit that you made to the ContraPoints article is flawed. The first source is a conservative source and is likely undue, but not because it's a conservative source. But that second source, from the HuffPost, is fair. I don't see why you think that we need other sources stating the same or similar negative things before we can include the material in a Reception section (a BLP or otherwise) and seemingly not other sources stating the same or similar positive things before we can include them, but Reception sections are always full of opinions, and many of these opinions are unique to the author because they are, um, opinions. And these sections are not supposed to be just positive sections unless all of the reception is positive. If you want that section full of praise and without any criticism at all, then I suggest you rename it "Praise." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to get into the details of this here, because your argument is based on a premise I think is easy to refute:

The reason I don't think that he's talking about visible aspects of biological sex is that he says so. I agree that, had he not said so, I would also assume he was talking about appearance. But he says things such as "A drag queen and a rugby player are both biologically men, with different expressions of gender. Indeed, a drag queen can also be a rugby player and express his gender identity in a variety of ways, depending on time and place. But he is still a man. And gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex.", or in other words that gay men are attracted to drag queens while in drag because they're men on some essential level. And he also says, as Wanda quoted above, that it is "close to definitional" that no gay man would ever be attracted to a trans man, even though there are many trans men who look like this. The only reasonable conclusion given these statements is that he doesn't use "biological sex" to mean appearance, but rather that he actually does have some kind of deeply essentialist view of biological sex in which a gay men are attracted to this person but not this person. LokiTheLiar (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

He brings up drag queens to show that gender expression varies wildly, but homosexuality is based on biological sex, not superficial gendered expression. Yes, many trans men pass as cis men. But many trans people do not pass, and making a distinction among trans people based on how they pass is considered bigotry and transphobic. A person can have literally any kind of body and still have a male gender identity; but you can't expect gay men to be attracted to a man with this body. And these ideas are the ones Sullivan is arguing against, as he states: The core disagreement, it seems to me, is whether a trans woman is right to say that she has always been a woman, was born female, and is indistinguishable from and interchangeable with biological women. That’s the current claim reflected in the Equality Act. But is it true that when Caitlyn Jenner was in the 1976 Olympics men’s decathlon, she was competing as a woman, indistinguishable from any other woman? Contemporary orthodoxy insists that she was indeed competing as a woman, and erases any distinction between a trans woman and a woman. And this is not a strawman, as this video makes clear. I see this as a clear instance of the motte and bailey fallacy; you're criticizing Sullivan for saying that gay men are not attracted to Buck Angel, but he's really saying gay men are not attracted to Scarlett Johansson.

Yes, as part of that, he talks about genitals as a major determining factor. Does this make his views undue? Absolutely not; a large majority of people would not date transgender people, obviously showing that genitals matter. In that paper, about 10-15% of gay men said they would date trans men, and the rest would not. This is borne out by the material quoted by Flyer22 Reborn above. Right now, the article's social views section has 3 references representing that 10-15% of gay men, and 1 representing the 85+%. I think the undue weight is pretty clear. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

We clearly disagree about the interpretation of this article, and I honestly don't think either interpretation is 100% unreasonable. I think the thing he thinks he's saying is probably more similar to your interpretation, but the thing he's actually saying is confused and based on not understanding that someone with XX chromosomes can look like Buck Angel.

Regardless, since I agree the view you think he has is reasonable to put in the article, I'd like to suggest a compromise. Let's just find some other source for it. I can even find trans people saying something vaguely similar: here's a Contrapoints video where she says that attraction is based primarily on physical appearance. I don't think this video is a super reliable source for this (since it's only a related opinion and not the actual thing itself) but you are correct in the rest of this thread that there's gotta be one somewhere, so let's just find it and use that. Loki (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

you're criticizing Sullivan for saying that gay men are not attracted to Buck Angel, but he's really saying gay men are not attracted to Scarlett Johansson. He doesn't say anything about Buck Angel or Scarlett Johansson. What he does say is: gay men are defined by our attraction to our own biological sex. Not "our own biological secondary sex characteristics", but "our own biological sex", singular. If Andrew Sullivan understands that hormones and surgery can both drastically change the physical appearance of a trans person, he doesn't talk about that or acknowledge it.

Right now, the article's social views section has 3 references representing that 10-15% of gay men, and 1 representing the 85+%. I think the undue weight is pretty clear. WP:DUE weight is based on what reliable sources focus on, not on opinion surveys. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You stated, "The reason I don't think that he's talking about visible aspects of biological sex is that he says so." That's your interpretation. And because of what I stated about chromosomes to you, it's an odd interpretation to me. Like I noted above, "And even if he were only talking about trans men who have visible female secondary sex characteristics, the gay male community is quite phallocentric." And "[T]he penis in combination with male secondary sex characteristics are important to many, if not most, cisgender gay men. And sexual orientation is absolutely based on sexual attraction to secondary sex characteristics." Sullivan seems to be one of the many (seemingly the vast majority of) cisgender gay men who need their sexual partner to have both male secondary sex characteristics and male genitals for there to be any possibility of being sexually attraction to that person. Since it's clear he would not be sexually attracted to someone like Johansson, I think it's clear that he's also talking about visible female secondary sex characteristics. It's just that he's likely talking about the genitals as well.

As for passing, as noted in the Passing (gender) article, there is (as I'm sure all three of us know) some dispute within the transgender community on that topic. Many transgender people do not consider making a distinction among transgender people based on how they pass as bigotry and transphobic. They feel that a transgender person should want to pass since the bodies they are in are supposed to be the wrong bodies for their gender identity, at least if speaking of the topic of transgender strictly...and in relation to gender dysphoria (rather than with regard to the broader transgender community that includes non-binary people). But, yeah, like Crossroads1 stated, making that distinction is considered bigotry and transphobic by enough transgender people (and others who agree with that view). I would state more on the passing subject (for example, trans women passing vs. trans men passing, which was mentioned by this and this source I pointed to), but I don't see that it's needed for this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hsu, Miller, and Bailey: gender-ambiguous or trans

This study was previously characterized in this page as referring to trans women. However, if you look at the abstract for this study it says it's about "gynandromorphs" or "sh*males", so I changed the wording to "gender-ambiguous people". Crossroads reverted me with the reason From first paragraph of study: "Natal males who have become GAMs by acquiring female-typical physical characteristics such as breasts through surgery or feminizing hormone therapy while retaining a penis are sometimes referred to simply as transgender women...or transwomen". Proposed replacement is pointlessly vague. I reverted back with the reason That "while retaining a penis is important": while some of the people talked about are certainly trans women, it's not reasonable to characterize the entire group as "trans women", nor are all trans women what the study would call "GAMs". Let's take this to the talk page if you wanna discuss further. I'm preemptively taking this to the talk page since I also want other people's opinions: does this study refer to trans women or to a variety of gender-ambiguous people of which some are trans women with penises? Loki (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe this is actually multiple distinct questions: How did Hsu et al define the term, how do men experiencing the attraction define the term, how do trans women themselves define it, and how does WP define it? These overlap, but are not identical, and no solution can be had by trying to use the definition that one prefers from one context in all other contexts. The relevant definition, for describing the study with NPOV, would be use to the one Hsu et al. did (in its methods section rather than its abstract). I'm happy to email copies of it.— James Cantor (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• In the introduction/definitions section of the article, they wrote: "Erotic interest in natal males who have female-typical physical characteristics (e.g. breasts) while retaining a penis is not well understood. Individuals who possess this combination of male and female physical characteristics are called gynandromorphs (gyne refers to female, andro to male, and morph to form), and men with particular erotic interest in these individuals are gynandromorphophilic (Blanchard & Collins, 1993; henceforth, we refer to gynandromorphs as GAMs, and gynandromorphophilic as GAMP). Natal males who have become GAMs by acquiring female-typical physical characteristics such as breasts through surgery or feminizing hormone therapy while retaining a penis are sometimes referred to simply as transgender women (e.g. Operario et al. 2008) or transwomen (e.g. Weinberg & Williams, 2010) but are commonly and colloquially referred to as shemales1† or t-girls" (italics in original, p. 819). They also included this footnote to that: "Shemale is a controversial term; some find it derogatory, because it is often used to refer to male-to-female transgender sex workers or to GAMs in adult entertainment (Arune, 826 K. J. Hsu et al. 2006). To avoid needless offense and controversy, we use the term GAM instead of shemale."
• How they recruited participants for the study was, "GAMP men were recruited using a Chicago-area Internet website for men interested in sexual encounters with transgender individuals (the ‘t4m’ list in the ‘casual encounters’ section of Chicago’s Craigslist) via personal advertisements seeking men with sexual interest in ‘transwomen’, ‘shemales’, or ‘t-girls’" (p. 820).

— James Cantor (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a study literally titled Characterizing men with sexual interest in transgender women. The first paragraph again emphasizes this, saying the individuals are sometimes referred to simply as transgender women...or transwomen. As an example, you changed Of men attracted to trans women to Of men attracted to gender-ambiguous people. That phrase is so vague, it is useless. You claimed that while some of the people talked about are certainly trans women, it's not reasonable to characterize the entire group as "trans women"; this is a synthesized conclusion, especially since these individuals acquir[ed] female-typical physical characteristics such as breasts through surgery or feminizing hormone therapy - why else do this if they are not trans women? Lastly, you said nor are all trans women what the study would call "GAMs" - this is irrelevant, since most trans women do have penises [2], and this article is not about attraction to people who are indistinguishable from cisgender. Since (1) the proposed alternative is useless, (2) the old term was used multiple times in the study, and (3) the change seems to be motivated by an original-research definition of trans women, the text should be changed back. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads1. Clearly, by what James cited, "trans women" should be used. Either that, or quote parts of the source to implement the source's wording on the matter. Some people who identify as she-male do not consider themselves trans women, though. The term she-male is mainly used in relations to pornography. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate James doing the work to find those quotes, but I reach slightly different conclusions from them. I agree that "gender-ambiguous people" is a little too vague if the study is talking specifically about mid-transition trans women. But I still think we should make sure to specify that the study is talking about men who have a fetish for trans women with penises and not just "men who report attraction to trans women". The reason is that, since this is an article about sexual attraction, to not do so is misleading: the whole reason the study is studying these men is that they are a special group of people with a specific sexual interest that they were actively pursuing at the time of being recruited into the study. Not making the distinction would imply that this group of men who were studied presumably because they have a particular fetish are just any men who would check the box "I would have sex with a trans woman" on a survey. Loki (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Apropos (although this might not be the time), I actually think this page should be moved/renamed Gynandromorphophilia, as per WP:MEDRS. The technical term is the preferred one, and "transgender people" is misleading: The RS's are only about attraction to transwomen. This page was originally created a while back as, I believe, a POVFORK by someone who has since been permanently banned from editing these pages at all.— James Cantor (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with that. Saying that these sexological studies about men with a fetish for women with penises are about attraction to trans women more generally IMO confuses both issues. Loki (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

James, as you likely knew I would state, that's a WP:NEO matter. Yes, that term is used by some sources, but I don't see that it's enough to title the article that. In this case, the title should be descriptive/plain (as in common) English. And although we could title the article "Attraction to transgender women," I don't see that the article should be limited to just discussing attraction to trans women. Although attraction to trans men is not subject to the same type of scientific study, it is subject to social commentary (as is clear by the book sources I cited in the section above). There is no need to have this article be primarily or solely a scientific article. If you want this article moved, start a WP:Requested moves discussion, but I will oppose. WP:MEDRS is not the link you are looking for; WP:NCMED is, but a recognizable, descriptive title trumps titling the article "Gynandromorphophilia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

And especially see that last paragraph of WP:NEO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

My opinion here is that if you want a colloquial title, it's not "Attraction to trans people", it's "Fetishization of trans people", since again this isn't a page full of studies about men who just answered affirmatively to being attracted to trans people on a form but men who were hunting for trans women specifically on Craigslist. Most of the studies also make it pretty clear that these men are being studied because they have a fetish for women with penises, and not because they are attracted to trans women in the same way they might be attracted to cis women. Loki (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That is not the correct use of fetish or fetishization. In the science of sexuality, fetishes refer to an entirely other group of paraphilias. "Fetishization" is not a scientific term at all, but a political and frankly judgmental POV. To actual gynandromorphophiles, their sexual interest pattern is an inborn sexual orientation. To reduce it to a fetish is both factually incorrect and belittling to them. I appreciate that (some) transwomen dislike being treated merely as a sexual object (so do some ciswomen), but we would not reduce gynephilia to fetishizing women. Same standards should apply.— James Cantor (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Eh, sure. The long Greek word is a perfectly reasonable name and I don't object to it if we want a more neutral term for the name of this article. Loki (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

James, thanks for responding on that. Like I stated, we should stick with the "Attraction to transgender people" title because it's the clearer, more recognizable title, and because it's broader in scope. This article need not focus solely on gynandromorphophiles. It should cover attraction to transgender people in general as well. In the #Attraction to trans men section, I pointed to this 2016 "The Role of the Illusion in the Construction of Erotic Desire: Narratives from Heterosexual Men Who Have Occasional Sex with Transgender Women" source, from Culture, Health & Sexuality, which states that the literature on men's sexual desire for/sexual attraction to trans women is scant, and that there are a number of factors to consider, such as Operario et al. (2008) exploring perceptions of identity and meanings of sexual behavior among men who have sex with trans women. Operario et al. pointed to three general patterns of erotic attraction: "(1) attraction to an individual who happened to be a trans woman rather than an attraction to trans women as a group; thus, the individual desire for sexual partnership dominated the interactions; (2) attraction to trans women because of their challenge to the traditional gender binary, in which case political or philosophical desire motivated sexual attraction; and, (3) an explicit interest in the trans body, a trans woman's physical appearances, and an attraction to eroticised femininity or hyper-femininity or the specific physical anatomical features of some trans women." And Crossroads1 has pointed to this 2018 "Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity" source, which covers attraction to trans men in addition to trans women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of fetishism, the Sexual fetishism article states (with reliable sources), "While medical definitions restrict the term sexual fetishism to objects or body parts, fetish can, in common discourse, also refer to sexual interest in specific activities." The article is primarily about the medical aspect, but we do take the time to mention the common use meaning of the term in the lead and in the "Definitions" section of that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Strongly disagree on this one as it will lead to unintentional POV forking. If we do this, this article will end up being a POV/political commentary magnet and the scientific research will be shunted off into an obscure article under a name almost no one has heard of. I think this is all one topic and it should stay here. We can be more clear about definitions as needed. And the varying definitions overlap heavily anyway. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

__

References